report of proceedings of tynwald court · the open plan furniture layouts are currently being...

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF TYNWALD COURT

DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 28th January , 1986 at 10.30 a.m . 1

Present: The Lieutenant-Governor (His Excellency M ajor General Laurence New, C.B.E.). In the Council: The President o f the Council (the Hon. J.C . Nivison,C.B.E.), the Lord Bishop (the Rt. Rev. Arthur Henry Attwell), the Attorney-General (Mr. T.W . Cain), M r. A.A. Callin, Mrs. B.Q. Hanson, Mr. E.G. Lowey, Dr. E.J. M ann, Messrs. J.N . Radcliffe and E.M . W ard, B.E.M ., with Mr. T.A. Bawden, Clerk of the Council.

In the keys: The Acting Speaker (Mr. G.V.H. Kneale), Messrs. W.K. Quirk, W.A. Gilbey, J.D .Q . Cannan, Mrs. C.M . Christian, Messrs. S.L. Morrey, J.H . Kneale,D.G. Maddrell, R.A. Payne, P. Karran, M .R. Walker, N.Q. Cringle, C.H. Faragher, Dr. D.L. Moore, Messrs. C.A. Cain, A .R . Bell, E.C. Irving, C .B .E., A.C. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, D.F.K. Delaney, D. M artin, J.A . Brown, with Mr. R.B.M . Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald.

The Lord Bishop took the prayers.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

The Governor: Hon. members, we have apologies for absence from Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Anderson and Mr. May.

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TRUSTEES —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: We take up the Agenda where we finished last week. Item 19, Government Property Trustees. I call upon the Chairman of the Property Trustees to move.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Government Property Trustees.

Apologies for Absence Government Property Trustees — Policy Expenditure Implications Noted

T876 TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986

M r. Cretney: Your Excellency, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The text o f the chairman’s written statement, as circulated to members, is as follows:

The forthcoming financial year will once again see a considerable shortfall between the actual monies required to carry out essential repairs and maintenance to our properties and the amount likely to be made available for this purpose in our Revenue Estimates. The consequences are that our properties will continue to deteriorate and their eventual repair will be even more costly. W hilst my Trustees are pursuing a policy of preventative maintenance, when and wherever possible, some properties are still having to be dealt with on a “ patch and m end” basis which is the least cost-effective way of operating. Ideally, properties should be maintained on a proper f basis and this is our eventual aim.

However, it would be wrong of me to give the impression that no progress has been made. Despite the economic strictures of the last year or so, our repair and maintenance vote has been augmented by funds from the Job Creation Programme.In addition Tynwald has authorised capital projects such as those at H .M . Prison and the Jurby Industrial Estate, both of which will continue to provide work for the Island’s building industry and supply merchants as our m ajor capital scheme at M arket Street, Douglas comes to a successful conclusion.

Besides providing useful employment for four adults taken from the unemployment register, our Laxey Wheel/Glen Mooar Capital Project is also now supporting a team o f six youths and one supervisor under the Youth Vocational Experience Programme. An additional two youths are employed under this latter programme, one at the Jurby Industrial Estate and the other at Government House.

Select Committee’s Report on Board’s Responsibilities

This report affects the Trustees in two ways. Firstly, the Trustees are to be absorbed, as a complete unit, into the Department of W orks where they will jo in , amongst others, the Architect’s Department of the Local Government Board. Given the close working relationship that already exists between the Trustees and the Architect’s |Department, the coming together o f the two departments is a natural progression 'and one which is unlikely to cause any insurmountable problems. Taken as a whole the creation o f a Department o f Works will streamline the use of Government resources and avoid the duplication of labour, machinery and work depots. In addition the new Department will be in a strong position from which to impress on Government its repair and maintenance obligations towards its many properties.

Secondly, as the main provider of office accommodation for Government, the Trustees will be responsible for the internal reorganisation of its offices so as to house the new Departments and for this purpose tentative proposals have been formulated and are currently under consideration by my Trustees.

In formulating these proposals due account has been taken of:-

Government Property Trustees — Policy Expenditure Implications Noted

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986 T877

(a) Government’s commitment to its long term policy of centralisation within the triangle of properties around Central Government Offices;

(b) the need to empty and demolish 1-4 Mount Havelock as soon as possible; and,

(c) the fact that, as a general rule, it will assist the new Departments in establishing their identities if their administrative staff are brought together under the same roof as soon as possible after the creation of the Departments.

i

The Trustees’ policy of acquiring properties in the triangle formed by Buck’s Road, Albert Street and Mount Havelock was established in 1976 and will be well known to the Court. The acquisition of the triangle is well advanced and in each case properties have only been acquired as and when willing vendors have been found. The owners o f the eight remaining properties have been approached recently to see if they wish to sell and the responses received to date are being progressed.

The conversion into office accommodation of the Buck’s R oad/M ount Havelock properties has enabled the Trustees to keep abreast of Government’s accommodation requirements. However, this arrangement has only been ever regarded as an interim one, pending the eventual redevelopment of the triangle. The properties are old and expensive to heat and maintain, whilst, in the case of the block numbered 1-4 Mount Havelock, it is evident that the properties have reached the end of their effective life and require demolition, for which purpose a capital sum is being sought for 1986/87. Temporary accommodation will have to be found not only to rehouse the present occupants of M ount Havelock but also to facilitate the decamping process as parts o f existing Boards are removed and restructured within the framework of the new Departments.

The survey of Government’s middle to long term requirements which my Trustees initiated some 12 months or so ago has not progressed as rapidly as hoped, chiefly due to the ever-present pressure of day-to-day work and, o f course, it has now been overtaken to a certain extent by the Select Committee’s report. However, plans to centralise, on the first floor of Central Government Offices, the various outlying sections of the Income Tax Department have progressed to the stage where actual building work will commence within the next three months.

In the the light of the Select Committee’s report we will be recommending that a Working Party of Officials representing the Trustees, Architect’s and Civil Service Departments should be established as a matter of priority to prepare detailed proposals for the immediate accommodation requirements of the new Departments and, if so authorised, to implement them with the necessary monies to be made available. The W orking Party should then proceed to consider the longer term accommodation requirements o f the Departments and prepare plans for the redevelopment of the triangle around Central Government Offices. We would wish to see the completion of the Working Party’s brief within two years. In our opinion a firm date has to be projected for the demolition and redevelopment o f the Buck’s Road properties. The capital costs involved would be offset by the disposal of surplus properties outside the triangle, such as 21a/23 Athol Street, for example.



Construction of New Offices in Market Street, Douglas.

This new building has been completed on time and to the required standard. It is projected that the cost will be contained within the vote authorised by Tynwald although, being a fluctuating price contract, a supplementary vote to cover increases due to inflation over the period of the contract will be necessary. However, a not inconsiderable portion of the inflation costs is expected to be met from within the original Tynwald vote. The open plan furniture layouts are currently being installed so that the occupants can take up residence in the middle of February.

Plans for new Douglas Courthouse/General Registry

Pressure for new Courthouse facilities in Douglas continues to grow. The present Douglas Courthouse in Athol Street is over 100 years old and its facilities are deficient, both in terms of quantity and quality. It does nothing to uphold the dignity o f the law or promote the Island’s image amongst the institutions and organisations Government wishes to attract to our shores.

In order to alleviate the position until such time as a new Courthouse can be built in Douglas, my Trustees have already recommended to Executive Council that the Tynwald and Key’s Chambers should be used as Courts for the First and Second Deemsters when not in use by the Legislature.

Chester Street Complex

The overall deficiency on the Complex continues to fall with a further reduction of approximately £17,000 estimated for 1986/87. During the period that the complex has been in my Trustees’ control there has been a total reduction in the overall deficiency o f approximately £110,000. As estimated, the introduction o f the lOp charge for the first hour of parking has increased the annual car park receipts by approximately £20,000.

Lord Street Bus Station

As the Douglas C orporation’s main tenant o f the bus station area, the Trustees have been represented on the Joint Working Party set up to examine and report back to Executive Council on car parking in Douglas. Assistance has been given to the Architect’s Department which has now produced a brief for prospective developers of the site. In addition to the proposed multi-storey car park, possibilities exist for commercial, office and residential development on the site.

H.M. Prison

The redevelopment programme aimed at refurbishing and redeveloping H.M . Prison, Douglas to a standard compatible with the Island’s future custodial requirements is progressing. Phase I has been completed and Phase II is presently in hand. The design work for Phase III is being advanced up to tender stage so that this phase can be submitted for Tynwald approval in 1986.


TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986 ! T879

Once completed, the enlarged Prison complex will provide custodial facilities for four categories of Prisoners - namely, adult male prisoners over the age o f 21 years; young male prisoners under the age of 21 years with those on remand being segregated from those who have been convicted; female prisoners of all ages and, lastly, male juveniles under 17 years of age.

At present it is costing approximately £84 per day to maintain Manx Prisoners in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the amount paid to the Home Office over the last three years for Manx Prisoners and Borstal Inmates in United Kingdom establishments has averaged £128,000 per year. When you add to this the cost of maintaining in Community Homes in England those young Manx offenders who are too criminally sophisticated for Tromode House, the figure rises to approximately £200,000.

Although it is accepted that capital costs initially are considerable and that an increase in the staff is inevitable, nevertheless a long-term saving can be achieved and a much more meaningful prison system established here on the Island.

Factories and Industrial Estates

Certain of the Factories and miscellaneous land previously owned by the Trustees have been transferred already to the Industry Board. W ith effect from the 1st April 1986, Ramsey Shipyard, where the Industry Board is continuing the redevelopment programme initiated by the Trustees, is to pass into the Board’s ownership. For the immediate future the Jurby Industrial Estate will remain with the Trustees and we shall continue to promote our programme for refurbishing the hangars so as to attract further industry into the estate. To date one hangar has been refurbished completely and a tenant found on a long-term basis. Since Tynwald approval to the re-roofing of hangar 230 I am pleased to say that two private sector concerns have expressed a possible interest in leasing the property.

Castle Rushen, Peel Castle and Laxey Wheel

Efforts to realise the potential of our tourist attractions are receiving a high priority.

I am pleased to say that progress at Laxey Wheel has been considerable. Phase II is on schedule and we anticipate that the official switching on o f the rod-arms and T. Rocker this summer will be one o f the highlights of Heritage Year. Subject to the necessary monies being made available, it is our intention to move into the Phase III area during the next financial year.

A commitment by this Court to a start on the extensive preservation and presentation works recommended in respect of Peel Castle as long ago as Millennium Year is long overdue and once again this item features in our capital estimates. For a relatively modest outlay a temporary covered area could be provided within the Castle precincts for exhibition and display purposes. Such an achievement for Heritage Year will be one of the main aims o f the W orking Party being set up at



the Trustees’ instigation to promote the interests o f Peel Castle and which at the moment has the enthusiasm and dedication of its members as its sole resources.

At Castle Rushen urgent remedial works are required to deal with the damp penetration and other related problems, both in the Castle itself and in Derby House. The costs involved are likely to be high and due provision, together with a sum to improve the presentation o f the Castle, has been included in our estimates. In time for this summer season we hope to have improved the entrance area to the Castle and after discussion with interested parties, finalised arrangements for medieval banquets to be held during the summer months.

There is no reason why the working parties being set up to promote Peel Castle and Castle Rushen as m ajor tourist/historical attractions should not be as equally successful as that at Laxey Wheel. Our experience is that they are particularly effective in crystallising the ideas of dissimilar bodies which yet share a common interest. For obvious reeasons the participation at senior officer level o f a representative of the local authority is especially important.

It is our earnest hope that Peel Castle, Castle Rushen and Laxey Wheel will receive the capital investment which they so manifestly require and without which their unchallenged position as priceless assets of this Island’s heritage will be in jeopardy. With such investment Government will be safeguarding the long term interests of the tourist industry and at the same time providing itself with an ongoing source o f revenue in the form o f increased receipts.

May I thank all those individuals, organisations, Government Boards and Departments whose understanding, support and assistance has lightened our load during the last year. Special thanks are due to the Trustees own hard working officials and the technical officers provided by the Local Government Board. One official to whom I would like to pay a personal tribute is Mr. Eric Cleator who, until his retirement in November last year, gave unstinting service as the Building Surveyor.

In conclusion, Your Excellency, may I assure the Court that, as the Government Property Trustees enter their 95th and probably last year of existence, their philosophy for meeting the challenges of 1986/87 remains unchanged. They shall continue to seek ways and means of:—

— increasing their present receipts;— curtailing their expenditure on every day services such as cleaning, heating,

lighting, and telephones etc;— obtaining value for money on all their repair and maintenance works; and— determining those areas where their resources, whether finances or manpower,

might have most effect.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, first of all in relation to the building which we are completing for the Board of Social Security and the Health Services Board, could the chairman give his assurances that no outside treatm ent will be required for the



top 15 to 20 feet of the brickwork, the outside facing brick, on that particular building and that they are completely happy with its weather-worthiness?

Secondly, dealing with an area concerned that the chairman will no doubt be aware of in my constituency, what is termed as the ‘Triangle’, the Government triangle, for reconstruction in the future which takes in Albert Street, 1 to 17, I understand that the Government Property Trustees are the owners o f number 1 and the rest are private individuals — what has been the response from the people in those houses to the letter which was circulated to them asking if they Vvere prepared to sell to this Government?

Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, perhaps you will recall last week the restraints there are on Government and Treasury limiting other boards to a five per cent, increase — that is, five per cent, maximum increase — I feel that the policy as put forward by the Government Property Trustees is totally wrong. Their policy is expansion. They are the board who are responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the properties owned by Government, but this policy as put forward today is an expansion of the properties that they own, namely at the back of this building, where they own one or two properties and intend to take over the remaining area at the immediate back of this property. Having taken over this area, in this policy they plan to start by demolition and probably the demolition work is going to cost £50,000 £60,000, but it does not stop there. Having demolished the property, they will then come along to this hon. Court and ask for one, two, three million pounds, whatever the figure will be to develop that area.

I believe that this money would be far better spent in the future of the people of this Island. I opposed a year or so, 18 months ago, the building of the Board of Social Services and the health department in M arket Street, then it was a cost of £2,500,000. The outcome will probably be a good bit higher than that by the time they have refurbished. I believe the policy is totally wrong for Government to be spending the people’s money back on the Government, particularly for housing civil servants to keep them warm and nice in their offices while the people outside . . . In today’s letter that is in front of us, 2,500 people unemployed. This money could be put to better use to create work and also for the future of this island. Let us cut back on the policy of the Government Property Trustees, let them maintain their buildings but not expand to further buildings. They have the use of the premises at the back now and I would feel that that is quite sufficient for the time being to look after the employees that we have.

I hope that this hon. Court will reject the policy of the Government Property Trustees. I for one will definitely be voting against it. Let us use this money to the good of the Isle of Man. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Cannan: Your Excellency, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the policy statement of the Property Trustees is one that also gives me cause for concern. Allow me to quote from page 2 of their statement — ‘The policy of acquiring properties in the triangle formed by Buck’s Road, Albert Street and Mount Havelock is well-known’. Again, ‘The acquisition of the triangle is well advanced.



The owners of the eight remaining properties have been approached to see if they wish to sell . . ‘the conversion into office accommodation of the Buck’s Road, Mount Havelock properties has enabled the Trustees to keep abreast of Governm ent’s accommodation requirements’ et cetera.

Your Excellency, what an admission! Last Tuesday the Chairman of the Treasury was warning of cut-backs and possible redundancies of the various boards’ manual staff, reduction in education and health services. Here today, the Property Trustees are creating more accommodation for more white collar civil servants. I maintain, sir, that one end of Government is like Topsy, growing bigger and bigger, passing paper to each other and never making a decision, while the other end is shedding or being asked to shed its manual workers and putting them to the dole queue and , reducing essential educational and medical services to the public. We seem to bef getting it wrong somehow on this one. There is another m atter that has come to my notice since last week. We hear from the Treasury of the necessity for cut-back on expenditure to balance the income, but what concerns me is, are we making every effort to receive the income due to us? Last Tuesday the Chairman of the Treasury informed me, in answer to a question, that £3.16 million was outstanding for the two-and-a-half years between April 1983 and September 1985 in respect o f unpaid tax. That is a failure rate of approximately five per cent, in collection. Now I can inform this Court that over the last eight years there is a total of £17 million arrears of income tax uncollected. I repeat that figure — £17 million, and if confirmation is needed I would confirm it from a letter from the Attorney-General’s department dated 11th November, that reads: ‘I am informed that at present there are executions in respect of arrears of income tax outstanding and unenforced in respect of the last eight years totalling £17 million’. This is a matter o f grave concern to the Treasury. The responsibilities for this obvious failure in collection must rest with the Treasury. No wonder they consider it a m atter of grave concern.

Mr. Brown: A point of order, Your Excellency. Can I have a clarification?

Mr. Delaney: He is leading up to it!

Mr. Cannan: I am pointing out that if we had collected the money we might not be having to cut back continually, and here we have a board wanting to spend, money while other boards are being told to reduce. I am trying to put to the Cour'4 that if we were a bit more efficient in collecting the income that was due to us we would not be expected on one hand to support a policy that is spending money and on another to reduce the income.

Now returning to the big spenders in the Government Property Trustees, there is a further point I would like to make. Members are well aware that the Board of Social Security is moving out of the Hill Street premises to the new Markwell House and the Hill Street premises belong to the National Insurance Fund, which was intended to be sold for commercial re-development. But now we are told, or the Board of Social Security is told, that the Property Trustees want that premises as well as accommodation for the Economics Section. I maintain that is nonsense. The trustees already have Seneschal House and I am not sure that that property



has been actually sold. They are asking people to move out of there, including the War Pensions Committee, and on the other hand they are asking to retain the Hill Street premises which have been condemned as most unsuitable as office accomm odation. There is a good car park at Seneschal House. I wonder where their priorities lie? What are we doing — one hand selling a premises, wanting to retain another, refurbish and expenditure and move up the people from Seneschal House into Hill Street. Now I maintain that much of this moving about of office accommodation and and the expenditure involved, the buying of properties and expansion in the white collar section is unnecessary when,on the other hand we are being asked to cut back on services to the public. I will support what has already been said by the member for East Douglas, M r. M artin.

The President of the Council: Your Excellency, I think it would be quite wrong for this Court to vote completely against the estimates or the policy of the Government Property Trustees. Most of us, when we go round to Castle Rushen or go to Peel Castle, expect to find it in a certain condition and most o f us, too, are clamouring for places where we should have our meetings. Pressure has been put upon us in this Chamber to use this Chamber for court appearances. Pressure is put upon the House of Keys to use the House of Keys for the first time in its history for some other purpose other than the business of the House, and it has been through the Government Property Trustees, through the Executive Council and various people. It is well known that as far as the Legislative Council, we are always willing, where it is possible, to allow people to use this Chamber, but sometimes it is inconvenient. There is no question about it, too, that the Douglas Court House, the Registry Office, have been working under difficulties for some years. We make laws here, we expect these laws to be carried out in a proper way, we expect the courts to assemble in a dignified manner and still, when anybody goes to do anything about it, we get condemned.

One other thing, too, in answer to my hon. friend, the member for Kirk Michael, most of the work that is done associated with this is work-orientated; there is a lot of work associated with it. I might agree with him where it is a case of buying additional premises. There might be a time when we should say enough is enough, but I do say that once we do acquire those premises we want to put them into order so that they can be used properly, and whilst that is being done we are taking men to do the work.

I do hope that the Court will not vote against the policy of the Government Property Trustees but would give some indication that they would not wish, perhaps, this or that to be done this year — perhaps it could be delayed. But to vote against the policy . . . and the policy is clearly laid down; the question of the triangle was discussed in this Court on occasions and we told the Property Trustees ‘When any of these properties become vacant, get hold of them because we shall need them ’. When this building or next-door building was first built, we put this extra storey on; we thought we may need it some time. Now you cannot find a corner. You find that there are committee meetings going on and sometimes you have got to go to another room.



So do not let us be too severe upon the Government Property Trustees. Let them have some encouragement to go ahead, that our properties should be looked after in a reasonable way — and incidentally, the policy with the factories now being handed over to the Industry Board — what a wise thing that we should have space, that potential industrialists could come over here and have some ready-made occupation. I think we should support the Property Trustees, but we should tell them perhaps in some cases, ‘Lay off buying too many extra properties. Let us sort out what we have got and make a good job of them .’

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I think, in all fairness to the Government Property Trustees — and this is their policy — that policy has been drawn up against the background of a policy of Tynwald Court, and it was a resolution of this Court that said that the properties in the triangle, as we call it, should be purchased as and when available so that re-development is possible at some stage. I take the point that now is not the time to start re-development of a new office block, but I do think that the Government Property Trustees would be remiss in their duty if they did miss an opportunity to purchase a property and it was purchased by another developer. I think that really would put Government in a stupid situation and one that we should seek to avoid. Last week there was some criticism of boards and departments for not doing any forward planning and for reacting to events as and when they had happened. Here the Government Property Trustees, as I see it, are trying to foresee a situation and trying to make certain that Government is not caught in a situation where it cannot respond.

I think it is also unfair to blame the Government Property Trustees for the growth in the Civil Service. This is the responsibility that is fairly and squarely on the shoulders of us all, and the Government Property Trustees are a services agency and they have to react to demands put on them by all the boards and departments of Tynwald. In fact, if a growth in the Civil Service is one situation that is not on at this particular time, then it is not the Government Property Trustees that can do anything at all about that particular situation.

Your Excellency, I support this policy statement o f the Government Property Trustees. I think it is good for us all to know exactly what the situation is that is building up and going to face us in the future.

Mr. Payne: Your Excellency, there is no doubt in my mind that this is one of the growth areas of. Government. The Government Property Trustees is a growth industry. I support part of their policies and I am strongly against others.

The part that I am against is the triangle development. We hear about it every year and it seems to me — perhaps the chairman will say differently — that re-development of that area is imminent. When we spoke last week about cutting back in jobs which will have to, in the long-term, mean civil servants, I feel that we should mark time on this particular aspect. We read also in the policy statement that some of these older properties are expensive to heat, the roof leaks et cetera— I would point out to the chairman, some of the modern buildings are expensive to heat and the roof leaks, so has he considered renovating some o f these older



properties and to keep them in keeping with the Victorian traditions they can be well renovated and put to some useful purpose.

Whilst we are on about older buildings I am sure the chairman is aware that some of the accommodation in Government offices is deplorable, and I say that openly. I had to get on to the Secretary a number of weeks ago about one of my officers who was in an office where the smell o f must must have been disadvantageous to his health. Give them their due, they moved him right away, but should it be that some of our buildings — Government offices, should it,be that it is like that? 1 would ask that some money is put into that in order to bring it up to proper standards. It is disgraceful; they have to bring water up from the ground floor to the third floor in order to make tea and it is time something was done about it.

The point raised by the hon. member for Michael regarding the Board of Social Security and their office in Hill Street is owned by the National Insurance Fund— I would ask the chairman, is it possible that the new Maxwell House — Markwell House — could be paid for out o f that National Insurance Fund? (Laughter) The funds are there, I believe, and I wonder if that is a possibility.

Now we come on to the good parts of it. I feel that the policies are right in renovating some of our historic buildings. The work at Laxey, the work on the castles has got to be right for tourism, especially now that we are now trying to sell heritage as part of the package of a holiday in this island. Another point I feel that has got to happen — I am sure everybody in this Court feels the same — it cannot be right to spend £588 a week to keep a prisoner in prison in England. I mean that has got to be right to re-develop the prison. So it is with mixed feelings, Your Excellency, that I support the policies of the Government Property Trustees.

Dr. M ann: Your Excellency, there have been some strident thing's said this morning and some quite serious allegations have also been made in some way to justify that the Government Property Trustees have produced a report that is in some way unworthy. I have to agree with the hon. member for Rushen, that it is no good hammering the Government Property Trustees because they are reacting very well and in advance of what they see as a problem developing in Government itself. Now Government is re-organising itself and during that time there will be a complete move around of some departments. The ultimate requirement of Government may well be nowhere near as great as some people imagine but, during that space of time, certainly space is needed for de-canting people as they move from one area to another or they move out of buildings that either have to be demolished or have to be renovated during this period. So that there is, o f the very nature of the moves, a necessity to over-provide while they are taking place. I do not think you will find that the Government Property Trustees are going to suggest building excessive accommodation without first o f all finding out the final requirement of the new departmental system.

To bring in the red herring of uncollected tax is a marvellous way of attracting attention to the speaker. In fact, o f course we all know why there is this inflated uncollected tax. Most o f it is against companies, most of it is in default of assess-



ment, most of it is inaccurate and most of it can never be collected. It is a deliberate legal attempt to force out a correct assessment from a company that has either disappeared or moved elsewhere. A large amount of this is totally false and certainly does not represent a true income of Government that has been lost.

I think we owe it to the Government Property Trustees to actually accept that they are doing their job and advising this Court o f the cost of providing better accommodation in the future. I do not think for one moment they are contemplating millions of pounds worth of expenditure in the next financial year.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, I thank the hon. member of Legislative Council, Dr. M ann, for setting the record straight and I shall not refer to the alarmist distortions propagated by the hon. member for Michael.

