13 t128 21.6.11 · mr a f downie obe, mr e g lowey and mr j r turner, with mr j king, deputy clerk...

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

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

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

(HANSARD)

Douglas, Tuesday, 21st June 2011

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website

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

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

Volume 128, No. 13

ISSN 1742-2256

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2011

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 21st JUNE 2011

_________________________________________________________________ 1314 T128

BUSINESS TRANSACTED Page Leave of absence granted ..................................................................................................................1316 Procedural ..........................................................................................................................................1316 Papers laid before the Court..............................................................................................................1316 Bill for signature – Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill 2010...................................1319

Questions for Oral Answer Procedural – Question 7 for Written Answer ..................................................................................1320

1. Sunset clauses – Introduction into primary legislation .......................................................1320 2. Public Accounts Committee Report recommendations – Council of Ministers’ voting ..1321 3. CinemaNX Ltd – Directors’ residency ................................................................................1322 4. Revenue sharing arrangement – Effect of UK budget ........................................................1324 5. Customs and Excise Agreement – Revenue sharing arrangement .....................................1326 6. Customs and Excise Agreement – Estimated taxes and duties under separate system.....1326 8. Sexual offences against children – UK statistics.................................................................1328 9. Sarah’s Law – Introduction to Island ...................................................................................1329 10. Shaw’s Brow car park – Use of public funds; design fault ................................................1330 11. Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 – Powers available to Minister for Infrastructure..................................................................1332 12. Road network hierarchy – Changes to DoI policy statement .............................................1334 13. Planning applications – Incomplete applications; new roads.............................................1335 14. Solway Harvester – DoI intentions ......................................................................................1336 15. Self-build plots, Jurby – Delay in progressing applications ...............................................1337 16. Extradition requests re Island residents – Procedures and safeguards...............................1337 17. CinemaNX/Isle of Man Film Ltd – Exemption from registration and regulation.............1339 18. Police checks for civil servants – Categories where required ............................................1341

Question for Written Answer 7. Sexual offences against children – Number of offences.....................................................1343 19. First-time buyer homes – Agreements; applications; planning ..........................................1343

Orders of the Day 3. First Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives 2010-11 – Statement by the Minister for Economic Development............................................................1345 4. Review of the Planning System – Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure.....................1346 5. Taxi legislation (Road Transport Act 2001) – Progress of the Advisory Committee – Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure .............................................................................1348 6. Progress on High Value Individuals and the Review of the Planning System – Statement by the Minister for Economic Development............................................................1348 7. All-Island Synthetic Pitch Development – Expenditure approved ..........................................1349 8. Civic Amenity Site – North – Expenditure – Debate commenced ..........................................1358

The Court adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.32 p.m.

8. Civic Amenity Site – North – Debate continued – Expenditure approved .............................1363 9. Jurby Hangar 292 – Refurbishment – Expenditure approved ..................................................1369 10. Pumping Station Refurbishment Project Phase 2 – Expenditure approved.............................1375 11. Apprenticeship Update – Report received .................................................................................1380 12. Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee – First Report 2010-11 – Voting deferred until July sitting ...............................................................................................1386 17. Government Departments Act 1987 – Transfer of Functions Order 2011 approved..............1387 18. Payment of Members’ Expenses Act 1989 – Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 2011 approved......................................................1388


_________________________________________________________________ 1315 T128

19-25. European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 – European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 2) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Freezing of Funds, Etc) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Belarus Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Libya Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2011 approved – European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2011 approved ........1389 26. Civil Partnership Act 2011 – Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order 2011 approved ............................................1392 27. Civil Partnership Act 2011 – Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Civil Partnership (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2011 approved.............................................................1393 28. Fees and Duties Act 1989 – Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 approved ............1395 29. Marriage Act 1984 – Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 approved.........................................1396


49. Breast care – Appointment of dedicated specialist surgeon – Amended motion carried .......1399

Announcement of Royal Assent .......................................................................................................1437

The Court adjourned at 9.13 p.m.

Present:

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

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

The Attorney General (Mr S M Harding), Mr R P Braidwood, Mr D M W Butt, Mr D A Callister, Mrs C M Christian, Mr E A Crowe,

Mr A F Downie OBE, Mr E G Lowey and Mr J R Turner, with Mr J King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

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

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

Mr P Karran, Hon. A J Earnshaw and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Hon. G M Quayle (Middle); Mr R W Henderson and Mr J R Houghton (Douglas North);

Hon. D C Cretney and Mr W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mrs B J Cannell and Mr C R Robertshaw (Douglas East); Mr C G Corkish MBE and

Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Hon. P A Gawne and Mr Q B Gill (Rushen);

with Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald.


_________________________________________________________________ 1316 T128

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

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

PRAYERS The Lord Bishop

Leave of absence granted The President: Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson, has been granted

leave of absence for this sitting of Tynwald and I understand that the Treasury Minister will be 5 leaving us later, Hon. Members.

Procedural The President: I also wish to tell the Court, Hon. Members, that the Chief Minister has

requested to move Items 19 to 25, relative to European Union sanctions, as one but, as is normal practice, we will vote upon them individually.

Hon. Members, also for the notice of the Court, I propose to take Mrs Cannell’s motion 10 immediately following our tea break.

Papers laid before the Court The President: Hon. Members, I call upon the Clerk to lay Papers. The Clerk: Mr President, I lay before the Court the items listed at Item 1 on the Order Paper.

Government Departments Act 1987 Transfer of Functions Order 2011 [SD 359/11]

Payment of Members’ Expenses Act 1989

Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 2011 [SD 423/11]

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973

European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 2) Order 2011 [SD 315/11] European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Freezing of Funds, Etc) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 [SD 363/11] European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) Order 2011 [SD 365/11] European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 3) Order 2011 [SD 427/11] European Union (Belarus Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 [SD 493/11]


_________________________________________________________________ 1317 T128

European Union (Libya Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2011 [SD 488/11] European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2011 [SD 490/11]

Civil Partnership Act 2011

Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order 2011 [SD 347/11] Civil Partnership Act 2011 Fees and Duties Act 1989

Civil Partnership (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2011 [SD 342/11] Fees and Duties Act 1989

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 [SD 344/11] Marriage Act 1984

Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 [SD 343/11] Customs & Excise Act 1993

Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 (Application) Order 2011 [SD 299/11]

Customs & Excise Management Act 1986 Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1986

Excise Duties (No. 2) Order 2011 [SD 373/11] Collective Investment Schemes Act 2008

Collective Investment Schemes (Experienced Investor Fund) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 [SD 355/11]

Collective Investment Schemes (Recognised Schemes) (Offering Document) Regulations 2011 [SD 356/11]

Collective Investment Schemes (Recognised Schemes) (Luxembourg) Order 2011 [SD 357/11] Collective Investment Schemes (Recognised Schemes) (Ireland) Order 2011 [SD 358/11]

Income Tax Act 2003

Income Tax (Poland) Order 2011 [SD 244/11] Income Tax (Mexico) Order 2011 [SD 318/11]

Income Tax Act 1970

Income Tax (Poland) (Double Taxation) Order 2011 [SD 245/11] Incorporated Cell Companies Act 2010

Incorporated Cells Regulations 2011 [SD 387/11]

Sea-Fisheries Act 1971 Sea-Fisheries (Three-Mile Area) (Lobster and Crab) Bye-Laws 2011 [SD 384/11]

Plant Health Act 1983

Plant Health Order 2011 [SD 385/11] Inland Fisheries Act 1976

Inland Fisheries (Winter Fishing) Regulations 2011 [SD 386/11] Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011 [SD 246/11]


_________________________________________________________________ 1318 T128

Social Security Act 2000 Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 [SD 247/11] Social Security Legislation (Credits) (Application) Order 2011 [SD 248/11] Social Security Legislation (Benefits) (Application) (No. 2) Order 2011 [SD 267/11]

Pension Schemes Act 1995

Pension Schemes Legislation (Application) Order 2011 [SD 249/11] Superannuation Act 1984

Isle of Man Government Unified Scheme 2011 [SD 389/11]

Reports Council of Ministers’ report and response to the consultation on an Isle of Man Government Unified Pension Scheme [GD 26/11] Department of Infrastructure – Report on Douglas Quayside Development Scheme [GD 23/11] The Chief Constable’s Annual Report 2010 – 2011 [GD 17/11]

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

Documents subject to negative procedure European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973

Iran Sanctions (No. 2) Regulations 2011 [SD 316/11] Côte D’Ivoire Sanctions (Freezing of Funds, Etc) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2011 [SD 364/11] Syria Sanctions Regulations 2011 [SD 366/11] Iran Sanctions (Amendment) Regulations 2011 [SD 428/11] Libya Sanctions (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2011 [SD 489/11] Syria Sanctions (Amendment) Regulations 2011 [SD 491/11] Belarus Sanctions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2011 [SD 494/11]

Documents subject to no procedure

Currency Act 1992 Currency (50 Years of Yamaha at the TT) (50 Pence Coins) Order 2011 [SD 313/11] Currency (100 Years of the TT Mountain Course) (Crown Coins) Order 2011 [SD 314/11]

Value Added Tax Act 1996

Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2011 [SD 268/11] Child Custody Act 1987

Child Abduction and Custody (Parties to Conventions) Order 2011 [SD 360/11] Incorporated Cell Companies Act 2010

Incorporated Cell Companies (Fees) Regulations 2011 [SD 362/11] Insurance Act 2008

Insurance (Incorporated Cell Companies) Regulations 2011 [SD 374/11] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985

Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 [SD 421/11]

Public Health (Aircraft and Ships) (Isle of Man) (Amendment) Order 2011 [SI 2011 No. 1212]

European Community

EC Secondary Legislation – May 2011 [GC 23/11]


_________________________________________________________________ 1319 T128

Appointed Day Orders Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2010

Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2010 (Appointed Day) Order 2011 [SD 339/11]

Marriage and Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2011

Marriage and Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2011 (Appointed Day) (No. 1) Order 2011 [SD 345/11]

Civil Partnership Act 2011

Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Appointed Day) (No. 2) Order 2011 [SD 346/11] Endangered Species Act 2010

Endangered Species Act 2010 (Appointed Day) Order 2011 [SD 390/11]

Reports Report on complaints made against the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald [PP 85/11] Department of Home Affairs – Policing Plan 2011 – 2012 [GD 18/11] Isle of Man Government – Financial Information and Miscellaneous Accounts – Year ended 31st March 2010 [GD 42/10] The Treasury – Marketing Initiatives Fund – Report for the year 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011 [GD 19/11]

Bill for signature Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill 2010

The President: Hon. Members, we have the one Bill for signature: Children and Young 15

Persons (Amendment) Bill 2010. Are you agreed, Hon. Members, that we circulate that as we continue with our business?

(Members: Agreed.) Agreed, Hon. Members, thank you.


_________________________________________________________________ 1320 T128

Questions for Oral Answer

Procedural Question 7 for Written Answer

The President: We turn, then, to the Question Paper. Hon. Members, I would ask you to please note that Question 7 will be answered in written 20

form. Question 7 is for Written Answer.

CHIEF MINISTER

Sunset clauses Introduction into primary legislation

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

What the Council of Ministers’ view is on the desirability of introducing ‘sunset clauses’ into specific pieces of future primary legislation, for example requiring approval from Tynwald Court every five years for the legislation to remain in force, thereby taking a degree of control over the legislation away from the Privy Council, to the Isle of Man Government? 25 The President: So we turn, then, to the Question Paper, Hon. Members. I call upon the Hon. Member, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 30 The President: Chief Minister to reply, please. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, the Council of Ministers would only support

the introduction of a sunset clause within legislation if it is deemed absolutely necessary, sir. 35 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Supplementary, Eaghtyrane. Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that it is imperative with the fact that, once legislation 40

has got Royal Assent, then you need Royal Assent to rescind it? Would he not agree that the Ard-shirveishagh should, with his Council of Ministers, consider the fact that we should be looking more on this basis, in order to make sure that we keep control of our primary legislation?

The President: Chief Minister. 45 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. We do keep control of our legislation, because once a Bill has been enacted and becomes an

Act, it then requires an Act of Tynwald to actually rescind that legislation, which means it goes through the Branches in the normal way and it would, therefore, be a decision of the House of 50 Keys and the Legislative Council and that requirement that it be signed by a quorum of both Branches here in Tynwald Court. As long as it does not cause any problems in relation to our international obligations etc, then it is likely to receive Royal Assent, like any other piece of legislation, sir.

55 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President. Could the Chief Minister advise the Court what working definition of ‘necessary’ he is

employing in his first Answer, sir? 60 The President: Chief Minister.


_________________________________________________________________ 1321 T128

The Chief Minister: Yes, Mr President. What I said was ‘absolutely necessary’: that means it should actually be an exception, not the

norm, sir. 65 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the item of Royal Assent

being ‘likely’ is not good enough? Would he not agree that we need to look at the issue that by 70 doing this procedure more often, then what happens is that we keep full control of our primary legislation, so that the situation is you do not have to ‘likely’ get the Royal Assent, if there is a change as far as the legislation is concerned?

The President: Chief Minister. 75 The Chief Minister: Mr President, I think that the introduction of sunset clauses just now and

then in all sorts of legislation would cause real uncertainty, would cause chaos in terms of our statutes and is not in the Island’s best interests, sir. Such a system would be nonsensical.

80 The President: Finally, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, could the Ard-shirveishagh, instead of the usual rant that we get

often, could he actually explain why it would be ‘nonsensical’, especially if political things change, as far as this is concerned and we are held to ransom over the fact that, likely, we would 85 get Royal Assent, but likely we might not get Royal Assent on issues? The reason is that this would give more flexibility on pieces of legislation, where you don’t have to fall out of touch with the United Kingdom in order to do a piece of legislation in primary law, approved for the people of the Isle of Man by a foreign government.

90 The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: First, Mr President, we are not a sovereign state. Secondly, for a Member

who has been here over 25 years, I find the statements he is making illogical. If he understands legislation, which he says he does, then he knows very well why we would not include sunset 95 clauses into most of our legislation. Our statutes would be in an absolute mess and it would not be in the Island’s best interests to do so, sir.

Public Accounts Committee Report recommendations Council of Ministers’ voting

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

Why the Council of Ministers voted against recommendations 1 and 6 of the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Media Development Fund and the Public Investment in the Film Industry 1995 to 2009? 100 The President: Question 2, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 105 The President: Again, Chief Minister to answer, please. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Mr President, I refer the Member for Onchan, Mr Karran,

to the Hansard of Tynwald Proceedings for the December 2010 sitting of Tynwald, when the Council of Ministers’ reasons for not supporting recommendations 1 and 6 of the Public Accounts 110 Committee Report were fully explained by the Treasury Minister and the Minister for Economic Development – and, sir, supported by this Court.

The President: Mr Karran. 115


_________________________________________________________________ 1322 T128

Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that recommendation 1… the FD8 waiver is sought by the Treasury itself? Such a waiver shall not be granted unless first approved by the Council of Ministers.

Recommendation 6 was the extension of the replacement of the agreement of CinemaNX should only occur with the approval of Tynwald. Would he not agree that the reason behind this 120 was the cover-up? What has been going on, as far as this affair is concerned?

A Member: Rubbish. The President: Chief Minister. 125 The Chief Minister: Mr President, the Minister for the Treasury and the Minister for

Economic Development both explained in detail why the Council of Ministers should not support recommendation 1 and recommendation 6. That was endorsed by Tynwald Court. That is democracy. The decision was made, sir. 130

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that this is just another example of the

block vote that is taking over this parliament building and the fact is that it was an excuse so that 135 you did not have to have the approval of Tynwald, as far as any other agreements coming up?

Does he not agree that this is an abuse of the power of the executive, as far as this issue is concerned, and many other issues that are happening too often with this Government?

The President: Chief Minister. 140 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I do not believe that it is an abuse of the powers of the Government here in Tynwald Court. We

are in a minority within Tynwald Court; we have to persuade the majority. If the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, got his way, and had a party in here, they would 145

then control Tynwald by a majority and therefore the say of the people would actually be more limited, sir.

The President: Mr Karran. 150 Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the fact is that at least it would be

open and transparent, instead of a one-party state by patronage, where you bring everybody into the executive?

The President: Chief Minister. 155 Mr Karran: You’re the answer to it… The Chief Minister: The patronage, sir, would be by the leader of the party who would be in

power in here. We all know how party systems work. 160 I believe the Isle of Man has a very good system that serves the people of this Island very well,

and when they want, they change the Members of this House and are not linked to a party, sir. As you can tell, I am not in favour of parties.

TREASURY

CinemaNX Ltd Directors’ residency

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

If she will make a statement on the apparent anomaly between the residency of the directors and shareholders of CinemaNX Ltd as filed at the Companies Registry, which specifies that 165 66% of the shares were held by residents of the Isle of Man and the calculation of the


_________________________________________________________________ 1323 T128

adjustment in respect of residency in Note 5(b) of the financial statements to 30th June 2008 of CinemaNX Ltd, of which her Financial Controller is a director, which implies that only 12.9% of the shares are held by residents of the Isle of Man? 170 The President: Question 3, Hon. Member, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Minister for the Treasury, Mrs Craine to answer. 175 The Minister for the Treasury (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. There is no inconsistency between the records held at the Companies Registry, with respect to

the residency of the directors and shareholders of CinemaNX Ltd which, at that date, accurately reflects that 66% of those shares were held by Island residents. Similarly, I can confirm that the 180 resident company income tax return, declared by CinemaNX Ltd for the period covered by the financial statements for the year 30th June 2008 is, indeed, consistent with this percentage of resident shareholding being 66%.

Therefore, Mr President, there is no anomaly, as implied by the Hon. Member, upon which to make a statement. 185

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee tell us for the financial statement continued of

31st June 2008, when it talks about the profits of ordinary activities multiplied by the applicant 190 rate of… the distribution rate… profits charged at 18%, that adjustment in respect of residency, so there is £212,000.24 but there is an adjustment for residency of £184,724, does this not apply that only 12.9 of the shares are held by residents, components within the Island, or is this some way of avoiding that tax?

195 The President: Mr Karran, it is very unlikely that the Treasury Minister has access to those

figures. Treasury Minister. The Minister: I am afraid, Mr President, that the Hon. Member is mistaken about his 200

calculations in respect of this matter. If he wishes to come and discuss the matter with us in Treasury, we will be more than happy to try and take him through the calculations.

The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. 205 Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr President. Would the Treasury Minister agree that, for once, the Hon. Member for Onchan should be

congratulated for bringing to public attention the whole issue of the debts, overspending and write-offs of many millions of pounds into the film industry which, before, the public were unaware of?

210 The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I find it quite interesting that the Hon. Member should have jumped on this bandwagon. 215 A Member: It is not a bandwagon. The Minister: Indeed it is a bandwagon and it is the declared intention of that Hon. Member to

bring into disrepute this Government, as far as he can, before he retires at the end of this session, sir. I think that most inadvisable and of ill repute. 220

I would say that it is unfortunate that this matter has received such exposure as it has. This industry has progressed, it has not progressed on public tax financing. The initial funding that was put in place has been repaid and multiplied.

I think it very unfortunate that, whatever is done now to try and set the record straight, there is a stain of dishonour against this industry, purely made by the slurs implied by the Hon. Members 225 here before us today, and I think it is time it stopped, Mr President. I do think that, yes, there has been transparency, there has been a Public Accounts Committee Report, but for them to


_________________________________________________________________ 1324 T128

continuously disparage this industry which has contributed to the Isle of Man’s economy, is quite unfortunate.

230 A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Mr Callister, Hon. Member of Council. Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. 235 In view of an article which appeared in the Isle of Man Examiner this week, accredited to Steve

Christian of CinemaNX, will she ask CinemaNX, through Mr Christian, to circulate to all the Members of Tynwald all the financial statistics, which may very well prove that the tax on CinemaNX and the film industry in the Isle of Man are inappropriate?