May I just take notice of one point in the Government Property Trustees discussion document referring to the use, sir, of this Chamber and the Chamber downstairs. I would support their request that these legislative chambers be made available for High Courts, Chancery Courts, Deemster’s Courts on the Isle of Man. I would see it in no way detracting from the dignity of this hon. Court or the branches to have our legislative chambers used occasionally for court sittings. In fact, the alternative of saying that these fine accommodations should be used for two or three days a m onth seems utterly ludicrous. As a Government we must make maximum use of all our resources and any m istaken ideas o f pomp and circumstance (Members: Hear, hear.) or something sacred about a particular room is nonsense. It is what goes on in the room that is im portant, not the building itself, and I hope hon. members will support the maximum use of all our buildings for the good of the Isle of Man.

M r. Callin: Your Excellency, I just have two comments that I would like to make on the policy statement of the Government Property Trustees. Firstly, I would like to mention that the cheapest form of light is sunlight. I was going to ask the question with regard to Markwell House. The question is, is there any reason why there were not larger windows than what is there at the present time, because there is quite a large area of wall space that one would assume could have accommodated some windows and there is none there?

The second point concerns the old white Government Office building — I am referring to the building just down the road. I am reliably informed that this building is deteriorating into a very poor state of repair. We all know that no good landlord should allow this to happen because what is a minor works today is very often, if left, a major works tomorrow. I would like to ask the chairman, what programme does he have for the repair of this particular building, because it is a very important part of the main Government offices complex? It is no good, in my opinion, purchasing more property if we cannot maintain what we already have. I fully realise, hon. members, the position that the Government Property Trustees may be in at the present time, but I think it has to be said that one cannot ignore a maintenance problem without accepting that that problem could be a much greater one in the future.



The Governor: The chairman to reply.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Your Excellency. I would just say that I find some of the comments rather strange and take what is said, really, from a point of certain members not understanding the duties and the functions of the Government Property Trustees. (Mr. Delaney: Hear, hear.) I would thank those members who tried to clarify that situation on our behalf and I would just re-emphasise it. The Government Property Trustees are here to provide accommodation for Government employees, and that accommodation is something we haye no control on if the Government employees are increased or whatever.

Could I firstly — I will try not to take too long — go through the questions that have been asked? M r. Delaney asked about the outside treatm ent of the new Board of Social Security/Health Service Board building down in Market Street — Markwell House. There was insulation done to the building, which is of bead insulation. That has a lifetime guarantee and you asked had an outside treatment been put on the top. If you could clarify that.

Mr. Delaney: It is a faced brick finish, an excellent piece of bricklaying, but I am concerned about the porousness of the brick. In the future it might have a corresponding situation as the new building next door where we had to re-strip all the heads and do a coating trick.

Mr. Brown: Yes. Thank you, Your Excellency, I was not really one hundred per cent, sure what the member meant on that so I am happy he clarified it. Yes, as far as we are aware we did check the different types of brick to get something .... because under planning we had to have a brick that matched the Chester Street. As far as we know the brick is not a porous brick — I think that is correct — and we are quite happy with that. The architect responsible has taken all the advice, is happy with the brickwork and therefore we should have no problems in the future, so we are quite happy with that.

The next point the hon. member made was about the Albert Street response. I can say that to date, of the eight properties three have so far responded without commitment and valuations of the properties are being taken.

Mr. Delaney: Can I clarify that, Your Excellency? I am sorry, sir, it will make it quicker. What concerns me also is that the derelict properties which you are responsible for are having a detrimental effect on the valuation of those. Would you give us an assurance that will not occur in this case?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Your Excellency. I think, really, if I can just give the broader......and hopefully will answer the member’s point and hopefully answer some othermembers’ points. It has been a long-term policy since the 1970’s of the Government of the Isle of Man to purchase what is known as the ‘Triangle’. The Government Property Trustees are responsible to carry out that policy. It is well- known to this hon. Court that we have not gone out and actively promoted that policy but we have picked up properties as and when they come on the market.



Now what we do is, every so often we send a circular round to people living in those areas — and now of course Albert Street is about the only street left — and we ask, have circumstances changed? et cetera. Then we get a response and we follow that up. Sometimes we get a sale from it, sometimes we do not. It does not necessarily mean straightaway the person moves out of the property. We sometimes buy it to get it into Government ownership. It should be clear this is a very long-term policy of Government. So we do that. As far as the older properties — and we are talking about M ount Havelock which are in front and we are talking about Buck’s Road which are behind — much has been said this morning about the Government Property Trustees doing a programme of expansion of properties and all sorts of things like that. May I make it clear, Your Excellency — and anybody who reads the speech properly — it is very clear on page 3 — it says here, “ The working party which we propose to set up “ should then proceed” after looking at the changes in Government at the moment “ to consider the longer-term” — and I emphasise, the longer-term requirements of accommodation for the departments of Government “ and prepare plans for the re-development of the triangle” around Government offices. “ We would wish to see the completion of the working party’s brief within two years” — and that is in no way tied down, as hon. members, I am sure, will understand. It will then have to be programmed into capital estimates and then such works will have to be programmed as and when the money is available to the Manx Government.

As far as I am concerned, Your Excellency, it would be totally irresponsible of the Government Property Trustees not to project that picture when we know that within the next five or ten years, a re-development o f that area is going to happen, certainly in the Buck’s Road area. We are trying to make it clear to this hon. Court in the policy speech that whether this hon. Court likes it or not, most of the properties in Buck’s Road have already got civil servants in who are fulfilling duties on behalf of this Government, and that accommodation is not satisfactory. We already have to monitor the buildings on a monthly basis. Already some of the buildings have had to be tied up, as they call it, with metal bars in to stop them just falling over and if hon. members wish to walk up Buck’s Road and look up at the windows, they will see what we mean, where the settlement is starting to move. So that is all being monitored at the moment — no danger to the public, but it is all being monitored. But the life o f those buildings — the expectancy is very small.

We talk about ‘Let us spend money’, as has been said, to re-develop those areas— in other words, keep the old Victorian building and do it up so that it is good accommodation. I can assure hon. members that the cost of doing works in those buildings that we have done in the past, for what we get out of it, has been quite expensive because you are dealing with dry ro t, damp rot, roofs leaking, old walls that are collapsing. At the moment, in M ount Havelock we have got a ceiling that has fallen in in one of the offices and we have got problems like that. As far as the M ount Havelock areas goes, we have put into our capital estimates a sum to demolish 1-4 Mount Havelock. The reason for that, Your Excellency, is: number 1 and number 4 are in very poor condition — they were bought in poor condition because that is when they came on the market, and you can see that it is tied up with scaffolding in certain areas if you look at number 1. If we demolish numbers



1 and 4 it means considerable cost to hold up numbers 2 and 3, so therefore it is cheaper to demolish 2 and 3, because that is the long-term aim anyway; demolish the whole block and move the people out o f 2 and 3 into other accommodation. So, looking at the overall picture, and we are talking about saving the Government money and looking to the long-term future of the Isle of M an, it would be absolute folly to pump hundreds of thousands of pounds into the properties in Buck’s and into the properties of Mount Havelock, knowing very well that the life expectancy of those buildings is very short and you would talk o f considerable amounts. Two years ago we had an estimate done on 1 M ount Havelocjc and we were talking of over £80,000 just to bring it up to a reasonable standard, not even a good standard, so we have to be very careful because, in fact, the long-term implications of developing new and loan charges, looking at future generations to the Isle of Man, can actually be cheaper than the short-term, if you like, investment of just keeping the properties up and in a reasonable standard. So we have to weigh that balance up and that is what the Government Property Trustees are doing, and that is what we are trying to do in getting the overall development right.

Included in the triangle is also the possibility of providing the Court House there. It has been some time since the Government Property Trustees purchased, down the road in Finch Hill, a plot to build a Court House on. My trustees have frozen that idea until such time — and I think quite rightly — as we know what we are doing in the triangle because it would be folly to develop a site down the road and develop up here if we have got space, and that is one thing that is frozen at the moment. But it means then that we have to maintain the old Court House. We know there are problems in the old C ourt House and some quite large sums have been spent in the last couple of years just keeping that in good order. We have also, as has been said — and I thank the hon. members for their support — requested to use this hon. chamber and the House of Keys, and quite rightly so, because it is the taxpayer who is paying to keep these buildings and therefore they should be used to their maximum, and it is folly while the courts are moving all around the Isle of Man are holding up proceedings which the public have to suffer as well when we have got two courts lying empty, and therefore that is why we are progressing that one.

So it is all part of an overall picture to get the long-term view of Government and the office accommodation sorted out. My board is not saying ‘Let us enhance the Civil Service, let us go out and get more civil servants, let us build an office to fill it with them .’ The civil servants, with respect, hon. members, are already there working in deplorable conditions, and if you want to come around and have a look at some of the conditions, I am only too delighted to take you round and show you the properties. Any member who wishes to do that, contact me and I will take you round any time. So we have got to sort that out, Your Excellency.

The hon. member, Mr. M artin, said money would be better spent for the future o f the Island’s investment to create jobs, et cetera. We all agree with that; I do not just want to go and build a new Government Office for the sake of it, but it is an investment in the future and hopefully what I have said will clarify that, and I would also say that Markwell House, which has been criticised, has provided work



for two-and-a-half years for a local building firm. The vast majority of the £2.6 million has been spent through local wholesalers, so therefore creating work in those areas, plus it has taken people off the unemployment to work for the firms involved, so over the two-and-a-half years that that development has been going on, a considerable amount of employment has been fed back into the Manx m arket, and if Government does chop off all capital schemes or whatever then all it does it chop o ff employment. We have the most direct involvement in employment of anybody, so it sounds all right to argue in that way but, quite honestly, Your Excellency, if one sees what goes on it is quite clear that that is not the case.

I am quite surprised to see that the Government Property Trustees are being criticised for having the foresight, if I dare say, to actually project a policy of enhancing what we are trying to do. In other words, hon. members are saying ‘Let us have a negative Government.’ I say the more positive we are about sorting our future out and planning into the long term, the better for the Isle of Man and the sooner we will get ourselves into a good state of affairs, because one thing that is needed is investment in the right areas, and that is one thing we are doing with the castles and Laxey Wheel as well as the other side. We cannot ignore one side o f the picture — it is there.

Mr. Cannan raised a few matters and I have answered most of them. May I say that we are not — and I will just re-emphasise — we are not creating offices for new civil servants. We are looking at creating office accommodation for existing civil servants and the existing accommodation o f Government. He says we seem to be getting it wrong here. Your Excellency, as I have said, we can only respond to the needs of Government in providing accommodation. And the board wants to spend money — how dare we want to spend money! But all I can say, Your Excellency, I could soon have a nil budget, but I would presume that every member in here would soon be shouting when they could not get desk or they could not get a door fixed or the lights fixed. It is all very well to say it in theory, but it just does not work. I can assure you o f one thing: it will be a bit tighter this year on trying to get stuff done. I can assure members of that because we have had to look very hard at areas to hold back on, to try and get other works done that are required.

I am somewhat surprised, and I think it is something out of order, that an hon. | member brings up in this hon. Court a matter that is being discussed between two boards, in confidence as far as I am concerned, about trying to resolve short-term problems of accommodation. We approached the Board of Social Security about the Hill Street premises and quite rightly. How I would be accused of total irresponsibility if we allowed them to sell that property and then had to go to the private market and rent accommodation to put the civil servants in that we decant from Buck’s Road at some future date or we decant from the Mount Havelock area in the very near future, hopefully, if we get our moneys through, so we can demolish 1-4. It has the telephone system in, it has the computer system available there; everything that would be required by Government is there and we would not be talking of putting the amount of civil servants in that accommodation that the Board of Social Security had to put in there ...



Mr. Delaney: I never raised it.

Mr. Brown: No, I am not accusing the hon. Chairman o f the Board of Social Security — I am replying to the member of the Board of Social Security.

Mr. Delaney: You are looking at me as if I raised it!

Mr. Brown: Well, I am sorry, you are in the direct line of fire, Your Excellency! Anyway it is important that we are trying to resolve this problem and, whether we like it or not, we have a problem in the short term , and could I just say, there is no way that we want to keep Hill Street on for ever, no way whatsoever. It is a temporary measure to overcome a temporary problem.

The hon. member threw in the red herring of Seneschal House. Well, I wonder, has the member been in Seneschal House and walked around it? We would get about eight people in there and that would be the lot, and could I just say, Seneschal House has been sold, the agreement has been signed, and therefore that property now does not come into the picture.

I would also just say, it is also the intention of the Government Property Trustees, in a re-development of the triangle, to sell off some of the valuable properties in other areas within Douglas; it will help the commercial sector — for instance, the old Highway Board building where the Consumer Affairs are in Athol Street, the Court House in Athol Street. I certainly do not want to keep outlying properties but we cannot just do it tomorrow, because until we sort out up the road here and get the accommodation right here, we then can start selling o ff the properties, and I would just say that I am hoping to talk with the Board of Social Security over this problem of Hill Street.

I would just say I thank the President of the Council for his comments and, to put the record straight, we are not going out and buying properties for the sake of it. The only properties we purchase, sir, are the ones in the triangle to comply with Tynwald’s long-held policy of developing this area.

I would also thank M r. Walker for his support and he says now is not the time to develop the triangle, and I agree; we are not even saying to develop it now, we are looking to within the next five or ten years when the development will have to start. But we have to forward-plan; we cannot respond to these problems just like that. We have to plan a programme of maintenance, a programme of renewal where it is required and whatever.

I think I have answered the hon. member Mr. Payne, who was asking about renovation of properties, and I would be quite glad to take the member around because I am sure he will then see it really it is not on.

Mr. Payne: Markwell House and national insurance.

Mr. Brown: Markwell House ... sorry, national insurance — I was coming to that. As far as the purchase of Markwell House, I would just say that the Govern-

Government Property Trustées — Policy Expenditure Implications Noted


ment Property Trustees have been working on a policy which was determined when Tynwald decided to proceed with that purchase, which was that the office would be owned by the Government Property Trustees and the accommodation provided for the Social Security. It has since been looked at and we are looking at the probability of either charging a rental against the national insurance fund as one option. At the moment we are looking at that to see how viable it is but it is something we are certainly aware of, because the national insurance fund is something separate from taxation, as I am sure hon. members know, so that is being looked at at the moment and all I would say is that my trustees are very keen to raise revenue to pay back into Government, and if hon. members look at certain areas, it is quite obvious that over the last few years we have raised revenue from places like Chester Street car park, rental of some of our properties and so on. So, yes, we are looking at that and I hope we can do something — I cannot promise. I thank him for h s support on the castles, Laxey Wheel and the prison — all things that in the long« r term will save money.

I thank the Chairman of Executive Council for his support, and he is well aware of what we are doing and why we are doing it and the progression and I thank him for his support.

Dr. M oore, of course — I thank him for his on the use o f the chambers, andI hope hon. members will take it on board, and especially the members o f the committee who control both these chambers, because it will save us a lot of money and it will also mean that court cases can be dealt with quicker because there will be proper facilities.

Mr. Callin brought up a point as the last speaker, Your Excellency, and said sunlight is the cheapest form of light, and I quite agree with him. And he raised the point that he has on many occasions about the windows down in Markwell House. All I can say is that the architect who designed the building has made that building as cost-saving as possible in the use of energy, and therefore he has made as much use of natural light as is possible to light the building up. I have been in the building since the furniture has been put in and the carpet, and it has been decorated, and the light, even on a dull day like today, is quite a good light. There are dark spots and the reason for that is because of where the back wall is by the property looking over that and we were not able to fit windows in that area. So that is the only spot, but if people look at the building, right along the whole building is just window, back and front, so you cannot get much more natural light than that. And we have also brought in controls so individual desk lights can be switched off, whereas in Government Office next door, you put the lights on and the whole floor is on, so we hope that there will be savings and we are very energy-conscious. So I would just thank the hon. member for that.

Your Excellency, just to wind up, yes, we are very well aware, and I am very well aware as are my trustees, of the difficulties Government is facing. I would just re-emphasise that we are trying to overcome the problems, we are very conscious of where we are spending our moneys and I would just say — one point I did forget, which was Government Office next door and the accommodation for the people



working in there — we are only too well aware about that and we have been trying to get moneys to do the works, and this year we have made it a priority in our estimates to resolve the problems of Government Office where water is leaking in, where wallpaper is coming off the walls and where the heating system is not adequate and so on, and we hope to get that done in this next financial year and we hope we will resolve that problem. Your Excellency, we shall progress a long-term policy for the Isle of Man to resolve the short-term problems that we now have. Thank you, Your Excellency.

1

The Governor: Hon. members, I will now put the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Government Property Trustees, M r. Brown. Will those members in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called fo r and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys—

For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. Morrey, J.H . Kneale, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Duggan, Cretney, Delaney, Irving, Dr. Moore, Messrs. Cain, Bell and the Speaker— 21

Against: Mr. Martin — 1

The Acting Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 21 votes being cast in favour and one vote against.

In the Council—

For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs. Lowey, W ard, Dr. M ann, Mr. Radcliffe, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin and the President — 8

Against: Nil.

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council, eight in favour, none against; the resolution, therefore, carries.

BOARD OF SOCIAL SECURITY —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: Item 20. I call upon the Chairman of the Isle of Man Boardof Social Security.

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Isle o f M an Board o f Social Security.

Board o f Social Security — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted



Introduction

1.1 The. Board of Social Security has a range of responsibilities for functions which may be summarised under the headings —

a) Social Securityb) Welfare Servicesc) Employment Servicesd) Industrial Relations

1.2 In its Policy and Expenditure Statement to the February 1985 sitting of Tynwald these functions were described at some length. This present statement does not attem pt to repeat the content of that of 1985 but rather it reports upon the more significant policy developments over the past 12 months within these four functional areas and upon the income and expenditure forecasts for the current and next financial year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Expenditure and Funding

2.1 The table set out at Appendix 1 summarises the present forecast o f expenditure on social security benefits (and their administration) for 1985/86 and 1986/87 and how the expenditure is to be funded. The actual figures for the years 1974/75, 1979/80 and 1984/85 are included for purposes of comparison. A summary o f the state of the N .I. Fund Reserves is also included.

2.2 Amongst other things the table shows —

a) benefit expenditure (including administration) of almost £49.1 million is forecast for 86/87, an increase of 19.2% on 84/85, 127% on 79/80 and 505% on 74/75

b) contribution income of £20.4 million is forecast for 86/87 an increase of 4.9% on 84/85, 111% on 79/80 and 365% on 74/75;

c) funding from the General Revenue of £16.6 million will be required for 86/87 which represents 33.8% of the social security benefits budget; the corresponding figures in 74/75 were £2.1m and 25.8%;

d) that the market value of the N .I. Fund reserves at 31st March, 1985 represented 2.69 times the amount expended in benefits charged to the N .I. Fund in 84/85. The corresponding factor at 31st March, 1975 was 2.49.

2.3 The table at Appendix 2 reveals the extent to which expenditure has been (or will be) incurred on individual benefits in these same 5 years and summarises that expenditure in terms of the amounts funded from the N .I. Fund and from the General Revenue.

Board of Social Security — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


2.4 Amongst other things the table shows that in 86/87 benefit expenditure from the N .I. Fund, at £33.5m, is estimated to be 5 times the corresponding figure in 74/75 whereas benefit expenditure met from General Revenue at £14.3m will have increased almost 12-fold since 74/75. In the coming year 30p of every £ expended on social security benefits will be on benefits which fall to be met from General Revenue as opposed to 15p in the £ in 74/75.

2.5 The table at Appendix 3 shows the relative importance, in terms of expenditure, of the various benefits so we can see, for example, thqt in 1986/87 retirement pensions are expected to account for £57.36 o f every £100 of social security benefit payments and child benefits £10.75. The table also reveals variations over the years in the relative importance of the benefits. For example it shows that supplementary benefits accounted for under 10% of expenditure in 74/75, about 6 ‘/ 2 % in 79/80 but next year is expected to require over 14!/2% of the budget. (For the purposes of this table various benefits have been grouped having regard to their relationship one to the other e.g. retirement pensions includes age addition and the over 80’s pension; supplementary benefits includes F .I.S.)

2.6 The table at Appendix 4 details the number of claims in payment at the end of March in 1975, 1980 and 1985 for the main benefit groups. Amongst other things it shows the dramatic increase in the extent o f payments of supplementary benefit to those registered as unemployed (the ‘U’ cases). A t the end of March 1975 there were 128 such claims in payment. By March 1985 the number had arisen to 1151.

Developments in Benefits in 19852.7 This section looks at m ajor developments in those areas o f the social security benefits programme which are outside the scope of the reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom.

2.8 Family Income supplement. Perhaps the single most significant policy development during the past 12 months has been the introduction, from the beginning of November 1985, of the revised Family Income Supplement Scheme comprising the Family Income Supplements Act 1985 and regulations made thereunder.

2.9 The revisions to the old scheme followed a Finance Board report to Tynwald in November 1984 on ways of assisting low income groups with housing costs, there being no equivalent in the Island of the U.K. housing benefit arrangements. In particular the changes incorporated in the new scheme

— allow married couples without children to be brought into the scope of family income supplement (FIS);

— remove the upper limit on the weekly am ount o f F.I.S . which can be awarded in any case;

— allow national insurance contributions to be disregarded in assessing a family’s qualifying income;



— increase the qualifying income limits;

— increase the rates at which F.I.S . is paid (from 55p to 70p for each £1 that the family’s income falls below the qualifying limit);

— ease the residential qualification to a maximum o f 6 m onths’ residence prior to the claim or I.O .M . worker status;

— extend from 4 to 12 weeks the period covered by a F.I.S. award.

2.10 A family may qualify for F.I.S . if the head of the family is in full-time work but the family’s income is low. The benefit can be claimed by single parents and unmarried couples with children as well as by married couples. The old scheme also required married couples to have at least one child in their family but now married couples do not have to meet this condition.

2.11 There has been no change in the full-time work condition. It continues to be satisfied in single parent cases if the parent is regularly working 24 hours a week. For couples it is necessary for one of them to be regularly working 30 hours a week.

2.12 Benefit is payable under the new scheme at the rate o f 70p (55p under the old scheme) for every £1.00 by which the family’s income falls below the qualifying income level set for the size of the particular family. The following table shows what the qualifying income levels are for different sizes of family —

Number of Children in family Level of weekly income belowin family which a family qualifies

£0 (married couples only) 93.401 97.502 110.003 122.504 135.00for each additional child 12.50

For families with children these levels apply whether the family is headed by a single parent or a couple.

2.13 In arriving at qualifying income child benefit, attendance allowance and certain other income continue to be disregarded and, under the new scheme, so are national insurance contributions paid by the family.

2.14 F.I.S . is awarded on the basis o f a family’s income in the five weeks before a claim. An award is then made to cover a period of 12 weeks (previously 4 weeks) after, which a new claim is necessary. All claims can be dealt with by post and payments are made by cheque, for 4 weeks at a time, sent to the family’s home.



2.15 The changes in the scheme, which are expected to increase F.I.S. expenditure by between £250,000 & £300,000 in a full year, give substantially more help to those families with low earnings. For example, a family with 2 children with a gross income, from wages, of £90 per week may be entitled to F.I.S . of £19.70 a week as opposed to £5.50 under the old scheme. A family with the same income but only one child may be entitled to £11.00 per week whereas under the old scheme no F.I.S. would have been payable.

2.16 Job Release Scheme. This Scheme, which was introduced on the Island at the beginning of 1983, was designed to encourage men of 63 and 64 to ‘retire’ early thus releasing their jobs for the unemployed. It is a basic condition of the Scheme that the employer agrees to release the early retirer and replace him with an unemployed person.

2.17 A married man taking ‘early retirem ent’ under the Scheme is entitled to a weekly allowance of £71.15 if he has a dependant wife whose net income does not exceed £13.00 per week. A single man or a man whose wife earns more than £13.00 a week is entitled to a weekly allowance of £58.35. Payments of allowances are made 4 weekly by cheque.

2.18 Following acceptance under the Scheme the early retirer continues to receive the allowance up to age 65 when the normal retirement pension arrangements come into operation.

2.19 In the 33 months to the end o f September 1985 there were 113 applications approved and brought into payment. Of those, 30 were aged 64 at the date of approval so that the Scheme is clearly more attractive to the 63 year olds. 54 of the applicants subsequently left the Scheme either through death or on attaining pension age. None have left the Scheme to return to employment. In only a handful o f cases has the replacement worker subseqently lost his job and in all such cases another replacement has been obtained from the unemployed register.

2.20 The cost o f the Scheme in 85/86 was estimated at £216,000.

2.21 During last summer discussions in the Employment Committee o f Executive Council, at Finance Board and at Board of Social Security led to agreement that, with effect from 1st October 1985, the age limit should be lowered to 62.

2.22 By the end of November 4 applications from 62 year olds had been approved and brought into payment. A further 12 applications from men of this age are pending along with 14 applications from the 63-64 age group.

2.23 In a full year it is anticipated that about £160,000 will be required to fund the extension of the Scheme to 62 year olds on top o f the on-going costs for 63 and 64 year olds.

2.24 The Job Release Scheme in the U.K. was terminated at the end o f July 1985.

Board of Social Security - Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


2.25 ‘Welfare’ Benefits. During the year discussions have been taking place with the Board of Education concerning future responsibility for monetary and kindred benefits of a social welfare nature which are (or have been until recently) available through that Board. Agreement has been reached that future availability and control of such benefits should be centralised with the Board of Social Security and be consistent with the general programme of state support for low income groups through social security. Implementation of this principle has however been deferred pending the outcome of the moves to establish the new Department o f Health and Social Security. The principle is consistent with recommendations o f the Select Committee on Board’s Responsibilities relating to the transfer o f certain functions from the Board of Education to the new Department.

2.26 The Board is also approached from time to time with proposals for the establishment of special ‘one-off’ assistance schemes. During the year the possibility of special relief measures in relation to coal and electricity costs and T.V. licence fees have been raised. However Board policy over the last few years has been to regard it as wrong in principle to establish special schemes of assistance in particular directions which take no account of the extent to which individuals disburse their resources in other directions. The Board has taken the view that if additional resources are to be made available then they should be devoted to raising the general levels of state support for the low-income groups (supplementary benefits for those out-of-work; family income supplement for those in work) if those levels are felt to be inadequate to meet general living costs.

2.27 Benefits Up-rating 1985. An up-rating of benefits took place in the week commencing 25th November, 1985. A Schedule o f the main benefit rates applying following that up-rating is set out in Appendix 5. Generally speaking the up-rating was at 7% but for the following benefits it was at the percentage indicated —

Invalidity Benefit 12%Supplementary Benefit (scale rates) 5.1% Child Benefit 2.2%

The following benefits attracted no increase —

Death Grant Maternity GrantAge addition to retirement and old persons’ pensions Xmas Bonus

2.28 The Board continued its policy of maintaining enhancements in the rates of certain benefits compared with the rates payable in the U.K. The Schedule in Appendix 5 indicates the appropriate U.K. rates where they differ from the I.O.M . rates.

2.29 In a full year the up-rating is estimated to require an additional £2m from the N .I. Fund and £ '/im from General Revenue.



Developments in Contributions & Related Matters in 1985

2.30 Contribution Rates. The B oard’s policy continues to be to adopt the United Kingdom rates of National Insurance contributions. Indeed the special nature of the reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom would make it impractical to do otherwise. In October 1985 significant changes were introduced in the structure o f N .I. contribution rates to afford some relief in the effect of contributions on the costs faced by both employers and employees in jobsj at the lower end of the earnings range.

2.31 A graduated scale of contributions was introduced which meant that people on low earnings and their employers would pay less Class 1 contributions. The rate of contributions is determined by the level o f earnings. Contributions are then paid at the same rate on all earnings.

— for people earning between £35.50 and £55.50 a week, both employees and employers pay 5% on all earnings compared with the full rates of 9% and 10.45% respectively;

— for those earning between £55 and £90 a week the rate for both employers and employees is 7% on all earnings;

— for people earning between £90 and £130 per week, the rate for both employers and employees is 9% on all earnings;

— for people earning over £130 a week, the rate for employees is 9% on all earnings up to an upper earnings limit o f £265 a week;

— for people earning over £130 a week, the rate for employers is 10.45% on all earnings with no upper earnings limit.

2.32 The contracting-out rebate remains at 4.1% for the employer and 2.15% for the employee on earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits. The reduced rate Class 1 contribution payable by certain married women and widows remained unchanged at 3.85%.

2.33 At the same time the Class 2 (self-employed) contribution was reduced from £4.75 to £3.50 a week and the rate of voluntary Class 3 contribution from £4.65 to £3.40 a week.

2.34 These changes are estimated to reduce the income of the N .I. Fund by about £700,000 in the current year and by about £1.9m in a full year, representing a full year loss of about 8%.

2.35 The earnings bands will be further modified from April 1986. The lower earnings limit will increase from £35.50 to £38 a week; the lowest band will range from £38 to £60 a week (currently £35.50 — £55); the next band will range from £60 — £95 (Currently £55 — £90) and the final reduced rate band from £95 — £140



(Currently £90 — £130). The upper earnings limit will be increased from £265 to £280 a week. The percentage contribution rates for Class 1 will remain as at present.

2.36 Whilst it is impossible to say with any degree o f certainty the numbers who have gained from the October changes, it is safe to say that they produced increases in take home pay for substantial numbers of people. Very rough estimates would indicate that up to 40% of all female employees paying full contributions and between 15% and 20% of male employees have benefited from the changes as have their employers. All self-employed contributors, of which there are about 2500 have gained by the reduction in the Class 2 contribution so that all told somewhere in the region of 8000 individuals paying Class 1 or 2 contributions will have gained, or between 25-30% of the working population.

2.37 Class 4 Contributions. These contributions are payable on part of the annual taxable earnings of the self-employed. They are not payable on the first £4150 of taxable profits nor on profits in excess of £13780. On profits within this band they are payable at 6.3%.

2.38 Neither the earnings band nor the contribution rate were affected by the October changes to other classes o f contributions. However during the year consultations between the Board, the Treasury and the Assessor led to the granting of tax relief for Class 4 contributions, effectively lowering the rate to 5.04% The General Revenue is to compensate the National Insurance Fund for this ‘loss’ of income.

2.39 Class 2 Contributions — Payment Methods. Persons who are self-employed are liable to pay Class 2 national insurance contributions unless they claim and can show title to small earnings exemption. Regulations make provision with regard to the method of and time for payment of Class 2 contributions. The method is by affixing the appropriate value stamp to a contribution card for the week of self- employment, stamps being obtained from Post Offices. The time for doing so is not later than the end of the week o f self-employment.

2.40 The Regulations give the Board power to make alternative arrangements as regards the method and time for payment. That power has never been exercised generally.

2.41 In recent years the Board has been concerned that the m ajority of Class 2 contributors have failed to observe the time and method requirements of the regulations. For example in 1982/83 just under 40% of Class 2 contributions was collected via stamp sales through Post Offices. The remainder was paid by cheque or cash to or at the board’s offices and substantially the greater proportion of this at the end o f the contribution year.

2.42 A recent publicity campaign involving the issue of a special leaflet with Class2 contribution cards and the insertion of regular notices in the press drawing attention to the statutory provisions governing the time for and method of payment of Class2 contributions has had some effect. Over 50% of Class 2 income in 84/85 was



collected via stamp sales and in the first 6 m onths of this year the proportion has risen to about 50%.

2.43 Nevertheless the Board feels that some alternative method for the collection of Class 2 contributions should be introduced. Arrangements for direct debit from a contributors bank account operate in the United Kingdom but the implementation o f similar arrangements in the Isle o f Man will have to await the development of computer based systems for the collection and recording of contributions locally. In the interim a scheme to enable contributors to pay Class 2 by bankers order is being prepared and it is hoped to make this facility available for the 86/87 contribution year.

2.44 Enforcement of Contribution Liabilities. Contribution income in 1986/87 is estimated at £20.4m of which £19.5m will come from Class 1 contributions. It is the employers responsibility to collect, by deduction from wages or salary, the employee’s element of the Class 1 contribution and pay this over, with the employer’selement, by the 19th of the month following the month in which the contribution liability arose.

2.45 An employer who fails to meet these obligations is liable to prosecution and appropriate action for the recovery o f unpaid liabilities. Under section 152(4) of the Social Security Act 1975, Directors of a company can be held personally liable for contributions which the company has failed to pay. This personal liability provision was effectively removed in the United Kingdom from November 1984 but the Board has determined that it should remain in the Island for use in appropriate cases.

2.46 The Board acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of employers meet their obligations with regard to the collection and remission of Class 1 contributions. But for the small minority of employers who are discovered to have failed to fulfil their obligations a strict policy of prosecution and recovery action is imposed including, if necessary, the submission of petition for the winding-up o f companies which continue to default.

2.47 A firm line is also taken in respect of those self-employed persons who persistently ignore their responsibilities in the payment of Class 2 contributions. The Board feels that its duty to protect the income o f the National Insurance Fund and to respect those who conscientiously observe their responsibilities must take precedence over other considerations in individual cases. That the Boards firmer enforcement policy of late is having an affect is perhaps evidenced by the fact that in the first 6 months of this year Class 2 stamp sales through Post Offices have increased, in volume, by about 30% over the same period in 84/85.

Miscellaneous Developments in 1985

2.48 Unemployment Reviews. At the end of the September quarter o f 1980 there was a total of 532 persons registered as unemployed, 10% of whom had been registered for 12 months or longer. A t the end of the September quarter 1985 2247



persons were registered as unemployed, 22% of them having been so registered for 12 months or longer.

2.49 This growth in the long term unemployed has led the Board to establishing, on an experimental basis, a team o f 2 Executive Officers to undertake by inverview special reviews of the medium and long term unemployed cases. The purpose of these unemployment reviews is two-fold. First it is to assist claimants, with advice and guidance, in their efforts to return to employment and, second, to identify cases in which the claimant has no genuine wish of further employment or whose claim may not be based on true unemployment. To the extent that the review officers also provide information and advice on the range o f benefits available from the Board and other agencies they also undertake a welfare function.

2.50 Interim assessments of the functioning o f the review team indicate .that it has proved successful both from the view o f claimants (in providing advice and encouragement for genuine jobseekers) and from the view of the public purse (in benefit savings). A full appraisal o f the exercise to determine whether it should become a permanent feature of the Boards advisory and monitoring services is due to be carried out in mid 1986.

2.51 Benefit Payments Methods. There are about 30,000 current awards of social security benefits. A person may be in receipt of more than one benefit. For example an unemployed man with children could be receiving an award of unemployment benefit, an award of supplementary benefit and an award of child benefit. The Board has no precise figures but the 30,000 awards probably go to about 23,000 individuals.

2.52 The principal method of benefit payment is by order book encashable weekly at Post Offices. About 23,000 awards are paid this way including the m ajority of retirement pensions, all child benefit and all supplementary pension cases. The remaining awards are paid by cheque or cash. Weekly cash payments has been the traditional method for certain benefits — notably unemployment, sickness, invalidity and maternity benefits together with any supplementary benefit awarded on such claims. From the end of November 1985 however, invalidity and maternity benefits (with any supplementary benefit top up) are now paid by fortnightly cheque (with certain very minor exceptions) leaving only unemployment and sickness benefits and certain supplementary allowance cases as cash benefits. A t the same time payment of unemployment benefit was switched to a fortnightly basis.

2.53 These particular changes, which formed part o f a long-term plan of moving out of cash benefits and of providing alternative and optional non-cash payment methods, were hastened by the need to reduce pressure of attendances on the Board’s District Offices brought about by the continuing growth in unemployment. Relieved o f the need to make cash payments with the same frequency as previously staff in these offices are now able to devote more time to the needs of individual callers whether making general enquiries or submitting claims to benefit.

2.54 The subject o f the existing payment methods adopted by the Board has been referred to the Treasury for consideration as a value-for-money exercise to be under-



taken by that Department. The cost of the order book payment method, in Post Officer charges alone, will am ount to over £300,000 in 1986/87.

2.55 Advertising and Publicity. That the range and availability of social security benefits is not unknown is demonstrated by the figures a t Appendix 4 and which also support the view that the public awareness o f the social security programme is increasing. Nevertheless the Board is committed to continuing to add to that awareness in both benefit and contribution areas. In addition to the public enquiry services available at its head office and its 6 district offipes; the availability of a complete range of information leaflets covering individual benefits and specific contribution matters in those offices and at the main post offices; and the on-going use of the press and radio to bring to public notice particular issues, the Board also arranged during the year for the publication and distribution with the I.O.M. Courier of 27000 copies of a special 8 page supplement on benefit and related matters. Staff of the Board also attend from time to time at meetings of voluntary organisations to give talks on social security matters.

2.56 Administration

a. Computerisation. The increasing complexity of the social security programme and the growth in the numbers benefiting from the programme has not been matched by compensating developments in the operational systems intended to cope with the administration of the programme. Many of those systems, mostly of a clerical and manual nature, are now reaching breaking point. A t the end of 1984 and after presentation to the Finance Board and the Civil Service Commission, approval was given to the introduction of a comprehensive computerisation programme — operation ‘Cosmos’ — with the two primary objectives o f —

a) ensuring the continual operation of the social security programme, andb) improving operational efficiency and flexibility.

Work on the project, which is a joint venture between the Board and the Treasury Computer Services Division and which will be based on the Central Government Computer facilities, has progressed well during the year on the first phase of a three phase development programme —

1) Creation of ‘People Register’2) Development of N .I. contribution system3) Development of Benefit systems,

with other routine procedures and office autom ation being developed throughout the phases as appropriate.

b. New Head Offices. The Board’s Head Office operations are presently sited at 4 different locations in Douglas - Hill Street, Hanover Street (N.I. records branch), Noble’s Hall (Employment Division) and Well Road Hill (Job Centre). The accommodation and facilities available in the existing offices are far from ideal from both a public service and operational view-point. The centralisation of Head Office


T904 TYNWALD CÔURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986

operations at Markwell House, now scheduled for February 1986, should make a major contribution to improved efficiency and public service.

c. Staffing. At the end of August 1985 the B oard’s Civil Service establishment was 102 comprising -

Principal 1AOII 7EOI 7EOI 25CO 49CA 8Secretarial 5

102

At that date 35 of the staff had worked with the Board for less than 2 years and only 39 had been with the Board for 5 or more years.

O f the 57 clerical staff only 13 had completed 5 years service and 21 had still to complete their 2 years’ probationary service. In the 12 months to the end of August1985 15 staff had left the Board’s employment for one reason or another.

The Board’s difficulties in administering a programme as complex as that of social security with such a high degree of inexperienced staff cannot be understated and has led to a re-appraisal of staff training policy which hitherto has been largely based on learn-as-you-go. Formal induction training has been introduced for groups of new recruits and more specialised training courses are being provided with the co-operation of the D .H.S.S. in the U.K. Facilities have also been provided in the new offices for in-house group training sessions.

d. Social Security Law — Publication

Under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1982 (and its predecessors) the Board has power to apply to the Island, by order, any social security legislation of the United Kingdom. Inter alia this ensures that the law of the Island (particularly in those areas of the social security programme which are subject to the unique reciprocal agreement between the Island and the U.K.) may be quickly and easily aligned with that of the United Kingdom.

The Board accepts however that this particular method of providing the statutory support for the social security programme does present difficulties for those attempting to identify precisely the statutory provisions governing any particular aspect o f the programme. Indeed this problem is addressed in the Social Security



Act 1982 which places a duty upon the Board to publish the text o f U.K. legislation applied to the Island, the text to incorporate any modifications, exceptions or adaptations provided for in the application Order.

Much of the current legislation was applied prior to 1982 and it was decided that the principle contained in the 1982 Act should be extended to this earlier applied legislation also.

I

Using the word processing facilities of the Central Government computer work has been continuing throughout the past year in preparing the text of social security legislation, as applied, for publication in a single work, albeit comprising a number of volumes and thousands of pages. The work is now almost complete and will be ready for publication in the very near future.

A copy of the work, which will be regularly up-dated to reflect changes as and where they occur, will be freely available for reference purposes in the Board’s offices and hopefully at other places o f reference throughout the Island.

e. Financial Adjustments with the United Kingdom. Agreement has now been reached with the United Kingdom authorities on the basis o f the method of financial adjustments between the two countries in respect of retirement and widows pension beneficiaries. Where after 1st April 1986 a pension is awarded on a contribution record which reflects contribution payments in both countries a proportionate share of the cost o f the pension so awarded will be borne by each country. The country which held the record at April 1978 will be responsible for all contribution years prior to that date (transfer values having been passed between each country in respect of contributors transferring before that date).

Agreement in principle has also been conceded by the U.K. authorities to the introduction of financial adjustments in long-term invalidity benefit cases transferring between the two countries. Previously adjustments in invalidity benefit cases have only applied for an initial period following wjhich the new country would be responsible for the continuing cost of the claim. The Manx N.I. Fund may benefit by up to £200,000 a year as a result o f this agreement.

At present when a pensioner transfers to the Island from the U.K. the Board takes over responsibility for the case after 6 months. The cost is then borne by either or, on a proportionate basis, both countries. In discussions on the revised method of adjusting the financial responsibility for the pension, the U.K. authorities have suggested that the awarding country should retain permanent responsibility for effecting payment of the pension (subject to financial adjustment). The Board is resisting this proposal which, on past trends o f migration, could ultimately mean that up to 40% of the Island’s pensioners were subject to the D .H .S.S. rules on methods and times of payment of their retirement pensions. It would also lead to significant difficulties in areas such as the Xmas bonus and age addition where I.O .M . provision is more favourable than U.K.



f. Social Security Reform. A t the end of 1985 the Secretary of State for Social Services presented in a White Paper the U.K. Government’s proposals for the reform of social security. A summary of the White Paper is attached as Appendix 6.

The main proposals are scheduled for introduction in April 1988. The Board will be giving detailed consideration to the reforms over the next few months to determine the extent to which changes should be followed in the Island.

W ELFARE SERVICES

3.1 Residential Homes

Under the provisions of the National Assistance (I.O .M .) Act 1951 the Board ' has the duty to provide —

a) residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, infirmity or other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them; and

b) temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the Board may in any particular case determine.

3.2 In exercising these duties the Board is required to have regard to the welfare o f all persons for whom accommodation is provided, and in particular to the need for providing accommodation of different descriptions suited to different descriptions of persons for whom accommodation is provided. However the Board is not required to provide accommodation to be provided under any other enactment so that, for example, its duty does not extend to health service type accommodation.

3.3 The Board operates four residential homes —

Glenside, Douglas (101 places)Albert Terrace, Douglas ( 52 places)Cummal M ooar, Ramsey (50 places)Southlands, Port Erin ( 56 places)

3.4 Operational costs o f the homes in the year ended 31st March, 1985 v/ere

Glenside £346,789Albert Terrace £163,251Cummal M ooar £215,724Southlands £211,947

£937,711

Loan charges on capital expenditure on the homes are not treated as operational costs in accordance with a resolution of Tynwald of 21st October 1970. Such charges,



amounting to £231,000 in 1984/85, are met by the General Revenue in the Board’s deficiency vote.

3.5 Operational costs are recovered by maintenance charges imposed on residents and through certain other miscellaneous income. With effect from November 1985 that charge is £86.80 per week. A resident who is unable to meet the charge may claim supplementary benefit, the person’s requirements being taken as the charge plus a personal- comforts allowance of £7.65 per week.

I

3.6 Receipts from maintenance charges in 1984/85 totalled £906,247 of which £284,830 (32%) was met by way of supplementary benefit. Comforts allowances to beneficiaries added a further £38,841 to the supplementary benefit financing of the operations of the homes.

3.7 The introduction of legislation to give effect to the policy of transferring to the Health Services Board the residential care duties and functions of the Board of Social Security (including the registration and supervision of the various voluntary and commercially operated residential homes) has been deferred pending the outcome of the proposals to amalgamate, under a new Department of Health and Social Security, the existing duties and functions o f the two Boards.

3.8 Over the past 12 months developments in the operations of the homes have included —

a) the completion of a £70,000 renovation and refurbishing scheme at Albert Terrace;

b) a decision to proceed with a m ajor re-design of the heating systems at Glenside at an anticipated cost o f £100,000;

c) a relaxation for Officers-in-Charge to be resident in the homes which has enabled 4 additional places to be provided at Southlands and the introduction o f an experimental self-help unit for 5 of the more active residents in Albert Terrace (in addition to providing 2 additional places in that home);

d) the creation of the post of senior care attendant at Albert Terrace, Cummal M ooar and Southlands so as to ensure a management presence at all times o f the day and night in each of those homes where previously management consisted only of the Officer-in-Charge and a deputy.

3.9 The need for the re-design o f the heating systems at Glenside resulted from two surveys undertaken on energy consumption in the home. Energy costs now represent, after staff costs, the single most expensive operational item. Special attention is being paid to ways and means of economising in this feature of operations in all the Board’s homes.

3.10 Other Welfare Provisions. The Board’s other main responsibilities in the field o f Welfare provision arise out of section 27 of the National Assistance (Isle o f Man)



Act 1951 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1981. Under the 1951 Act the Board has power to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons (including mentally disordered persons of any description) who are substantially and permanently handicapped. Arrangements made by the Board are carried into effect in accordance with the National Assistance (Handicapped Persons) (General) Scheme 1973. The provisions of the scheme are, in general, o f a discretionary nature.

3.11 Acting under the provisions of the Scheme the Board has approved the following applications for assistance in 1985 (the corresponding figures for 1984 are shown in brackets) —

No. Approved aid £

a) Telephone installations 3 (9) 260 (590)

b) Works of adaptation to , and additional facilities in, the home 8 (10) 5370 (3160)

c) Other applications 7 (2 ) 860 (110)

3.12 The Board is also empowered to make contributions to voluntary organisations whose objects are the prom otion of the welfare of disabled persons. On an annual basis the Board contributes to the Manx Foundation for the Physically Disabled by meeting the salary costs of the Foundation’s full-time organiser, and to the Manx Blind Welfare Society by meeting a proportion o f the salary costs of its full-time welfare officer. Other organisations are assisted by grants from time to time for specific or general purposes.

3.13 The Board is also empowered to make contributions to the funds of voluntary organisations whose activities consist in or include the provision of recreation or meals for old people. Under these powers the Board, using the facilities in its residential homes, makes available at subsidised cost mid-day meals for the Meals on Wheels organisation (about 13000 meals per annum are provided). The Board also makes an annual grant to the Salvation Army, based on the salary costs, in respect of its Community Centre operations.

3.14 The majority of social security benefits for the disabled and chronically sick are non-means tested and non-contributory. But as regards particular assistance for individuals under the Welfare Scheme the Board continues to take the view that regard must be had to the ability of the individuals to fund themselves the identified needs.

3.15 The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has placed additional responsibilities on the Board. It requires the Board to take positive steps to make itself aware o f the numbers and identity o f persons who are blind, deaf or dumb or otherwise substantially and permanently handicapped by illness or injury or suffering from a mental disorder. Having gathered this information the Board must



then identify the extent to which a need exists for making social welfare arrangements for such persons under the provisions of the 1951 Act and if it is satisfied in any case that it is necessary to do so it must make the particular arrangements for social welfare provided in the 1973 Scheme.

3.16 The Board has been in consultation with various organisations and agencies concerning the most practical course for undertaking the inform ation gathering exercise but no satisfactory conclusion has yet been reached. It is hoped, however, that with the inevitable re-structuring of the internal organisations of the two Boards which will flow from the establishment of the Department of Health and Social Security, some early progress may be made in this area.

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

4.1 The Board has a number of responsibilities of an employment of employment- related nature. In particular the Board is responsible for the administration o f the Control of Employment legislation.

4.2 There can be little doubt that the changes introduced by the 1983 Amendment Act have removed the cause of many of the complaints about the effects o f the controls upon children (whether with or without Manx antecedents).

4.3 The Board again made an Order exempting from the provisions of the legislation female workers in tourist premises during the period 1st April — 31st October. Exemption was also granted for the period 25th May, 1985 to 8th June 1985 for riders, mechanics and officials taking part in the 1985 T.T. It was also agreed to exempt for the same period any traders setting up business in the paddock at the rear of the T.T. Grandstand under licence from the Tourist Board.

4.4 During the year discussions took place between the Board and Executive Council on the future of the legislation but no firm conclusions were drawn from these discussions and policy remains in the terms of the final report o f the Select Committee of the House of Keys on the Control o f Employment (Amendment) Bill 1983 which, inter alia, recommended that the status quo should be maintained during the life of the present House but the question (of reforms) should be considered early in the life of the next House.

4.5 The Committee established under the Control of Employment Act 1975 is also, by virtue of section 6 of that Act, the Advisory Council for the purposes o f the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1946. It has the duty of advising and assisting the Board in matters relating to the employment, self-employment and training of disabled persons generally and, in particular, of making recommendations and reports to the Board on matters which may be referred to the Advisory Council under the Act.

4.6 The Board, through the Committee, continues from time to time to receive and process individual applications for financial assistance for the training or aids



to employment of disabled persons. In addition the Board is assisting financially the operations of the Manx W orkshop for the Disabled and following recent representations from the Management Committee of this voluntary venture has agreed to increase the level of assistance from April 1986 subject to the necessary budgetary provision.

4.7 The Job Centre which the Board provides in Douglas (with agency support for its operations through the Board’s district offices) is seen primarily as a service for the unemployed in their search for work. It also operates, however, as a focal point for those in work seeking alternative or additional employment.

4.8 The Board also undertakes a supervisory role under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1976. During the year and following a series o f spot visits to places of employment to establish the extent to which employers were meeting their obligations under this Act, notices were inserted in the local press drawing the attention of employers to those obligations and the penalties for non- compliance. Generally speaking the spot visits revealed a satisfactory standard of compliance.