240 The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: I am more than happy to do that, Mr President. I think in the past, actually, Mr Christian has volunteered to come and talk to Hon. Members,

and I am sure that he would be happy to do that again. 245 A Member: Hear, hear. The President: Mr Karran. 250 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that there is a large

amount of public money, as far as this is concerned. Can she just clarify, just in case there is a problem with amnesia in this Hon. Court, how much public money has been involved, as far as the investment into this project is concerned? Would the Shirveishagh also not agree that, outside this Hon. Court, many may take her reaction as the fact that, once again, you have been caught out, but 255 you have been caught out within this Hon. Chamber, instead of outside this Hon. Chamber?

The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: My reaction, Mr President, is one of indignation about the constant abuse that is 260

placed towards Members in this Court and towards others who are outside, trying to contribute to the Manx economy. I think that we have gone beyond the remit of this Question.

The President: Question 4 – 265 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane –

Revenue sharing arrangement Effect of UK budget


In light of the UK budget on 23rd March 2011, if she will – (a) itemise each of the different taxes and duties covered by the revenue sharing arrangements with the UK; (b) indicate what her expectations were in terms of income from the revenue sharing 270 arrangements in the financial year 2011-12, and whether and to what extent her expectations are still valid; and (c) estimate the net effect on the Isle of Man’s share under the revenue sharing arrangements of the changes announced by the UK Chancellor in his budget of 23rd March 2011? 275 The President: Question 4, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Treasury Minister. 280


_________________________________________________________________ 1325 T128

The Minister for the Treasury (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. The taxes and duties by the revenue sharing arrangements with the UK are: VAT; tobacco

products duty; beer duty; spirits duty; wine and made-wine duty; cider and perry duty; customs duty; anti-dumping duty, including agricultural duties; and pool betting duty.

In relation to section (b) of this Question, the estimate for indirect tax revenue for 2011-12, 285 including that arising from the revenue sharing arrangements, is set out on page 31 of this year’s Pink Book, to which I refer the Hon. Member.

In relation to the second part of this Question, as the Hon. Member is aware, ongoing discussions are taking place with the United Kingdom. As I have previously indicated to the Hon. Member, both privately and publicly, I do not believe it appropriate or sensible of me to make 290 further comment while such discussions continue.

In relation to section (c), the only significant revenue impact of the changes announced in the UK budget of 23rd March 2011 relate to hydrocarbon oils. It is estimated that the UK decision to abolish the fuel duty escalator, to delay the anticipated April 2011 fuel duty increase, and to immediately decrease it by one penny per litre, will have the effect of reducing the 2011-12 295 estimate of hydrocarbon oil duty by around £2.7 million.

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, a supplementary to the Treasury Minister. 300 Would the Shirveishagh also agree that Hon. Members need this information so that the

figures, that they can have a sound financial judgement when being asked as far as approved expenditure?

With regard to part (b), would the Minister explain in relation to the ongoing negotiations with United Kingdom regarding the sharing of common duties, what the Isle of Man should receive, the 305 monetary amount of which the UK government would like to see the Isle of Man share reduced by, compared to the expenditure of the time of her Budget in the financial year 2011-12 and also which has an effect as far as the Budget of 2012-13? Does the Minister not recognise that this Hon. Court needs to know what the figures are before we are out expending expenditure that we might not actually have after the General Election? 310

The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. It is my duty, and I will expect to perform my duty of informing Members of any such 315

information when I receive it. The Chief Minister: Absolutely. The President: Mr Karran. 320 Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee inform this Hon. Court, as far as her duty as far

as informing this Court, does she not have any ideas of what amounts of money are involved? Does she not feel that it is irresponsible of the executive to keep the parliament in the dark, as

far as what is potentially around the corner, or is it being kept quiet until after the General 325 Election?

The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: I believe this line of questioning, Mr President, to be irresponsible, in light of 330

the fact that ongoing discussions are taking place. Mr Lowey: Absolutely. Several Members: Hear, hear. 335


_________________________________________________________________ 1326 T128

Customs and Excise Agreement Revenue sharing arrangement


In relation to the Customs and Excise Agreement between the Isle of Man and the UK: (a) whether there is a bilaterally agreed revenue sharing arrangement between the Isle of Man and the UK; and (b) if so, if she will describe it, including the time period that it covers? Furthermore, if there is not a bilaterally agreed revenue sharing arrangement between the Isle 340 of Man and the UK – (c) why that is; and (d) what risk this situation holds for the share under the revenue sharing arrangement that the Isle of Man expects to receive in 2011-12 and in the future? 345 The President: We go on to Question 5. I call the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: Again, Treasury Minister, Mrs Craine. 350 The Minister for the Treasury (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. There is a bilaterally agreed and signed revenue sharing arrangement between the Isle of Man

and the UK. It can be downloaded from the Isle of Man Customs and Excise website. There is no time limit mentioned in the revenue sharing arrangements 2009 or the HM 355

Treasury direction 2007. The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Treasury Minister just clear up a bit of confusion, as far as the notice 360

period, if any, in relation to the changing of the sharing agreement from common duties with the UK? Is it not correct that she said in another place that there was a two-year notice period, but then she thought… she then said that the agreement did not specify a notice period?

Can she clarify to this Hon. Court, the two confusions between the different agreements, as far as the clarification, as far as the situation is concerned, in this Hon. Court? 365

The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: Mr President, the arrangement that we have is not time-limited, it will roll on,

as long as both sides agree. At any such time that either side should wish to withdraw from that 370 agreement, then there is a two-year time limit, or a two-year time period of notice.

Mr Lowey: It will be six months…

Customs and Excise Agreement Estimated taxes and duties under separate system


In light of the answer given by Mr Gauke, MP, Exchequer Secretary to HM Treasury on 12th November 2010 (Column 525W) regarding the UK policy towards the Isle of Man in respect of 375 sharing the revenues associated with the Customs and Excise Agreement between our two countries, what her estimate is of the amount of each of the taxes and duties, particularly VAT, covered by the Agreement and its associated revenue sharing arrangements which the Island would collect if it had a system separate from that in the UK but based on the same principles? 380 The President: Question 6, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name.


_________________________________________________________________ 1327 T128

The President: Again, Minister for the Treasury to reply. 385 The Minister for the Treasury (Mrs Craine): Thank you, Mr President. There have been technical discussions between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man since

autumn last year, regarding the revenue sharing arrangement. These discussions are ongoing, and I believe it to be detrimental to make their content public, and this includes attempting to estimate the amount of each tax and duty covered by the agreement that would become due if the Isle of 390 Man sat outside the indirect tax agreement with the UK, which it does not.

The Court has my statement, Mr President. I make no further comment. The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. 395 Mr Cannan: Can the Minister reaffirm that… the Treasury Minister stated in the House of

Commons that it was the policy of the United Kingdom that the Isle of Man should receive a VAT revenue equal to what they would obtain if they were independent and charged the same rates of Value Added Tax? Will she inform the Court, for the sake of the public to know – not me, not personal slurs – if the Isle of Man is receiving an amount equivalent to what it would receive if it 400 was independent, so that people wanting independence will know exactly where they stand?

The President: Treasury Minister. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President. 405 I can confirm that that was the statement of Mr Gauke, and I can tell the Hon. Member that the

position is that we are receiving what we should receive at the present time. In light of the fact that negotiations are ongoing, I think it not to be helpful to go further on that question.

The President: Mr Karran. 410 Mr Karran: Allowing for the fact that I have withdrawn several Questions over the last six

months or so on this issue, does the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that it seems very convenient that we cannot get a negotiated settlement, as far as this issue, until after the General Election? What assurances can we have that the situation is that the executive is spending correctly, allowing 415 for a General Election coming up, so that we do not end up with a situation where we have massive cuts after that General Election?

The President: Treasury Minister. 420 The Minister: The Election has got nothing to do with this, Mr President. (The Chief

Minister: Absolutely.) I regret to advise the Hon. Member that life goes on before and after an election date, and these negotiations are ongoing. The result of them will be found and announced in due course, as and when that negotiation concludes.

425 The President: Finally, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee not agree that the fact is – ‘promises made and

promises broken’ – we were told last April – was it last June, as well? – last April, and before that, that there would be a firmed-up, committed agreement, as far as this is concerned? Does she not 430 agree that this seems to contradict the issues, as far as convenience, for this issue to be spread over a longer period than…? The fact is that we were actually told that there would be a negotiated settlement, long before this sitting of this Hon. Court.

The President: Treasury Minister. 435 The Minister: The Hon. Member refers to negotiations being concluded last April. If I could remind the Hon. Member that, in the United Kingdom, we now have a new

government – a coalition government – who have not abided by the conditions given by a previous administration. They have chosen to review this matter. In order to be able to come to an 440 agreement, it takes both sides to be able to agree.

I do think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member does not recognise that the world has changed; that there are conditions out there that we now have to fight against that were not there previously. I think it is unfortunate, as I have said again, that the Hon. Member chooses to drive


_________________________________________________________________ 1328 T128

this to his own agenda of the Election. It is not the case that this will be concluded by a particular 445 date, to suit that convenience. This matter will be concluded at the right time and, sometimes, Mr President, we have to be careful what we wish for, because if they are concluded too early, then it could be that the fulsome discussions that will be taking place will not reach the conclusion that will favour our Island.

450 Mr Lowey: Hear, hear.

HOME AFFAIRS

Sexual offences against children Number of offences

7. The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Henderson) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:

In each of the last five years: (a) how many reports of sexual abuse against children have been reported to his Department; (b) how many people have been charged with sex offences against children; and (c) how many people have been convicted in court of sexual offences against children? 455 [Question for Written Answer] The President: Hon. Members, as I indicated, Question 7 is for Written Answer.

Sexual offences against children UK statistics


What his Department’s view is of the latest UK statistics showing that one in four victims of child sex attacks were under 11 years of age and more than 1,000 of the 23,000 child sex offences recorded in 2009-10 were victims under four years old. 460 The President: We turn to Question 8 and I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr

Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name. 465 The President: I call Mr Earnshaw, Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. In parallel with all decent people, the Department of Home Affairs is appalled by any sex 470

attack on a child, irrespective of where the offence occurs. I was intending to stop my Answer there, but in view of the fact that Questions such as this raise unnecessary fears among parents of youngsters, I wish to provide members of the public with the following reassurance.

In the Isle of Man, between the Police, prison and probation services and the Department of Social Care, we have a child protection system that is efficient and effective. All agencies are 475 involved in a joint risk assessment matrix system which, at the current time, features adults who have either been convicted, or who could be potentially dangerous. The professional advice available to me indicates that this multi-agency approach is considered to be the most appropriate way to protect our children and is currently, I am content to say, working well.

480


_________________________________________________________________ 1329 T128

Our system of public protection means that offenders who are perceived to be of concern and 480 possible danger to the community are monitored under our multi-agency arrangements. What the Department of Home Affairs can confidently say is that, at this present time, the great majority of sex offenders on this Island are known about, registered and in contact with the appropriate agencies. This fact, combined with robust supervision enforced by both the Probation Service and the Police, means the community is well protected. 485

I would just like to conclude. The Question asks what my Department’s views of the latest UK statistics, showing that one in four victims of child sex attacks were under 11 years of age and more than 1,000 of the 23,000 child sex offences recorded in 2009-10 were victims under four years of age. That is in the UK. Just to add to my reassurance and to try and settle things for those interested in this subject – which is most of us – in the Isle of Man, I am very pleased to say there 490 were no prosecutions for sex attacks against anyone under the age of 11 in 2010, which is the corresponding period.

The President: Mr Henderson. 495 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I thank the Shirveishagh for his answer. Firstly, Eaghtyrane, I would like to ask the Shirveishagh to agree with me that in no way, shape

or form is my Question questioning the ability of his departmental officers to handle this situation. If he would agree with that, firstly, that there is no attack on his Department in the way they 500 handle things, but in fact that I am seeking his view on the UK statistics and I am pleased to note what he has just said. Would he further agree that it is something that we need to seriously monitor here at all times and can he confirm that that does happen?

The President: Minister, Mr Earnshaw. 505 The Minister: I cannot say any more than I already have done. We certainly take this situation

most seriously and we do monitor it at all times.

Sarah’s Law Introduction to Island


If he will re-examine the principle of introducing Sarah’s Law to the Isle of Man? 510 The President: Question 9, Hon. Member for Douglas North. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name. 515 The President: Again, Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Earnshaw): Thank you, Eaghtyrane. This follows very closely on the previous Question and the previous Answer. I would like to say, Eaghtyrane, that in October 2010, I made a detailed statement to this Hon. 520

Court as to why my Department does not at present intend to introduce Sarah’s Law in the Isle of Man. The reasons that I gave then remain valid and whilst I shall undertake – which I have already done – to monitor the situation in the UK, I see no purpose at present in re-examining this matter, ahead of the promised review date, which is October 2013.

525 The President: Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Shirveishagh not agree with me that, in the Answers he gave to my previous

Questions, in fact his information is not as informed as it could be? Would he agree with me that, 530 in fact, the situation where he was citing vigilanteeism was absolutely nothing – nothing whatsoever – to do with the introduction of Sarah’s Law, and the incidents were totally unrelated?


_________________________________________________________________ 1330 T128

The President: Mr Earnshaw. The Minister: Well, I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member is driving at there, but I think 535

it is important to say to this Court and in public, Eaghtyrane, that if I thought Sarah’s Law was a better system for the Isle of Man, I would introduce it. Why would I not do so?

The President: Mr Henderson, for Douglas North. 540 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Would the Shirveishagh agree with me that I am not wanting Sarah’s Law, or the disclosure

system that is now operated in the UK, to replace what is here? Would he agree with me that it has always been my intention to use it as an additional tool in the Minister’s box for handling this kind of situation? 545

The President: I think the Minister has already said that he would re-look at it, but Mr

Earnshaw. Mr Henderson: An additional set. 550 The Minister: What I am saying – and I cannot say it any more clearly than I have already

done so – I believe we have got an entirely appropriate system already in place for the Isle of Man, which is working well.

555 The President: Finally, then, Mr Henderson. Mr Henderson: Given the Minister’s blinkered view on this, Eaghtyrane, would he agree to

meet with me and Sarah Payne, who campaigned for this, and look at all the information that has been pulled together by her and the UK officials who are now working on the new disclosure 560 system and examine how it has worked very well across the entire UK, as an adjunct to the systems already in place?

The President: Mr Earnshaw. 565 The Minister: It may well be working satisfactorily in the UK – I am not totally convinced

that that is the case, but that may well be the case. I do not know. I represent the Government in the Isle of Man, not the government in the UK. What we have is

working very well here, and I am content with it. 570 Mr Henderson: Would he – ?

INFRASTRUCTURE

Shaw’s Brow car park Use of public funds; design fault

10. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

Whether public funds were used to develop and build Shaw’s Brow car park; whether there is a design fault with the car park; and what actions are being taken to protect the public purse to resolve the design problems? 575 The President: We go on to Question 10 and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr

Karran. Mr Henderson: Another supplementary, sir: he failed to answer the question. 580 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: I ask the Question standing in my name.


_________________________________________________________________ 1331 T128

The President: This time I turn to Mr Gawne, Minister for Infrastructure. 585 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I can confirm to the Hon. Member that public funds were used to develop and rebuild Shaw’s

Brow car park. Following completion of the building works, Douglas Borough Council had concerns about certain aspects of the design of parts of the car park. However, these concerns have now been addressed. 590

As there are no current design issues, there is no expenditure on the public purse in relation to it. The car park has now been constructed for over eight years and there are, of course, maintenance issues, which will require expenditure on a rolling basis.

The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 595 Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh inform this Hon. Court that the disputes that there were, as

far as the design on this building, have actually been resolved, and the issues of where they could not get the information from one of the professional bodies – one of the professional clients that was part of the design team would not give the information over – have been resolved? 600

Can the Shirveishagh also inform this Hon. Court of the issue of how much money was actually involved with this project, and can he inform this Hon. Court whether there is any further cost, as far as there are particular design faults that I have been told of, as far as this development is concerned?

605 The President: Mr Gawne. The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I should point out that, really, the Hon. Member should be directing his questions to Douglas

Corporation because it is their project. I think the only thing, the only involvement really with 610 Tynwald and, indeed, my Department now, formerly DoLGE, is the actual loan, which was in the region, I think, of £8 million which Douglas Corporation have taken out. I think, approximately, because there is a fairly complex agreement involved with it: the deficiency payment from my Department is in the region of £210,000 per annum.

As far as the negotiations on who did what and when, who was wrong with this and how much 615 they should be paid and all that kind of thing, that is Douglas Corporation that are dealing with that and it is primarily a Douglas Corporation issue.

The President: Mr Karran. 620 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Shirveishagh not agree, whilst taking his position as far as

Minister for Infrastructure, as that Minister he is responsible for good local government in the Island?

Does the Minister not agree that the issues of where money is being badly spent, then it is an issue where the taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for these things, should have the assurance 625 that when money is badly spent – just like CinemaNX – we make sure that we do not end up with a situation where we just cover it up?

The President: Mr Gawne. 630 The Minister: It is hard not to agree with most of what the Hon. Member says, because clearly

we would not want to cover things like this up. I disagree with him about his comments about CinemaNX, but yes, clearly, it is my role as Minister for Infrastructure, to make sure that Douglas Corporation is, as far as possible, doing its job properly.

I believe I do do that, and I am not entirely sure where the Hon. Member is coming from, in 635 terms of his question.


_________________________________________________________________ 1332 T128

Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 Powers available to Minister for Infrastructure

11. The Hon. Member of Council (Mr Butt) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

(a) When making his determination under article 8(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 in relation to two planning appeals made to him by Trevor Cowin and Mrs Allison Cowin, in respect of application PA10/01223/C and PA10/01124/B, whether he made his determination exercising his powers under article 8(3) of 640 that Order; and (b) whether in making the determination under article 8(3) of the Order in relation to appeals in respect of PA10/01223/C and PA10/01224/B the only powers available to him are that he can – (i) allow the appeal; or 645 (ii) dismiss the appeal; or whether he may, in either case, reverse or vary any part of the decision of the Committee, whether the appeal relates to that part or not? The President: We turn to Question 11, Hon. Members. 650 As I understand it, this individual case may be ongoing. Never mind, Mr Butt. Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. 655 The President: Mr Gawne, reply, sir. The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that this may be an ongoing matter. Certainly, an

appeal or a petition of doleance may be forthcoming, so I have got to be a little bit careful about 660 how I answer the Question.

I should draw attention to the application reference numbers which are quoted in the Hon. Member’s Question. There are three different numbers, only one of which relates to an application which has been the subject of an appeal by Mr and Mrs Cowin. I shall take the Question to relate to applications which are referenced PA10/01123/C and PA10/01124/B, both of which have been 665 the subject of appeal by Mr and Mrs Cowin.

I advise that, in determining both appeals, I exercised the powers accorded to the Minister by article 8(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. That article states that:

670 ‘The Minister shall consider the report of the appointed person and shall – (a) allow the appeal; or (b) dismiss the appeal and may in either case reverse or vary any part of the decision of the Committee, whether the appeal relates to that part or not.’ 675 I also advise that, in each case, I accepted the inspector’s recommendation that the appeal

should be dismissed, and that, in both cases, I varied the decision of the Planning Committee, as is permitted by the last part of article 8(3).

680 The President: Mr Butt. Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. Considering the matter has been ongoing, then, can I ask the Minister, would he agree that, as

he has not either allowed or dismissed the appeal of Mr and Mrs Cowin in his formal 685 determination, that the appeal process has not yet ended; and what action will he take to amend these obvious errors in procedure and his interpretation of his powers?

The President: Mr Gawne. 690 The Minister: As I understood it, I have dismissed the appeal. The President: Mr Butt.


_________________________________________________________________ 1333 T128

Mr Butt: Thank you, Mr President. Therefore, can I ask then why, instead of notifying Mr and Mrs Cowin on the outcome of their 695

appeals, did your Chief Executive simply send them a copy of a letter dated 12th May, addressed to Heritage Homes, in which he included two approval notices addressed to Heritage Homes in which you, the Minister, had approved the two planning applications which were referred to, which had already been approved by the Planning Committee? There was no reference in those determinations that the appeal had either being dismissed or allowed. 700

The President: Minister, Mr Gawne. Mr Gawne: I think it would be pretty obvious if the applications had been approved, that the

appeal has been dismissed. 705 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh not agree that, whilst his CEO is one of the better CEOs

as far as Government is concerned, this issue of the errors that have been made, as far as this case 710 is concerned, should be referred to investigation under the Civil Service capabilities procedure, as far as Government is concerned?

The President: Minister. 715 The Minister: I am very grateful to the Hon. Member for his praise of my Chief Executive,

and I would echo that. I see absolutely no reason in this case why this should be taken any further. The President: Finally, Mr Butt. 720 Mr Butt: Finally, Mr President, can I ask why his determination, which was sent by the

Heritage Homes letter, made no mention at all of the appeals made by Mr and Mrs Cowin, which were the matters he was required to determine under article 8(3)?

Can I further ask that he looks carefully at the papers which he has in his Department over this issue, to ensure that he has followed the correct procedure, because it is likely, from the 725 information I have received and what I have read, that maybe the procedures have not been followed as they should have been? Can I ask the Minister to come back and let us know if he has followed procedures correctly?

The President: Minister. 730 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. All I can say is I am absolutely confident that the decision I have taken is the correct decision. The President: Mr Karran. 735 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, gura mie eu. Thank you for that. Would the Shirveishagh not agree that the fact is there seems to be a serious difference

between your advice that has been given, and the Minister’s advice is only as good as his officers? Does he not agree that the situation needs to be consistent within Government and that we 740

should be making sure that if things are wrong and you have been given wrong information, or they are not doing the job right, then the situation, whether it is the Chief Executive or the man that brushes the streets, that in this case there seems to be something fundamentally wrong as far as how this is being dealt with, and that the Civil Service should be looking at the procedures as far as capability is concerned, in order to show that there is not a problem as far as that is 745 concerned?

The President: Now, Minister, I am concerned that there is an implication made that, in fact,

there is something wrong. Just reply to that, sir. 750 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Not speaking specifically about this case, but I will speak generally about planning appeals, or

certainly my experience and the experience of my Department over the course of the 12 months or so that we have had responsibility for this area.


_________________________________________________________________ 1334 T128

I do agree that there are changes and improvements that need to be made, in terms of the whole 755 way in which planning appeals are carried out. There are some weaknesses in the procedure which need to be improved. My Department and the Chief Secretary’s Office, both of whom have a role to play in this, are currently looking into how we can tighten up procedures to ensure that we are absolutely correctly following every single procedure.

760 The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Cannan: Would the Minister agree that not only in this application, but in all planning

appeals handled by his Department or coming to the notice of his Department, there should be absolute accuracy and care and attention because they are so important, planning appeals, into the 765 administration?

Can I give him just one glaring example where, in the notice in this particular case, the Barclays Private Clients International Ltd, of Victoria Street, Douglas are referred to as the ‘mortgagee’. Banks do not borrow money; they lend money. They should be the ‘mortgagors’. Throughout the paperwork of this case, there have been serious inconsistencies which have been 770 highlighted in this Court. Will the Minister agree, there must be absolute integrity and accuracy in dealing with planning appeals?

The President: Mr Gawne. 775 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Yes, I do absolutely agree that it is unfortunate that slips happen from time to time. Indeed, we

have been looking at how we can make sure… well, we can never make sure that there is never such a thing as a mistake; there are always mistakes that happen from time to time, but we are certainly doing everything we can to minimise that. Certainly, the Department does have some 780 proposals. As I say, we are working with the Chief Secretary’s Office to ensure that we minimise the errors that do creep in from time to time.

The President: The difficulty, Hon. Members, is that we get into generalities when we get

specific items. 785 I will allow one further supplementary. Mr Butt. Mr Butt: Thank you, sir. The Minister will be aware that the main opponent in this case has a track record of being

accurate in his interpretation of laws and regulations and I would ask the Minister if he will return 790 to his Department and carefully look at his powers under section 8(3) of the procedure to determine if there have been errors; and if there have been errors, will he correct those?

The President: Minister. 795 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I think I have already agreed that I acknowledge, in generality, that there are issues that we can

do better in terms of the way in which we deal with planning appeals. With regard to the ability of anybody to be absolutely perfect and get everything absolutely

perfectly right, I would say that both in the case of Mr Cowin and others, everyone gets it wrong 800 from time to time.

Road network hierarchy Changes to DoI policy statement


What changes have been made to the Department’s policy statement relating to the hierarchy of the Island’s road network dated February 2004? The President: We go on to Question 12. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 805 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name.


_________________________________________________________________ 1335 T128

The President: Again, the Answer is in the hands of the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Gawne.

810 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I can advise the Hon. Member that there have been no changes to the hierarchy of the Island’s

road network. The President: Mr Karran. 815 Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply… So the likes of Gardener’s Lane in

Ramsey has not had a different definition, as far as the road’s status is concerned? The President: Mr Gawne. 820 The Minister: Not as far as I have been advised or am aware.

Planning applications Incomplete applications; new roads


(a) What defects in a planning application must there be for the Department of Infrastructure to consider an application as incomplete; and what happens to such an application; and (b) when the Department is considering new roads, whether it discusses this with other 825 Government Departments? The President: In that case, we turn to Question 13. Again, Mr Karran, please. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. 830 The President: Mr Gawne to reply. The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. In answer to part (a) of the Hon. Member’s Question, particulars required in support of any 835

application for planning approval are set down by statute, under article 4(1)(a) and schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. To assist applicants, a supporting form, PL2, was introduced some years ago, as a checklist to support submissions. If any item on that checklist is noted as missing or lacking, the application will be returned with a covering letter. If after 30 days that information is not forthcoming, the application fee, if any, will 840 be refunded.

In answer to part (b) – I am not sure how it ties in to part (a), but if it does, I am afraid the Department was unable to work out how – a new road, whether led by the Department or a developer, requires a planning application. This process gives everyone, including other Government Departments, an opportunity to comment on the proposals. If led by the Department, 845 the Department would undertake consultation prior to proceeding, and this consultation would include other Departments. This would include closer discussion with any Department that had a strong interest in the matter.

The Department would also need funding approval for a new road, and the approval process would provide further opportunity for other Departments to comment. 850

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply… So the Department of

Education was aware of the proposals that there have been for some time, about putting a new 855 road through the playing fields at QEII school, as far as Peel is concerned?

The President: Mr Gawne, Minister for Infrastructure. The Minister: Gura mie eu. 860


_________________________________________________________________ 1336 T128

There has been a lot of mischief made, in relation to that particular item. Certainly, I am aware that a very rough, indicative route was worked out for a ring road around Peel, well over 10 years ago – round about 10 years ago, anyway. However, that was an indicative route and, quite clearly, there is no intention of slapping a road through the middle of playing fields in the QEII school.

865 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, just so that he clarifies for Hansard, the

fact is that if there are any proposals for new roads that directly affect other Government Departments, they will be raised in the Council of Ministers. 870

The President: Mr Gawne. The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Absolutely, and indeed I would be amazed if, at some point during the process, it did not get to 875

Tynwald as well. It is absolutely clear: Members of Tynwald would have a say over this matter.

Solway Harvester DoI intentions


What his Department’s plans and intentions are with regard to the Solway Harvester? The President: Question 14, Mr Karran. 880 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: And Mr Gawne. The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 885 In December 2008 the Department gave a commitment to the families of the deceased crew

that, having acquired ownership, the Department would not dispose of the Solway Harvester, until there was no longer the likelihood of it being required in any legal action that the families may pursue against the previous owner. The Department continues to stand by this commitment, as it is aware that protracted legal and civil action is still being pursued by the families. 890

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh give this Hon. Court any clear guidelines, as far as the

potential length that we will end up with that eyesore still down at the harbour? Maybe could the 895 Shirveishagh also inform this Hon. Court what the ongoing costs are and allowing for the fact that this affair has been a multi-million pound cost to the taxpayers of the Isle of Man?

The President: Minister. 900 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Unfortunately, I cannot give a timescale, because, as I said earlier, there are protracted legal

matters and they are complex. Clearly, the Department does, from time to time, write to the families to ask whether there is any likelihood of conclusion, but I do not believe it would be appropriate, bearing in mind all the expenditure that did go on in the initial phase, that, at this later 905 stage of the actions that are taking place, for the Department to put too much pressure on the families, I think would be unfortunate.

The costs certainly are there. They are not significant in the overall scheme of things and we have looked at other alternatives, perhaps relocating the vessel to some other place, but the costs of that would be considerably higher. We thought perhaps we could shift the vessel over to a port 910 somewhere in the United Kingdom or Ireland, or wherever, again, because the vessel is no longer seaworthy, it is highly unlikely that a port would accept the vessel and in any case, we would then have to pay for the vessel to be there. So it is certainly not a situation that the Department is


_________________________________________________________________ 1337 T128

comfortable with, in terms of, clearly, it is an upsetting sight for many people to see and many of us do see it on a daily basis, but I do believe we are doing the right thing by way of the families. 915

SOCIAL CARE

Self-build plots, Jurby Delay in progressing applications

15. The Hon. Member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the Minister for Social Care:

Whether he can account for the delay by his Department in progressing applications for the self-build plots at St Patrick’s View, Jurby? The President: We go on to Question 15. I call the Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan. 920 Mr Cannan: I ask the Question standing in my name, sir. The President: This time, we turn to the Minister for Social Care, Mr Quayle. The Minister for Social Care (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr President. 925 Ten serviced plots for sale to first-time buyers were made available in Jurby in 2003. Whilst

there was sufficient interest prior to commencement from potential purchasers for all the plots, the take-up on both the purchase and development of housing on each plot has been slow. At the present time, seven plots have been completed and houses constructed, whilst three plots remain unsold and undeveloped. Each of the three plots has been subject to offer on a number of 930 occasions, but potential purchasers were unable to complete.

In the past year, the Department has been made aware of problems for potential purchasers in obtaining finance for self-build housing. The Department has reviewed the terms by which the plots are being offered for sale to first-time buyers to help to address the problems. Resolving these matters has required some time working with the potential purchasers and third parties. In 935 addition to this, over the last year, my Department has been dealing with a record number of house purchasers, as well as many new applications for first-time-buyer properties. This exceptionally high volume of work further impacted on the progress of the sales of the Jurby plots.

Mr President, I can confirm to the Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan, that letters were sent out yesterday to the 13 potential purchasers who have already expressed an interest in the plots, 940 advising them of the current sales conditions, and I hope that the development of the relevant plots will now rapidly move forward towards completion.

The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member. 945 Mr Cannan: Mr President, I am delighted that, as a result of this Question, the letters went out

yesterday to applicants who had been enquiring for months and were constantly told, ‘Sorry, we’re too busy.’ But nevertheless, the Minister has at last sent the letters. Thank you.

The President: You are thanked, Mr Quayle. 950 The Minister: Not just to thank Mr Cannan for posing the Question, Mr President, but to

reassure him that it is not as a result of the Question appearing on this Order Paper that action has been taken. I should mention, too, the investment in Jurby is being welcomed by everybody.

HM ATTORNEY GENERAL

Extradition requests re Island residents Procedures and safeguards

16. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Attorney General:


_________________________________________________________________ 1338 T128

In relation to extradition requests from other jurisdictions in relation to Isle of Man residents, 955 for example from the USA – (a) whether such requests would be handled by the UK, under UK legislation and treaties and by the UK courts; (b) what powers the Isle of Man authorities or courts have in this process; (c) what conditions would have to be met in order for an extradition request to succeed; and 960 (d) what safeguards are built into the system to protect Manx residents, for example from politically motivated or trade-related extradition requests? The President: Question 16, Hon. Member for Onchan. 965 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: This time, I call Her Majesty’s Attorney General. The Attorney General: Mr President, an extradition request is the formal process by which a 970

country requests the extradition of a person whom that country wishes to try, or if already tried, to punish, for crimes committed within that country’s jurisdiction. The question of extradition arrangements between the Isle of Man and another jurisdiction is a matter of international comity between jurisdictions and, more typically, between states. This means that the question of extradition to a specific state must be looked at individually in order to ascertain the legal 975 framework surrounding potential extradition arrangements.

As matters stand, legislation concerning arrangements for extradition from the Island are contained in the Extradition Act 1989, an Act of Parliament, which applies directly to the Isle of Man by virtue of section 29 of the 1989 Act, as the Island is regarded as part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Act. Extradition from the Isle of Man to the United States of 980 America is pursuant to the 1972 Extradition Treaty between the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

Under the terms of the Treaty, extradition shall be granted where the offence in question is punishable under the laws of both jurisdictions by imprisonment or other form of detention for more than one year. This request for extradition from the Island will be made, as required by any 985 relevant treaty, through diplomatic channels. This would mean a request transmitted ultimately to the Secretary of State for the Home Office in the United Kingdom. This would not involve the Isle of Man authorities. Any substantive extradition proceedings would take place before an appropriate court of committal, within the meaning of the Act. In practice, this would be likely to be the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, at first instance, and then before the High Court 990 and Supreme Court, as necessary, on appeal. I think that deals with parts (a) and (b) of the Hon. Member’s Question.

In order for an extradition request to succeed, all the terms of the 1989 Act would have to be complied with. I shall briefly outline the procedure. An extradition request must be in writing and authenticated and be supported with certain particulars, including particulars of the offence of 995 which the person is accused, or was convicted. On receipt of the extradition request, the Secretary of State may issue an authority to proceed. This authorises the Magistrate’s Court to proceed to the next stage of the proceedings. If the authority to proceed is defective, then any proceedings following it are also bad. A warrant for arrest may then be issued on receipt of the authority to proceed by the relevant magistrates. After arrest, the next process is committal. For the court to 1000 proceed with the committal, the documents before it must be properly authenticated. This includes the particulars of the conduct which constitute the offence in the requesting state, the particulars of the law of the requesting state under which the conduct is punishable and the warrant of arrest from the requesting state. The court must verify the identity of the persons to be committed. The court must also be satisfied that the crime is an extradition crime and must show the elements that 1005 would show that the crime is an offence within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: if not, they must be excluded. The crime must also be a crime under English law at the time it was committed.

Where an authority to proceed has been issued in respect of a person arrested and the court of committal is satisfied, after hearing representations from both parties regarding certain specific matters, then the court must commit to custody or bail to await the Secretary of State’s decision as 1010 to his return: if the Secretary of State decides he must be returned, to await his return.

Once a person is committed, the court must inform him of his right to make an application for habeas corpus and must give notice of committal to the Secretary of State. A person so committed may not be returned, in any case, until after expiration of a period of 15 days, beginning with the date on which the order for committal was made, if an application for habeas corpus is made in his 1015


_________________________________________________________________ 1339 T128

case, so long as proceedings on that application are pending. If the court is not satisfied in relation to the person arrested, or his committal is prohibited by provision of the Extradition Act 1989, the court must discharge him. That deals with part (c) of the Question.

As far as part (d) is concerned, as far as safeguards are concerned, the main protections and the Secretary of State’s discretion not to make an order or warrant for the return of an individual, and 1020 to some extent the High Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction mentioned earlier, being the remedy which the law provides for the violation of personal liberty.

Further, there are appeal mechanisms to the High Court to challenge decisions of magistrates to grant a provisional warrant or full order warrant, to challenge the magistrate’s decision to commit and to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to issue an order or authority for it to 1025 proceed, or to issue an order for return or surrender warrant.

Further, if there is any delay, this can be challenged in the High Court. Where an Order in Council under the Extradition Act 1870 is enforced in relation to a foreign state, Schedule 1 of the 1989 Act has effect in relation to that state. Also in part 3, cases under the 1989 Act, there are similar restrictions. These are restrictions on surrender or return relating to offences of a political 1030 character, race, religion, nationality and political opinions set out earlier. Thus, there are safeguards built into the system for, amongst others, Manx residents to protect against extradition, as motivated by those matters.

Thank you, Mr President. 1035 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Thanking the Attorney General for his reply… So the issue of the criteria which

was brought in by the Blair government, and extradition, as far as the US is concerned, has not been extended to the Isle of Man, and the original primary legislation dealing with this still is in 1040 place.

Can the Attorney General also inform this Hon. House that there is no way that this can be superseded as far as the legislation of the Isle of Man is concerned, allowing for these individuals being brought to a UK court on these issues?

1045 The President: Mr Attorney. The Attorney General: Yes, thank you, Mr President. I think the Hon. Member refers to the 2003 Act, which is not in force in relation to the Island.

Further, it is possible, of course, for there to be an extradition Bill introduced into the House – I 1050 understand that an extradition Bill is with the Chief Secretary’s Office – and it may very well be that, in due course, an extradition Bill will be introduced into the House and accordingly passed into law, to enable domestic courts to deal with an extradition request in the first instance.

I trust that answers the Hon. Member’s Question. Thank you, Mr President. 1055

CinemaNX/Isle of Man Film Ltd Exemption from registration and regulation

17. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask HM Attorney General:

(a) Whether Treasury has the power to exempt a company from registration and regulation by the Financial Supervision Commission even though it could be deemed to be undertaking regulated activities as defined in the Regulated Activities Order 2009 and the Financial Services Act 2008; (b) if so, what provision grants such power; and 1060 (c) whether paragraph 29(ii) of the letter agreement dated 13th August 2007 between the Treasury, CinemaNX Ltd and Isle of Man Film Ltd legally grants such exemption from registration and regulation by the Financial Supervision Commission? The President: We will go on, then, to Question 17. Again, I call the Hon. Member, Mr 1065

Karran. A supplementary, sir, on Question 16?


_________________________________________________________________ 1340 T128

Mr Karran: I ask the Question standing in my name. 1070 The President: Right, Question 17, then. Mr Attorney. The Attorney General: Mr President, as far as the first part of the Question is concerned –

question (a) – having considered the provisions of the Financial Services Act 2008, I am of the opinion that Treasury does not have a specific power to exempt a company from registration and 1075 regulation by the Financial Supervision Commission, if it is undertaking regulated activities, as defined in the Financial Services Act 2008, and the Regulated Activities Order 2009, as amended.

Accordingly, as far as part (b) is concerned, that is not applicable. As far as part (c) is concerned, then, as far as paragraph 29(ii) of the letter agreement dated

August 2007, it must be noted that, at the time the agreement was entered into, the Financial 1080 Services Act 2008 had not passed into law, and neither the Regulated Activities Order 2009 nor the Regulated Activities (Amendment) Order 2010 had been made. Bearing in mind the fact that the letter agreement pre-dated the enactment of the above legislation, paragraph 29(ii) could not, and does not, grant any exemption from licensing and regulation by the Financial Supervision Commission, if such registration was required, in the event that the company was actually 1085 conducting regulated activities, even if it purported to do so… Therefore, paragraph 29(ii) of the agreement dated 13th August 2007 between Treasury, CinemaNX Ltd and Isle of Man Film Ltd merely confirms that CinemaNX Ltd is not licensed by, nor does it need to be licensed by, the Financial Supervision Commission for the services it is providing, including the investment in individually approved films. 1090

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: So CinemaNX is not licensed and needs not to be licensed by any regulatory 1095

authority in connection with the provision of the services making the project’s investment pursuance, as far as the letter of agreement.