4.9 The Board’s Employment Services do of course extend to the registration of the unemployed and the payment of their benefits through either the Employment Exchange (for Douglas) or the Board’s district offices. Historically claimants to unemployment benefits were required to register twice weekly but at the beginning of 1982 the difficulties in administering a twice-weekly registration requirement having regard to the increasing size of the register led the Board to approve a reduction in the registration requirement to once weekly. During this year the decision was taken again because of the increasing size of the unemployment register to further reduce the registration requirement to once fortnightly and brings us into line with the United Kingdom.

4.10 During the year the Passenger Transport Board agreed that persons registered as unemployed could be brought within the scope of the concessionary bus fares scheme. Passes, enabling the unemployed to take advantage of this half fare facility, are valid for a month. About 350 passes are issued or renewed each month.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

5.1 With the enactment of the Trade Disputes Act 1985 the ‘disputes’ role of the Board’s Industrial Relations Committee has been transferred to the independent authorities established under that Act — the Industrial Relations Officer and the Employment Tribunal.

5.2 What remains for the Committee is its ‘policy’ role arising from its terms of reference —

(i) to keep under review the adequacy of wage levels and conditions of service in all sections of the economy and to make recommendations as appropriate to the Treasury and Executive Council;



(ii) to promote the improvement and extension of collective bargaining;

(iii) to make recommendations to Executive Council to improve labour relations.

5.3 In exercise of its ‘policy’ role much of the Committee’s time over the last year has been devoted to finalising the draft of the Employment Bill which is now at second reading stage in the Keys the objects of which are to give an employee certain rights if he is dismissed on certain specified grounds; to confer on an employee the right to return to work after confinement, and to amend the Contracts of Employment Act 1981.

5.4 Other matters which have been promoted by Committee include —

a) discussions with representatives of the tourist accommodation sector over the voluntary wage agreement for 1986; and

b) discussions with representatives of the Hairdressers Federation concerning the possible implementation of a statutory minimum wage for this particular service industry.

5.5 During the course of the next few months the Board will be reviewing the future of the Industrial Relations Committee particularly in the light of the establishment of the Industrial Relations Officer. Whilst that officer’s role is confined to ‘disputes’ work there are clearly potential areas of overlap or mutual interest in the functions of the Committee and of the Industrial Relations Officer.

5.6 The review however will also have to have regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Board’s Responsibilities which envisage a transfer from the Board to the new Industry Department of employment and industrial relations functions.

It was agreed.

M r. Delaney: I am sorry, they might wish to agree to it and I am delighted,but I wish to move this because this affects something in the region of 34,000 people in the Isle of Man, and the long-term policy implications of what is occurring with our reciprocal agreement with Britain members should be aware of for the longterm planning, certainly for the next House, sir. I do not agree with this at all, sir.

Mr. Cannan: I beg to second, sir.

Mr. Delaney: In reply, sir, I draw members’ attention, Your Excellency, to —and 1 make no apology and neither do my staff — the length of the policy document which you have been circulated with, but I believe members should be aware, certainly the House of Keys should be aware, the elected representatives of the people of the Isle of Man, that the reform of social security as outlined in appendix 6 of this report will have effects in the future and will be a matter of policy for this Court and certainly will affect a great many people in the Isle of M an. At a time of recession, 1 feel I should bring this to the attention of hon. members as the policy



adopted by that other Government in that other place does affect us and I think that members should, when they come to looking at the longer future and the welfare of their constituents, know that certain powers are outside their hands and it might be that members, certainly in the next 12 months, might find it necessary at some time to bring up what is happening on the mainland because of any detrimental effect it will have upon their constituents, and I think members should take note of this.

Your Excellency, also in the last debate reference was made to the purchase of Markwell House by the Board of Social Security — that was asked o f the Chairman of the Government Property Trustees. I can inform this hon. Court that the board, my board that I am responsible for and my colleagues, did approach the Finance Board for the purchase of this building but it was turned down as they did not think the funds from national insurance should be used for this purpose. I, as the new chairman of the board, do not agree with that. 1 believe the amount of investments of our board if we are to invest, and the amount of return on investments — the best thing we can do is invest in our people, our own community, and if funds of Government are short why not use the funds that we are going to invest long-term in such things as major property development. That will leave other funds to stop this crazy situation, as referred to by the member for Michael — and it has been referred to as a major problem — that this House and this Court is going to face and we are going to argue over the next three months about the cuts that we are going to give to the Board of Education, the cuts to the other working departments and it was possible, I believe, for funds to be found. If we all say things are looking up in the finance sector and other sectors, if we honestly believe that, we need a bridging loan, if you want, and I believe the funds were available in certain circumstances to help to do that.

1 do not believe we should be squabbling publicly about what policy we are going to put forward to put men on the dole. I believe we should be finding a solution to the problem and I believe the solution of Markwell House could have been found with funds which the Manx people have contributed to the Government to look after their long-term welfare. I hope that can still be an option open instead of having this in-fighting that is going to destroy the House of Keys, certainly, and certainly their credibility with the public.

Mrs. Christian: If I may just make a comment about that situation?

Mr. Delaney: Your Excellency, I have replied. I was replying to the statement.

Mrs. Christian: I thought, Your Excellency, he was moving this resolution.

The Governor: Very good. Hon. members, I accept your claim. I put the motion to you. Will those in favour say aye; those against say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.



HARBOUR BOARD —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: Item 21. I call upon the Chairm an o f the Isle o f M an HarbourBoard.

M r. Irving: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Isle o f M an Harbour Board.

The text o f the chairman ‘s written statement, as circulated to members is as follows:

The Isle of Man Harbour Board has a primary function which it, and the Harbour Commissioners which preceded it, has performed since 1767, namely the adequate maintenance and operation of the harbours of the Isle of Man. This duty is detailed more specifically in section 6 of the H arbours (Isle o f Man) Act 1961 as follows:—

“ 6.1 The Board may construct such works for making, extending, enlarging and maintaining harbours and offices as may from time to time be approved by Tynwald.

2 The Board shall take all proper measures for the management, control and operation o f their harbours and may provide reasonable facilities and accommodation therein for vessels, goods, passengers and fishermen.

3 The Board shall take all proper measures for maintenance and operation of all works, structures, bridges, equipment and facilities under their control.

4 The Board may make such charges as they consider proper for the use o f anyfacility or accommodation provided by them under this section for passengers....... ”

“ Section 58 of the Act reads as follows:-

“ 58. The facilities provided by the Board in respect of a harbour shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and anything done thereunder and to the bye-laws for the time being in force in respect of the harbour, be available equally to all persons on payment of the appropriate dues.”

The day-to-day operations of the Board effectively discharge the obligations as specified in the above sections of the H arbours Act in a manner appropriate to the requirements of modern trade and navigation.

The Board, along with other Government departments, was, in the early 1970’s, required to specify its long-term policy up to the end of the current century. To achieve this object the Board, with the sanction of Tynwald, commissioned the National Ports Council o f the United Kingdom to carry out a detailed survey of

H arbour Board — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


all ports o f the Isle o f Man. This report, which was made in 1972 and subsequently accepted by Tynwald, has formed the basis for the Board’s capital programme ever since. The most notable example o f the execution of this programme was the extended breakwater in Douglas which was strongly recommended in the report, a basically similar scheme having been formally agreed by Tynwald in 1921. In considering the development of the harbour facilities in general, the National Ports Council report continues to be the work o f reference guiding the Board’s development proposals. It is acknowledged by the Board that the greater part of the structure of the Island’s harbours is now at least 100 years old and with its advancing age maintenance costs escalate. This is a problem which has been faced by the Board for many years and poses considerable difficulty in the allocation o f funds within the Board’s budget.

O f particular concern to the Board is the condition of the berth at Battery Pier in Douglas, known locally as Cattle Stage. This is an old wooden construction dating to shortly after the turn of the century which was designed and intended for the landing and embarkation of cattle and other animals. It is utilised as the sole petroleum tanker berth in Douglas and, with the exception of fuel for electricity generation at Peel, handles the Island’s entire im port of petroleum products. In addition, at an adjoining berth, all the liquid petroleum gas used on the Island is discharged at an improvised quay wall berth. The Board accepts that public safety alone demands that facilities such as this should be replaced with an easily-controlled and easily-safeguarded modern discharge operation. The Board, in its 1986/87 estimates, has included a provision for the demolition of the present wooden structure and its replacement with an up-to-date facility in which public safety is adequately safeguarded and which will accommodate the present tendency among all shipowners to increase the size of the vessels.

As Douglas handles almost 100% of sea-borne passengers and 80% of all goods entering and leaving the Island, the Board attaches a high priority to the maintenance o f facilities to ensure that this traffic is handled expeditiously and safely. Douglas does, however, suffer from a lack of space for the marshalling o f vehicles for out-ward shipment and for a large number of inbound commercial vehicles awaiting distribution to various parts of the Island. To accommodate this need, the Board has included, in the capital estimates, a provision for the creation of a modest standage area in the immediate vicinity of the viaduct between the Victoria and Edward Piers. The viaduct has a weight limit o f 10 tons which is inadequate fo r1 modern day commercial traffic. This reclamation would not only provide a long- needed area on which traffic can be marshalled but, more importantly, it would provide a direct connection between the two piers at which linkspans are situated. It would thus eliminate the present undesirable procedure involving the passage of commercial vehicles via Parade Street, Bath Place and Peveril Square with the resultant delays and congestion to the normal traffic pattern at Douglas. Notwithstanding the benefit o f such a construction in present circumstances, abrogation of the common purse would require extensive custom control and such an area will be vital.

The recent commission into the Island’s fishing industry laid great emphasis on the continuing development of Peel as the Island’s major fishing port and it envisaged

H arbour Board — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted .


the creation of extensive facilities for the processing and handling of fish and fish products, all of which would increase fishing traffic through the port. The bridge, at the upper end of the H arbour, which carries road traffic from the deep-water berths at the breakwater to the fish processing areas, is o f wooden construction and is subject to a maximum weight of 20 tons. With the development of the fish processing operations in Peel, the use of modern high-capacity freight vehicles would be inevitable and such vehicles would considerably exceed the present capacity of the bridge, hence the Board has made a provision in its capital estimates for its replacement with a concrete structure of a much higher capacity. The necessity for this provision will depend entirely on the development of the fishing industry in Peel.

The Board has, in addition to its purely operational role as a port authority, another responsibility in respect o f fishing vessels through the provisions of the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) (Isle of Man) Act 1974 which imposes on the Board a requirement to ensure the safety of fishing vessels and crew. The Act imposes on the Board a duty to ensure that a detailed survey is carried out on all fishing vessels which exceed 12m in overall length. The owners of such vessels are required to ensure the maintenance of realistic standards of equipment and vessels. The Board is happy to be able to report that there has been an outstanding degree o f compliance with these requirements. In addition to the vessels which are subject to the rules made under the Safety Provisions Act, locally registered fishing vessels, which do not exceed 12m in overall length, are also subject to inspection to ensure that adequate life-saving and fire-fighting equipment is maintained. The Board is happy to be able to report a high standard of compliance in this sector o f the fishing industry.

The Board’s legal responsibilities as set out in section 6 o f the H arbours (Isle of Man) Act 1961 does not make specific reference to pleasure boating but the Board acknowledges that this is a particularly fast-growing facet o f the operations of all the ports on the Island as has been highlighted by the Register of Pleasure Craft which was established in 1976. The Board is aware of the widespread desire for the provision of yacht marina facilities on the Island and is always ready to encourage persons who, from time to time, show interest in financing such a development. Nevertheless, the Board will, within its financial resources, endeavour to improve the existing facilities available to pleasure boat owners. The continued maintenance o f ageing harbours is expensive and the Board attempts to recoup a reasonable proportion of its costs from the port users. It accepts that not all such costs can be borne by the operators using the Island’s ports and a substantial deficit is inevitable. The Board, in its endeavours to reduce calls on the taxpayer to the lowest possible level carries out a review o f the rates o f all harbour dues each year. In recent years an increase in the rates o f dues tied solely to the rate o f inflation has been applied, endeavouring to ensure that the spending power of the product of dues remains reasonably constant. Were Douglas harbour taken in isolation, ignoring the substantial loan charges following the construction o f the new Douglas breakwater, it is quite clear that Douglas could operate on a break-even basis but it is the only one of 7 ports which could do so. All other ports, without exception, operate with a very substantial deficit which is highlighted by the following table.

Harbour Board — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted

T916 TYNWALD CÖURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986

Income Payments Deficit

Douglas £1235277 £2485085 £1249808

Castletown &Derbyhaven £ 4814 £ 43309 £ 38495

Port St. Mary £ 19243 £ 62210 £ 42967

Port Erin £ 1063 £ 22513 £ 21450

Peel £ 41833 £ 103773 £ 61940

Ramsey £ 28830 £ 172940 £ 144110

Laxey £ 2521 £ 16570 £ 14049

In the light of ever increasing costs the Board maintains a rigid regime of review of all its costs to ensure that they are reduced to the lowest possible level, commensurate with the maintenance of an adequate service to the travelling public. Very recent instances of this policy has been a radical review of the circumstances and rates of pay of the small police force which is necessary to be maintained by the Board to ensure adequate marshalling and security cover for the Island’s harbours. A re-allocation of duties has been undertaken with the full agreement o f the members of staff involved, the result has been to divert overtime payments from members of the police force to a newly-created section o f pier keepers. Four new full-time jobs have been created and there will be savings o f several thousand , pounds to the Board. The Board appreciate the high degree o f co-operation and the financial sacrifice which the members of the Board’s police force have made.

Revenue estimates submitted to the Treasury for the year commencing 1st April1986 have been subjected to detailed scrutiny: they provide for no new services and the overall increase in revenue expenditure for the forthcoming year has kept within the inflation forecast provided by the Economics Section of the Treasury.

The programme o f legislation aimed at bringing up to date the Island’s role in merchant shipping is now approaching completion and all major international maritime conventions have been extended to the Isle of Man with the exception of that relating to oil pollution; the necessary Tynwald legislation to effect the provisions o f this convention is now before Legislative Council. The Island is now



on the verge of being a complete maritime nation and is actively encouraging the transfer to the Island of the managements and ownerships of several well-known British shipping companies. This achievement is due, in no small measure, to the active guidance and assistance from both the Attorney-General’s department and the U.K. Department of Transport. The belief of Tynwald that a development of merchant shipping activity in the Isle of Man would be worthwhile has been borne out by the employment, in Douglas, of in the region of 50 persons, all locally-based, and also sea-going opportunities for in the region of 20 locally-based merchant seamen. To achieve the present status the Board was required to recruit an adequate number o f marine surveyors of appropriate skills and now has its full complement of surveyors to cover all the major disciplines associated with marine survey activity. It will be appreciated that, o f those vessels registered in the Island, other than those operating locally, their survey requirements entail travelling to various parts of the world and in this case all costs are met by the shipowner. The cost of employment of shipping surveyors is necessary and as far as is possible the Board endeavour to cover these costs through charges to ship operators. Nevertheless, the benefits to the Island, both in the provision of employment opportunities, contributions made to the Island’s economy by way o f National Insurance contributions, income tax of companies’ employees and payment of VAT on goods and services far out-weigh the cost of the employment of the necessary survey staff.

Tynwald’s policy as administered by the Board in recent years has been largely vindicated by the presence on the Island of at least 2 of the m ajor ship management companies of the world and it is hoped that the present momentum can be maintained to extend this very important facet of the Island’s economic development.

M r. Irving: In moving this, sir, I would inform hon. members that when theH arbour Board approached the Finance Board with their estimates, they were spending £45,000 more than last year. We were asked by the Treasury to reduce by £200,000, so I am happy to say that the Isle of Man H arbour Board’s maximum deficit will be £155,000 less than last year.

Mr. Lowey: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, hon. members, I have just got one or two points to make about the policy statement of the H arbour Board.

In the first instance, I note the Harbour Board are anxious to project the business of the new' tanker berth. However, I think that this hon. Court should take a good look at the facilities for the storage of fuel. It does not seem to me to be a good idea to store all in one place gas, spirit, kerosene and oil — all on a small site, all on an inconvenient site. 1 would not like to see a situation whereby we spent a large amount of money and then became committed to that site. 1 think it would be imprudent to encourage more development than to put more spirit on to the ground created by ther new breakwater.

It would appear that we are going to increase the amount of oil, probably through a new power station through Douglas. It may be that if we close the Peel power



station, we could look at that site and that site may provide an alternative accommodation for spirit or other forms o f fuel, which could be done by either moving that from the present site of the breakwater to Peel or by encouraging alternative oil supplies.

So if we look at the situation, the site that we have at the present moment, is virtually at the end of a cul-de-sac, on one side we have a high cliff edge, on the other we have the harbour, the water o f the harbour, and should there be a disaster, it seems to me it is even doubtful whether we could launch the lifeboat. Along the narrow road we have extended the breakwater and when we have extended the breakwater it would appear to me that we have possibly made ourselves a readymade crucible for an explosion of gas should we get a great leak into the harbour. So 1 would like this hon. Court, before we spend large amounts of capital on th particular berth, to take a good, hard look at our storage facilities.

Now I would like to say one or two words about the problems in Ramsey. I would like to see the report about the problems with Ramsey Harbour projected at a much speedier rate and would like to say that it does seem to me that the individuals, the consultants, appear to be doing the job in a workmanlike manner, and I would like the H arbour Board not to forget that Ramsey H arbour exists and the fact that we have an alternative facility, an insurance policy. Only last week the new boat appeared in the Island and I would assume that the business through Ramsey — whether the Harbour Board have catered for it or not — is no doubt going to expand.

But, then again, if we look at the report and see the costs in Ramsey Harbour, I would just like to point out that it would seem that the Harbour Board have again got it wrong to the tune, if you have a look at, I think, page 3, you will see that the income is £28,830, the payments are £72,940, which leaves a deficit, according to the Harbour Board of £144,000; they are only about £100,000 out — well, that seems to be typical of the H arbour Board towards Ramsey! Thank you, hon. members.

Mr. Bell: Your Excellency, reading through the policy statement of the Harbour Board and particularly the initial stages of it, one can draw quite a frightening scenario, really, following on from what the previous speaker has said especially. The cattle stage area handles the Island’s entire import of petroleum products with the exception of fuel for Peel power station; the adjoining berth handles all liquid petroleum gas used on the Island; Douglas itself handles 100 per cent., or almost 100 per cent., of the Island’s seaborne passengers and 80 per cent, of all goods entering and leaving the Island. Now it is quite a frightening prospect should anything dire happen in the cattle stage area and if a severe explosion of whatever nature should take place it is going to cause very severe disruption to the services in and out of Douglas harbour — there is no question about that.

I think the Harbour Board have done well to identify this problem for us, but what they have not identified as a result of their statement here is what in fact the Harbour Board would do should such a situation ever arise. There is no mention at all in the policy statement of what contingency plans the Harbour Board would



have for the maintenance of the supplies to and from the Island as a result of Douglas harbour having to be closed for any period o f time as a result of an accident in that area. It would seem to me quite logical that, given that Douglas will always be a risk area because of all the trade that goes through it, the Harbour Board should have an alternative port in mind which would be prepared to take, albeit perhaps for a limited period, the essential supplies, especially, which are being brought in at the moment by the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. There is no mention of where they see this alternative port actually existing.

The report then goes on to mention that the viaduct between the Victoria and Edward piers is now causing considerable problems because it has a weight limit of only ten tons, which is deemed to be inadequate for modern-day traffic. Again, I do not think anyone would disagree with that conclusion; the weight o f modern- day traffic is increasing and therefore the Harbour Board quite rightly point out that the viaduct will have to be strengthened to accommodate this. W hat has not been mentioned, of course, in this report is how much the strengthening exercise is going to cost. We are told that it is only going to entail a modest standage in the vicinity o f the viaduct. Now could perhaps the chairman in his reply tell us how much this modest standage is going to cost us?

From Douglas we go on to Peel, and again one cannot follow the logic behind the chairm an’s statement relating to the bridge in Peel. To quote, “ The bridge is a wooden construction and is subject to a maximum weight o f 20 tons. The use of modern high capacity freight vehicles would be inevitable and such vehicles would considerably exceed the present capacity of the bridge and therefore the board has made provision in its capital estimates for the replacement with a concrete structure of a much higher capacity.” This obviously has been included to assist the development of the fishing industry in Peel, to assist the development of jobs in Peel; it is not necessarily strictly a H arbour Board necessity, but again I cannot fault the chairm an’s thinking behind it, it makes common sense to strengthen the facilities surrounding the various ports to enable the increased weight o f traffic to be taken. After all, when most of these harbours were developed, very few people could envisage the weight of traffic which would be travelling over them at this particular time.

Then we come on to Ramsey — or I thought we had come on to Ramsey, but I could not find any reference to Ramsey in the report.

The President of the Council: Where is it?

Mr. Bell: That is what 1 am trying to find! (Laughter) It seems that the logic to strengthening facilities in Douglas to allow for the increased weight of modern traffic, to strengthening facilities in the Peel harbour to allow for the increase in weight o f modern traffic does not extend as far as Ramsey, which is in a similar position, which has a berth which was designed many years ago not allowing for the increase in modern traffic which we have envisaged but, nevertheless, which is vital now for the development of new industry in the Ramsey area. Now I cannot understand for one moment why the chairman has not applied the same logic with



these other ports to the port of Ramsey. We have had over these months quite a battle with the H arbour Board to get them to recognise that there is a problem at all. We now have a survey in the course of preparation which, hopefully, will show one way or the other exactly what the state o f this berth actually is and how much of an improvement is actually required in that area. The maximum weight may well be too low and strengthening will be required, but I ask the hon. chairman, what allowance if any has been made in your estimates for the possible eventuality of this report showing that the strengthening of the Ramsey berth is necessary.

I would point out we have already operating in Ramsey, as the chairman is well aware, a bona fide shipping company which just this week, in fact at this very moment, have a new ship in Ramsey capable of taking 18 containers and is very anxious to develop a container service to and from the town — and to and from the Island, which is more to the point. They have a service which is capable of giving this back-up continuation of supplies should any dire emergency happen in Douglas. We have a shipping company there prepared to continue this service if anything happened to disrupt the existing Steam Packet freight services, which is quite possible given the turmoil that the Steam Packet is in at the moment; we have a town which has the highest rate of unemployment on the Island; we have a harbour side which is quite capable of taking any expansion of a container service for quite a long time to come without any detriment, without any disruption to the traffic flow in that area, unlike its counterpart in Douglas; we have a Treasury which only last week pleaded for Government economies to take place to the extent even of sacking people, to enable the private sector to be encouraged to develop employment on the Isle of Man. Now where is the pursuance of that policy in the H arbour Board’s attitude to Ramsey? By encouraging Mezeron to operate their container service out of Ramsey, by hopefully, as a result of that, encouraging new industry to come into Ramsey, the Harbour Board would simply be carrying out the Treasury’s stated policy that Government departments would be giving all available assistance to the private sector to develop its own industry on the Isle of Man without direct Government involvement. Again, the H arbour Board seems to ignore all this.

As I say, Your Excellency, this development itself has been on the cards for quite some time. Initially the Harbour Board pleaded poverty; it was going to cost £250,000, we were told at that time, and that they could not afford it. The reality of the situation is, of course, that if it is done on a capital scheme, which it could well have been included this time in these estimates as a capital scheme, it would only cost only £30,000 a year. This £30,000 a year would be more than covered by increased harbour dues generated by the activity of Mezeron. In fact, the whole scheme would have been self-financing and possibly the Harbour Board would have been left with a small surplus at the end of the day, and private enterprise would have been stimulated into developing in Ramsey with the consequent beneficial effects on unemployment.

Your Excellency, the people of Ramsey are as angry at the moment as I can ever recall them over any specific issue because of the Harbour Board’s attitude. The Harbour Board have met the general public at a public meeting. They promised that an independent report would take place. Six months later we are still awaiting



the report. From the looks of things it is going to be several weeks yet before we can get any answer. I have still to hear a logical explanation as to why it takes in excess of six months to drill a single bore hole on the quayside of Ramsey. My feeling is, Your Excellency, and the people of Ramsey are quite convinced, that the Harbour Board are deliberately dragging their feet over this issue, that they do not want an early settlement to this problem, they certainly do not want this report published before the estimates are finalised in case there is any pressure put on them to include any sum of money to carry out repairs on Ramsey.

1

My belief is that the Harbour Board’s handling of the Mezeron issue exhibits duplicity and a deviousness that even M argaret Thatcher would be proud of. (Members: Oh!) This is not meant in any lighthearted manner —it is am attervery dear to the hearts of the people of Ramsey. It is one, I would have thought, would have been taken much more seriously by the Harbour Board themselves, and I look beyond the chairman at the moment at the vice-chairman who, in his role as Chairman of the Tourist Board, has pleaded with boards of Tynwald time and time again: ‘Think tourism ’, he says —it does not matter what your particular role is, but if it has any aspect affecting tourism, ‘think tourism ’, do what you can to help us. He is also Vice-Chairman of the Industry Board. I do not hear the same plea going out, ‘think industry’. Even if you do not have a direct industrial input, ‘think industry’. The Harbour Board certainly do not think along those lines, it would appear, as far as Ramsey goes — Douglas and Peel possibly, yes. When it comes to Ramsey again this policy seems to be thrown out of the window.