How does the Attorney General balance this issue when everybody else has to have the compliance, as far as the FSC is concerned? Can the Attorney General clarify that the issue of investment products, which this is, namely for the Government… Why does this seem to have an 1100 exemption over other individuals, and is his opinion, as far as this is concerned, on the basis of the law being the same for everybody as far as this product is concerned?

The President: Mr Attorney. 1105 The Attorney General: Yes, to answer the Hon. Member’s question, I have obviously been in

contact with the Financial Supervision Commission regarding this matter previously. It is notable that the agreement between Treasury, CinemaNX Ltd and Isle of Man Film Ltd details the services to be provided by CinemaNX Ltd as, firstly, to encourage film and television producers to consider opportunities for the filming of theatrical motion pictures and television productions in 1110 the Isle of Man and to encourage, so far as reasonably practicable, filming opportunities for the film and entertainment industry in the Isle of Man.

Isle of Man Film Ltd has paid to CinemaNX Ltd money in order that CinemaNX may carry out the services as detailed above. I am of the opinion that the carrying out of the services outlined in the agreement is not a financial services activity, and that is also the view of the FSC, in my 1115 understanding. However, consideration should be given as to whether the investment of moneys in individually approved projects could be considered investment business. It is my understanding that, in this particular case, that is not the case and it does not constitute investment business.

In addition, the underlying investment must fall within the definition of investment contained in schedule 2 of the Investment Business Order 2004 or schedule 2 of the Regulated Activities 1120 Order 2009. Direct investment in the film industry does not fall within this definition, so even if the activity were deemed to be arranging deals and investments – that is making arrangements with a view to another person, Treasury, dealing in investments – and the underlying investment was contained in the relevant definition of investment in the Investment Business Order 2004 or Regulated Activities Order 2009, the exclusion for groups and joint enterprises at paragraph 9 of 1125 part 2 of schedule 1 of the Investment Business Order 2004 and, subsequently, paragraph (2)(c) of schedule 1 of the Regulated Activities Order 2009 could exclude the activity. That is my understanding.

Thank you, Mr President. 1130


_________________________________________________________________ 1341 T128

The President: Mr Karran. 1130 Mr Karran: Thanking the Attorney General for his reply, does he balance the situation, that

this is an investment product which some £50 million of taxpayers’ money has been involved in? Surely, if there is a product that is an investment product, it would have to be registered with the FSC under normal circumstances. 1135

The President: Mr Attorney. The Attorney General: The answer, Mr President, is quite simple: not if the relevant

legislation does not apply to it, and that is my understanding. 1140 The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: I wonder, would the learned Attorney concur that the Public Accounts

Committee concluded that the CinemaNX Ltd is not treated as a fund manager and that if we were 1145 to adopt the stance taken by the Hon. Member, Mr Karran, and apply it to other businesses, which are also funded by Government money, seeking to make an investment return to our economy, we would be widening this to a ridiculous degree?

The President: Mr Attorney. 1150 The Attorney General: Thank you, Mr President. Yes, in answer to the Hon. Member’s question, that is my understanding and I believe that is

also the understanding of the Financial Supervision Commission and, indeed, the legislature. 1155 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Would the AG not agree that the fact of the ridiculousness is the fact that the

taxpayer has lost tens of millions of pounds – 1160 Members: No, no, it has not. The President: Right, okay.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Police checks for civil servants Categories where required

18. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission:

(a) Which categories of civil servants are required to have a police check as part of the recruitment and employment process; and 1165 (b) in the different categories, at what level of management civil servants are required to have a police check as part of the recruitment and employment process? The President: Hon. Members, we move on to Question 18. Mr Karran. 1170 Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I ask the Question standing in my name. The President: This time I call the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (Mr Houghton): Mr President, all 1175

applicants for Civil Service jobs are required to declare criminal convictions not considered to be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001. Applicants are also required to declare whether or not they are the subject of any criminal proceedings…


_________________________________________________________________ 1342 T128

Where a job is exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, applicants must declare all criminal convictions, irrespective of when the conviction was incurred. 1180

With regard to the first part of the Hon. Member’s Question, I can confirm that a police check is normally required as part of the recruitment or selection process, in relation to any Civil Service job role where there is substantial unsupervised access to children or vulnerable people, which is concerned with the administration of justice or which is identified within the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001. 1185

With regard to the second part of the Hon. Member’s Question, a police check is required in respect of any Civil Service job role falling within these categories, irrespective of grade.

Thank you, sir. The President: Mr Karran. 1190 Mr Karran: Are there any of those whose police checks are considered necessary to allow

them to take up their post prior to the receipt of a satisfactory police check…? Is there a policy on that? What is the length of time between applying for such a police check and receiving a police check to accommodate the recruits, as far as the process for recruitment for new posts is 1195 concerned?

The President: Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Mr President, no incoming employee can take up a job role until he has 1200

received a police check is the answer there. As far as the time it takes for an application to be processed, I can only refer him to the Minister for Home Affairs to answer that, sir.

The President: In that case, Hon. Members, that draws to a conclusion the Question Paper, the

remaining Questions on the Question Paper being for Written Answer. 1205


_________________________________________________________________ 1343 T128

Questions for Written Answer

HOME AFFAIRS

Sexual offences against children Number of offences


In each of the last five years: (a) how many reports of sexual abuse against children have been reported to his Department; (b) how many people have been charged with sex offences against children; and (c) how many people have been convicted in court of sexual offences against children? 1210 Answer: (a) The number of reports in each year where the victim was under the age of 18

years provides the following data. It is, however, important to note that, upon investigation, some reports were established as ‘no crime’. The data below includes all matters reported, regardless of their status.

1215 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 61 27 11 13 27 (b) The number of individuals charged was: 1220 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 13 10 6 5 7 (c) The number of individuals convicted was: 1225 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 9 7 6 5 6 The statistics demonstrate an improving attrition rate in respect of those charged, in

comparison with convictions recorded; all but one of the persons charged with such an offence in 1230 the last three years have been convicted.

INFRASTRUCTURE

First-time buyer homes

Agreements; applications; planning

19. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure: (a) How many First Time Buyer Homes Provision Section 13 agreements have been issued; (b) how many Second Time Buyer Homes Provision Section 13 agreements have been issued; (c) how many Second Time Buyer Homes Provision applications have been declined; (d) what the definition is of ‘Extant Consent’; 1235 (e) how extant consent has been applied in planning application 07/01790/B; and (f) how many planning applications where extant consent would have been appropriate have been declined? Answer: (a) Whilst the Department of Infrastructure (and formerly DLGE) has entered into 19 1240

legal agreements under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, specifically relating to the provision of units under the affordable housing scheme, a further six agreements refer to a commuted sum, rather than actual housing provision. There are another six agreements currently in negotiation. Such agreements can be based upon planning applications for approvals


_________________________________________________________________ 1344 T128

in principle or multiple applications for the same site and, therefore, are no guarantee that the 1245 development, the subject of the application, nor the number of units proposed, will proceed.

In answer to (b) and (c), there is no classification for ‘second time buyer housing’ within the Town and Country Planning Act or Strategic Plan. Accordingly, no such agreements under Section 13 of the Act exist.

(d) ‘Extant consent’, means a planning permission which can still lawfully be implemented. 1250 (e) Planning permission ref: 07/0790/B is extant. (f) As extant consent means a permission that can still be implemented, it cannot refer to

applications that have been declined. I understand that all Section 13 agreements entered into were provided to the hon. questioner in

October last year. 1255


_________________________________________________________________ 1345 T128

Orders of the Day

First Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives 2010-11 Statement by the Minister for Economic Development

The President: So we turn back, then, to our main Order Paper and we turn to Item 3. I call on the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Bell, please. The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Bell): Mr President, unfortunately the work

required to meet the requirements of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on 1260 Economic Initiatives has not been possible by the date of today’s sitting. I would, however, like to brief Members on the progress being made in relation to each item.

First of all, the Department was asked to report on (a) the economic potential of cruise ships and (b) its plans for improving the system for assessment of economic potential for particular initiatives. 1265

With regard to cruise ships, the Department is progressing this in two ways. Firstly, we are examining options for improving the experience of existing cruise-ship business. The work that the Department has and is doing in this regard is to try and produce immediate benefit to the visitor, the operator and the Island’s economy. There is also more that the Island can do to attract more cruise-ship visitors. There are other operators out there who could include the Isle of Man on 1270 their itineraries and we need to become more proactive in targeting these operators. Mr President, I hope to be able to come back to this Hon. Court early in the new session – or my successor early in the new session – with a report which will go into these issues in more detail and which will also set out a strategy for the future.

The other part of this motion, Mr President, which is referred to is the request for the 1275 Department’s plans for improving the system for assessment of the economic potential of particular initiatives. I can assure Hon. Members that I am very much aware of the need to maximise value for money, particularly in the present climate. Since the new Department was formed, there is a much closer analysis of the cost benefit of initiatives being presented. We have moved away from providing money year on year because that was the way it was always done. 1280 Initiatives are now looked at much more critically, with robust business cases being required as a minimum. We have also commenced reallocating resources on the basis of where those resources can produce the best return. There is still work to be done in this regard, but positive progress is being made.

I would like now to turn to the matter of medical devices which the Committee asked the 1285 Department to look at afresh.

The Department welcomes the opportunity to look at the medical device sector again as it is the type of high-value activity well suited to the economic environment of the Isle of Man. My Department has sought expressions of interest for the provision of a consultancy service to investigate opportunities in the medical device sector for the Island. The independent advice from 1290 a consultancy service will greatly assist my Department in evaluating opportunities in a medical device sector for the Island. It is intended, Mr President, to present a progress report in the January 2012 sitting of this Hon. Court.

Finally, the request to review the political, economic and other advantages of the Isle of Man Freeport, as well as the strategic potential of this resource. The Freeport and undeveloped Freeport 1295 land of approximately 6½ acres remains a valuable strategic asset. The Department is currently examining the feasibility of developing the undeveloped 6½ acres as a modern high-quality technology park. This would directly address a current weakness we have regarding the availability of a good stock of quality industrial property, for which there is some demand at the moment, and would enable the Island to be more competitive at competing with other jurisdictions 1300 in attracting high-value manufacturing and technology based business. The plan is still in its infancy, but as the land is in Government control and has relatively straightforward planning procedures, I am confident that we can make early progress on this matter.

Mr President, as I have said, it is my intention, or the Department’s intention, to bring a further progress report to January 2012, and I hope we will have more substance to report at that point. 1305


_________________________________________________________________ 1346 T128

Review of the Planning System Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure

The President: We go on, then, Hon. Members, to Item 4, review of the planning system. A

statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Gawne, please. The Minister for the Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. In December 2010 I made a brief statement to this Court, summarising the recent progress 1310

which had been made in changing the development control system and establishing a robust policy framework for land use planning in the Isle of Man. I would now like to provide a further update.

Members may recall that, in December, I referred to the establishment of an independent planning authority and to the project board, which was set up to consider and propose frameworks for such an authority. It has been concluded that new primary legislation will be required to 1315 establish an independent planning authority. In May public consultation was undertaken on some limited reforms to the Planning Committee and its operation and, in light of the responses received, the Council of Ministers has concluded that it would be more appropriate to deal with such reforms as part of a wider review of the planning legislation shortly after the election.

An amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 will, therefore, be added to the 1320 legislative programme. This will also provide an opportunity to address a number of issues which have arisen during the operation of the Act over the last 12 years, including the process of preparing the development plans. Over the next few months the Department will be consulting over changes to permitted development and I was very pleased that some Members, at least, were able to attend a presentation we gave on this yesterday. It is hoped this will reduce bureaucracy 1325 and red tape in terms of planning.

There are two types of changes proposed. Firstly, it is proposed that there should be an increased range of householder developments which would not need to be the subject of planning applications, thus making it easier for householders to improve their property, hopefully providing a further stimulus to the construction industry, whilst, at the same time, allowing the Department 1330 to use its resources more effectively on bigger issues.

Secondly, it is proposed to grant approval for a range of building operations within certain Government sites, such as Noble’s Hospital, National Sports Centre and the Prison.

It is unlikely that planning applications for these operations would attract comments from either the general public or, indeed, my own Department, although I should emphasise we are 1335 consulting on this at the moment, but there has certainly been no decision taken. Once the responses to the consultation have been considered and the draft orders amended, as appropriate, resulting orders may be brought to Tynwald for approval, hopefully in the autumn, assuming that we get support through the consultation.

Other changes to the development control process, including the appeal system, will be made 1340 as part of, or following, the amendments to the Act. In terms of policy, the Southern Area Plan is to be the subject of a Public Inquiry. Unfortunately, an independent planning inspector, who was due to hold the Inquiry in July had to pull out at the last minute due to illness. Officers are currently looking to put in place alternative arrangements to hold the Inquiry in the autumn. I had hoped it might have been a bit sooner, but it was felt that it would be, to say the very least, 1345 difficult to have the Inquiry during September, obviously while most Members were involved in electioneering and it would be helpful to have it after the dust settles from the Election.

Meanwhile, preliminary work has already started on the plan for the east and work will commence shortly. This will address, among other matters, the availability of land for industrial and business development in this part of the Island. The Ballakilley Bride Development Order has 1350 been the subject of public consultation. There was only a very limited response, most of which was positive: however, one consultee wishes the Department to hold an Inquiry and, unfortunately, the way in which I am assessing the situation, we do need to do that. We hope that the Inquiry will take place before October.

We have also been working with the Department of Economic Development on issues 1355 connected with building larger properties in the countryside. In doing so, it has become apparent that this is linked to wider issues connected with extensions to, and replacement of, dwellings in the countryside, which has already been identified by the Department. As a consequence, a draft planning policy statement has been developed and a process of consultation on the draft planning policy statement will shortly commence. 1360

Work also continues on other planning policy statements in respect of flood risk and landscape character. The technical guide which is associated with the flood risk planning policy statement is being finalised by consultants on behalf of the Water and Sewerage Authority, whilst the


_________________________________________________________________ 1347 T128

landscape planning policy statement should be published in its final form at the same time as the Southern Area Plan. 1365

This is a brief summary of recent progress in the operation of our planning system. Further projects and changes will follow, particularly in relation to the Act itself, after which there will, no doubt, be requirements to amend the secondary legislation. However, these are matters for consideration in the future by a new Department.

Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. 1370 The President: Mr Karran, question, sir? Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh just inform us that the process, as far as exempting certain

public buildings and areas from the planning process, is this not a dangerous precedent that could 1375 be spread further out, when we are trying to show that we have a clear, balanced planning process for all?

The second point was: has the Shirveishagh got any views on, in his statement, why he has not mentioned anything about trying to level it up, so that we end up with a planning process where the little man can actually take on the big developer, with their fancy briefs, etc? Are there any 1380 ideas within his proposals to see whether we can get a more balanced, fair, logical planning process, as far as the Island is concerned?

The President: Minister, Mr Gawne. 1385 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I will stress again that the proposal with regard to permitted development, particularly for

Government buildings, is a proposal and is going out to consultation, and certainly if the views that the Hon. Member has are expressed then I am sure we will take very careful note of them.

The example, I think, that really pushed this forward was in relation to… I think it was that the 1390 prison wanted to put up a polytunnel and needed to have planning permission inside the prison. Most people would not be seeing inside the prison and those who do probably needed to have a polytunnel – I do not know. So I think, in that particular case, it does seem ridiculous to have to go for planning permission, but there may be other examples where it is more appropriate that planning permission should be given. I know, certainly, it was raised at the presentation that, for 1395 example, the National Sports Centre is in a much more visible residential area and it may be that that would not find favour. Certainly, we are very eager to hear people’s views, Members’ views, on the whole consultation.

As far as levelling up the planning system, that is something that could only really be achieved through a proper revision of the legislation, the actual primary legislation, which, as I said, is 1400 going to be a key and high priority for the next Department.

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Can I just ask, does he not feel that the issue of having to have planning 1405

permission for a polytunnel in normal circumstances is a bit overkill, anyway, on planning? Maybe the answer is not exempting the Prison, but exempting everyone who wants to have a polytunnel on their land from having to do so!

The President: Mr Gawne. 1410 The Minister: Gura mie eu. Absolutely, and that is part of what we are looking at in terms of the other element – the

householder element. It is ridiculous: you can put one greenhouse up, but you cannot put a polytunnel up. Yes, it is a bit strange, but I have to say that the officers are following the 1415 legislation that was given to them by us.

A Member: Hear, hear.


_________________________________________________________________ 1348 T128

Taxi legislation (Road Transport Act 2001) Progress of the Advisory Committee

Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure The President: We go on, then, Hon. Members, to Item 5 on the main Orders. Again, a

statement by the Minister for Infrastructure. 1420 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. At the March sitting of Tynwald, following representations made by a number of Members, I

took the decision to withdraw the Road Transport Act 2001 (Public Passenger Vehicles) (Restrictions on Plying for Hire) Order 2011. I did this in order for an advisory committee which I 1425 established on 18th March to undertake further discussions with the taxi trade and other interested parties and come forward by the end of May with proposals that might better meet the requirements of the whole industry and, most importantly, the public.

The advisory committee includes Mr Robertshaw as Chairman, Mr Malarkey, Mr Callister and advocate Mr Paul Morris, and the Committee is administered by my Department. I can confirm 1430 that the Chairman of the advisory committee reported to me on 23rd May and that I am content with the direction that the Committee is taking in respect to taxi services in the Isle of Man. Having consulted with him, I wish to allow additional time for the Committee to further develop its recommendations, which can then be used to deliver the more comprehensive changes required to deliver stability and improvements to taxi services. 1435

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh give some sort of timeline for this? Also, can I congratulate him on the fact that he did take note of what people did say. I think 1440

when Ministers do take note of what people say, they should get credit, not just always being hit over the head – even though they generally deserve it.

So the situation is, can he give the timeline as far as this proposal is concerned? Will we see it before the Election or will it be after the Election?

1445 The President: Minister. The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I do not want to go into a huge amount of detail at this stage, as to what the Committee is

considering, but I do believe that what I have seen so far would be a more complex fix and could 1450 not be delivered in a relatively short term. So, on that basis, and bearing in mind Council of Ministers will be considering July Tynwald business on Thursday, I do not think there is very much chance of getting to July Tynwald with anything.

Progress on High Value Individuals and the Review of the Planning System Statement by the Minister for Economic Development

The President: We turn, then, to Item 6 and I call again for a statement from the Minister for

Economic Development, Mr Bell. 1455 The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Bell): Mr President, Tynwald Members will

be aware that this is a matter which my Department and the Department of Infrastructure have been working on for some time and, indeed, we have reported on this matter to the Council of Ministers in December and, in turn, to Tynwald on the progress with this on a number of 1460 occasions.

Further consideration of the matter was given by the Council of Ministers as recently as its meeting on 2nd June. Regrettably, I have to advise that, following direction from the Council of Ministers, it is considered that there are bigger issues to resolve in regard to the matter of extensions to and replacement of dwellings in the countryside. With that in mind, it has been 1465 agreed that the Department of Infrastructure should now undertake a process of consultation on this matter in regard to planning policy, which will commence without delay. Therefore, the Department of Infrastructure will shortly begin their consultation… and it will ordinarily be part of that process for them to report back to Tynwald on completion of that consultation.

Thank you, Mr President. 1470


_________________________________________________________________ 1349 T128

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Could the Shirveishagh give us some idea who the consultation is going to be

with? Is it going to be with the vested interest groups who want to make sure that this does not happen? Allowing for the fact that one tried to assist Government on this proposal, knowing that it 1475 is politically unpopular, by moving motions in this very Court, to help Government on this issue, can he give us some timescale and some idea of the money that could be achieved as a new economic engine, as far as this proposal is concerned?