It is a duty, Your Excellency, at the time of high unemployment such as we have at the moment that every single board does whatever it possibly can to assist in the alleviation of unemployment on this island. The Harbour Board is no exception to that in spite of the fact that it seems to set itself up as a totally independent body, independent o f everything related to good government on this island. It shows no indication of sympathy in this area at all.

Your Excellency, I will not continue on this theme very much longer other than to ask for clarification on the several points that I have raised, to ask if the chairman does not agree with me that his board’s attitude to Ramsey in comparison with the rest of the Island exhibits total inconsistency and bias against the north of the Island, and would the hon. chairman give this hon. Court today and the people o f Ramsey a clear idea now what his board’s policy towards the development of Ramsey in the short term and in the longer term is now likely to be? There is no mention whatsoever of any development policy in his document here and it is an omission which I feel very sad about, but a deliberate omission, I think, on the part of the Harbour Board to continue to wriggle out o f its responsibilities to the north of the Island.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I endorse every word that my colleague for Ramsey has said. I do think that there seems to be in the Harbour Board a sense of inexorable but flawed logic. The logic goes something on the lines that everybody goes to Douglas, therefore everybody wants to go to Douglas, therefore nowhere else matters. The fact is, of course, that that is a circular argument. I can recall it being



used by British Airways, who used to argue that the reason why they ran all the planes to Liverpool was because evrybody wanted to go to Liverpool. The fact that you could not go anywhere else had seemed to escape them! The fact is tha t there is a demand for port facilities in Ramsey and I would have thought that after the last few months, that would have been plain and obvious.

As a result, therefore, when this policy document came out I was looking forward to a statement from the Harbour Board on the subject of the development of Ramsey harbour, both as an alternative port both for safety reasons and, by no means least, because there is actually a demand for its use commercially. I was staggered to find not a single mention — absolutely amazed! I could scarcely believe it! A fter all the trouble, after the requisition meeting that we have had in Ramsey when the blood of the H arbour Board had been scattered on the ceiling by the people of Ramsey^ I have to warn the Chairman of the Harbour Board that the battle is not over yet. Your report will come out in due course and there will be another requisition meeting in Ramsey — that I can assure you, and there will be more blood. (Interruptions)

I am also amazed that the H arbour Board appears to be continuing in this attitude of pig-headed independence of mind. I can recall a year or two ago an extraordinary meeting at the H arbour Board when the then Joint Electricity Authority and the Energy Committee of Tynwald had a meeting with the H arbour Board with a view to discussing the use of the reclaimed land at the Princess Alexandra pier for the urgent needs of the Joint Electricity Authority for oil storage, a fact which the H arbour Board had been totally familiar with for a considerable length o f time. We were informed that a few days earlier the H arbour Board had signed a lease to a private enterprise organisation for oil storage. I can remember the hon. member for Council, Mr. Edward Kerruish, was there at the time when he was nearly speechless with amazement, particularly when he was informed that the H arbour Board felt it had the absolute right to do what it chose with its property irrespective of the needs of any other board of Government or the views of Executive Council or any Select Committee of Tynwald. It was, think, the moment that finally converted that hon. member of Council to the concept o f ministerial Government, when he realised that it was high time that the H arbour Board was brought under control.

This attitude of pig-headed independence seems to be being continued. It does not matter whether there is an economic need to expand Ramsey harbour, whether there is a safety need — ‘We are going to do this and may the devil take everybody else!’ I cannot possibly support your policy statement. I cannot possibly vote for it.

M r. Lowey: Your Excellency, the Court will forgive me if I say, well, I am only delighted this morning there are not three members for Ramsey, because we would have heard a third voice, and I am sure hon. members will forgive me if I say I have heard it all before. Let me remind this hon. Court that the policy o f the Harbour Board was decided by this Court back in 1972, when it accepted the long-term strategy for port development throughout the Isle o f Man by the British Ports, and that is the policy that the board is continuing to press. O f course, it would be very



nice to have alternatives if there was a tragedy in Douglas. O f course, it would be nice to have a ‘belt and braces’ on everything. The Isle of M an is a small nation trying to compete and we have got to put the resources where those resources can maximise those resources to the maximum effect. Can I just say to my hon. friend, Mr. Bell from Ramsey, when he says, is the board treating Ramsey different from say Peel or anywhere else? You are quite right, we do treat Ramsey different from anywhere else. We treat them in a better way than anywhere else. (Interruption and laughter) Well, just you start looking at the facts — a total ignoring of the financial facts. The deficiency in Ramsey in the coming year will be in excess of £170,000, and if I can tell him what was done last year in Ramsey, the Talk o f the Town site was done at the expense o f other maintenance work in the rest o f the ports of the Isle of Man. That is what has been happening. Two years before that, the swing bridge. I never heard anybody in Ramsey saying ‘Do not do the swing bridge’. It was ‘Get it done as quickly as you can’. Now I repeat that...

M r. Cain: Your Excellency, on a point of clarification, could the hon. member for Council explain where he gets his figure of the deficit of £170,000 when apparently the figure given in the Harbour Board’s report is only £44,000?

Mr. Lowey: Can I just say... I am sure my chairm an will give him the facts o f the matter.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, it has already been pointed out that £144,000 isa deliberate typographical error by the H arbour Board to deceive members!

M r. Irving: Oh, rubbish! (Laughter)

M r. Lowey: If I may, Your Excellency, now come to the Island fuel depot, Ithink the genuine concern of many of us, and it has certainly been my concern, is that we should have a displacement of sites; there is a strategic danger in having all the oil and gas in one area. I accept that. Again we are back to economy of scale. It is only in recent years, Your Excellency — and hon. members in this Court will recall — that we had to order the gas ships from lying in the inner harbour to the outer harbour because they were grounding and under international law that is not permitted. Now again why has the board got a priority for the cattle stage development? The reality of that is that the size of shipping which the board has no control over is changing. The smaller ships are going out of commission. If I may revert back to my good friends from Ramsey who say that Ramsey should be an alternative port — they are very good friends of mine! — I would remind them there has been no shipping service operating from Ramsey for the last few months because of an unfortunate accident...

Members: Rubbish!

Mr. Morrey: What about the Laxey River?

Mr. Lowey: Can I just say that the alternative shipping line which was being voiced by my hon. friends from Ramsey has not been operating because of an un-



fortunate accident. I regret that like everybody else in the Isle of Man regrets, but it happens to be a fact.

Now coming to the fuel depot —

Mr. Morrey: Your Excellency, the service has continued ever since the Sulby River went aground. They have put in extra time on the Laxey River and the service has not suffered at all. In fact, we have got the new ship now and it will continue.

Mr. Lowey: Well, you have got the new ship. Let me just say that the alternative port for the Isle of Man, Ramsey, has one m ajor disadvantage as I told the people of Ramsey when I was there. (Interruption and laughter) When I went to the meeting at Ramsey — which I enjoyed, which was not a blood-letting exercise at all, but a vigorous meeting, red-blooded but no blood spilt; let me just say that I will go to Ramsey any time and speak to the people o f Ramsey — one o f the major disadvantages of Ramsey which cannot be denied is that it does not have deep water. Now it is all fine and good talking in what I would call irresponsible financial terms— and this is what we are talking about when we are talking about spending more, ‘only a quarter of a million here’ and ‘a quarter of a million there’ — let me say quite clearly, if I have a quarter of a million pounds as a member o f the Isle of Man Harbour Board, I have to spend that in a list of priorities, and I have to say to this Court, on the advice that I have got, that Ramsey is not the number one priority for the first quarter of a million pounds spending on harbour works.

A. Member: Shame!

Mr. Lowey: It may very well be ‘shame’, but that is the actual facts o f the matter. I am here and in this Court you had better stop worrying about local issues and look at national issues. You are here to look after the national interests.

Now bearing that in mind, I think it has got to be said, and I am saying it loud and clear, Your Excellency, I believe that the H arbour Board have a policy for the remainder of this century, the only board to have done so. It would be very nice to have a marina and a commercial port and — you name it — all in the South, in the West and in Douglas. What we have to do is develop what we have got to the best o f our resources. Those resources are limited. The harbours have had a century of wear and tear, they are needing more and more maintenance on them and I believe myself that when we come to disseminate resources, it has got to be done without what I would call pressure from local interests in the national interests. I believe the Harbour Board estimates are reasonable, fair and right for the Isle of Man.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I think that the H arbour Board, when they are looking forward for their priorities, ought to go back a little and try and learn did they miss something. Their priorities, as far as I am concerned, have flowed up and down from year to year and they are not constant, and it is something that I am not very happy about. I would like to deal with the oil berth — or shall we call it a cattle berth which has been adopted as an oil berth? — which does not

Harbour Board — Policy and Expenditure Implications N o ted .


sound to me to be very stable. 1 believe it is capable of being knocked down by any rowing boat that gets knocked into it at the moment.

Now when the eleven or twelve million pounds was spent on the Princess Alexandra pier, can the chairman advise me, please, why did not the Harbour Board then finish the pier off correctly by removing an old cattle stage and making it into a modern oil berth, which would have been the logical thing for me to do, anyway, if I had been on that board, when they had a big firm there and when the price would have been very small indeed on the total charge of the pier?


Mr. Irving: Thank you, Your Excellency. I think it is a very sad sight indeed when three candidates for seats in the House of Keys (Laughter) have to use the Harbour Board as a whipping boy to mask their lack of success personally in achieving anything for a constituency they wish to represent or in fact now do represent! (Laughter)

I am always grateful to the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Morrey. In fact, we received so much advice from him on the Harbour Board that I really think he should be taken on the strength and paid for it! (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: Where are you getting the money from?

Mr. Irving: The only thing is that so much o f the advice, unfortunately, hasto be rejected. (Laughter) Now the hon. member is concerned today, it is the oil storage and so on at the breakwater. Now, sir, this is a new one for my hon. colleague. He is quite right: it is a dangerous situation, it is unfortunately a bad sight and it is unfortunate that they are all grouped together, this question of storing fuel within such close range of Douglas. But I honestly believe that we are stuck with this site; we are committed to using it. We do try to protect it as best we can and there has been a very large storage tank of water put near the breakwater. There are two big pumps capable of producing an enormous amount of water at the breakwater, one electric pump and one standby pump, a diesel. Now even so, if there is an unfortunate accident there in terms of a fire and so on, I should think the most we can hope for is to try and contain it. It is a very serious situation indeed and it is a situation which is not helped by old fashioned-methods of discharging fuel oils at the breakwater. I keep saying there is an enormous risk in the way these fuel oils are discharged at the breakwater and of course there is a risk, indeed, in having a wooden jetty for a petrol tanker to discharge petroleum over. I mean, this really is madness and must be a number one priority of the H arbour Board jn terms of safety alone.

Now the hon. member says, with a chorus of other gentlemen, we forget that Ramsey harbour exists. How can we forget that Ramsey harbour exists when 13 per cent, of the expenditure of the board is in Ramsey harbour and Ramsey harbour produces three per cent, of the income? Thirteen per cent, of the board’s money goes on Ramsey harbour, and if we look — (Interruption) You have had your go,



sir! (Laughter) If we look at page 3 of the policy statement we see here — and I apologise for the absence of £100,000 in the statement — that the deficit on Ramsey harbour is £144,000, and then the hon. members say the board is not interested in Ramsey and neglects the harbour — £144,000!

If I may move from the hon. member for Ayre, but thanking him for his advice...

The Acting Speaker: Your Excellency, can we have a clarification on those figures, sir, because they do not tally on here?

The Governor: Yes. Would you like to indicate the error?

Mr. Irving: The answer sir, is that a ‘ 1 ’ has been left out in the column payments and that is why the figures do not tally. But if hon. members would be kind enough to insert the figure ‘1’ before ‘72940’, then the figures do tally, sir.

The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, starts by saying, there is nothing about Ramsey in the report. He is quite right; there is nothing about Ramsey except illustrating the amount of money that is spent on Ramsey which is a great deal more than is spent on the other ports apart from Douglas. There is nothing in the report about the question of the east quay in Ramsey. That is a matter on which the H arbour Board decided they would get independent advice. Now I am as upset as the hon. member is that it has taken six months or will take six months. The Harbour Board are not dragging their feet, we would very much like to hear from these consultants what their opinion is of this berth in Ramsey. Recently the secretary of the board — and we dislike chasing these people in case we are accused later of doing the wrong thing — the secretary of the board has been told they hope the report will be in our hands at the end of January, so I am hoping we will have this report in the next few days. I would assure the hon. member sincerely that we on the H arbour Board want the report as much as. anybody else and it is quite wrong to say that we are dragging our feet.

The hon. member asked about our priorities. He is aware from the policy statement that our first priority must obviously be the tanker berth at the breakwater. An hon. member asked, why was this not done when the new breakwater, the Princess Alexandra pier, was constructed? I do not know, I was not a member of the Harbour Board at the time. I wish it had been done, but the board may have had good reasons — I do not know.

To talk about priorities, the tanker berth is obviously, as I say, the first priority. Another question we must consider is the viaduct between the two piers in Douglas with its limit o f ten tons. Now hon. members may have seen the traffic held up at Peveril Square there when these trailers are now reversed on to the ro-ro vessel. This means that I have seen on one occasion 41 vehicles across Peveril Square and up the Loch Promenade held up while people are reversing these trailers onto the linkspan by the Victoria pier. Now this could be avoided by strenghthening part of the viaduct. We find that strengthening part of the viaduct there to allow this allow this flow of traffic and to prevent a certain am ount of danger which exists


TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986 ' T927

when this goes on would cost in the region of £100,000, £110,000. On approaching the Treasury about this, it has been suggested to us that instead of just strengthening the viaduct, the area between the viaduct and the Steam Packet offices — the beach area there — should be filled in. Now that would cost, I believe, £448,000. That to us is a second priority. The third priority would be the strengthening of the bridge and pier.

Now, sir, the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, talks about what allowance in the estimates for the east quay? There is no allowance \yhatsoever in our capital estimates for work on the east quay and there will not be until we receive a report from these consultant engineers on the necessity or otherwise to re-construct this berth. The hon. member talks about the harbour being ... He wants it; it is capable, he says, of taking an extension of cargo traffic. It is to an extent, if the berth is re-constructed. But you see, when these hon. members from the north of the Island talk about the enormous effect on industry in the north of the Island, if they can bring containers in to the port of Ramsey, containers now, of course, are a fairly old-fashioned method of moving goods. The modern method is a container with wheels — a trailer. These containers, which Mezeron, a splendid little shipping company, want to bring into Ramsey, would be brought into Ramsey and practically every one would be dragged over the roads of the Isle of Man to Douglas Head or Spring Valley. Now is this helping industry in the north of the Island? I doubt it very much.

This is once again just an excuse by the hon. northern members of the Island for not having any success in boosting the economy in that part of the world, reaping the harvest. Blame the House!

Members: Go on with you!

M r. Cain: A demonstration of Harbour Board logic again!

Mr.. Irving: I did not catch what the hon. member said. Anyway, the hon.member for Ramsey, M r.Cain says the Harbour Board he talks about the Harbour Board and a meeting over the use of land at the breakwater. I know nothing at all about this meeting, it was before my time, but the hon. member said he cannot support the policy statement. He is not really asked to support it, Your Excellency, he is only to note it. It does not necessarily mean that it has his approval. I am sure, until the general election is over, that nothing the H arbour Board does will meet with the approval of the two hon. members for Ramsey or the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Morrey, but I would assure other members of the Court that the H arbour Board is extremely interested in the prosperity of the port at Ramsey and within our limited resources we, anyway, will do our stuff in that direction.

M r. Bell: Your Excellency, just on two points of clarification, pleaseI did ask — in his speech I do not think he replied — what the cost of strengthening the bridge in Peel would be. And secondly, the hon. chairman has said that no allowance will be made in the board’s capital estimates for the strengthening of the east quay berth prior to the report being published by the surveyors. Could the



hon. chairman say, then, if and when the report is actually published, if the report actually proves that strengthening is required for the east quay to make it viable, will the H arbour Board make application to this hon. Court for a supplementary vote to see that this work is carried out in this financial year?

Mr. Irving: In reply to the first question raised by the hon. member the cost of strengthening the wooden bridge in Peel would be in the region of... well, £200,000 was the figure put forward in the past. In relation to the second question, if the report shows that the east quay needs strengthening the H arbour Board will give this the most sincere consideration. I am not in a position to promise anything at the moment; we have to look at this in relation to our other priorities. So, I am sorry, I cannot promise the hon. member in this connection.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will now put the motion standing in the nameof the Chairman of the Isle of Man Harbour Board. Will those in favour say aye; those against say no.

A division was called fo r and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys—

For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Mrs. Christian, Messrs. J .H . Kneale, Maddrell, Payne, Karran, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Duggan, Cretney, M artin, Irving, Dr. Moore, and the Acting Speaker — 18

Against: Messrs. Morrey, Delaney, Cain, Bell — 4

The Acting Speaker: Your Excellency, the resolution carries in the House of Keys, 18 votes being cast in favour and four votes against.

In the Council—

For: The Lord Bishop, Mr. Lowey, Dr. M ann, M r. Radcliffe, Mrs. Hanson, Mr. Callin and the President o f the Council — 7

Against: Nil.

The Governor: Hon. members, in the Council seven votes in favour, none against; the resolution carries.

PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IMPLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: Item 2 2 ,1 call upon the Chairman of the Isle of M an PassengerTransport Board.

Passenger Transport Board — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


M r. Bell: 1 beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Isle o f Man Passenger Transport Board.


Since the policy statement of the Passenger Transport Board was presented this time last year, a major change of board members has taken place. However, the present board has generally continued to follow the basis of that policy, as substantial changes cannot be made within the financial constraints placed upon it, without creating considerable problems which would impair the service offered to the public.

As previously stated, the board’s policy has been and will continue to be to operate an efficient service to the public, both resident and visiting, at the most economic cost in fares and operational costs, to ensure that the maximum number of passengers are carried by all sections of the organisation.

To this end, the board has introduced a half-fare scheme on the buses for unemployed persons and for those employed under the Youth Vocational Experience Programme. The board has also agreed, in co-operation with the Board of Social Security, to provide concessionary travel for those people permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity.

The old fleet has been mostly replaced with second-hand vehicles of a standard pattern and so the average age has been reduced. However it must be realised that our ability to obtain good vehicles is mainly due to the effects of deregulation of the U.K. bus services. This situation may not last indefinitely and some day money will be required to purchase new vehicles.

The fare structure has been rationalised into 5p fare stages and increases allowed by the Road Traffic Commissioners when implemented are rounded up or down to the nearest 5p when fares are reviewed.

Services on the major routes in the opinion of the board have good coverage and the basic timetable is supplemented in the holiday season as demand requires with duplicates, wherever resources allow.

The Railways are essentially a tourist attraction and it is the board’s hope that successful marketing will eventually ensure that every visitor will have travelled on the services whilst staying on the Island.

As a result of the exceptionally bad weather and the consequent drop in tourist arrivals, 1985 has been a disappointing year with an average overall decrease against 1984, of some 6% of the board’s operations, although the Steam Railway showed an increase of 1 %.



The Board’s policy is to increase the number of passengers carried compared with the number of visitors to the Island and since 1978 the figure has risen around 30% to over 50% in 1985. It is hoped that this figure can be maintained or even improved as the bulk of our trade is dependent on visitor arrivals. With this in mind promotional events such as organised vintage transport weekends are all aimed to ensure the policy is successful.

The Board believes there is considerable scope to improve local awareness and use of the Railways, a potential 60,000 customers, very few o f whom use either system. To achieve this, a video of the Railways has been commissioned and is now being shown within the Island to interested groups and organisations. It is also being promoted jointly with the Tourist Board and will be shown on the Isle of Man Steam Packet boats as well as at their promotional events o ff the Island. A second video will be completed this year, aimed at the railway enthusiasts, which will be for sale, so that eventually the whole exercise will be self financing.

Although severely limited by financial restrictions itself the board has nevertheless been able to negotiate with private enterprise to obtain improvements in cafe facilities at Port Erin Station, a new station building at Ballasalla and a new tea-room and waiting room at Dhoon Glen, all achieved at no cost to the board. This policy will continue should suitable opportunities arise.

The Board is strongly of the opinion that the importance of the unique railway systems as a vital part of the Manx tourist industry will continue to grow in the years ahead, with theincreasing awareness of our heritage, and the policy o f the board will be to exploit and develop that importance for the benefit of the Island.

The financial restraints forced upon Government have been heeded by the Board and all endeavours have been and will continue to be made to operate an economic organisation, trying wherever possible to reduce unnecessary overheads and wastage. In the 1986-87 year the Board does not have any capital schemes proposed and the Revenue expenditure is within the recommendations of the Treasury requirements.

There has been no increase in staffing levels and only essential replacements have been employed. In general the Board can see no immediate changes in policy regarding staff except to ensure that there are no unnecessary reductions unless by natural wastage and wherever possible the policy of employing young persons and training them to fill vacancies will continue, giving a nucleus of trained staff which can be used to fill vacancies in any future management structure.

The Board wish to acknowledge with thanks the work carried out by management and staff to improve the efficiency and the service given by the organisation and wish to pay tribute to the efforts of both management and staff representatives in maintaining a good working unit employing up to 300 people, whilst giving the public an effective and courteous service irrespective of the difficulties resulting from financial limitations.

The Governor: Is that agreed?



It was agreed.

BOARD OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: Item 23, The Board of Consumer Affairs. I call on the C hairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs, to move. j

Mrs. Hanson: Your Excellency, I beg to move —

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Board o f Consumer Affairs.

The Board’s Annual Report on work carried out during 1984 has recently been published and this provides a clear indication of the type of work undertaken by the Board within the functions specified in the Board of Consumer Affairs Act 1981. The main objectives of the Board are to protect, advise, support, and represent generally the interests of members o f the public in the Island. Whilst individual topics are given varying priority from time to time, the Board’s main aim has been to establish broad policy objectives. Many people still question whether there is a need for consumer protection and in the simple transactions of the market place no doubt the consumer is his own best guide. When he buys a pound of tomatoes he has only himself to blame if they are unripe, however, with an enormous variety of goods now available for purchase, many of them pre-packed or mechanical, deficiencies are inevitably hidden and far greater consumer protection is called for. In the complex field of consumer services also, such things as repairers, dry cleaners, garages, insurance companies require legal rules to redress the natural imbalance between the individual and businesses.

Convinced as we are of the need and value of legislating for improvements in the law, we have to admit that you cannot legislate to cover all eventualities. No legislation is going to change us overnight into a nation of knowledgeable, prudent and discriminating shoppers. An even greater emphasis will therefore be placed on consumer information and education, to produce a better informed consumer who is therefore better able to protect himself. It is particularly im portant in today’s economic climate that we make increased efforts to ensure that consumers can get full value from their spending as this can contribute as much to the well being of most families as can equivalent efforts to raise their incomes.

The nett expenditure of the Board of Consumer A ffairs in the 1986/87 year is estimated at £183,760. This is $n increase of £5,795., over the previous year with virtually all o f this increase being accounted for by expenditure on salaries. More than two thirds of the Boards expenditure is used to pay salaries and wages, with the remainder allocated to day-to-day running costs and the purchase of equipment. I should also point out that whilst the amount requested is an increase over 1985/86, it is £7,420 less than in 1984/85. It is worth bearing in mind as I have said on previous

Board of Consumer Affairs — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


occasions that the Board of Consumer Affairs accounts for only 0.2% of this years total Government expenditure, and in this context certainly provides a good service at a minimal cost.

H alf o f the Board’s total expenditure is allocated to the Government Analyst’s Laboratory where various types of analysis are carried out for Government departments and private firms. During the past year the number of samples analysed by the Laboratory has risen from 34,000 to almost 42,000. This increase has placed a severe strain on laboratory staffing resources, which in turn has meant that a number o f schemes requiring analysis have had to be refused. It is however, important in the interests of efficiency and cost effectiveness that all analysis work, particularly for government should be carried out in the one place by competent staff. The Civil Service Commission have agreed to undertake a review of the staffing establishment at the laboratory, and it is hoped this will lead to improvements and enable the laboratory to function more effectively. I would also request that any government department considering new schemes which require analysis work discuss their proposals with the Government Analyst to ensure their needs can be catered for. Various problems may arise if schemes are agreed and proceeded with without any thought being given to their effect on the laboratory.

A detailed description of the type of work carried out at the laboratory is contained in the Board’s annual report. During the coming year it is anticipated that the numbers o f drug samples submitted for analysis will continue to rise, particularly if police activity in this area develops along the lines recommended in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Further work is anticipated following the commencement of the Road Traffic Act which determines a set level of blood alcohol to establish whether a driver is impaired. The services of a doctor will no longer be required to certify a person as unfit to drive, and as a consequence the number of blood or urine samples taken from suspects is expected to increase.

The Board’s Trading Standards Department is the enforcement agency for legislation such as the Weights and Measures Acts, Trade Descriptions Acts, Consumer Safety Act and various others. Regular visits are made to business premises to inspect a wide range of weighing and measuring equipment used for trade purposes, as well as checks on various commodities. The importance of ensuring a fair system of weights and measures is a long established principle necessary to ensure honesty in trading. A system of regular inspections provides re-assurance to both traders and consumers alike.

In addition to a schedule of regular inspections the departm ent deals with individual complaints from aggrieved consumers. This personal service offered by the Board to both individuals and companies remains a high priority, and whilst the service takes up a considerable proportion of staff time the Board consider it is important that consumers should know their law and have the benefit of informed assistance to resolve disputes. It is inevitable that disputes will arise and it becomes therefore increasingly important that a source is available to which individuals can turn for assistance. Dealing with individual complaints imposes a great strain on resources and must lead in turn to a review of the way in which such complaints



are handled. There are no definite plans at present to alter existing facilities, however, this is an area which will be considered during the coming year.

The increasing awareness of individuals rights developed by both national and local media coverage is reflected in the increasing number of consumer complaints dealt with by the Board. During the year just ended a total of 872 complaints were formally lodged and investigated compared with 768 in the previous year. In addition to this there were numerous enquiries for advice and assistance. The type of complaint dealt with varies widely yet continues to be related to the established pattern of faulty goods, dissatisfaction with services, contract disputes, unsolicited goods, warranties etc. There has been no evidence of increases in any particular area and the general upward trend is attributed to both increased awareness and the relative decline in individual disposable income which has tended to concentrate consumer expenditure on the cheaper and mostly lower quality goods and services.

The work of the Trading Standards Department during 1986 is expected to continue on much the same lines as in previous years.

Whilst the Board’s functions are set down in the Board of Consumer Affairs Act 1981, the interpretation and formulation of a policy based on these functions is inevitably dictated by developments within the Island. As a general rule the Board have developed these functions in two ways. Firstly, efforts have been directed towards the individual in relation to the provision of advice, information, assistance and education. This is obviously the most effective method of providing a consumer protection service which will show tangible benefits to individual members o f the public. The better informed a consumer is the better able he is to protect himself, and hopefully able to avoid the possible area of difficulty which may lead him to seek the assistance of the Board’s staff. The Board issue monthly consumer news bulletins and individual papers on particularly relevant subjects. Talks are also given to local organisations which are found to be particularly useful. During the past year the Board have issued a consumers rights booklet based on consumer legislation applicable to the Isle of Man. This booklet is available free of charge and has generated favourable comment.

The Board also distributes various leaflets and posters which have now been supplemented by a consumer education pack designed for use in schools. This pack is made available to schools who may find some of the topics covered useful for inclusion in existing subjects. The principle of providing consumer education at an early stage is accepted as being beneficial, and the subjects covered can range from the m undane money management to complex areas of contract law. As future consumers and perhaps businessmen or shopkeepers it can only be beneficial to provide an understanding of consumer matters at an early stage. While every effort is made to advise individuals by the provision of information disputes will inevitably occur. The Board strive to provide a means of resolving such problems, mainly by conciliation and find that local traders are extremely helpful in this respect. Whilst the majority of complaints are resolved amicably there are many which can only be resolved by recourse to litigation. To avoid complex court proceedings involving considerable expense the Board have for some years sought the introduction o f a



Small Claims Arbitration system which would provide an informal and inexpensive system of settling disputes. The introduction of a Small Claims Arbitration procedure during 1985 was therefore welcomed, hpwever, there remains scope for improvement in its operation. The Board hope to press for improvement such as easier access, simplification of procedures and inform ation on how the system operates during the coming year.

The system of handling consumer complaints also provides the Board with useful inform ation on areas which give rise to complaints. Analysis of the complaints received will identify areas in which action is required. The Board are reluctant to resort to legislation to control trading activities and have in the past, and will continue in the future, to reach agreement with the traders concerned. The agreement to Codes of Practice and the promotion of trade organisations gives a simpler, more effective and flexible method in place of cumbersome legislation. The Board will continue this policy and only resort to legislation where no alternative exists.

The second thrust of Board policy is towards the more general area of trading practices, prices and topics of general concern. It is always easy to criticise the high price of a commodity in the Isle of Man when compared to its equivalent in the United Kingdom, however, it is more difficult to actually achieve lower prices. In an Island economy with a relatively small population it is inevitable that a small market cannot generate the scale of trade to justify widespread cut-price competition and lower prices. The continuing comparison with metropolitan areas of the U.K. will inevitably show the Isle of Man to have higher prices for most retail goods. There are only two alternatives possible to achieve lower prices and these are price control or competition. The Board are firmly convinced that the best method of ensuring lower prices is the prom otion of fair competition within a free market economy. Because of the Island’s size it is virtually inevitable that monopoly, or near monopoly situations will arise in the provision of certain goods and services. Where such areas are identified the Board will closely monitor matters such as price, availability and standards of performance. Wholesale legislation in this area is considered unworkable and the Board will continue to bring pressure for change when necessary initially by persuasion and publicity whilst retaining the option of seeking legislative controls.

By the analysis of individual complaints certain commodities can be identified as presenting particular problems. One of these undoubtedly is in relation to energy costs for items such as coal, electricity, gas, petrol and other fuels. The Board consider that the only possible method of dealing with this problem is the implementation of an overall Government policy in relation to energy. Various views have been put to the Tynwald Select Committee on Energy and their next report is awaited with interest. It may indeed now be time, particularly in the light of Government reorganisation to allocate responsibility for energy policy to a permanent department which could co-ordinate matters such as cost, development, planning and conservation.

It is always difficult to determine which areas will be under consideration as a matter o f policy during the coming year as inevitably these matters are affected



by circumstances. I can assure members however, that where a particular problem is identified the Board will endeavour to obtain the best deal for consumers.

There are still some people who question the need for Government to be involved in consumer affairs, and are reluctant to support controls wherever necessary. It should be remembered that Government being by nature the highest spokesman for all the people has a special obligation to be alerted to the consumer needs, and to advance consumer interests. It is particularly im portant in today’s economic climate that we make increased efforts to ensure that consumers can get full value from their spending as this can contribute to the well-being o f most families than equivalent efforts to raise their income. Natural development alone will ensure that consumer policy has a vital and important function in developing a healthy and prosperous economy. The Island is a consumer society and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. I have already mentioned that the Island is considered too small to be an economic unit in the supply o f most commodities, therefore, it is increasingly important that a consumer protection policy is supported to ensure not only that the individual is getting a fair deal but also that the economy in general can be stimulated.

Mr. Duggan: I beg to second.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, I gather the Board of Consumer Affairs canbe called in to give an opinion on bad workmanship, and if that work has been badly done I find, and I think the chairman will agree and I want to know, please, whether they can give out a prosecution, whether they can get a lawyer to go and prosecute in a court. Now, what I want to know from the chairman please, is, is it because the Act is not strong enough to allow the Consumer Affairs to go into court and prosecute for bad work or is it because of the priorities on the spending of the Consumer Affairs that they do not have money or a budget to be able to do this, please?

Mr. Cretney: Your Excellency, I want to what I consider an important request to make of the hon. Chairman of the Consumer Affairs Board, and that is (1) will she please as a matter of priority reintroduce the shopping basket surveys that were formerly carried out by her board? Was the Treasury Economics Section presently and have been in the past doing a far wider cost o f living comparison including such matters as building costs and so on? I found that the Manx housewife found it much more easy to identify and relate with the shopping basket survey. And secondly, as a Consumer Affairs Board, does she consider it as correct that when subsidised Manx lamb is exported to the United Kingdom and handling charges made, that the Manx taxpayer should pay this cost? At the moment we are paying to export our subsidised meat to the adjacent island to be sold cheaper there.

On the same subject I contacted the Economics Section of the Treasury with regard to the price o f lamb, both Manx and New Zealand, and of course with the present restriction on the im portation of the New Zealand product, no price at retail is available, so I question how that department can perform a cost of living comparison when they do not have the full facts. From your board, chairman, I managed to



get the wholesale price and at wholesale price the price differential is 60 pence per kilo dearer for fresh Manx lamb. I understand that there is frozen Manx lamb available at a similar price to New Zealand, but is the chairman aware how available this product is? I am positive it is not at present widely available and 1 feel it should be. Would the hon. chairman agree to look into these anomalies for me, particularly with regard to the Manx taxpayer paying to export their subsidised meat?

One further point, Your Excellency: I understand there is a power to control prices for the benefit of the consumer in the Control of the Economy Act. Has the board considered at any time using this legislation and will the board consider this course of action if it is considered necessary in the future?

Mr. Delaney: I am off meat at the moment, sir, so I am not going to talk about the meat situation, but 1 will just take the opportunity of thanking the chairman and her staff, particularly, for the quick responses they give — and I am sure I speak on behalf of many members — to problems that come up. But, Your Excellency, I am concerned; on many occasions in the past, as the chairman is aware, I have raised the subject o f on-the-spot increases in consumer products and some products — which it is not nice to talk about — which do affect the standard of living of certain people. We have had the bread enquiry and it would be sub judice, I think, to talk about that but I am interested in the increases, and would the chairman indicate what has been the total increases imposed on a pint of bitter in the Isle of Man and one tot of whisky on our own measure in the last thirteen months, and what have been the reasons given, not the reasons with the shipping but the real reasons given and the justification for such increases? And the last point, Your Excellency, which I would like to clarify. Have you any indication this month of what legislation you would require in this last six or seven months of this Government to strengthen your departm ent’s concern and your responsibilities to the consumers o f the Island?

Mr. Walker: Your Excellency, I was interested by the question asked by the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell, and I would just like the hon. Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs to make it clear to us if she can, even if it were possible — and-1 hope it is not — that is the course of action which Mr. Maddrell suggests — how would the board determine which prosecutions her board would actually take and which ones would be left for the complainant to take himself?

Mr. Radcliffe: Your Excellency, rather briefly I would just make a point — I am sure the hon. Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs would agree with me — that as far as the lamb exported off the Island, the producers are the ones who stand the cost o f shipping there, certainly not Government as such, but I would like to confine my remarks, really, to the question of metrication.

We all know that some years ago the Consumer Council, as it was then, set off in a blaze of glory on the road to metrication hand in hand with the United Kingdom, we are told, but somewhere shortly after they started the road took an awkward turn and it seems that after insisting that certain commodities should go totally metric the exercise then faded out. But the Isle of Man, Your Excellency, had such impetus on it that it could not stop, and in a state of metric euphoria managed to persuade



this hon. Court that the humble potato should be sold to the consumer by metric weight and this was, we were told at the time, the first step on the road for all fruit and vegetables to be sold by metric weight. The United Kingdom certainly has not gone so far and I do not think will go so far, and we are now have the position where everything in the greengrocery trade is sold by imperial weights in the United Kingdom and in the Isle of Man everything bar potatoes is sold in imperial weight. The retailers, 1 understand, have been told that they should have two sets of scales— one for the humble potato to be weighed in metric weight and the other to weigh in imperial weight for the normal vegetables and fruit of-all sorts. In the United Kingdom, and indeed in the Isle of M an, potatoes are being sold by the pound and I wonder whether the board is following this particular one up. The bags to put the potatoes in have to be specially printed for the Isle of Man and I would tell her from experience that trying to get two-and-a-half kilos of potatoes in a 5 lb. bag — a bag which is made to hold 51b — (Laughter and Interruption) the bag was made for the manufacturer to hold 5 lbs of potatoes because it comes to the Isle of M an, a special printing job has to be done to get five-and-a-half pounds in the bag and it creates all sorts o f problems. I would say, Your Excellency, that it is a silly regulation which we have here and I have not seen anything in the Consumer Board’s policy statement to say that they are doing away with this silly anomaly and rescind the regulations which cover this particular commodity.

Mr. Cain: Your Excellency, I fear that we are tending to get a bit bogged down in detail, which is not at all the object of this particular exercise. (Interruption and laughter)

Mr. Cain: I am happy to tell members that this is one board where the hon.member for West Douglas and I co-exist very happily!

Mr. Delaney: I hope you will be happy together! (Laughter)

Mrs. Hanson: When we see you.

Mr. Cain: But I do think I want to make one or two general points, and thefirst one is that the Board of Consumer Affairs is not a Monopolies Commission; perhaps it ought to be, but it has not got any powers to investigate that sort of thing and therefore members should bear that in mind when querying and questioning the board’s activities.

The second thing one has to remember is that the duty of the board is to inform and protect consumers; sometimes, in fact usually, the most effective way of doing this is by promoting competition, and therefore to suggest there are certain instances in which the board should step in and actually control prices is totally contrary to what is normally in the best interests of consumers. The inform ation is important to enable consumers to exercise their freedom o f choice and thereby enhance competition.

The third point that I want to make is the reason why the board does not get itself involved in a number of statistical matters is because it has no statistician;



now it does not have a statistical department and if it is seriously suggested that the board should get involved in that, that would I think be directly contrary to the policy that we have been hearing recently over trying to curtail the expansion of the Civil Service and the officers and there is no need for it since the Treasury provides this service quite adequately. Thank you.


Mrs. Hanson: Thank you, Your Excellency. If I may take M r. Maddrell’s point— before I begin I would like to thank a former member of the Board of Consumer Affairs for seconding the motion this morning. My Vice-Chairman did not appear to be here.

Dr. Mann: He is doing a transplant! (Laughter)

Mrs. Hanson: Before I enter into... Perhaps I ought to say this too for those members who did not hear the nine o ’clock news this morning — I hoped that it would have been on the eight o ’clock news but apparently the news item, the Press release was mislaid and it was only after I rang the Manx Radio this morning that it was put out on the nine o ’clock news, so I think I had better read this to you as a matter of interest to all people in this hon. Court: “ Followingnegotiations with the major oil companies, the Board o f Consumer Affairs are pleased to announce the price of domestic oil is to be further reduced by, in the case of 20 second oil0.4 pence per litre, in the case of 35 second oil 0.9 pence per litre. This is a further fall following the twopence a litre drop of last week and will take effect from the opening for business,” — this morning 28th January, Tuesday, today, on opening business today.

The President of the Council: How much a gallon is that, please?

Mrs. Hanson: :Well, if you could work it out, I think a litre — (Laughter)

Mr. Delaney: Go metric!

Mrs. Hanson: A litre is 4.55 litres to a gallon so I am sure, while I am giving the reply, the hon. President of the Council will be able to do that sum for me! Thank you very much.

Now if I may deal with Mr. Maddrell and Mr. Walker together because I know it is the same problem, it is the same point, and I know that Mr. Maddrell has a very awkward constituency problem which my board have been trying to solve for the past eight or nine months. I would like to point out that the Trade Description Act does not cover building works and, in any case, my board has not the finance to pay for legal advice, free legal advice or to provide legal advice for a prosecution; it is up to the person to take a civil action. W hat we can do is to give advice. If we get expert advice the person is expected to pay apart from the advice from my board, and if there is a problem it is a civil action and that person has to take the civil action themselves. It is very regrettable; I know you have a constituent which



has a very pressing problem that just cannot be solved under the present legislation. That is all I could say at this point in time.

M r. Cretney has mentioned the shopping basket. M r. Cretney, I did say at the last Tynwald that the shopping basket was discontinued, I have found out, before my time as chairman because it was reckoned to be an embarrassment fo Whitley Council.

M r. Delaney: An embarrassment? i

Mrs. Hanson: An embarrassment to Whitley Council. That is correct, that is absolutely correct. I did say, but unfortunately you were not here, I do not think, last month — that is correct. My board have discussed this again and we think there is a lot of value in it but the problem is this: in the last shopping basket, which I personally was involved in before I became a member of Tynwald, it was done by the W omen’s Institute on a voluntary capacity. Now if we have the shopping basket now, who is going to do it? This is our problem; is there a voluntary organisation which is prepared to come forward to provide this service? If there is we would welcome it — that is the only thing I can suggest.

Now as regards the meat question, as you know, carcasses are exported — I am talking about lamb now because you mentioned lamb — carcasses are exported that are left after 350 to 400 carcasses weekly are demanded by our butchers and therefore— this is the information that I have obtained — the lower quality, which means overfat or overlean carcasses, predominate which are called ‘Q3s’ — the lowest grade. These are bottom of the price range and are further downgraded in the United Kingdom as they are treated as imported meat rather than of English origin, and price range would vary from 140 pence to 160 pence per kilo wholesale. Now prices of the New Zealand lamb which you did mention in the United Kingdom — the 1985 price is not yet available, the 1984 price as sold in an average wholesale of 137 to 140 pence per kilo. Now the Manx lamb o f the Island — there is no fresh lamb yet in the Island; there is only hoggetts which is a year old lamb; it is not really technically lamb at all, and that is wholesaling at the moment in the Isle of Man at 198 pence to 201 pence per kilo. Now frozen lamb is still available in the Island and it is being sold at 136 pence wholesale per kilo.

Now you did raise the point about the Manx taxpayer’s money being used through subsidy, I suppose you are talking about; we are rearing the animal, and exportation costs, as the Chairman of the Board of Agriculture has said, is provided by the people who export. The meat question is a question that has occupied me for the last 14 years, I should think, in the Isle of M an, it is a problem that 1 have not been able to solve as yet. I know you will probably share the same views as I do.

The Control of the Economy legislation is on the statute book. That is not a matter for the Board of Consumer Affairs; that is a m atter for the Governor in Council and this hon. Court to decide. A decision must be taken here, not by the Board of Consumer Affairs — here. Now if anyone wishes to introduce a resolution to that effect to the Court, you will find whether with the voting how it would go— 1 do not know, but that would be the decision.



Mr. Radcliffe — the metrication of potatoes. This is before my time, again, as I tell you, but 1 would like to say, Mr. Radcliffe, that all foods coming into the Island now are in metric weights; if you look at the packets it is metricated. Now my information is that many producers have been approached about this and my inform ation is that they are quite happy with the situation as it is, and therefore my board has decided to leave the situation as it is and potatoes will be sold in metricated weights.

Mr. Cain — a Monopolies Commission. I am sorry that Mr. Cain has many commitments and he does not always attend our board meetings. He is my vice- chairman and probably he was away when this was discussed again, because we recently discussed again this problem of the Monopolies Commission which we have done several times over the past four years. It is a problem because the Island is a small area. It would be difficult, we found, impossible in fact to implement the monopolies legislation as operates in the United Kingdom, but it has been drawn to my attention again recently in this past week that maybe, perhaps, we should have another look at this problem and perhaps introduce some limited legislation into the Island that might cover our Island’s problems.

Now the price of beer has risen again by four pence. If my memory serves me correctly, it was seven pence increase before, was it? Or nine pence?

The President of the Council: Was it a litre or a pint?

Mrs. Hanson: I am talking about beer; this will be a pint, sir. The reason givenis that of increase in wages, energy charges, freight increase for the raw material— (Interruption) I am giving you a reply M r. —

Mr. Delaney: You have missed the point. I asked, what had been the increasein a pint of beer in the last 13 months to your knowledge?

Mrs. Hanson: Thirteen months? Well, it was a year so it would be seven penceplus four pence — it would be 11 pence, I would think. Of course the duty has nothing to do with us.I would like to draw attention, Your Excellency — the price / of beer in the Isle of Man with the increase is at least six pence less than it is in 1 the United Kingdom.

Mr. Delaney: I challenge that!

Mrs. Hanson: I have got figures of the United Kingdom. In London it is over£1 in some areas; it averages in the United Kingdom from 85 pence to 95 pence a pint.

Mr. Cretney: On a point of clarification, Your Excellency, would the Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs not agree that the Board of Consumer Affairs is set up to benefit the consumers of the Island as a whole and not the Whitley Council in general? And furtherm ore, would she not agree that if the Press made it known, women’s organisations would be only too happy to come forward again



to prepare the shopping basket survey, because I am sure they are concerned also at the prices we are paying in the Isle of Man?

Mrs. Hanson: Yes, I would very much welcome the Press to make this known and if the womens organisation who would be prepared to be involved in this again would contact the Board of Consumer Affairs, 1 would be most grateful.

The Governor: Hon. members, I will now put the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Board of Consumer Affairs. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; those against, say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

ISLE OF MAN POST OFFICE AUTHORITY —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED

The Governor: Item 24. I call on the Chairman o f the Isle o f Man Post Office Authority.

M r. Faragher: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the Policy (including expenditure implications) o f the Isle o f M an Post Office Authority.


1. INTRODUCTORY NOTE

1.1 For convenient reference, this Statement is supported by an APPENDIX which gives background information and commentary about the Post Office under the following general headings —

a. Historical Noteb. The Authorityc. Powers and Privileges of the Authorityd. Financial Provisions

2. POST OFFICE AND MAILS OPERATIONS

2.1 There are 3 Crown Post Offices and 32 Sub Post Offices on the Island and 223 posting boxes. The Isle of Man Post Office Authority (“ the A uthority” ) employes a staff of 216 persons of whom 123 are Postmen. 1986 will see the introduction of a new style blue uniform for all Postmen throughout the Island. This should prove to be both attractive and practical and will have distinctive Manx badging.

2.2. The total number of letters posted on the Island in 1984/85 (machine counted only) was 11,705,671 which approximated to the number received from or through the British Post Office for the same period. There was an increase over the previous

Isle of Man Post Office Authority — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


year of 4.0% in letters posted (again machine counted) and an increase of 4.9% in parcels traffic despatched. Inward letter and parcels traffic (in bags) in this period increased by 16.4% and 7.3% respectively. The 1985/86 figures to date (year end 1985) show a 4.4% increase in letters posted on the Island and a decrease o f 2% in outward parcels traffic. The inward letter and parcel mails (both in bags) to date has also increased appreciably as has the volume of Datapost items handled which have gone up by 64% (inward) and 135% (outward), in the period May 1984 to April 1985. It is hoped that this growth will continue in the future.

2.3 The Authority acts as Agents on the Island for The Department for National Savings, National Girobank and also the Home Office in respect o f Broadcast Receiving and CB Licences. The Authority acts for the Board of Social Security for the payment at Post Office counters of Family Allowances and Pensions.

2.4 The letter mail is for the most part conveyed to the Island by air under a shared contract with the British Post Office. Subject to operational constraints, delivery o f this mail on the Island is made on the same day as received and outward airmail in the UK or for onward transmission abroad. The inward and outward contract flights are such that they are timed to suit the convenience o f the customer and allow the latest connecting collections on the Island.

Parcels and occasionally some second class letter mail are now despatched by sea in Royal Mail containers from Liverpool Post Office via the port of Heysham.

2.5 During 1985, the inward airmail service has been affected by a number of adverse influences. The most significant of these are -

(a) from the change in the pattern of the surface mail arrangements which are now routed through Heysham and;

(b) as a result of the growth in the volume and character of the airmail which frequently exceeds the quantity which can be conveyed by one flight.

As a result of the transfer o f steamer sailings from Liverpool to Heysham, all . parcel and residue letter mail has to be made up in containers at Liverpool Sorting ' Office for despatch by the afternoon boat sailings to the Island. This mail now arrives in Douglas too late for processing that day. Furthermore, the convenience o f the traditional mid-morning sailing from Liverpool is not now available which means that this service cannot be used for any airmail which fails to connect for operational or other reasons with the outward early morning airmail flight from Liverpool.

Although a new airmail contract was negotiated in October, unfortunately, despite seeking tenders from about 25 operators, the British Post Office in consultation with ourselves, was only able to obtain a ’plane having a capacity o f rather less than our current requirements for inward mail on most days. This frequently necessitates a return journey which, in addition to the extra costs involved, gives rise to operational problems in getting the mail sorted for same day delivery.



A further and most serious problem arose in November due to unofficial industrial action at the Liverpool Sorting Office which had a damaging affect upon the quality of service to our customers on the Island for quite a few weeks. As this happened just prior to the busy Christmas period, we are only just seeing ourselves back to relative normality.

Needless to say, most strenuous efforts have and continue to be made to remedy the current intermittent problems, which have arisen from circumstances outside our control, and to improve generally the postal services to and from all our customers. To this end, intensive consultations with the British Post Office and others are taking place. Furthermore, the Authority has just embarked upon an in-depth study of its postal service requirements for the next decade and has retained a person of very wide postal experience to assist in this exercise. The most im portant first step, therefore, is to restore all mail services to and from the United Kingdom to an acceptable standard. We shall then have an opportunity of examining any possible changes and improvements to the service within the Island.

One recent change, introduced experimentally over the Christmas period, was to create a parcels handling area within the Steam Packet Company’s Warehouse adjoining the Harbour. This proved very satisfactory and greatly facilitated the sortation of parcels directly from the Royal Mail containers and their subsequent delivery. This arrangement on a longer term basis is currently being examined.