The President: Minister, Mr Bell. 1480 The Minister: Mr President, this consultation which will take place will revolve round the

clarification of the 50% extension rule to ensure that it is workable and, in fact, it applies to all properties in the countryside, not just large properties, to ensure that we do not have a two-tier planning system. 1485

Mr President, it is interesting that the Hon. Member never misses an opportunity to smear everything that Government says. It is not a consultation amongst vested-interest groups, Mr President; it is a consultation, as all consultations are, amongst all those who have an interest in this particular issue. It will be a public consultation, as all planning consultations are, and the Minister of the day, I am sure, will report back, in due course, when that consultation is finished. 1490

The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for his reply, how does he keep consistent with the

proposals that we were talking about, as far as it being an economic engine for the Island, to cut 1495 the 70% of the construction industry being dependent on the taxpayer? How does he clarify the position of a 50% increase for these sorts of houses, when we were talking about houses at the size of about 8,000 square feet? Can he tell me how many 4,000-square-feet houses, so that we can get a 50% increase as far as that is concerned? So can he clarify we are talking about the same thing, as far as large houses in the countryside, with a tax advantage towards his Government, to use that 1500 money on social services and other instances? How does it relate to a 50% increase?

I thought we were talking about big houses of 8,000-plus square feet in the countryside. The President: We are straying away from the Statement and beginning to discuss the policy. Mr Bell. 1505 The Minister: Mr President, as I said in my Statement, this review revolves around extensions

and replacement properties in the countryside and, currently, one of the major restricting factors is the interpretation of the 50% rule in terms of extensions. This, as I say, will apply to large houses. It will also apply to small houses. It will apply to all houses which are affected by this particular 1510 rule. This is one stage in a review of the wider planning policy in relation to how this can assist economic development in the future.

Mr President, there is no question at all that the next few years are going to be the most challenging for a generation in terms of making the economy grow and generate the revenues that we need to keep our public services going. Therefore, we have an absolute responsibility to 1515 explore every opportunity to try to stimulate further investment in the Isle of Man. This is one part of that wider exercise, which is now under way, Mr President.

All-Island Synthetic Pitch Development Expenditure approved

7. The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure to move:

That Tynwald approves the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure incurring expenditure not exceeding £640,000 in respect of the installation of replacement playing surfaces at the Regional Synthetic Pitches. 1520


_________________________________________________________________ 1350 T128

[Reference: G16-040 Item No. 16 under the heading “Community, Culture and Leisure” on page 25 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-12 and as detailed in the Capital Estimates 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 under the heading “New Schemes” on page 66 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-2012] 1525 The President: We go on, then, Hon. Members, to Item 7, all-Island synthetic pitch

development. I call the Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure, Mr Cretney, to move, please. 1530 The Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure (Mr Cretney): Mr President, the three

regional synthetic pitches at Castletown, Peel and Ramsey were developed in the late 1990s as a joint venture between the then Departments of Tourism and Leisure, and Education. The three pitches have been well used by both those Departments, as well as by the sporting public and are justifiably regarded as one of the major successes of the Sports and Recreation Strategy. The 1535 original design life of the synthetic pitches was seven years to replacement of the playing surface. Provision was made for their replacement based on that timescale but, as it became clear that they would exceed their design life, this provision was pushed back in the capital programme.

A survey of the three pitches was undertaken during 2010 and it was clear that all three were starting to fail along the seams and that, if they were not resurfaced within the next year, there was 1540 a real risk of closure on safety grounds. As a result, my Department made provision for a capital expenditure of £840,000 for resurfacing the pitches. What we are looking for is a straightforward replacement of the pitches. The specification for the replacement carpets is, therefore, fundamentally the same as those being replaced and is part of a wider strategy which ensures a balanced range of Government facilities to meet the needs of the main sports groups using the 1545 facilities – that is hockey, football and rugby.

Following a competitive tendering process, the recommendation of the design team is that the tender from Polytan Sports Services UK Ltd should be accepted, which gives a total capital cost of £660,000. This is substantially below our original budget, which results from both a very competitive market for sports services and an economy of scale from purchasing all three together. 1550 A sum of £20,000 resulted for pre-contract fees in the 2011-12 Isle of Man Budget, so today I am seeking approval for the balance of £640,000.

Mr President, the regional pitches have been heavily used both by the sporting public and the host schools. They are now, quite simply, worn out. This is a modest investment which will benefit our sporting community and, in particular, our young people over the next decade. 1555

I beg to move. The President: Mr Gill. Mr Gill: I second and reserve my remarks, sir. 1560 The President: Mr Gawne, Hon. Member. Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I do very much support the proposal that is before us today. I think it is important that we 1565

maintain these sorts of pitches. I would also point out that there are other areas of the Isle of Man and, whilst it is great that

Castletown gets so much investment, it would be nice to think that when clubs such as Colby Football Club, who are putting a huge amount of private investment into their own particular pitch – 1570

Mr Houghton: From the sale of the land. Mr Gawne: – come forward with a proposal and ask for some assistance, rather than being

billed £100, 000 for a level crossing, they actually got a little bit of support from the Department. 1575 I raised these matters with the Minister and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet

with myself and representatives of Colby Football Club. I think it is good that we are doing this, but we have to make sure that we do this on a fair basis across the whole of the Island, not just focus on some of the areas of the Island.

1580 The President: Mrs Cannell, Hon. Member for Douglas East.


_________________________________________________________________ 1351 T128

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. The Minister said, when moving this Item, that the life expectancy was something like seven

years, if I recall hearing him right. Can he advise the Court how long it is, then, since in fact these 1585 pitches were put down? He did say that they were due to be replaced or resurfaced after seven years, but everything was put back. How old are they? What is the total life expectancy of this type of system?

Can he advise the Court on which particular areas are going to benefit from this investment, bearing in mind what the previous speaker has just sad about the balance of fairness and covering 1590 as much as the Island as possible?

The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I want to say that I am not against spending money on regional 1595

pitches, as far as the issue is concerned. What I am against, and I think it is important that we realise, we have just heard the Minister for Economic Development in the previous Item say that we are in for the toughest times we have ever come across, as far as the Island is concerned and I think, whilst we do not want to be irresponsible and create an atmosphere where the economy is not encouraged to expand and to give encouragement, I do think there is a time when you have to 1600 be a bit more responsible, as far as the position we find ourselves in.

We have already been told by the Hon. Member for Ramsey that we have major problems, as far as the Customs arrangements are concerned. We have been told that we have hard times ahead and I just think that, while this will be very popular before the General Election, maybe not in Rushen – but then Rushen should have maybe supported what we were asking for with Ballakilley 1605 at the beginning of the last parliamentary session of this new House… But the fact is I do really think we need to be putting the higher criteria, as far as the spending of Government money.

I do not want to create a negative attitude, but I also do not want a situation where we have, like we have at the moment, where we have been told we have got to cut back on the likes of… [Inaudible] revenue costs, as far as the DCCL staff is concerned. We are told that other areas are 1610 needing to be cut back and I just feel that this Court needs to be a little bit less generous, coming to the end of its life, with capital projects coming up, that maybe the next administration may be finding itself that it wished that this administration had been a lot more responsible.

I would like to move an amendment that it should not be approved, the Department of Community, Culture and Leisure incurring the expenditure not exceeding £640,000 in respect of 1615 the installation of the replacement playing surfaces, as far as the synthetic pitches are concerned, without an explanation of how the proposed works will be self-financing. I really do feel that we need to be very, very careful, as far as this issue is concerned, and I think that we should be allowing for the problems that we have got, as far as expenditure is concerned. I do feel that this Hon. Court should be a little bit more responsible for what is going to be inherited by the next 1620 generation.

It is alright, the bluster and the spin about being positive, but what concerns me is that I think we need to be very careful that we can only spend this money once. We have seen CinemaNX, we have seen many of these other things that have happened, as far as the Island is concerned, and I just think that there should be some re-evaluation, allowing for what the likes of what the Minister 1625 for Economic Development has said, which I believe is a more responsible way forward, as far as this Court is concerned. We are going to have to make hard decisions and I think we need to see how we emphasise the real value of these proposals.

I do move the amendment circulating in my name. 1630 The President: We do not have an amendment – I do not have an amendment circulated in

your name or anything else, Mr Karran – so with the greatest of respect, as far as I am concerned, there is no amendment before the Court.

Mr Malarkey. 1635 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. I just feel a bit stunned by the comments coming from the Hon. Member for Onchan. (Mr

Lowey: Hear, hear.) Maybe we should stand still and do nothing and watch the Island collapse around ourselves (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.) because they think there is a storm coming. What happened to being proactive instead of reactive? I cannot talk to the amendment, Mr President, 1640 because there isn’t one on the table, thank heavens.

I was going to ask the Hon. Member, understanding that this is quite a complex system and on-Island contractors probably could not supply it, is there anything in the contract that will be


_________________________________________________________________ 1352 T128

subcontracted out so that some of the Island construction side will get some of the work out of this? I just want some assurance from the Minister on that. 1645

The President: Mr Crookall, Hon. Member. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. I would just like to follow up on the comments there from the Member for Onchan. 1650 First of all, I would like to say that I will be supporting this and I am more than happy to

support this, bearing in mind the amount of usage these sports pitches get. (Mr Lowey: Hear, hear.) If you have a look around at the weekends, the evenings, any time during the winter period when the floodlights are on, these pitches get an awful lot of use and, as a result I think the communities benefit highly from them. They are charged, and I would say maybe quite 1655 excessively, but they do get some income back on them which goes towards paying for this, and I have no problem in supporting it. It is a benefit for the next generation, let alone leaving them nothing to play on except a straggly old pitch.

The President: Chief Minister. 1660 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President. I just want to say I am absolutely astounded at the comments from the Hon. Member for

Onchan, Mr Karran. This is unbelievable. Here we are, we have invested millions of pounds into synthetic pitches to improve the quality of life of our communities, for our young people and not 1665 so young, to take part in leisure facilities, so that they do not end up in crime, they do not end up on the streets, all the things that for, certainly, the last 10 or 15 years the Government and Tynwald Court has promoted, very much promoted by my administration, as set out in our strategic document.

I congratulate the Minister for coming forward with this. Quite clearly, it is important we do 1670 not let these facilities run down to such a state of disrepair that we actually lose the investment underneath the synthetic pitch, which means we have to totally rebuild everything, costing far more money than this will cost.

If you look back in history when the Isle of Man did not have much money, one of the real things that caused us a problem was lack of investment in maintaining what we had to a level that 1675 was ensuring we kept it. If we allow ourselves to go down that road again, it really would be a disaster for the Isle of Man.

Let us get this issue about financing sorted out. This will come from our capital fund, it is not external borrowing, we are borrowing off our own reserve resources and we are able to do that. It is not revenue expenditure and people, understandably, outside this Hon. Court are in this position 1680 where they do not necessarily understand the difference between how we fund things, but this is not money that would be used for general revenue expenditure, this is a capital investment to make sure that these pitches are not in a matter of disrepair. We are talking about replacing the pitches in Castletown, Peel and Ramsey. These are major investments we have done, consciously, over a number of years. We had an actual programme put together to make sure Douglas and all the 1685 regions had these facilities and I, for one, would not support anything that is going to cause detriment to that.

The Minister has already made the point that, in fact, the life of these pitches has extended further than we expected, (A Member: That’s right.) (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.) because they have worn better than we expected, even though they are very, very well used by the young people of 1690 this Island. They play hockey, they play football – all the things that we want them to do, which we should be very proud of, for our community.

I believe that our commitment in this area is as critical as anything and, in fact, is important to our young people. We talk about the health of our young people: this is part of making sure their health is good, getting them involved in sport. As Members know, I am not a sports person, I have 1695 never taken part in sport, never been of that inkling, but there are many, many young people in our community who are. That has grown and developed, and some of them get as far as appearing in the Commonwealth Games, the Island Games, the Olympics. We have always been proud to invest in sport. That starts the community and we should be proud to continue to invest. I hope Hon. Members will 100% support us making sure that these pitches do not fall into disrepair and then 1700 cannot be used. Let us make sure we invest and keep them in good order, sir.

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


_________________________________________________________________ 1353 T128

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr President. 1705 I, too, rise to support the Minister for bringing this initiative forward. I just draw Members’

attention to the fact that each one of these facilities is next to a school, which is probably used 100% by the school itself, which is an additional benefit. I am amazed, really, because coming on now is the Bemahague school up in Onchan and, of course, Onchan Football Club – somebody mentioned some other ones further down in Colby, there – but Onchan Football Club were looking 1710 forward to having their first match on that shortly. I would encourage Members to go and look at these facilities and go there on a Sunday, and see how many people do play. They bring their kids along of all ages, right up to 17 years old – that is seven up to 17 years old – and see how much excitement they do have.

The minor criticism I have regarding the Peel and the Ramsey ones is there is no protection 1715 from the wind and usually in the winter, it is pretty cold.

Thank you. The President: Mr Lowey, Hon. Member of Council. 1720 Mr Lowey: I really do despair at times, Mr President. When we have got a good-news story

why do we try to rubbish it? That can take on outside interests, as well as Members in this Court. Mr Karran looked specifically at me when he said ‘bluster and spin’. Rich, indeed, coming from the master of both. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

This is not bluster and it is not spin, but it is factual. I was privileged to be with the Minister 1725 when we decided to do these three developments in the north, south, east and west of the Island because we had, in effect, seen the success of the National Sports Centre. I actually had to come to this Court, because we had a 10-year programme of renewal, three years in advance of that because it was worn out, and that is part of the reason why we… and this Court agreed it. Because of the success, we invested. 1730

Just let me remind you, Government do get things right. We do act commercially. We fought and made a hard deal with the producers of these pitches. We got three for the price of two. Who said you cannot do a Tesco’s? We did it. We got the three for the price of two. The Minister has already said today that we are getting a good deal because of the competitive… This is the time to do it if ever you want it. If we are talking about financial probity, this is the right thing to do, but it 1735 is also the right thing to do for the right reasons.

The biggest success the past two administrations have had, as the Chief Minister has said, has been our investment in sport. It is a long-term investment for health, it is a long-term investment for the community now and the quality of life that we have got now, and I just cannot understand how anybody can stand up in this Court and externally say Government do not act responsibly and 1740 we are spending too much. Where investment is concerned and young people and the quality of life, this ranks high. It should have been just given a halleluja and voted through, really, and I am on my feet here today to say look back and where we have got things right, let’s applaud it. This was right then, it is right now. As the Minister has said, if we do not do it, we will not be able to use it, and in whose interest is that? (A Member: Hear, hear.) No-one’s. Support the resolution 1745 and let’s get on with our business.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. 1750 I was not going to speak to speak to this. I was very happy, of course, as Department Member,

to second it. I am surprised and a little disappointed in one way that the debate has ensued in the manner that it has, for exactly the reasons that the previous speaker, Mr Lowey, and the Chief Minister have outlined. This absolutely is a good news story. Okay, it is an expenditure of money, but it is an investment. It is an investment into what we know is a valued, proven success story and 1755 will continue to be.

What is the effect of that? The effect of that is absolutely positive on every level. It is about promoting sports, it is about promoting social cohesion, lowering crime rates – all of those good things that flow from it. So to hear some of the guff that we have heard here today is frankly disappointing. 1760

Let me make it clear: I do not think my colleague in Rushen, Mr Gawne, was talking guff. I have to declare my interests as a member of Colby Football Club and I echo his sentiments about doing as much as we can for every club across the Island. I think Government does have a good record of that. We do not have unlimited cash, but we try to use it wisely, through the Department, through the Sports Council, the Arts Council, the Manx Lottery Trust, to promote sports and arts 1765


_________________________________________________________________ 1354 T128

across the Island. We do that where we can and that is ongoing, and I think that the Minister should be commended for his political support for that, which I know, from a day-to-day basis, is a genuine one.

Then we moved on to Mr Karran talking about Ballakilley. I do not recall any wise suggestions about Ballakilley. It is just a target of opportunity, periodically to be trotted out. The bottom line 1770 with Ballakilley is a trust are responsible for disposing of that. That is their duty. It is not a matter for Government to determine; it is a matter for the trustees. They are bound, as I understand the law, to get the best price for it, which means housing, probably. So that argument is not with anybody in this Court. That argument, if it is a valid one, if it is even one for us, is with the trustees. So let us not be sidetracked by that. 1775

But then we came to an even more outrageous diva moment, when we had the amendment that never was, the amendment that was going to be about self financing. Where did that come from? There was no model, there was no example, there was no opportunity to understand how that would work. It is just trotted out. The reason it was not an amendment is because it was not seconded, and I do not think anybody would be barking enough to second this – 1780

Mr Karran: Point of order, Eaghtyrane. In 25 years of being here, I have never seen this

process actually being allowed to happen. You propose an amendment, you are told to give the Clerk time to circulate. I am disappointed in the way this has been allowed to…

1785 The President: Mr Karran, I had no amendment. You proposed an amendment, sir, which was

not circulated and not, certainly, in my hands. Mr Gill, continue. Mr Karran: How often does that happen and why… [Inaudible] some Members in this Hon. 1790

House? The President: Mr Karran! Mr Gill. 1795 Mr Gill: If the strop is over, can I carry on? The President: Yes, sir. Mr Gill: It is all very well flouncing around and having an amendment that is totally 1800

unrealistic and says it should be self financing – ‘I don’t know how, but it just should be.’ That is not the model that we can work to. If we want to do that, let’s just privatise all the services that we have. Let’s make them for profit: pay through the nose, exclude lots of people who are unable to pay that. That is the effect of that so-called argument.

It is a matter for you, Mr President – you are the presiding officer in here – but I do not know 1805 anybody who would be willing to second such an amendment. If they do, I would be interested in their reasoning because we did not get any reasoning from the mover. We just got temperamental flouncing, which is more eloquent than anything else that was said, I have to say.

I do want to finish on two positive notes, if I may. The comment that the Chief Minister made is exactly right. Whatever the challenges that we face, failing to maintain an infrastructure will 1810 simply mean its deterioration and, if it has to be replaced, additional costs. That is a fact of life, so we either say we are just going to wreck into the ground, sweat the asset into the ground and when it is gone, it is gone forever, or we make a political decision and we invest in the most cost-effective manner, and that is what Minister Cretney is bringing to the Court today.

I could not have put it better than the Chief Minister or, indeed, Mr Lowey in their sentiments. 1815 I do not know… are we debating the motion that is before us? If we are, it really is pretty straightforward, I think. It is cost effective, it is based on a good business model, it provides a public service. It will not be self financing, it never could be. Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do and it is the right thing to do now. I am more than happy to second, sir.

1820 The President: Mr Butt. Mr Butt: Thank you, sir, and I will speak briefly on this; I was not going to speak, but I speak

initially to – 1825 Mr Braidwood: You have missed me out, Mr President. I have been trying to –


_________________________________________________________________ 1355 T128

Members: Ah! Mr Butt: Mr President, having been privileged in three areas… Firstly, I am privileged to be a

Member of the Department of Education, where our youth services are recognised as being far 1830 ahead of youth services in the rest of the UK. Participation in clubs by young people is far higher here than anywhere else and we need these facilities to help that continue.

I was also privileged, for a few weeks, to be part of the Department which the Minister comes from, where I worked closely with Manx sport and recreation and saw exactly how much work they did and what good they did for the Isle of Man. The one thing we really get right in 1835 Government, Mr President, is our sporting facilities. It is one of our best achievements.

Thirdly, I am privileged to be the chair of a group that meets regularly, the sport and healthy schools partnership, which the Minister is on, where we discuss the ability to make sure that schools and health work together to provide healthy and good access to facilities for young people.

But my main point in speaking, Mr President, is to put a plug in for the health strategy, which I 1840 am sure you have all read. It was released about six weeks ago. In that health strategy there are five main components, which we are looking at into the future to try to reduce the burden on the health service. one of those is obesity and diet. It is one of the main five things we need to address urgently in the coming years. The health strategy can only progress in helping those issues if we have facilities to use them on, so we need things like these sports fields for that. 1845

Secondly and finally, another strategy comes out in about two weeks’ time. It is the physical activity strategy, which our group has put together, which will be presented to Members of Tynwald in two or three weeks’ time and, again, a physical activity strategy needs facilities to make it happen.

So, Mr President, I will be supporting the motion. 1850 The President: Mr Callister. Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. I just hope that Members will not forget another group of people here, who are extremely 1855

important in all of this and that is the volunteers and the trainers and the people who take on the young people, (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.) transport them around to various venues to take part in the sports and they give up a huge amount of time, families in particular, taking their youngsters around to various events. So I would not like those to be forgotten, and I was amazed that this did not go through on the nod, Mr President. 1860

Mr Karran, I am amazed also at some of the comments that he had to say, because he has been battling for youth facilities for Onchan, perhaps not sporting facilities, but at least to find something for the youth to do. We should also remember that, if any area of this size saw what we have here in the Isle of Man as sports facilities for a population of 80,000 or so, they would almost give an arm and leg to have it, because it is an amazing number of facilities we have here. They 1865 should be cherished and worked on and I think we are doing the right thing and we did not, so very long ago, a few years ago, Mr President, have your famous ‘year of sport’. Perhaps after next year’s Olympics, somebody might like to revive that idea for the Isle of Man again.

The President: Mr Braidwood. 1870 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. (Two Members: Hooray!) (Laughter) I would like to endorse all the sentiments which have been expressed by speakers already on

this motion, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, because he said we should be acting responsibly because, looking to the future, we might have problems in raising 1875 money. However, I think we are acting responsibly. The pitches are time expired. They are worn out and, Mr President, in actual fact they could cause injuries to those people who are actually playing on the sport pitches now. I have been told that the one at Peel is very badly worn and can quite easily cause injuries if you are turning quickly or whatever. So that is why we are acting responsibly, because we are replacing them. We only have to look at the new pitch now at King 1880 George V Bowl – that is a wonderful addition to all the sporting facilities on the Island.

So I hope everyone and I am sure that everybody in this Hon. Court – probably with the exception of Mr Karran – will vote for this motion and I fully endorse everything that has been said.

1885 The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member.


_________________________________________________________________ 1356 T128

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. As somebody who has coached football for a number of years, one of the things that you have

is many areas wanting these Astroturf pitches because anybody who has been at football training 1890 at night and it has been raining for the last week or so, you want to see the disappointment on the children’s faces when you have to send them home because it is not fit to play on. So I think it is one of the things that is likely to be rolled out.

One of the things I would like to ask the Minister is if there are any usable areas of the Astroturf that is left over, if it can actually be put out for other use? 1895

The President: Minister to reply. The Minister: In relation to the last Hon. Member to speak, I will find out about that and come

back to him, whether parts of the surface may be able to be recycled. If they can, I think that is a 1900 good idea. I do not know the answer.

In relation to other Hon. Members, the Department of Tourism and Leisure, when I was Minister, assisted Colby AFC – Mr Gawne mentioned this, and Mr Gill also – some years ago, in terms of agreeing to help in relation to their development and I am delighted that that development has moved forward. I think one of the problems we have had recently is that not only the FA but 1905 also the Football Foundation… support from them is not as available as once it was, for some of the initiatives; but I am happy to talk with both Hon. Members in relation to that.

In relation to Mrs Cannell, the all-weather surfaces were developed in the late 1990s, so it is at least 11 years, and the timescale for the pitches was seven years, so we get half again, more or less, value out of them, which I think is good. They are situated at Castle Rushen, QEII and 1910 Ramsey Grammar. I think the most important thing is that these are not new facilities; we are maintaining existing facilities and I think it would be incredible if we did not do that. I think it is exactly the right thing to do.

If I can come back to the Hon. Member, my colleague from South Douglas, Mr Malarkey, in relation to his point about subcontractors, I am not sure whether that is possible or not, but if it is, 1915 clearly I would want to assist in that. But I am not sure whether that is possible.

The point from the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Callister, when he says we should be thinking also about all those who help in sport, I could not agree more. For example, the Manx Youth Games: we have just had the 10th Manx Youth Games. They take place from January. We have youngsters all over the Island participating in that, but it requires parents, it requires trainers, it 1920 requires people who are prepared to give of their time, to make sure that that event is a success. Again, I would like to put on record in this Hon. Court my thanks to the sponsors of such – HSBC support the Manx Youth Games and have done for 10 years.

Yesterday, I was at the National Sports Centre, and Barclays Wealth were supporting the disability games for secondary schools. Again, last night, I was at an event where Microgaming 1925 were supporting the Isle of Man cycling team, who are just about to go off to the Island Games in the Isle of Wight. Let us, as a Court, wish all our members of those teams the very best, as they go off to compete on behalf of the Island. (Members: Hear, hear.)

Also – Mr President, I know you will forgive me taking advantage of the situation here; we are opportunists from time to time – but good luck also to everybody in this isle of sport who is taking 1930 part in the Parish Walk on Saturday! (Members: Hear, hear.) Seventeen hundred people, approximately, will be going around this… we have a wonderful island. These are good things which we should be involved in and which we should definitely take forward for the future. Here is hoping that we are all able… when we welcome 69 nations here in September to the Commonwealth Youth Games, as well, Mr President… 1935

I think we have a good story here. I acknowledge the Hon. Member has a point. I am sorry that the amendment was not seconded so that it could have been put to the vote because he has a legitimate argument: he can put that forward. That is the benefit of this place. It is not before the Court and I do hope Hon. Members will support the resolution that is.

1940 The President: The motion, Hon. Members, is that printed at Item 7 on your Order Paper,

headed up All-Island Synthetic Pitch Development. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________ 1357 T128

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 1

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 21 votes for, 1 against.

In the Council – Ayes 9, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Callister None Mr Crowe Mr Downie Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Butt Mr Turner Mr Braidwood

The President: And in the Council, 9 for, none against, Hon. Members. The motion therefore 1945

carries. The Chief Minister: Mr President, could I ask that the Clerk read out, under Standing Order

3.18, the vote, please, sir? 1950 The President: Yes. Clerk, read the vote then, please. The Clerk: Those who voted for the motion were 21 in the Keys and 9 in the Council, and in

the Keys those who voted against were 1. The names of those who voted for, 30 in total: Mr Quirk, Mr Earnshaw, Mr Brown, Mr 1955

Crookall, Mr Anderson, Mr Bell, Mr Quayle, Mr Teare, Mr Cannan, Mr Cregeen, Mr Houghton, Mr Henderson, Mr Malarkey, Mr Robertshaw, Mrs Cannell, Mr Corkish, Mr Shimmin, Mr Cretney, Mr Gawne, Mr Gill and Mr Speaker; and of the Council, Mr Callister, Mr Crowe, Mr Downie, Mrs Christian, the Lord Bishop, Mr Lowey, Mr Butt, Mr Turner and Mr Braidwood. Those who voted against were Mr Karran. 1960


_________________________________________________________________ 1358 T128

Civic Amenity Site – North Expenditure

Debate commenced

8. The Minister for Infrastructure to move: That Tynwald approves the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £1,150,000 in respect of the Civic Amenity Site – North [Ref: Item 9 under the heading “Civic Amenity Site – North” on page 27 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-12 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2011-12 to 2015-16 on 1965 page 73 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-12] The President: We go on, then, Hon. Members, to Item 8 on the Order Paper and I call Mr

Gawne, Minister for Infrastructure to move, please. 1970 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The strategic role played by civic amenity sites within the Isle of Man’s integrated waste

management system is well-established, providing facilities for the recycling and recovery of household waste. Civic amenity sites represent an essential mechanism in assisting us to deliver the Waste Management Strategy 1990 and the Waste Management Plan 2000. 1975

Whilst the strategic role is at the level of implementation of an Island-wide policy, there are obvious local benefits through significantly improved facilities that enable more convenient use by residents, improved re-use and recycling performance and acceptance of a wider range of wastes.

Part of the Department’s ongoing strategy is to ensure that the Manx people have access to appropriate waste facilities to enable us to continue to manage the Isle of Man’s waste in a 1980 balanced and sustainable way. It is, therefore, important that we review our existing facilities to ensure they remain fit for purpose and, if needed, upgrade or build new facilities.

Hon. Members may be aware that the current Northern Civic Amenity Site is not owned by the Department and was created as a temporary measure over 15 years ago as part of the landfill operations at the Ayres. The current site is inconveniently located in an isolated part of the Island 1985 and, therefore, unsuitable for redevelopment.

The proposal to use part of Balladoole Farm or a new civic amenity site moves the facility much closer to Ramsey and nearer to the more densely populated areas of the north. The proposed new site would provide residents of the north with a modern split-level facility that is convenient and safe to use, with a wide range of recycling and re-use facilities available. 1990

The current site at the Ayres is too small to offer a re-use area, but the proposed new site will provide a valuable asset, offering residents the opportunity to deposit or collect household items that still have a useful lifespan and providing a facility for collection of fridges, fluorescent tubes, TVs and PC monitors ready for recycling. Smaller recyclables, including paper, cans, glass, plastics, batteries, oil and textiles, can be left at the site for separate collection in an area adjacent 1995 to the re-use building.

Located much closer to the main residential area of the north, the new site blends in with the natural contours of the Balladoole site, facilitating the split-level design. Operating a one-way system, the site is designed to provide a drive-in, drive-out system with no reversing, enabling all users to pass through the site efficiently and in a safe and convenient manner. Operations at the 2000 site, including skip servicing and the collection of other waste materials are conducted in an area not accessible by members of the public, ensuring a safe environment for visitors and staff to the site. The total cost of the facility, including professional fees and contingencies is £1,283,983 and includes £200,000 pre-construction costs already approved by Tynwald in 2009 and, subject to Tynwald support today, the scheme will be completed by July 2012. 2005

Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 2010 I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member.


_________________________________________________________________ 1359 T128

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I find it rather disappointing… and I have done your new procedure 2015 that we have got, as far as the amendments are concerned, which I have never had to do in 25 years of being in this Hon. Court.

The fact is these issues need to be debated on the basis of us being responsible, as Government is concerned, and in my opinion many of these issues are not pressing. We have got the likes of Item 49 and 50 on this Order Paper about issues to do with health services. You can spend your 2020 money once; you cannot spend it twice. We might want to make it up as we go along, but the fact is we have got to be responsible and the fact is that I believe that the likes of many of these so-called capital projects that are being done now, are being done just before the Election. These issues need to be addressed by the next administration, as far as whether the financial position is up to it, or not. What I have asked for, as far as this is concerned that, leaving everything after 2025 Tynwald add:

‘should not approve the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £1,150,000 in respect of the civic amenity site north without an explanation of how the proposed increases in staffing costs will be self-financing.’ 2030 You cannot have it both ways. We have seen with the previous Item, where we have been told

we have got to make compulsory redundancies to the DCCL, and here we have a situation where we are taking on more staff. I am not arguing the point that these issues are well-needed issues in a wish list. What we have to get over is the environment that we are going to be leaving to the next 2035 administration.

My concern, which I have mentioned to the Hon. Minister about this, because it is about being responsible before an Election, because that is how this Hon. Member has got in time and time again on that point. The issue we had with the Hon. Member for Ramsey with his big houses in the countryside, we know they are not a popular issue, but if there is a way of creating an economic 2040 engine, which will make sure that we will protect the stuff that I and most of the Members in this Hon. Court have been defending for the last 25 years, then I will stand up and say how it needs to be said.

I believe that the Minister needs to justify the extra running costs. We have mentioned to the Hon. Minister before today, maybe there should be an arm operated thing, where they have got to 2045 put a pound in to deposit their stuff at the recycling. We need more logical realistic determination of how we spend Government money from now on. The party is over, Eaghtyrane, and we need to make sure that if we are not going to be the architects of many of the great social advances that we have produced in the last 25 years going down the tubes after that Election, then we need to make sure that we start developing the strategy that taxpayers’ money is on the same value as it would 2050 be if it was in your own pocket, because everyone knows that is not the case at the present time. That is the reason why we need to change the way things are done, as far as this Court is concerned, and I think that we need to know where the staffing costs are going to come. We need to know how we are going to evaluate these capital schemes.

Hon. Members, it may not be popular outside this Hon. Court, what I am doing, but I just hope 2055 that it will filter through that the way that we do capital schemes in the future, the way we spend public money in the future, has to be done on a more responsible basis. Otherwise, we are going to end up with more items on the back of Tynwald Order Papers after the Election on the core issues as far as Government is concerned. I am as keen on recycling as the next man, but the fact is – and the next Hon. Member in this Hon. Court… but the fact is, where is the real business case of why 2060 we need to spend this sort of money now, when we have got an existing site? It is going to create more expenditure.

So, Hon. Members, I leave it up to you whether you want to act like the usual pack of the one-party state by patronage, (Interjections) or you want to realise that these issues need to be debated in the national assembly of this nation, on the basis of ‘Let’s hear all the sides’ as far as these 2065 issues.

We all know we have got hard times ahead and I hope that these amendments are trying to put down the foundation stones, like I have done throughout my career of trying to get the changes that seemed impossible but are now reality, as far as this Hon. Court is concerned.

I want to try and make sure that we get debate not on a self situation of patting each other on 2070 the back. We all know what we have done and we know what we have approved, as far as this Court is concerned. I believe that what we should be asking, especially when we are talking about compulsory redundancies in some areas, this proposal not only spends more money but it actually increases the staff that will be required for such a proposal in these times, and I hope the Shirveishagh will reassure this Court that I am wrong and that he is right. 2075


_________________________________________________________________ 1360 T128

The Chief Minister: Could I seek a point of clarification, Mr President, please, sir? In this Item and the last Item, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, has indicated that

there is a change of procedure in relation to putting amendments before the Court, sir. I think it is very important that you clarify if that is the case or that, in fact, Standing Orders are being fully complied with, sir, and no change has happened. 2080

The President: No, sir, there is no change of procedure. Amendments need to be signed and in

the President’s hands, Hon. Member. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, then I am afraid I have been in a different Chamber to you for the 2085

last twenty-five years, sir. The President: Maybe you have, sir. Mr Teare. 2090 Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President. I feel that this is a sensible approach to a problem – a problem which obviously his party is not

aware of. If they knew the area and the constituency better, they would realise the narrow roads that traffic has to travel on at the moment to get to the present civic amenity site at Bride. The traffic that goes through the centre of Bride village – normally over the weekend, when people 2095 want to go to a civic amenity site – is quite astounding. The disruption that it makes has to be recognised, the pressure on the local population. In addition to that, these roads were never designed for that volume of traffic.

By taking the civic amenity site to Balladoole, we have a site which is well served by good roads, good facilities and – and this is important to recognise and appreciate – it brings the civic 2100 amenity site much closer to the main centre of population, where the majority of waste tends to be generated. This new site, as well, will enable the operatives to sort out and to filter the waste streams arising, to ensure that they are recycled and dealt with. There will also be, in effect, an exchange system there to give people the opportunity to recycle waste. I feel it should be recognised, the very positive benefits that not only this scheme will bring to the environment, but 2105 also to the community at large, sir.

The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member. Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. 2110 As somebody who does scrutinise the schemes coming through here – and as a Member of the

Department, I have scrutinised and I have looked at this scheme in depth – I would advise the Member that there are 400 traffic movements a week going to the existing site, and if you take the main conurbation as Ramsey you are looking at 14 miles, so you are looking at 300,000 miles saved per year of travelling to and from this site. So there is a benefit for the people using it. You 2115 have also got better recycling, which means that there will be less material being shipped all the way down to the Energy from Waste Plant because, hopefully, it will be re-used and recycled.

So there are benefits to the people in the area. It does give a modern facility. Where you have got a concrete pad at the moment and you have got staff working out of a shack, this actually gives them somewhere better to work. It makes it safer for people to go to, and what they have actually – 2120

Mr Houghton: Flat-screen TV. Mr Karran: If you want a second breastcare… 2125 The President: Continue, Mr Cregeen. Mr Cregeen: It does not come down to… You wanted Queen’s Pier. For somebody who is

saying (Mr Malarkey: Hear, hear. Yes!) ‘I scrutinise’, you voted £2 million which was going nowhere. 2130

Mr Karran: It was the law of the land! Mr Cregeen: Mr President, this is actually going to provide a facility which is a benefit. It is

not going to lie around not being used. The people will use it. 2135


_________________________________________________________________ 1361 T128

The Member says about will it go off to medical… Does he want all the Isle of Man revenue to go into medical? When does he want things like the astroturf and anything else to be developed, apart from that scheme? Like he says, you can only spend it once so, in his mind, you would have the hospital and nothing else. You would not have any roads going to it, you would not have any fire service, you would not have any prison. So what does he want? 2140

The President: Mr Bell, Hon. Member for Ramsey. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr President. We should not be surprised, I think, by the comments from the Hon. Member for Onchan, but I 2145

have to say his outburst again stressing that, somehow, debate is being constrained on this matter, when he said that this is a matter that should be debated in the national parliament… I thought this was what was happening. The impression the Hon. Member is giving, once again, for election purposes, is that this Hon. Court is trying to suppress debate on what is obviously a very important issue, so it is very disappointing. 2150

It is equally disappointing that, after the number of years that he keeps reminding us that he has been in this Hon. Chamber, he is still not able to tell the difference between revenue and capital expenditure. This is a capital expenditure item, Mr President, which will have no impact whatsoever on Items 49 and 50, which is what he is trying to link. It is very easy to play the emotional violin and link everything back to health and the various aspects of health, which we all 2155 strongly support, but the rest of Government has to move on at the same time as well.

Mr President, I support this measure and I congratulate the Department of Infrastructure on finally getting this coming forward. It is something which will be widely welcomed in the north of the Island. (A Member: Hear, hear.) What does not seem to have been picked up in the initial presentation, Mr President, is that this existing scheme which, for those who do not know, it is 2160 almost at the Point of Ayre itself on the physical point of the Point of Ayre, was set up only as a temporary facility some 15 years ago. So we have had to live with a temporary facility out there for all that time and the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon has made a very valid point about the number of traffic movements that are now generated per week through a small village in Bride, with all the disruption that has caused – and, indeed, I have to say, from time to time considerable 2165 mess that has been caused through insecure loads coming through Bride village.

Bringing this particular facility close to Ramsey makes eminent good sense and I am aware, Mr President, the Department has been looking for a suitable site for quite a number of years. It is not something that has just been sprung on us. Indeed, at one point, much to the consternation of many people in Ramsey, there was an initial suggestion that it should be developed in Gardeners 2170 Lane, on the MEA site in Ramsey, which was wholly inappropriate, putting this facility right in the middle of a residential area. I think the site that has been decided on is an exceptionally sensible site. It is close to Ramsey, it is easily accessible. Hopefully, next year it will also be adjacent to the sewage treatment plant, which, I hope anyway, will be built alongside that, makes eminent sense of the land that we have there. It is good value for money, I think, on that and it is 2175 one which will enhance the services which, on a good day, Mr Karran seems to support, which is that the green agenda, or improving the recycling ability of the site, which, because of the constraints on the existing one, currently does not exist.