2.6 The continuing growth in Datapost traffic and its resultant revenue, has intensified the need for increased airmal capacity as these items are given priority to ensure next day delivery. A campaign to stimulate the use of this service was commenced in the last quarter of 1985 and further promotional activity for this and other services is planned for 1986. Discussions are currently taking place on the possibility of bulk mailings being facilitated between the Isle of Man and the British Post Office areas (and vice versa) in order to permit bona fide Manx based mail houses to be established on the Island and to afford an opportunity for existing resident businesses to send mail shots et cetera to the United Kingdom which are subject, at present, to numerous restrictions.

2.7 The policy of the Post Office is to endeavour to improve and extend its services to the resident, business and visiting communities and to react to their needs, having regard, at all times to reasonable economic considerations. The growth of business activity on the Island, which is actively fostered by the Government, is closely bound up with the need to keep abreast o f developments in communications of all types.

2.8 It can now be reported that British Telecom has arranged to post all its telephone accounts to Manx customers from the Isle of Man which means that this revenue, previously paid to the British Post Office, now accrues quite properly to the Manx Post office.

3. COUNTER SERVICES

3.1 Counter services are provided at the 35 Offices and Sub Offices situated throughout the Island in positions which are as convenient as possible to the residents in the areas served.


T944 ! TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 28th JANUARY, 1986

3.2 It is worthy of note that Guernsey Post Office have recently announced a policy to close a number of rural Sub Post Offices. In the Isle of Man, the Authority values its comprehensive network of Sub Offices which offer an im portant outlet to the community for its wide range of services, including those it provides for Government Departments. It is the policy o f the Authority to maintain this network, and expand its range of services.

3.3 The Authority is proceeding as quickly as possible with a major upgrading of its Regent Street Post Office in Douglas to provide much improved customer and staff facilities and to allow a wider range of goods and services to be offered. Plans of these alterations are being prepared by a local Architect, for discussion with Union representatives, and liaison is also taking place with the British Post Office Consultancy Service, the officers of which have been very helpful in providing us with advice on a wide variety of matters. An approach has also been made to the Douglas Corporation and the Surveyor General regarding the possibility of providing a ramped external entrance to this Office to facilitate ingress and egress by disabled persons, the elderly and those with young children and we have also asked for Regent Street to be pedestrianised.

4. PHILATELIC BUREAU

4.1 Although the world philatelic markets, including our traditional British market, are still mostly quite sluggish, it is pleasing to report a satisfactory upturn in profits from the Philatelic Bureau for the year ended 31st March 1985. This has been the result of various promotions in different countries, the introduction of new products, the use of different marketing and agency arrangements and the streamlining of the Philatelic Bureau staffing which was undertaken in full consultation with the Unions concerned.

4.2 It was emphasised in the A uthority’s 1985 Policy Statement, that in a declining or at least static philatelic market, following a period of world recession, it is essential to follow a responsible and modest stamp issuing policy in order to keep faith with our customers. It is also necessary in these difficult times, to continue to strive to maintain standards of excellence and integrity in all our philatelic material, to develop new markets and products and to give the best possible service. These then, are the A uthority’s philatelic policy guidelines.

4.3 It is also pleasing to report that the stamp sales by Agents throughout the world have, in most cases, improved over 1984/85 and this trend is continuing.

4.4 The A uthority’s 1986 philatelic programme will include stamp issues to mark the following events and anniversaries.

February — 100th Anniversary of the Manx Museum.The Commonwealth Games, Edinburgh.

April — Conservation and Protection of Nature and the Environment.



May — Captain Myles Standish o f the Mayflower 1620.

August — The 60th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen and 65th birthday of His Royal Highness Prince Philip.

October — Christmas 1986 depicting the International Year of Peace.

In addition, a new commemorative stamp booklet will be released in April to mark Heritage Year 1986 and the Authority has just announced the introduction of the first Year Collection of the Stamps of 1985. A similar edition will be offered at the end of 1986. The total face value of all the 1986/87 stamp issues will be approximately £5.70.

5. POST OFFICE BUILDINGS

In addition to the improvements to the Regent Street Post Office referred to in paragraph 3.3 above, the Authority intends to provide a new roof to the Sorting Office in Circular Road to make it more thermally efficient. All the necessary approvals for this work have been obtained and tenders are to be sought within the next few weeks. The staff facilities at this office have also been improved considerably in 1985 and further changes are proposed.

In order to use its accommodation resources as effectively as possible, the Authority has let the surplus space on the top floor of Post Office Headquarters to Denholm (IOM) Limited, thereby providing an economic return to the Post Office on this accommodation. Part of the unused space at the Regent Street Office has also been let, including a portion of one of the Strong Rooms.

Two buildings acquired by the Authority at the rear of Post Office Headquarters in Princes Street Lane recently have been demolished and the area surfaced to provide additional off-street car parking spaces.

The refurbishment and sub-letting of spare office accommodation above the Regent Street Post Office is also under consideration.

6. FINANCIAL OUTTURN AND FORECAST

6.1 In the financial year 1984/85 income from Postal Operations was £2,811,317 and expenses £2,720,341 leaving a profit of £90,976. Philatelic revenuewa® £1,386,501 and expenses £1,066,798 giving a profit o f £319,703. H ad it no t been for a change in VAT legislation from April 1984, which necessitated the Authority being registered separately for VAT from the Isle o f Man Government, a further sum of £52,183 would have been recovered and available as profit.

6.2 With some three-quarters of the current financial year gone, we are anticipating a modest profit on postal operations. As a deliberate policy the Authority did not make any increases in its basic postal rates in 1985. However, the inexorable rise in costs due to inflation together with the wholly unavoidable and substantial



increases in expenses arising from the changes in air and sea mail arrangements during this year, have squeezed our profit margins to such an extent that commercial prudence will force the Authority to pass on increased costs to our customers early in 1986, although these increases will be kept to a minimum. W ith effect, therefore, from 5th February 1986, the minimum basic postage rates will go up by lp to 12p and 15p with corresponding increases to the other weight steps.

6.3 The volatile philatelic market is more difficult to predict. However, the results so far encourage us to believe that the outturn for 1985/86 will be similar to 1984/85 which was a marked improvement on the previous year and we shall again be making a worthwhile payment to General Revenue.

7. THE POST OFFICE WITHIN GOVERNMENT

7.1 As a Government Department, the Post Office is always willing to co-operate with other Boards and Departments of Government in matters where there is an identity of interest such as corporate marketing and promotion of the Isle of Man, joint commercial activities, advertising, et cetera, and would be pleased to share its knowledge, experience and contacts where appropriate, subject always, of course, to the constraints o f business confidentiality.

7.2 We welcome the opportunity of being represented on the Joint Marketing Working Group and are pleased to be associated with Government projects, such as Heritage Year for which our Staff Designer produced the two official logos which will be depicted in 1986 in a special stamp issue and on related philatelic products.

7.3 The Authority notes the recommendations contained in the Report dated 30th September 1985 of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Responsibilities of Boards of Tynwald, etc. whereby the Authority will report directly to the Council of Ministers. They recognise the need to maintain a degree of financial independence for this Government commercial undertaking commensurate with its role in the life o f the Island.

APPENDIX

A. HISTORICAL NOTE

A .l The Isle of Man Post Office Authority ( “ the A uthority”) is a Government Department established under the Isle of Man Post Office Authority Act 1972 and became an independent Postal Administration on 5th July 1973. Before that date, the postal services on the Island had been operated by the British Post Office and their predecessor, the Postmaster General, who from 1767 was authorised to operate postal services to, from and within the Island.

B. THE AUTHORITY

B .l. The Authority is a Statutory Board and comprises 4 Members, o f which the Chairman and Vice Chairman are members of Tynwald. The Director of Postal Services is the Chief Executive officer.



B.2 The Members of the Authority, together with 3 persons representing the Staff Unions are also Trustees of the Post Office Superannuation Fund which is a contributory Scheme and which has been successfully managed since it was first established in 1973 following the transfer of contributions by the British Post Office in respect of their former employees. The fourth triennial Actuarial Valuation of the Scheme is currently being completed by the UK Government Actuaries who last reported in February 1983 for the period to 31st March 1981. The Trustees retain Fund Advisors and the Secretary is the Director of Postal Services.

C. POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE AUTHORITY

C. 1 The powers of the Authority are contained in section 3 of the Isle of Man Post Office Authority (Postal Services, etc.) Act 1973 (“ the Act” ) and are, inter alia, as follows:—

The Authority shall have powers —

(a) to provide postal services (including cash on delivery services);

(b) to provide such services by means of which money may be remitted (whether by means of money orders, postal orders or otherwise) as it thinks fit.

(c) to perform services for the Government of the Isle of Man, or any Board (including a Commercial Board) thereof, for the government of a country or territory outside the Isle of Man, for local authorities, for the Post Office, or for national health service authorities in the United Kingdom.

C.2 Section 1 of the Act gives the Authority the exclusive privilege, subject to certain exceptions, of conveying from one place to another, and of performing all the incidental services of receiving, collecting, despatching and delivering all letters.

C.3 Section 5 of the Act places a duty upon the Authority to exercise its powers so as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Island, insofar as these are reasonably practicable and also having regard, inter alia, to economy and efficiency.

D FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

D. 1 The Authority is required to exercise its powers so as to secure that its revenues on Post Office and Mails (“ PO & M ” ) operations are not less than sufficient to meet all charges properly chargeable to revenue account, ¿taking one year with another. In other words, these particular operations must function without profit or loss taking one year with the next.

D.2 The Philatelic Bureau accounts are required under the Act to be kept separate from all other operations and the Authority is not permitted to subsidise in any way the postal operations from Bureau profits. Monies remaining in the Philatelic Bureau Fund after payment o f operational costs and approved capital expenditure,



have to be transferred to the general revenue of the Isle of Man, unless The Treasury otherwise direct.

D.3 In November 1985, Tynwald gave its approval to a request from the authority for an increase in the maximum am ount held in its General reserve from £100,000 to £250,000. It is the intention of the Authority to build up this Reserve to this figure which will be done over a period of years, with the necessary approval of the Treasury, until such time as the Authority feels these Reserves are adequate. The build-up will be done as monies become available, and without any specific increases in postal charges or use of philatelic profit. The Authority also has a Revenue Reserve of £150,000.

D.4 The total turnover on transactions in all Departments in 1984/85 was £72m.

D.5 The Authority has and will continue to refurbish and maintain its buildings and other fixed assets to keep them in good state o f repair. The funds for these operations have all been derived from its own resources. The Authority has no loan debt.

The Governor: Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

MANX MUSEUM AND NATIONAL TRUST —POLICY AND EXPENDITURE IM PLICATIONS NOTED.

The Governor: Item 25, the Manx Museum and National Trust. I call upon theVice-Chairman of the Museum and National Trust to move.

M r. Faragher: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

That Tynwald notes the policy (including expenditure implications) o f the M anx Museum and National Trust.


The current submission of financial estimates by the Trust marks the result of a careful consideration of the level and quality of service offered to the public and to Government by the Manx Museum and National Trust through its various branches.

In considering its submission for financial support in the coming years, the Trustees have been mindful of three dominating factors:

1. There is no museum organisation in the whole of Britain which attempts to foster and administer the range of cultural heritage which falls within the T rust’s jurisdiction of Museum, Archive, National Trust and Ancient Monuments services.

Manx Museum and National Trust — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted


2. The general public’s expectations of such cultural organisations within society has risen markedly in recent years reflecting an increased interest and enthusiasm for cultural heritage throughout Britain.

This increased public interest in Museums has been confirmed by a recent (1982) survey by the British Tourist Authority which revealed that the largest single category of attractions for the 161 million visits recorded was Museums and A rt Galleries (51 millions) closely followed by Historic Buildings (48 millions).

3. The Trustees are conscious of the fact that the expansive role played by the Manx Museum & National Trust in the field of M anx culture and heritage provides unrivalled potential in the fields of education, entertainment and tourism and that these potential benefits to the Island are for various reasons not being fully realised at the present time.

In view of these important facts, my Trust has approved a programme of capital schemes for the next five years which will, if implemented, attempt in a more vigorous way than previously to realise the potential in these fields and will take the Trust energetically and effectively into its second century of existence. The consequent benefits to the Isle of Man could be expected to be as significant as they have been for other areas of Britain which have invested wisely in the presentation and promotion of their cultural assets. Indeed, it is significant that the possibilities for utilising cultural heritage in connection with tourism, which has been so successful in many areas of Britain recently, have not as yet been as rigorously promoted in the excitingly rich Manx context.

The re-vitalisation and re-display of the Manx Museum galleries (the last such m ajor re-organisation having taken place over twenty years ago), together with the improvement and limited extension of facilities at the three branch museums, would be a major step in promoting Manx heritage and culture as one of the Island’s major assets for visitors and residents alike.

The schemes have been omitted for several years in deference to the Trust’s major capital project providing for an extension to the main Manx Museum in Douglas. However, repeated refusals of financial support for the Extension Scheme over several years has now promoted these smaller capital schemes to the level of urgent requirements in the near future.

In submitting this programme of Capital Schemes for the next five years, the Trustees are concerned that the level of presentation and service offered by the Manx Museum and National Trust should not be seen as deficient or lagging behind, in view of the tremendous potential, and when compared to similar organisations elsewhere.

This level of presentation and service extends equally to the Island’s visitors and to its residents who directly fund the bulk of the T rust’s operation.

In view of this, the Trustees recognised many years ago that the failure since the 1930’s to enlarge the display space available at the Manx Museum in any way has



seriously limited the potential of presentation to the public. A major concern has also been the lack of facilities to operate a Museum Education Service for the Isle of M an, which is a branch of the Museum operation provided in all other m ajor museums in Britain and one which would provide for the first time the possibility o f the Manx Museum’s marvellous resources being fully utilised by the Manx educational community as a whole, from primary school through to adult education.

The Manx Museum Extension Scheme is specifically designed to eliminate these accelerating deficiencies and provide the Isle of M an with a m ajor additonal and long awaited cultural asset.

CAPITAL ESTIMATES

Manx Museum and National Trust: Planned 5-year Programme of Capital Schemes

1. Extension to Manx Museum

Providing a ‘shop-window’ for the Island’s cultural attractions and assets, where all visitors would be directed to obtain their introduction to Island life and traditions. To be located on a site owned and cleared by the Trust directly adjacent to the Manx Museum, Douglas at an approximate cost of £1,690,000 phased over three years.

This scheme has had the planning stages completed with plans drawn up by the Government Architect, and has been closely vetted and approved by the Treasury, Capital Schemes Section. It is ready to go to tender immediately.

Background to the scheme.

The need for a m ajor extension to the Manx Museum was first expressed in 1967 when Government required long-term policy statements for future expansion o f all boards and departments. This resulted in Tynwald’s endorsement o f a policy to purchase and demolish property adjoining the Manx Museum to create the site which is now available for this scheme. Plans to advance the Extension Scheme on this site have been refused each financial year since 1972.

This major extension will be the first addition to the main museum buildings since 1939 and after long consideration and planning is devised to provide:-

(i) A new exhibition gallery— increasing the potential for displaying the im portant collections held in reserve at the Museum and for more effective temporary exhibitions.

(ii) A Museum Education Service for the Isle of M an.— a service offered by all m ajor museums in the British Isles and the lack of which causes the Manx Museum to be frequently criticised— including classroom, craftsroom , storeroom, workshop, children’s toilets and cloakroom.



(iii) Lecture Hall— purpose built with projection facilities and raked seating for 250 people, will provide the opportunity to combine with the Tourist Board to provide high quality visual presentations on the Island’s attractions as well as providing an additional revenue through evening hirings.

(iv) Conservation Laboratory— to fulfill the museum’s prime responsibility to preserve the collections in its charge.

(v) Enlarged Museum shop— to increase the level of this service to the public, extending the potential receipts returnable to Government.

The basic requirement of this Museum Extension, recognised so many years ago by the Trustees, is now becoming obvious to the general public and the level of service available in the existing premises is being increasingly criticised.

This extension scheme has been long-planned, thoroughly prepared, and is now ready to go to tender. Over the past fourteen years the Museum Trustees have been encouraged in this project by sustained support from Finance Board, but continued deferrals are leading to disillusionment amongst both visitors and staff alike; advancement of the scheme now will be an investment in the cultural and educational assets o f the nation which will provide assured benefits for our cultural future.

2. Phased Re-display of Manx Museum Galleries

Prior to the current year no major unified re-design and re-display o f the seven main museum galleries and entrance foyer had taken place for over twenty years. In the wake of increasingly sophisticated presentations in other education, leisure and entertainment amenities, it has been recognised that it is imperative that a fresh approach to presentation at the Manx Museum be considered. The object of this exercise, which can be phased over a five-year-period, is to raise the standard of museum presentation by a homogeneous re-design of its interior display space, utilising the most modern display methods and techniques, providing a much firmer base for an appeal to a wider public. The expected result will be a museum which seizes the visitors’ imagination immediately on entering and sustains a high level o f exciting presentation throughout the building, and provides the visitor with a far more impressive and understandable introduction to the Island.

Approximate minimum costs of such a scheme could be expected to be in the region of £30,000 per gallery making an estimated overall figure for the scheme of £210,000. In view of staff resources, the scheme could usefully be phased over five years with an approximate capital requirement of £42,000 each year. Following the great success of the first phase of this re-design programme, it is strongly recommended that the second phase be allowed to proceed.

3. Extension of display areas at Nautical Museum



The remaining double-storied stable block adjoining the present museum premises has for many years offered an ideal opportunity for expanding the range of displays on this subject to the public.

Extension into the existing buildings would necessitate remedial work on the structure and the installation of heating, lighting and (possibly) drainage serves. When completed, the buildings would provide two further large galleries for displaying the Museum’s rich collections of Manx nautical history.

Estimated costs for such a development could be expected to be in the region of £50,000. The work could be phased over two to three years.

4. Reconstruction of Cummal Beg/Creg y Shee, Cregneash

The recent acquisition of Creg y Shee, which adjoins the new museum Visitor Centre in Cummal Beg, has codified the Museum’s holdings of property in this vital central area of the village.

The opportunity is therefore created to restore these two houses from the present 1930’s two-storied pebble-dashed condition to their former state as a pair o f joined, single-storied thatched cottages, thereby adding to the historical accuracy of Cregneash as a 19th century crofting village.

It is envisaged that the restored buildings would be utilised internally as a visitor reception and information area, on similar lines to the present Visitor Centre in Cummal Beg.

An appropriate cost o f such a renovation might be in the region of £40,000.

5. Development of Agricultural Buildings at the Grove

The barn and stables in the Grove outbuildings are in need of renovation and possible extension to provide suitable accommodation for the display of associated agricultural equipment.

The groupings of agricultural implements which exist at present were brought together as a temporary measure at the time o f the opening of this branch museum and are not displayed in an attractive or intelligible way for visitors.

A capital scheme for improvement of this unsatisfactory arrangement would be the interior renovation of the barn and an extension behind the cow-shed buildings in the paddock, thereby creating areas for the full interpretation of the Grove’s agricultural story.

Possible costs of this scheme could be in the region of £30 — £40,000.

6. Computerisation of Records



It has been recognised for a number of years that the computerisation of museum (including library and archive) records provides a major improvement in the retrieval o f information. It is also the only realistic solution to the time and space consuming nature of manual record systems.

Computerisation would not only provide a realistic alternative to the ever increasing problem of records management, but would also present the long-term potential o f savings in clerical requirements and would undoubtedly be extended to improve general office administration techniques. Discussions through the Government’s computer department have already been held. An excellent software programme already exists and this would be applicable to the Government computer system.

Costs o f implementing this programme would be approximately £30,000.

7. Purchase of Property

As in previous years, a minimum of £50,000 should be maintained in the T rust’s annual capital estimates for purchase of property in Cregneash Village and for the Manx National Trust.

M r. Quirk: I beg to second.

M r. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I am certain that everyone in this hon. Court and most people throughout the Island would recognise the great importance of the Manx Museum and National Trust. Furthermore, most people would agree that their proposed capital estimates are desirable. However, I am sure that all requests put forward by any board are desirable in one way or another, but in the present appallingly difficult financial situation we have to decide on our priorities.

The total capital budget requested by the museum amounts to over £2 million. The cost of the main extension to the museum would come to some £560,000 a year over each of the next three years. Now we have to remember that capital expenditure has substantial revenue effects, not only in terms of the interest and loan repayments but also in terms of other additional revenue expenditure which always follows, as night follows day. In this case the loan charges on the complete development would be some £250,000 a year. In addition, the running costs would be an extra £20,000 a year — a total of £270,000.

Now that we all know the many calls on our revenue, there is no need to detail them. We have also debated at length the sad possibility of forcibly reducing some of our staffing levels, but there is another aspect: we are in the gravest danger of our infrastructure in terms of roads and buildings deteriorating around us and resulting in truly horrific costs when at last remedial work is quite unavoidable. As we all know, the more they deteriorate the more it will cost to eventually put them in order, quite apart from the effects of inflation. For example, if the potholes in a road are not filled in, eventually the whole road will have to be rebuilt,



and, as my hon. friend and colleague, Mr. Quirk, has said in a previous debate, this could cost seven times as much as the patching work. If the windows and doors of a building are not painted, eventually they will have to be replaced. Therefore, I believe that we should use capital moneys for this purchase and obtain this money by stopping the construction of practically all new buildings. Indeed, what sensible householder or businessmen is there who would spend vast amounts of money putting up new buildings when their existing buildings and the infrastructure were steadily deteriorating through lack of proper maintenance and care.

Therefore, Your Excellency, I believe it is vital that with the minimum delay, a new policy should be brought into effect of stopping virtually all new construction works and instead concentrating the capital moneys released on maintaining our existing roads and buildings. Such a policy need in no way be detrimental to the building and construction industry, as the money could be spent on employing local firms to do this work rather than undertaking completely new construction projects. Indeed, I believe that such maintenance work would provide a far higher degree of local labour and particular help to the smaller businesses.

Turning now to the request for the extension to the main museum, it is plain that no work has been done to extend the museum building since 1939. I am sure this is true, but their services have been extended in many other ways. Then I very much doubt the need for a lecture hall to seat 200 people. As for the claim that this would raise additional revenue through evening hirings, I believe there are already sufficient places throughout the Island for evening meetings, many of which can be obtained, as we all know, almost free or at very low charges.

Now there is also an interesting point: that my colleagues on the Civil Service Commission and I have recently interviewed several candidates for quite senior posts in the museum service and we have been amazed that each person interviewed has expressed great surprise at the enormous scope and width o f service provided in the Isle of Man by the museum. They have been astonished that there should be such full and extensive facilities in such a small community. No-one complains about this; it is a good thing-but it is surely further proof that at this time we cannot spend yet more money on the museum, however nice it would be to do so. I do not doubt that what is proposed is desirable but I am certain it should not be high in our priorities.

Dr. Moore: Your Excellency, the hon. member for Middle, as usual, has brought out some very pertinent facts; the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, has brought out some very pertinent facts. Unfortunately, I think he has got them a little bit out of perspective, but certainly I would say absolutely right — renovation, maintenance of what we have got is essential and in many of the boards’ estimates there are a lot of schemes for doing exactly that.

Where I would disagree with him is to go on to say ‘therefore, no capital schemes’. What we have been trying to do over the last few years is to have a sensible level policy of Government capital schemes to take out the great peaks and troughs so that the building industry is able to cope at a fairly predictable and sensible level

Manx Museum and National Trust — Policy Expenditure and Implications Noted


with the needs for capital schemes for Government and I think that this is sensible, both in the overall Government spending and also in the planning of employment levels by building firms. What would worry me in some of the capital schemes at present being considered before this Court and being talked over the the last week or two is the number of schemes which are going to require expert importations of specialist builders from across; whether it be for radio telecommunications or swimming pools or baling plant, there are a large number o f items which we are having to consider which will require expert capital skills being imported. One thing you can say in favour of a new museum extension is th^t this would be entirely capable of being done by Manx builders, by Manx workmen, without the importation of components of highly skilled chunks.

However, it is right to say that just because it is Heritage Year is no reason to say ‘Let us spend a couple of million on the museum’. The museum extension must be seen as part of the overall Isle of Man infrastructure and economy. It must be justified, if the Court will support this, in terms of its impact on tourism, in terms o f its impact on education. That is the reason for having a museum there and I believe that we could be making far more use of our museum. The hon. member for Glenfaba has rightly paid tribute to the quality o f the staff and what they are already doing with their limited resources, and I must adm it that over this past summer, spontaneous comments from several people from different parts o f the world — ‘We had a look at your museum — what a marvellous place it is! how are they managing in these confined circumstances? Why does not your Tynwald provide them with something better?’ I believe that we have got to look very seriously at this. It is up to the Court to decide but do not just say ‘Let us abandon all capital projects because we might be short of money’. Let us not swing from extreme to extreme. Let us keep rational about this and look at the merits o f the museum extension along with the merits o f other schemes; let us not rule out everything, because I believe that there are very strong merits for considering it seriously.