There are only positives right through this, Mr President, and I very much hope Hon. Members will see this as a positive step forward, both to resolving a long-term problem in the north of the 2180 Island and making good use of the facilities which are now being offered for us.

I would urge Hon. Members to recognise this development will be very well received in the north of the Island. It is something we have been looking forward to for a great many years and I congratulate the Department on the effort it has made to finally grasp this issue and deal with it once and for all. 2185

I urge Hon. Members to support this resolution. The President: Try not to be repetitive, Hon. Members. Mrs Cannell, Hon. Member. 2190 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. I am sensing an awful lot of sensitivity within the Court today and perhaps that is because we

are getting close to the General Election (Interjections) – I do not know, but there does seem to be an awful lot of sensitivity, liveliness, even over –

2195 Mr Quirk: It must be in the water.


_________________________________________________________________ 1362 T128

Mr Earnshaw: Are you going to calm us down? Mrs Cannell: – the least significant matter for the people and for the nation, can I say. 2200 Mr Bell: You’ve not been here often. (Laughter) Mr Karran: At least it’s not at the taxpayers’ expense. Mrs Cannell: I am going to second the amendment, and the reason I am going to do that is to 2205

give an opportunity for Members to consider that, in fact, an explanation does need to be part and parcel of this proposal about any proposed increases in staffing costs, if they arise. I think it is a valid amendment in terms of that. It is not saying do not move with it, put it back, defer it or go against it. It is saying it should not be approved without an explanation of how the proposed increases in staffing costs will be self financing. 2210

I get up here, Mr President, as an avid supporter of recycling, (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) of kerbside collection. I have a deep knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, but I also appreciate that we are in difficult financial times, and I, for one, would not stand here and say that we must stop that, but what I need to do is to impress upon Hon. Members that when it comes to reduce, re-use and recycling, we need to be mindful that, in fact, we are maximising the financial 2215 and environmental benefit that is at all possible for us to do before we move on and enhance existing facilities that we have.

I would think differently if the north did not have a facility, because I think it is essential that all the major conurbations have a facility such as this to give people the opportunity to lessen the burden of the amount of refuse going to the incinerator, to which Hon. Members will recall I was 2220 vehemently opposed, and still am, because I do not believe it is a good, healthy way of dealing with the waste. But I think we do need to be mindful of any staffing costs – or increase in costs, as the Hon. Member for Onchan perceives that there will be – and I do not think it is fair just to dismiss that particular concern.

A case was being made by the Hon. Member who borders the north constituency, Mr Teare, 2225 and he said there is a narrow road to the facility: it is awful! He made that, I think, his primary case in terms of this is why we need to spend over £1 million on building a new facility on a different site. I would remind the Hon. Court… What is the excuse for Silverdale? We have a development there. We have major Government capital expenditure at Silverdale, but we have not addressed the shortcomings or the safety aspects of access to our people and our visitors. Again, 2230 we are faced with a very narrow road where, if there are vehicles parked on one side, it is impossible to achieve two-way traffic movement. There is a solution on the table for that, which is only going to cost something like £25K, but that has been knocked back by the Council of Ministers. But here we are having a case being made on the basis, from what Mr Teare said, of the fact that the road is too narrow. 2235

Another Member said, in criticising the Hon. Member for Onchan, does he want all the money to go into Noble’s Hospital, into health? Let us not forget here, Mr President, without good health and education we are nothing, we are nothing as a people. Good health and education must be our two primary roles to make sure that we have good health and good education, that our people are good and healthy and able to work to boost the economy, able to drive the economy forward. You 2240 need good health for that.

A balance, obviously, has to be struck. It is a sense of priority, is it not? It would be very nice for the north to have a brand-new civic amenity site with all of the additional facilities that are proposed within the motion, but they do have a facility and I would say that, as soon as we can really afford to do it… that we should pause a little bit. When we can afford to do it, I would say 2245 do it because we need to maximise recycling, but I think it does need to be cost effective. We save our environment, yes we do, but we need to make costings on both sides. The cost to the environment of not recycling is significantly high also.

I would ask Hon. Members to just pause, have a little bit of due regard for the Hon. Member’s concern. He has only tried to ensure… He might be electioneering. We all electioneer, don’t we? I 2250 have been accused of electioneering just recently. (Several Members: No! Never!) Oh, yes. But he is genuinely concerned that we might, in fact, be increasing revenue costs by going with such an enhanced facility. He is asking for us to have due regard to that, and I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

2255 The President: Hon. Members, I think it is an appropriate time to take our break. I have got a

long list of Members, when we return at 2.30, Hon. Members. The first to speak will be Mr


_________________________________________________________________ 1363 T128

Cannan, followed by Mrs Christian, Mr Callister, Mr Speaker, Mr Turner, Mr Anderson and Mr Gill – and Mr Lowey.

Can I remind this Hon. Court – the Department of Health wish you to be reminded – that there 2260 is a presentation at 1.45 in the Barrool Suite.

Hon. Members, we will return for 2.30. Thank you.


Civic Amenity Site – North Debate continued

Expenditure approved The President: Hon. Members, we go back to Item 8 on the Order Paper, the Civic Amenity

Site – North and, as I indicated when we broke for lunch, next to speak is the Hon. Member for Michael, Mr Cannan. 2265

Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr President. Members will recall that, before lunch we had the usual penny lecture from the Hon. Member

for Onchan, Mr Karran, on what he considers to be responsible and irresponsible expenditure. Well, let me say quite clearly this is very responsible expenditure. It is for the benefit of a very 2270 large number of people in the north of the Island.

Irresponsible expenditure, which the Hon. Member voted for only last month, was £1.8 million for a pier that nobody will walk on (A Member: Hear, hear.) and is in Never Never Land, whether it will ever be restored. (A Member: Hear, hear.) And yet here, this is for the here and now. (A Member: Unbelievable.) This is for the here and now, for the benefit of 10,000 or 12,000 people 2275 in the north of the Island. It will bring a lot of benefits, and it will remove the temporary use of the existing amenity site out on the Ayres.

However, there is one point that Minister Bell raised – and I may be very wrong when he said this was capital and had no reflection on revenue. I must be very much mistaken, but I thought there were loan charges for Departments when they expended capital expenditure. So, yes, there is 2280 a commitment to revenue expenditure in the future and the capital account.

Having said that, I will not go further into the benefits of this. It has already been explained by Minister Teare and Minister Bell. It is responsible expenditure, it is for the here and now and it is for the benefit of many thousand people in the north of the Island.

2285 The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I, too, want to support this motion and I do want to speak to the amendment in the name of Mr

Karran. 2290 It is appropriate that we review capital expenditure. Indeed, we would not have these Items on

the Agenda, if we were to simply approve them with the Budget. We have this secondary process, so that we all know the detail of what is going on in relation to this, so that, in that regard, it is quite appropriate that we do have a look at capital expenditure and review what we are proposing.

With regard to his amendment, Mr President, what he seeks for us to do is to have an 2295 explanation how the proposed increases in staffing costs – and his only issue is staffing costs – will be self financing. I think it is clear from the explanatory memorandum that the additional costs for staffing will be borne by the local authorities through their rates. I think that they are all well aware of that and I would venture to suggest that, for the vast majority of people in the north, the savings which they will make on their journeys to the tip at Bride will probably equate, if not 2300 exceed, what they are going to have to pay out in the extra rate, particularly those people who live in Ramsey, where the rates are probably higher than in other areas. So I do not think that it is unclear, and I certainly do not think that we need to wait for that information to be further developed before supporting this particular proposal.

Other Members have commented on the argument about whether capital or revenue issues are 2305 involved here, but I think that, on all of these issues, we need to be looking at a fairly global picture. One of the issues here is on capital spend. We are doing what we can to help sustain elements of the construction industry in the Island and keep people in work and I do think that, in relation to this, there will be a useful contribution made to the construction industry.


_________________________________________________________________ 1364 T128

We have a facility in the north, it is true, but it is a very, very poor one compared with that in 2310 other areas. There is no facility for recycling to any degree and re-use and the sort of facility where you can bring and take away that they have at other sites. I think there is an appetite for that, particularly when people’s budgets are being hit. (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.) They want to be able to go and exchange things at the civic amenity site.

There are a variety of reasons, then, Mr President, why we should support this measure. There 2315 has been comment on an additional job being created. We are in the business, too, in the Isle of Man of job creation, and it may be that there is an opportunity here for somebody who is being made redundant somewhere else, Mr President. So, all in all, I think that it is proper to examine these issues, but I think that the argument that we should slow down our consideration of this in relation to the staffing costs is not a sustainable one and I think Members should support the 2320 motion.

The President: Mr Callister, Hon. Member. Mr Callister: Thank you very much, Mr President. 2325 As a Member of the Department of Infrastructure, of course I will be supporting this and I

would be, in any case. The matter of this being self financing is an intriguing thing that has been brought into this, but I do not know if any recycling facility in the Isle of Man is self financing. I think it will be a very long time before that ever happens.

I was alarmed, Mr President, by a comment made by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr 2330 Karran, when he suggested that people might like to pay a pound a time for each drop they make at the amenity centre: a wonderful initiative for fly tippers, (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.) an invitation to dump behind hedges and down gullies and over cliffs. They already do it now but it would be a much worse situation. You would have mattresses into rivers, and you get that now, I admit.

I will say that the recycling facilities that we now have in the south and the east and the west 2335 are excellent. (A Member: Hear, hear.) They are first-class facilities but, furthermore, the public has taken to them and makes use of them and treats them with respect so I think, from that point of view, it would be very much against the interests of recycling to have a charge.

This facility for the north is long overdue, Mr President. The facility in the north was temporary, it has been temporary for a long time, and it will be a first-class facility, as far as I can 2340 make out from the details and the drawings and the information that I have had. It is also not set in a residential area. All the others are outside of residential areas, which is also of benefit.

I note that the Member moving the amendment has not put any proposal as to how it could be self financing, apart from his pound a drop. The only way, perhaps, you could think about is takeaway charges for those people who find something useful in these areas, but I think that could 2345 be open to abuse, for one thing, and I think it would deter people from taking away, in any case.

Mr President, I do hope that Members will support this motion. The President: Mr Speaker. 2350 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr President. This is the second of the four money votes that are on our Order Paper this afternoon: the first

one, the all-Island synthetic pitch development, and we have this civic amenity site, to be followed by Jurby hangar refurbishment and pumping station refurbishment.

People listening to these debates will be asking the question: ‘Where is the money coming 2355 from?’ If my maths is correct, these four capital schemes total £2,757,000 and it will certainly be reported that Tynwald has voted through – as it almost certainly will on all four Items – £2.7 million at a time when the public are being told we have no money. (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) The public are asking, rightly, where is the money coming from.

I believe Mr Karran – perhaps unfortunately in the way he expressed that principle in the first 2360 debate – was simply articulating a very basic question that the man in the street, or the person in the street, is asking: ‘Hang on a minute. We’ve just been told it’s the biggest economic challenge for years. We’ve just been told Government is having to rein back in.’ That is the message on the one hand and, on the other side, the public are also hearing that these are important and critical and essential schemes. There is a bit of a mixed message there. If, in domestic finance, you are having 2365 to cut your budget, you reduce discretionary spending, and the public will be asking is this discretionary spending, or is it essential spending.

I think, in the first case, the synthetic pitch, and in this case – and, I am quite sure, in the next two – the case that this is essential investment is self evident. I have no doubt that this is expenditure that will save money in the longer run, which if not made now will cost us more 2370


_________________________________________________________________ 1365 T128

dearly in the longer run: in this particular instance, the cost of miles travelled in transport to the amenity site; in the case of the first, the synthetic pitch, the wearing out of infrastructure which will cost you more in the longer run. So I am not under any illusion that it is essential investment.

The case is self evident and it has been made in the previous debate, and has been made thus far in this debate, but I do think that we need to explain far better to the public the difference 2375 between capital spending and revenue spending. Mr Cannan has been accused of not understanding the difference and the Chief Minister, when he spoke in the first debate, acknowledged that many of the public do have a difficulty in understanding the difference between capital spend, investment and day-to-day revenue spending.

Of these four schemes, this appears to be the only one that does have additional operational 2380 costs, but the point has been made by Mr Cannan that the financing of your capital schemes is through revenue, so it is a legitimate point to make that there is an impact on day-to-day revenue spending, at least to a degree, and I do think, Mr President – and this is the point I am trying to make – that at a time where the public are rightly being warned of the financial strictures that are upon Government and its ability to deliver services in the way they have been used to seeing them 2385 delivered, we do need to explain how it is that, yes, we are spending £2.7 million today, £1.1 million of that on a civic amenity site. We do have to, I think, be far better at not delivering a mixed message and keeping a consistency in message that this level of spending is not discretionary, it is essential and, in the longer run, for the greater economic good has to be undertaken, but we have to explain so people understand that. 2390

The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member. Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. The point I was going to make, Mr Speaker has made, so I will not go over all the ground, 2395

other than to say, of course, we did agree in principle, the majority of these in the budget process where the capital schemes are all listed.

I know it is very difficult for that information to be fully made available, because the chances of every member of the public picking up the Pink Book and going through it in the detail we will, is very unlikely. I think the message always comes out that this is, in fact, new money, when it is 2400 not, it is part of that original budget process. I will not go over all the other points that were made, but I would like to congratulate the Department on the – I know these are only mock-up designs that we have got on the memorandum, but one of the points that was raised, when the western site was developed, was the layout of the site. I noticed that it appears that the points that were raised on the design have been taken on board. Looking at the principle of the design, where the main 2405 objectives were concerned that the area of the site where you dump your waste was before the re-use section, so it encouraged people to discard items before considering them for recycling, but I note that, on the mockup layout, the actual re-use area is on the entrance, so I think that is positive that they have obviously taken on board the comments and learnt from the previous sites.

These sites do offer a very valuable facility. Certainly, the western site, which I use regularly, 2410 is always busy any time of the day or night, you think, well, not the night – that would be interesting – but any time of the day or the weekend, when you go out there, you try and go out at what you think would be a quiet time and it is still incredibly busy, so they are widely used.

I think if you were to suggest this 20 years ago, when people were not particularly in the habit of recycling, people probably would have objected to having to sort through the waste because 2415 everything went in the bin but, of course, with waste disposal being such an issue, not just here, but everywhere, people have really taken this on board now and just see it as part of their daily routine, as routine as mowing the lawn, is sorting out your waste and your recycling. So I think this is an important project, especially for the north. We did visit the site when we were on the Department of Transport and spent time looking around, so this site has been earmarked for this 2420 purpose, along with the sewage treatment, for quite some time and I hope the Court will support this and we will move on with it.

The President: Mr Anderson, Hon. Member. 2425 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the presentation the Department gave, which

answered a lot of the questions that are being asked here today. Can the Hon. Member mention whether the mover of the amendment, or the seconder, actually attended that presentation?

2430 The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen.


_________________________________________________________________ 1366 T128

Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. In a similar vein to Mr Turner, most of my observations have been made, and particularly by

Mrs Christian in relation to the rates burden factor in the operation. I think I would just, first of all, declare an interest. As a former Member of DoLGE with 2435

responsibility for waste management, I was involved with the very professional team of very committed officers in that Department – Infrastructure now – and I commend them for their work.

I think the experience we have had in the south… and whenever I go to the civic amenity site in the south, the conversation is invariably pretty much the same with whoever happens to be in the next car or van to me, and it is along the lines of ‘How did we manage before we had this 2440 facility?’ because it really is something that we very much value. It is used very widely, it is used for the purpose it is intended, it is very well managed, and I would commend Mandy Butler and her team down in the southern site, and I am sure in a very short time in Ramsey that very same conversation will be taking place.

We have to dispose of waste in a sensible, cost-effective and sensitive manner and this is the 2445 best way to do that in the northern region, in terms of location, in terms of layout, in terms of the system that it will underpin, and also it has the added advantage of recycling opportunities which, as has been said previously, should be welcomed and encouraged.

So I take the Speaker’s view absolutely. There may be a message that needs to be sent a bit differently to get the story over, but Government’s duties go on. They do not go on without 2450 changing and without a refocus, but they go on. I am minded to say somebody, somewhere in New York City on 9/11 no doubt got a parking ticket, because the city goes on, it is not just about one incident. We cannot just stop operating. We cannot just stop and walk away from responsibilities. That is what the Minister is bringing for us today, a responsibility, and I hope that we will vote to support him in that. 2455

The President: Mr Lowey. Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. A lot of good points have been made. I tend to agree with Mr Speaker, and Mrs Christian is 2460

right, this Court decides policy and finance, but when Mr Speaker says it is difficult for the public to understand, it would appear it is difficult for Members of Tynwald to understand where is the money coming from.

We do have a budget and it is for this year. The Pink Book gives a capital programme for the next five years and it is prioritised. Therefore, it is quite clear that this money has been earmarked 2465 for this expenditure in this financial year and it comes out of the revenue that is being produced. I think I had a conversation with Mr Karran, who said, ‘Ah, but we had a Budget that was not balanced.’ If we present you with an unbalanced Budget, we are acting illegally. (Interjection by Mr Braidwood)

I can assure you the Budget is a balanced Budget which was approved by this Court and this 2470 was in it.

I can understand ‘Well, is it really necessary? Is it desirable?’ We decided, as a Court, this is desirable. Why? I will tell you why. It is the last piece of the jigsaw on what I would call the recycling of waste, which we are involved in, and it will evolve over the coming years, as we get more and more involved in it. As I have I said – and I said, this morning, we had three and 2475 promptly used four, so I am sure I shall get stick for that – but in the west, it is good; in the south it is good; in the east, it is good; and Mrs Christian politely said that the site we have in the north is… and I hope I misheard her – she said it was the ‘state of the ark’. (Laughter) I agree with her on that, but I thought she meant the state of the art. It is hardly the state of the art; it is state of the ark. I am sure when Noah was around, this was how we were dealing with it up there. 2480

And the other point coming from the local people, I remember, when I was in charge many years ago of waste, going into Bride village and telling people that we wanted an extension for two years. I think that was 10 years ago. They have been a very, very, very tolerant race of people in the north on this behaviour!

Let me give you another example of, what I would say, how you can deal with these matters. 2485 Malew Commissioners were not in favour initially of supporting the southern disposal site because it was nearly seven miles from Malew. My strong view to them was that they did get involved, they were part of ‘the south’ and they needed to be part of that management team. They are now a very active part of that management team and I have to say, like my friends from Rushen, that site works, it works well and we have tried to put it where the bulk of the people are. This is nearer the 2490 people in the north, where the population is, and all the things that have been said.


_________________________________________________________________ 1367 T128

But let us not confuse people by saying, ‘Well, where is the money coming from?’ The papers regularly say it: ‘Where is the money coming from?’ They just have to remember that it is budgeted for and all of that money has been found, earmarked and is ready for use. I think Mrs Christian’s point is very valid: we should be looking at sustaining employment where possible, 2495 and this industry is important at this particular time. It needs sustaining. I think this is a positive investment again, and the word ‘investment’ is the key. Yes, it may take one other person to do it, but Mrs Christian again is right: this will borne mainly by the ratepayers in the north. I think they are prepared to do it. I think we should be prepared to put the capital up.

2500 The President: Minister to reply, please. The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I do not suppose anyone will be too surprised to hear that I will not be supporting the

amendment. That said, I do believe that the mover of the amendment has a very valid point and I 2505 believe others have already explained why that is.

It is important. It is very difficult for most of our constituents who actually elect us so that we can get on with the job of running the Government and doing all that sort of thing… It is difficult for them to understand the difference between revenue and capital, and I have to say that there are Members in here who add to their confusion (A Member: Hear, hear.) by perhaps deliberately 2510 muddying the water, and I think that is for those Members to decide whether they are doing a service, or a disservice, to their constituents. But it is an important issue and it is a very difficult financial time. There is no doubt about it, we have a very, very tight fiscal position at the moment and we are going to be having a difficult few years to come.