Dr. M ann: Your Excellency, I would like to support what the hon. member for Peel has just said. It is very unfortunate. I think the hon. member for Glenfaba has some confused thinking on the use of capital and it is an awful pity that he chose this particular item and this particular policy to hang his thoughts on capital spending. If we start off, as the hon. member said, saying that we had to restrict capital spending, how that was to be achieved by using the same amount of money being spent in a different way I fail to see, but it does illustrate the confusion, both the public confusion and the confusion amongst members of this Court, between capital and revenue expenditure and the impact o f one upon the other. It is very fine to maintain the maintenance o f existing buildings or even improve them, but there is no doubt that the cost of certain services run by Government are significantly reduced by actually producing new buildings, either in better locations or better servicing the need of that particular service. I think and repeat, it is very unfortunate that you have chosen this particular project. There is a lot o f merit in this and, as the hon. member for Peel has said, it is a traditional building in which traditional building methods and the Manx labour force could be used to the maximum. That is not picking it out in isolation, but I think it is very wrong that we should just



choose this one and say ‘This one — not at all’ because this one has considerable merits for a number of reasons.

Mr. Brown: Your Excellency, I would just like to say that I fully support what the museum are trying to do here and echoing the comments that have already been said by the two members who have spoken since the hon. member for Glenfaba. It is amazing how, since I have been in this C ourt, it has never been the right time to develop the museum, and if we keep going along that line we will never develop the museum any further than it is. The museum will play, in the future, an important role in our tourism. It already plays an im portant role in educating our children and the people of the Isle of Man and should play an even greater role because of what it has. It reflects our history, what has gone on in the past. W hat we are doing today becomes our history and therefore needs to be stored and displayed somewhere in years to come, and if anybody has — as I am sure they have — travelled through the United Kingdom, museums play an important role in any small community or large community in attracting people to that area, so it is something we should be very cautious about.

I agree that we have got to try to progress this scheme as soon as we can, and it will not cause major hardships anywhere else; it will help put work into the market place in the building industry which is where, let us remember, the majority o f our unemployed are from — they are labourers and skilled craftsmen who are struggling more than anyone at the moment to get jobs, so we do need to do that and it is no use stopping capital schemes, as has been said. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Glenfaba say that we should stop — if I got it right — our capital schemes and use that money to do works of repair and maintenance, and the hon. member is then saying, for repairing and maintaining old properties, we should take loan charges out and that is not usually the way it is done unless it is a m ajor refurbishment or a m ajor programme of that and the impact of what he is saying, I would have thought, would be negligible in real terms. Capital votes to do repairs and maintenance: £25,000 here capital vote, £10,000 there capital vote and so it goes on until you build up to use the moneys he said, and I do not believe that that is a practical system of borrowing over ten years or 20 years just to do repairs.

The longer-term investment in an extension to the museum, which is needed, is something that will be an investment for the longer-term, and we are going on again about building a new property and therefore the consequences that has on the revenue estimates, the maintenance, the upkeep, the heating and so on and so on, but we cannot have it all ways. We cannot say ‘no ’ to the services, or we want the services but ‘no’ to the extensions and people do say they want to see more there. The museum has a lot of stuff that is not even displayed, and therefore what do we do about getting that material put out for the public benefit? It is always strange that when we talk about the Isle of M an’s history, there is never money to do that; there is never money to try and enhance our history or to take pride in our Manx past and whatever. We are now changing, I believe, into that system; we have started to invest money in Laxey, we are starting to invest it in the castles, hopefully we will do it in the museum, and collectively they will attract people to the Isle of M an who are

Manx Museum and National Trust — Policy and Expenditure Implications Noted.


paying visitors and the benefits will reap back to the Isle of M an many times over, but if we never make that step we will deprive the people of the Isle o f Man and our children of our history and we will also deprivej the Isle of Man of a chance o f earning income from visiting people to our shores/1 hope members will strongly support trying to get this one o ff the ground.

Members: Hear, hear.

M r. Lowey: Your Excellency, again, concurring really with the hon. member for Castletown who says, in his time in this Court there has never been a right time for spending money on museums, I agree there has never been a time in my time where it has been right to spend money on museums, but I do honestly believe that the hon. member for Glenfaba has done this C ourt a service this morning because whether we like it or not, we are here talking last week and this week about priorities, and at the end of the day — and really that is what the hon. member for Glenfaba is saying — you have got to decide and indicate to the Finance Board for their help and guidance, in drawing up a budget of limited means, just where you want that money to be spent, and it is competition with the re-building of the likes of Cronk Grianagh or the College of Further Education as opposed to the museum.

That is uncomfortable; that really is uncomfortable because, as Chairman o f the Tourist Board, I agree and concur 200 per cent, with everything that is written in these forwards about the impact on culture and all the rest. You see, I find it strange— and politics, of course, is always strange, full of contradictions, and last week when I dared to talk about looking after the old and the schools, I was accused of being emotional. This week I am being told that I should consider education, tourism, national pride, culture — that is idealism; I know that, and in an ideal world I am proud o f that, I want it displayed, I want it used, I am proud, I want to brag about it, I want to show our guests what we have got and display it in the right way, but in this Court at this moment in time I have got to decide, is it the old people up at Cronk Grianagh or the schools or the museum? That is what it is about and it is uncomfortable — my word, it is uncomfortable!

Now, what Mr. Gilbey has said this morning is, in his list of priorities, he would do it another way, and I think what this Court has not got to do today is say to the Finance Board, ‘Yes, boys, we are all idealists and we are all wanting a museum’ and then forget that last week we were still shouting — and by the way, our priorities were for the elderly and the sick and for education. You just cannot have it both ways. It is about priorities and it is about getting down to it. I am quite sure that this plan the museum has introduced seems to me to be absolutely splendid in concept, in goals; it is how we scale it down or how we scale it in or whatever the word is — how we put it into the machine, because when we talk the mechanics of financing — and that is what we are talking about, whether we capitalise it — I personally have a view, and I was delighted to hear the Chairman of the Board of Social Security in an earlier debate saying about building a property and investing our money in our own building. That is mechanics to me and to the layman. It seems strange to me that we should be borrowing money, sometimes from ourselves, and also repaying it — you have got to repay it — but when we crucify ourselves



then with interest, that is the crippling part of the repayments, the interest — then, I think, there could very well be a case in the long term about looking how we re-structure. That has got nothing to do with the museum. The museum’s job, I believe, is to put its case forward and say, ‘Look, in the overall picture, we demand a share. I believe they have put a very good case for demanding a share, but I am saying to the Finance Board that even demanding that share and with a marvellous case, my priorities are no different this week than they were last week and I put at the top of that jobs, health and education. I am sorry!

Mr. Karran: Your Excellency, all I would like to say about the policy statement is that as much as I sympathise and agree with the hon. member for Glenfaba and the hon. member for Council, I feel that this is the time when Government has got to start planning to the future. I feel that these proposals ... All right we have had a great debate over the health and education and there is only so much of a cake, but I believe with this policy statement it just goes to prove what I have been saying for a long time — that there should be an overall policy on tourism on the Island which takes in the museum, takes in the Government Property Trustees and what they have done, and I honestly feel that what this policy statement says is what is needed to help tourism and to help the Island as far as its cultural things.

There is only one thing I am concerned about: at the Sound, the land that is owned at the Sound, I do sometimes wonder how you get a policy where the National Trust will not allow the development of a decent cafe there and the pulling down o f the hut that is there at the present time, and I sometimes wonder that the policies of some of these statements seem to overlap and seem to have two opposite directions, and I would like to see an overall plan on these policy statements from all the boards.

Mr. Cringle: Your Excellency, very briefly, I want to make the case for the visual arts on the Isle of Man and make the case that there are a lot of people who are very much involved in whether it be sculpture work or natural artwork in painting, drawing, photography of various sorts and I feel that this is one opportunity with the museum extension where those of our constituents who are involved in this field will at least, and at last, have a permanent home.

Mr. Martin: Your Excellency, in the debate for the Government Property Trustees — and I was the only one who voted against it — I was thinking for a minute that maybe I was wrong. But it was only for a minute, Your Excellency, when I come to this debate and hear that people are opposing the spending of capital money for the benefit of the Isle of Man and the whole of the population o f the Island and the tourist industry. We have people who wish to oppose the spending of capital money to enlarge our museum. The only fault I can find with it is that we are not spending half enough on the museum. We have a scheme put forward, and it says a ‘lecture hall’, which the hon. member for Glenfaba pointed out, for 200 people. It was far too large and no need for it. Can I say to the hon. member that if this lecture hall was enlarged to cater fpr some thousand people, we could use it as a conference centre for the Isle of Man and encourage more visitors to the Island.



I believe that the policy that these hon. members are adopting in opposing the Manx Museum and the spending of this money is totally wrong. I was rather surprised at the hon. member for Council, the Chairman of the Tourist Board, who will put a list of priorities, and the priorities were for education, jobs et cetera and for tourism, and yet he votes along with the Government Property Trustees to build offices, centrally heated and well looked after, for civil servants. Your Excellency, the only fault, as I said, with the policy of the Manx Museum is they have not put in for half enough. Thank you, Your Excellency.

Mr. Delaney: Coming to the conclusion of these policy debates, Your Excellency, I do not know how the other members feel — maybe it was a worthwhile exercise, but I have my doubts because it is all going to be said again, as 1 have said, when we get to the real nitty-gritty of the Budget. I am concerned for future debates. I hope that it will not have to occur in such a nature again, because by this time next year maybe, just maybe — even though there are calls for certain people to stop it now — we will have a system, where there will be a policy, as the hon. junior member for Middle talks about, where we will have a list of priorities next year and where the Government Property Trustees will be put in the place allocated to them by the people who wish to have the power to do so. I hope that becomes the policy of the Government, because unless we get down to direction I feel that these debates each year are a pure waste of time and effort.

But as far as the museum is concerned, I accept the point made by the hon. ... I was going to say Chairman of the Tourist Board — in his capacity as the Chairman of the Tourist Board; I believe that there is a need to have an overall policy of putting bricks and m ortar here with a high level o f unemployment. There is no doubt about that in my mind. W hether it be the museum, because of the Chairman of Executive Council’s point that it will bring on Manx labour and take up a lot of labour, whether it be the extensions to schools or the hospital extension, we have to come down to exactly what we are doing in the longer term, and I believe that if the museum extension is proved to be necessary by the people in Executive Council whose responsibility it is for the motivation, if you like, of Government, the direction of Government, I think the members will support it, but it is obvious to me also that the money at this time is not there and I wonder, I honestly do wonder, whether or not we did not listen to what the Chairman of the Finance Board said or what anybody else said who supported that view. When we come down to it, it is going to be cutting that cake up and what the decision will be — and I will support what is here because I think it is necessary; maybe it is overdue, maybe we should have had it five years ago, but at that time reasons were given why it should not be and I believe, Your Excellency, support this — it is only pie in the sky, as most o f our policies are, because unless we have the money we cannot get to them. But I believe that members should, a t some time in the near future come to a decision as to what is going to happen next year on such supposed policy debates that we have had in these last three days.

The Lord Bishop: Your Excellency, I speak as a member of the Manx MuseumTrust. Two things I would like to say: first of all I think that we cannot distinguish between the museum and education, because the museum is part of the educational



system and if we had no museum and if we are not concerned to expand it, then I think the educational privileges o f our children will obviously get less. Also, I do not think we can altogether separate the museum from the health, for the health of a community does not merely depend on their physical health but also on mental and spiritual things and I am sure, for example, that the lectures and so on which can be given and are being given by the museum are an important part o f the health of the community.

We have also the great fortune of having a young man as the Director o f the Museum, a young man with ideas, a young man who is bringing new life and new look into the museum and I think anything we can do to support him, encourage him and develop the kind of things he wants to do is not only a benefit to the Island but also will be a benefit to the tourists who come here, because there is no doubt about it that one of the great attractions in Douglas is the museum and anyone who comes to the Island - the first thing I tell them is to go and look and the museum, and when they come back they are all astounded that a small place is able to produce such an excellent museum. I have great privilege in supporting the policy statement.


Mr. Faragher: Thank you, Your Excellency, I think that possibly the weakest o f reasons for supporting the proposed expenditure by the Manx Museum and National Trust this year — the two weakest reasons would, be firstly, that it is the Manx Museum centenary this year and, secondly, that it is Heritage Year. The reasons for doing this particular scheme are very much more tangible than that and I would hope to impress the Court with them.

Over the years the Manx Museum has been quite substantially funded by private individuals with the benefit o f bequests and direct subscription et cetera along with a fair amount of Government support. Now I think that the attitude that is adopted by the trustees now is that we need to be going back to the public again and to be encouraging more public participation in the financing of the museum to back up the funds which are available from Government, because we are well aware of the many conflicting calls that there are on a limited amount of resources.

The interest that is being expressed in history in the Isle of Man is not imagined; it is very real, it is measurable. It is not only in the Isle of M an, of course, it is in the United Kingdom. The biggest single tourist attraction that Great Britain has got is its history, and that is clicking turnstiles by the million in the United Kingdom. Now the Isle of Man has got, as somebody says, probably more history per square inch than many other places have per square mile and it is about time we did something about it. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Our own figures for the museum properties in the Isle of Man this last year recorded an increase of 35 per cent, approximately over the previous year and some may say, ‘Okay, you could account for that because of poor weather’. But set against that a decline in arrivals partly because of bad weather as well, and you will find that there is a real and tangible increase, and this is particularly noticeable at somewhere like Cregneash where there



has been a certain amount of re-display and a certain am ount of capital expenditure to improve the presentation and attraction o f that particular facility.

Now if hon. members would care to take a walk over to the Manx'Museum right now they will hear the sound of hammering. The first phase of re-displaying the museum galleries is in progress, and I only wish that work was six weeks further advanced because by that time hon. members would see that what we are talking about at the museum is not simply an improvement, it is a total transition from what we have had in the past. We are creating a shop window there, and it is a shop window for the most valuable item we have got on sale, which is our history.

If we were talking about simply an extension to a dusty, musty museum simply making the museum bigger, then I would not be on my feet supporting it. I am supporting this and I am commending it to you because, quite frankly, this is a business proposition by the Isle of M an, and I would echo the sentiments expressed by the Lord Bishop when he paid tribute to the director and the senior staff in the museum — we have got a lot of talent there and we are extremely lucky to have it. We have got people there with vision and flair and imagination and determination to provide the sort o f facility in the Isle of Man that is currently being enjoyed in the United Kingdom. And the facilities in the United Kingdom are generating income, make no mistake about it. The Isle o f Man, unless I am much mistaken, is also in the business of generating income, and this is one method of doing that over the next few years in which I have considerable faith.

I said we would be creating a shop window; we literally will be creating a shop window in the museum extension. There will be the facility, once this extension is complete, to have a top quality walk-around shop in the museum in which we will be able to display all that is the best of Manx crafts and Manx items for sale for all people who have either done a circuit o f the museum and are on their way out or people who literally wish to use the museum as a focal point for obtaining all the best of Manx products. Now this can do good not only to the museum by direct sales but it must generate sales ultimately back to their original source. We will be saying to people, ‘Yes, it comes from Tynwald Mills’, ‘yes, this comes from Laxey Mills’, ‘yes, this was made in Ramsey’. There will be no partisan approach adopted there, I can assure you! (Laughter) But there is real potential in this; of that I do not have the slightest doubt.

Now I mentioned a little earlier that we were looking to the public for more direct support. We are also seeing evidence of support being offered directly to the museum by commercial undertakings, and it is quite possible that particular parts o f this museum extension will be directly funded by private enterprise in the Island — sponsorship or part-sponsorship of a gallery, and I can assure you it will be all done extremely tastefully and tactfully and discreetly. There are many enterprises on the Island who would like to be publicly associated with something of high quality, and that is what is intended at the museum.

I think, as the hon. member Dr. Moore from Peel has said, it is not merely the implications for the museum, it is the implications for the Island as a whole. The



cash tills that ring because of the museum’s activities are not only only in the museum; they are up and down the promenades, they are at the airports, they are at the harbour, they are everywhere. But I think it is important, as far as the revenue vote is concerned for the Museum and National Trust, that a percentage increase on a budget such as this, does not represent very much globally and that the museum over the last few years has had fairly strict budgetary control. It has been trimmed back virtually to the bone each year and there comes a stage when, in fact, you certainly could not cut back beyond that without immediately affecting the services.

Now as a member o f several boards of Tynwald, each with their own requirements at this time o f the year, o f course the ultimate question has to be, ‘can I support this against, perhaps, some of the priorities in other areas on other boards?’ I think, hon. members, if we are talking about generating income for this Island of backing up one of its principle industries with something that has got merit and that has definitely got value, then I will have to say, yes, I do support this scheme throughout all that.

If may turn briefly to the comments expressed by various hon. members, the hon. member for Glenfaba, M r. Gilbey, said that this scheme was desirable, of course, but obviously it did not feature very high in his priorities. I must say I immediately had some different thoughts to him over the arithmetic as regards the capital repayments as far as that was concerned. The revenue implication on this particular scheme: the loan charges applying to the museum for the last financial year were just under £45,000. In the next year, assuming that this scheme goes ahead, they will rise to £80,000.

Mr. Gilbey: Your Excellency, I said ‘when it was complete’. I am mathematically correct, I believe.

Mr. Faragher: Well, the loan charges, I would respectfully suggest, will not vary that much, certainly not to the proportion that he has suggested. But he also said that there should be a new policy, which was stop all new construction projects and effectively to stop re-investment in something like this — this rings a bell somewhere. I have a funny feeling there is a certain Manx limited company that ( adopted a policy like this over the last few years and it did not seem to do it very much good. The reason for doing this again is not principally to provide labour for the Manx construction industry. That is a very welcome benefit, most certainly, as it would be for any capital scheme but again it is not the reason for doing it.It is a sound commercial reason for doing it, as far as I am concerned.

Now he said, as far as the lecture hall was concerned, that perhaps this was an unnecessary extravagance and that there were other halls available. We are not simply talking about a lecture hall; we are talking about something which will act, apart from anything else, as a small cinema which could be used in conjunction with the Tourist Board, with anybody who is doing audio-visual displays et cetera. Quite frankly, I would say to hon. members, take a long hard look at the cinemas in the



Isle of Man and tell me what you think of them, and if it comes to the stage where Government needs to provide a facility and say ‘That is how it is done,’ then we should do it. It is no use just rocking back on our heels and watching cinemas decay and so on and do nothing about it. If we can provide a facility which is what the customer wants, then we should be doing it.

He said he has been interviewing candidates for various posts in association with the museum and that they were, almost to a man or woman, impressed by the range and complexity of the services offered by the museum. I would venture to suggest that what they are impressed by is the amount of material with which we have got to work. That is what impresses them; that is what impresses every visitor who goes in there. That is what impressed 96-odd thousand people last year who went to see the museum facilities and probably more next year.

I would like to thank the hon. members Dr. M oore, for his support, and indeed the Chairman of Executive Council and the member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, who said it is never really the right time to spend money on the museum. Going back, if we were simply talking about extending a museum, of course it probably is never the right time, but what we are speaking of, I think, is transform ation, not extension at this stage.

The hon. member for Council Mr. Lowey — I fully understand his sentiments as regards priorities. They are a question which exercises the minds of all of us, but I hope that I have made it clear that my reasons for supporting this scheme are because they do fall within his priorities. His priorities in order were: jobs, health and education. As far as jobs are concerned, we are not only talking about the construction element of this, which is very nice but it is short-term. We are talking about the jobs that ultimately this can (a) safeguard and, (b) enhance and create over the medium and long term in the Isle of Man. Health, which was the second one, was the one which I was going to have a little more difficulty explaining, but fortunately the Lord Bishop leapt to my defence and said that we are speaking about the mental and spiritual health, so I think that covers that one! (Laughter) As far as education is concerned, then most certainly there is the most splendid opportunity here to encourage the participation and support of the children and teachers o f this island so that they themselves can propogate the subject in years to come, and so that hopefully they will not come away from school with the same dirth of knowledge of Manx history that my generation did.

I thank the hon. member Mr. Karran for his support. He mentioned the subject of the Sound cafe and he said that the Museum and National Trust would not allow the pulling down and replacing o f the cafe at the Sound. I might say that the cafe that is at the Sound brings no pleasure to anybody of the Museum and Natipnal Trust; it is not exactly compatible with the environment in which it is situated, and that the museum would, I think, if the opportunity arose, have something done about it.

Mr. Karran: Just to clarify that point, Your Excellency, what I am led to believe is the actual National Trust would prefer to have the cafe down and have nothing

Manx Museum and National Trust — Policy Expenditure and Implications Noted


there at all. What I am saying is the overall policy of the National Trust, if it was with tourism in mind, would be for the re-development down there with a modern cafe. What my point is is the fact that so many boards seem to go in so many different directions.

M r. Faragher: Thank you! (Laughter)

My hon. colleague, Mr. Cringle, raised the point as regards a permanent home for the Arts in Man and I am sure it would be satisfying to him, as indeed other members of this Court, that the art gallery at winter lectures is invariably packed out. In fact, at last week’s lecture there were 20 to 30 people who had to be turned away. This particular lecture was the one on Manx film archives. So there is undoubted support, not only from outside the Island, but inside as well.

The hon. member for Douglas, Mr. M artin, said that they were not spending half enough. Hon. members, if we can achieve this level of expenditure I think we will be more than satisfied, and I think, what is more, we will be able to demonstrate to you over the next one, two, three years, that this investment has been very well worthwhile and it justifies the support of this hon. Court. Your Excellency, I beg to move.

Mr. Maddrell: Your Excellency, would the hon. chairman state, as he did not, that the cafe at the Sound is in private hands, sir? Could I have that clarification?

Mr. Faragher: Your Excellency, yes, that is the position at the moment. That cafe' is in private ownership. Any future re-development of that particular site would have to be given very close scrutiny indeed.

The Governor: Hon. members, I now put the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of the Manx Museum and National Trust. Will those hon. members in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. members, that concludes the business of the main Agenda.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS’ EXPENSES (FINANCIAL SUPERVISION COMMISSION) ORDER 1986 - APPROVED

The Governor: We now turn quickly to the Supplementary Agenda. I call upon the Chairman of Executive Council to move the suspension of Standing Orders.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, first I wish to seek the agreement of hon. members to the waiving of Standing Order 162 (1) so that the Payment of Members’ Expenses Act Financial Supervision Commission Order 1986 can be considered, notwithstanding it was not circulated 14 days prior to this sitting.

The Governor: Thank you very much, Dr. M ann. We have not laid it before the Court.

Payment of Members’ Expenses (Financial Supervision Commission ) Order 1986 —Approved


The Clerk: I lay before the Court:

The Payment of Members’ Expenses Financial Supervision Commission Order 1986.

The Governor: Will hon. members in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Dr. Mann: Your Excellency, I beg to move:

(1) That in accordance with Standing Order 162(3) the provisions o f Standing Order 162(1) be waived to enable the follow ing resolution to be considered.

(2) That the Financial Supervision Commission (Amendment) Order 1986 made by the Governor in Council be and the same is hereby approved.

You will recall, hon. members, that last week you agreed that the Financial Supervision Commission could reward its members on an annual basis rather than a sessional basis. If you recall the last sitting of this C ourt it was considered at that time that the payment should be £5,000, which was thought at the time to have been taxable, but as payments under Section 6 of the Payments of Members’ Expenses Act are exempt from income tax, it is not proposed to pay the £5,000. It is therefore proposed to pay £4,000, which will take into account the fact that it is free of tax. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.

Mr. Lowey: Your Excellency, I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution. It is vitally important that we have a very highly skilled and knowledgeable commission to look after this very im portant industry which is important to the economy. I opposed the introduction last time o f this particular piece o f legislation in the manner in which it was produced to us. I have no doubt at all that the figures that are being proposed are both very reasonable and are sustainable, and I believe that this Court should support it without division.

M r. Delaney: Your Excellency, just a clarification of the on-going situation. If there is a situation where in the future our ministries... where we have to set up commissions who have a similar type of expert knowledge but in different fields, will the same rules apply to them?

Dr. Mann: 1 think first of all it is obvious that we have got to iron out the presentdissimilar attention that is paid to each particular Government function. I am sure the committee charged with that duty will look at this matter over the next few months. By the time we come to the next session, with, as we hope, ministerial Government, I hope we will have a uniform policy.

The Governor: Chairman, do you wish to say anything else by way of reply?

Dr. M ann: I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.

Payment of Members’ Expenses (Financial Supervision Commission ) Order 1986 —Approved


The Governor: Hon. members, I move the motion standing in the name o f theChairman of the Executive Council. Will hon. members in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

1 congratulate hon. members on their sense of timing! That concludes the business o f the Court. The Council will now withdraw and leave the Keys to transact such business as Mr. Speaker may place before them.

The Council withdrew.

HOUSE OF KEYSThe Acting Speaker: The House will now stand adjourned until 2.30 this after

noon in its own Chamber. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 1.00 p.m. ■

House of Keys

report of proceedings of tynwald court · the open plan furniture layouts are currently being...

Documents