It is hard, as I am discovering with all the fantastic schemes that my Department has delivered, 2515 even in the relatively short 12-month period, the things I am now being… Oh, you are accused of this and you are accused of that: ‘Philly’s Folly’ down at Ballakillowey, and there is Richmond Hill and all these other things where there is an absolute clear-cut case need for the investment, and we have delivered, in most cases within budget, these capital schemes. But the public do not understand these issues, and we do not help them because some of us see electoral opportunity, 2520 dive in and play the electoral card, rather than saying, ‘Well, actually, there is a responsible reason for doing some of these things.’

I do believe, in this case, there is a responsible reason. I do believe there is a sound case for delivering. I also believe that the Hon. Member for Onchan has a justification in moving his amendment because it is entirely reasonable to debate the issue. Perhaps a broader discussion or 2525 debate is more appropriate on the capital programme but, in essence, that is what the Budget debate is about. Clearly, we have to come back for specific approval of specific schemes when they have been worked up but, in principle, when we are agreeing to the Budget, we are explaining very clearly what we propose to do in the forthcoming 12 months.

I think those points have been well made and, actually, going through my list of contributions, 2530 it might be as easy for me to say I thank Mr Teare, Mr Bell, Mr Cannan, Mr Callister, Mr Speaker, Mr Turner, Mr Anderson, Mr Gill and Mr Lowey for delivering my wind-up speech for me because there were some excellent points, all of which I was about to make myself. I am delighted with them for doing so, because I do not now need to make all those points.

I can, and I think it is important that I do, emphasise some points. Mr Karran, the Hon. 2535 Member for Onchan, in his remarks, pointed out that it was important that we consider the environment we are leaving to those who follow, or words to that effect. He was obviously talking about the financial environment, but we also ought to consider the actual environment, the physical environment. What are we doing if we are not encouraging people to recycle? We are causing pollution, we are causing unnecessary waste, and I think it is important that we recognise 2540 we had a Waste Strategy in 1990, a Waste Management Plan in 2000, we are currently consulting on what I hope will be the Waste Management Plan 2012 and, certainly, I would encourage everybody to take an active role in the consultation on that so that we are again up to date on where we are going.

These are plans that are clearly the Department’s policy. I am fairly sure at least one, if not 2545 both, have been endorsed by Tynwald. So, again, in terms of legitimacy, why are we doing this? Actually, we are doing this because it is the policy of the Isle of Man Government, it is the policy of Tynwald for us to do these things. It may not be electorally popular and, again, being accused of rushing through unpopular capital schemes in the run-up to an Election, where I am investing huge… or trying to deliver schemes which will invest huge sums of money in the north of the 2550


_________________________________________________________________ 1368 T128

Island, I am not quite sure where I gain electorally from doing so. It would be far better for me to delay it until after the Election so, again, I have to disagree with that particular point.

The point which my hon. colleague, Mr Cregeen, raised, in terms of the 300,000 miles of travel which people in the north do to the existing almost derelict civic amenity site – and this point was emphasised again by Mrs Christian – I think is a very important point. Particularly with the cost of 2555 fuel at the moment, it would not be unreasonable to estimate that by not travelling those 300,000 miles you are saving in the region of £200,000 per annum. The additional cost to the ratepayers in the north generally is £20,000. I think anyone can work out the financial case there, the financial argument in terms of the economic case. It is an absolutely sound case. This is, I believe anyway, the right thing to do. 2560

I think I have probably said enough. Most Members have contributed positively and I do thank them for that.

I beg to move. The President: The motion therefore, Hon. Members, is that which is printed at Item 8 on 2565

your Order Paper, that Tynwald approves the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £1,150,000 in respect of the Civic Amenity Site – North.

Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. Mrs Cannell: Mr President, sorry, but we have the amendment. 2570 The President: Oh, yes, we have the amendment. Apologies. The amendment moved by Mr

Karran and seconded by Mrs Cannell, Hon. Members. Putting to you, first, the amendment, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes

have it. 2575 Mr Bell: Sorry, Mr President, I pressed the wrong button. (Interjections) The President: Hon. Members, we will retake the ballot. Be careful, Hon. Members. 2580 Mr Henderson: Good job this is a democracy! (Laughter) The President: You may vote. Take care. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mr Henderson Mr Brown Mrs Cannell Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys 3 votes for, 18 against.


_________________________________________________________________ 1369 T128


FOR AGAINST None Mr Callister Mr Crowe Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Butt Mr Turner Mr Braidwood

The President: In the Council, none for, 8 against, Hon. Members. The amendment therefore 2585

fails to carry, Hon. Members. I put to you the motion, as printed on the Order Paper, Hon. Members. Those in favour of the motion, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mrs Cannell Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 18 for, 3 against.


FOR AGAINST Mr Callister None Mr Crowe Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Butt Mr Turner Mr Braidwood

The President: In the Council, 8 for, none against, Hon. Members. The motion, therefore, 2590

carries.

Jurby Hangar 292 Refurbishment

Expenditure approved

9. The Minister for Infrastructure to move: That Tynwald approves the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £442,000 in respect of Jurby Hangar 292 refurbishment.


_________________________________________________________________ 1370 T128

[Ref: Item 14 under the heading “Infrastructure” on page 27 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-12 and as detailed in the Estimates of Capital Payments 2011-12 to 2015-16 on page 73 of the 2595 Isle of Man Budget 2011-12] The President: We turn, then, to Item 9 on the Order Paper. Again, it is for the Minister for Infrastructure to move, please. 2600 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. The proposed scheme to reclad Hangar 292 located on the former Jurby airfield will see the

completion of refurbishment works to the former airfield hangar complex. The Department of Local Government and the Environment carried out a programme of major refurbishment work over the last 20 years or so to protect, maintain and improve the condition and appearance of the 2605 hangar buildings on what is now known as the Jurby Industrial Estate. Hangar 292 is the last remaining hangar not to have been refurbished.

Hon. Members may not be aware, but I am pleased to report that all the large-scale buildings on the Jurby Industrial Estate are now fully used by various businesses and organisations, and I am sure you will agree that this can only be good for the area. Hangar 292 is just over 70 years old 2610 but, structurally, it is in good condition, with just localised repairs required to secure the long-term future of the building frame. As long as the Department gains Tynwald approval to progress with the recladding scheme, it is anticipated that a minimum of 30 to 40 years’ continuing use can be expected from the building.

To give an idea of the costs, a new build hangar of similar proportions would be expected to 2615 cost between £1 million to £1½ million, dependent on the exact specification, so the proposed scheme cost, I believe, represents very good value for money. The proposed scheme gives the Department a large-scale, fully secure and usable strategic store for the first time. This facility will house key strategic items of plant and machinery, such as the winter maintenance equipment, bulk salt gritters and similar items that are, unfortunately, currently stored outside for many months of 2620 the year, and clearly deteriorate as a result. The ability to store this type of key strategic plant properly and under cover will undoubtedly extend the lifespan of the equipment and also reduce ongoing maintenance costs during the life of the equipment – so, reduced revenue costs, reduced capital costs.

Subject to Tynwald approval, I am able to confirm that all works proposed to the hangar will 2625 be carried out by competent Manx contractors and will, therefore, provide work for the local construction industry, with work commencing in July this year, assuming Tynwald approves this Item today. I am sure Hon. Members will agree that my Department and, indeed, Government should and indeed, are required to, manage, develop and provide for satisfactory maintenance and improvement of Government’s properties, and I believe this is an example of meeting that 2630 requirement.

The total cost of the proposed work to Hangar 292 is £442,000 and, subject to Tynwald support today, the scheme will be completed by October 2011.

Eaghtyrane, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. 2635 The President: Mr Crookall, Hon. Member for Peel. Mr Crookall: Mr President, I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The President: Mr Cannan. 2640 Mr Cannan: Mr President, this again is responsible expenditure. It is responsible because the alternative is to leave a hangar to fall into ruin. The Jurby

Industrial Estate is available for industrial and economic purposes. I agree that the refurbishment of this particular hangar is for the storage of heavy machinery and plant for the Department, but to 2645 leave it outside in all weathers, that machinery and plant, would be irresponsible. So this is responsible on two counts: (1) that you are not allowing a hanger – the last remaining hangar – to fall into dereliction, which in itself would, to a certain extent, blight the industrial estate on which so much public money has already been spent, and is spent, for economic development, and that is the issue for the Island. 2650

The issue for the Island is that, as our general receipts from Value Added Tax may decline, then we must have economic development to counterbalance, to provide full employment and to keep the north of the Island, which from time to time does not benefit from the manufacturing


_________________________________________________________________ 1371 T128

industry as it does in Douglas and the south, with the facility of the port and airport… that this area needs this investment. 2655

Sadly, Mr President, in 2004-05, Tynwald resolved to create in Jurby a sustainable and viable village. It meant on one side the construction of the village and housing and the facilities that go with it and, on the other, the development of the industrial estate. Today, we have the development of the industrial estate and the refurbishment of the last hangar. Sadly, despite my constant writing of letters to the housing directorate for the development of the former army campsite, nothing has 2660 occurred except, in the last month, a turf-cutting ceremony for four bungalows but, unfortunately, they are not starting work until October because the housing department forgot to cut the gorse in the winter, so it has been left there for the nesting season.

What was required for Jurby was a full, sustainable village. This, for the Department of Trade and Industry, now the Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Economic 2665 Development… We have seen tremendous investment and move forward in the industrial estate. Jurby just waits for some action instead of always saying the time is not right. Beautiful plans were made available to the people of Jurby which they wholeheartedly endorsed. A two-day public display was shown in 2006 that this was about to happen. It is still about to happen.

On that basis, I will close. I am pleased that, subject to a Question this morning, letters have 2670 gone out to those who are interested in service plots and I am delighted with the Minister that he has seen that this is responsible expenditure. I just hope, in the new parliament, the housing department will actually do something about creating the sustainable village which Tynwald voted on.

2675 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, obviously, I must have read a different brief, as far as the Item in

front of us today, as far as this Item is concerned because, at the end of the day, this is about the storage of equipment for the DoI and its facilities and nothing do with the economic development, 2680 as far as diversifying the economy is concerned. My issue on this issue, as on the previous issues, is we heard from the Minister that we have a problem as far as the Customs agreement is concerned. We have other problems on the horizon, and we really do need to make sure that, when we are spending money, we are spending it correctly on the right situation.

I take no joy in taking the stance that I have had to take today, because it is not popular to do 2685 that, because that would be the easy way: just to let it go through, and we just allow a situation where we find that, later on, we have not got that flexibility. I think it is disappointing that we see, with this Item, that again on the local side, it is very good for the likes of the previous speaker and the previous Item before that, as far as the Member for Ayre.

But when you are being told, Eaghtyrane, that the likes of the IBS is being hawked around to 2690 be privatised in the near future, then the situation is that we are going to end up with a situation –

Mr Teare: Point of order. There is no suggestion whatsoever – there is no foundation, no fact, and I want to make that

abundantly clear, Mr President. 2695 Mr Karran: The situation is that, then, there are some people who are under a very interesting

impression as far as that is concerned, and I think there are a few maybe around this Hon. Court who are little bit concerned. We have to be responsible about our money.

Now, what I am concerned about… I had no objection to the ideas that these things should be 2700 sorted out – and they do need sorting out – but, once again, I think the time is over… that we cannot afford the luxury to be able to spend these capital schemes in the way that we spend them. That is why I have taken such exception, as far as trying to make the position clearer.

I think it will be interesting to know, from the mover, if we are refurbishing this building at the same size, how come we can end up with more equipment in the building than is in the building at 2705 the existing time, unless it is going to become some sort of police box and we are going to audition for the ‘Doctor Who’ series, maybe with more success in the film industry! I think that needs to be clarified, that somehow, by the refurbishment, the building will be made bigger. There might be a legitimate argument that, somehow, part of the building is closed off and they cannot use part of the building. 2710

I do think that Hon. Members, when we are talking about these things, we need to understand that. I think we also need to understand, Eaghtyrane, as far as the usual character assassination is concerned, the fact that, in your budget of the last Budget, you actually did take away the revenue costs, the capital charges out, to try and balance the Budget. I understand well, Eaghtyrane, about


_________________________________________________________________ 1372 T128

the systems of Government. The problem is maybe I understand too well as far as in this Hon. 2715 Court.

What I am concerned about in this Court is that, of course, it is £441,000, and I would almost certainly… Like the responsible way the Minister has debated the previous Item, we are talking about £441,000 as far as the refurbishment is concerned. We talked about it being £1.5 million to build this building from scratch. The thing is, is that from scratch as what would be in the 2720 commercial world or in the governmental world? I am sure, when you look at the fact that they are spending £52,000 on professional fees, and that does not include client contingencies or other associated costs, these issues need to be addressed. What are we talking about? We are talking about an asbestos hangar. Many farms will have hangars, not of this size – I am not saying that – but of similar sorts of sizes. Would they be expecting to pay out £441,314.80 on such a project, 2725 and would they, Eaghtyrane, be paying out £52,000 on professional fees, as far as a structure which is an asbestos-clad structure is concerned? These are simple reality checks that we need to make and this is the reason why I will persist in trying to force you to debate it, because if I had not done these things, everything would have just been nodded through. We need to make sure we are clear, as far as these items are concerned. 2730

I think it is important that the Government should win its votes. I have no problem with that, but they should make sure that they are factual. I do find it incredible that, if we are refurbishing an existing building, at an existing size, how will we be able to put more things into it? I think it just needs to be answered.

Eaghtyrane, I wish the Minister well with his proposals, but I do really feel that we are acting 2735 irresponsibly. I understand that we have the situation with the Budget, where I voted against the Budget, but you feel like you have got a debt of honour to nod everything through, because the rest of you voted for the Budget; but we are in different times. We are in different times from the Budget.

And I will take exception to the Hon. Member of Council. The fact is that we did use headings 2740 of money that we found from other sources, in order to make sure that there was a balanced Budget at this election. We did look at our reserves, as far as the last Budget is concerned.

So, Eaghtyrane, I do think that the hon. mover needs to clarify the points. I think they are reasonable points. Are we, once again, paying champagne prices for brown stout? I think it is important that we need to realise we are talking about a galvanised structure that needs to be 2745 refurbished at £441,000, when we are told so often – and I appreciate the input from the Speaker in the previous debate, to try and get some balance into this parliamentary assembly – but the fact is that we are paying £52,000 for professional fees for a structure which is an asbestos-clad structure, where I wonder how many other people would be paying just under 14% of the capital fees on professional fees for such an item, outside the realms of this Hon. Court. I think not many 2750 people would be.

The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: Very briefly, Mr President, I will support this, partly because it is going to 2755

preserve an existing building and get rid of an asbestos issue and, indeed, do something to improve the general tenor of the site. One of the concerns that the Department of Economic Development has in relation to the encouragement of the manufacturing business in the Island is that many of our sites do not present a very attractive proposition. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) You are not in the same market as they are in other places of presenting well laid out, well landscaped provision 2760 in relation to that kind of business. So I do think that this is something that does have to be tackled. If you are not going to take it right down, then you have to do something about tidying it up. I would ask, though, whether the Minister is content – well, I presume he is because he is moving it here – with the issue of the professional fees, which are pushing 12% of the construction cost and, indeed, over 9% of the overall cost. 2765

With regard to the Hon. Member for Onchan’s comment about there being agricultural buildings of this nature and would we pay that much for them, I doubt that there are many agricultural buildings on the Isle of Man on this scale. If he has been inside, trying to fill them with bales, he will realise how big they are and, indeed, the cost of putting buildings up now is not cheap and with the additional problem of having to take off the existing cladding, I think the 2770 Department has that additional burden to deal with in coming to the costs which are listed here, but I would like the Minister’s response on the fees, please.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle. 2775


_________________________________________________________________ 1373 T128

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I will be supporting this, because I think it is important to upgrade our properties and it makes

sense to complete this particular aspect in the Jurby area. Just responding, if I may, to the Hon. Member for the area, Mr Cannan, who talked about the

development of the industrial estate on the one side of the road and the hope for development of a 2780 village on the other side of the road. I have to say that it would be a private sector co-operation with Government and, despite some plans having been brought up, they have not been progressed, due to, presumably, the lack of interest of developing at this particular time, for potentially a number of reasons.

I also would point to the fact, too, the good news front, that there is investment in housing for 2785 Jurby, for public sector use, targeted for the smaller households, because most of the older stock of properties in Jurby is larger family houses, as existing, so there are the four bungalows, there are the self-build plots, which I referred to this morning, and I understand there is a potential outstanding planning application for six apartments on plots in the Bretney estate, which would follow on from what I have just also mentioned. 2790

Finally, Mr President, I should just like to remind the Court that there has been a significant amount of investment by this Government, in the last few years, in the Jurby area, which I think has been in the order of £5 million and there has been significant improvements in gas, electricity and water. There has also been the investment in the prison that was opened during this last five years. That gives ongoing employment opportunities for the people working within the prison. 2795

So despite Mr Cannan thinking it is doom and gloom, there is also a lot of positive news for the people in Jurby.

The President: Minister to reply, please. 2800 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I would like to, obviously, thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, particularly Mr

Crookall, Hon. Member for Peel, who has delegated responsibility for properties in the Department and I thank him for all the hard work and effort he puts into that work in the Properties Division and also in terms of bringing the scheme forward. 2805

Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael, pointed out that it is an important scheme in terms of potential economic benefit. Mr Karran questioned that. I think the issue really here is, on the one hand, we have a potential revenue saving, inasmuch as we are not building a brand-new structure to store our vehicles and equipment. Therefore, we clearly have a revenue saving, in that we are not paying the additional loan charges. We have a capital saving in that we are not having to buy 2810 wagons earlier than we might because they will be stored inside: the equipment will be stored inside. Also, there is a significant investment in the Manx construction sector, and I think that is important.

It is the last hangar on the Jurby Airfield that we have left to refurbish and, again, in terms of the outlook of people working, investing in businesses in the Jurby area, it is important that we do 2815 not have a very shabby, very derelict-looking building stuck in the middle of what are now well refurbished and reasonable-looking buildings. So I think it is important and it does have an economic impact.

I think the benefit to the economy is reasonably clear there, and if we actually look at the likely cost, for example, of replacement of a gritter wagon, I think it is something in the region of 2820 £100,000 – and we do buy secondhand chassis. It is not like we are buying brand-new, but when you add on all the additional equipment that we have to put on to a gritter wagon, it costs a lot of money. Leaving gritter wagons outside, exposed, is not a very good thing. They are not very good at resisting rust, anyway, because of the nature of what they spread on the roads, so anything we can do to protect them, get them inside and make better use of that protection will add to the 2825 lifetime of those wagons, just for an example.

Have we employed the services of Doctor Who to manage to fit considerably more things inside the building than perhaps would be reasonably possible? No. First of all, there are parts of the building that currently leak, which means you cannot currently use those bits. There are also issues, inasmuch as when we have a proper, well sealed building we will be able to use far more of 2830 the headroom in the building, which we are certainly intending to do. Part of the building had previously been used for private storage and that use has been discontinued, and also, as I was saying, equipment was being left outside, so it is great we can actually get that equipment inside. There is not an awful lot of point in storing a wagon inside if the rain is pouring in through the roof. You may as well leave it outside. The point I think – I hope – is clear. We are not using Time 2835


_________________________________________________________________ 1374 T128

Lord technology. All we are doing is actually stacking things and making better use of the existing space.

As far as the cost of professional fees, no, indeed, most farmers building sheds… and you would go a long way to find a farmer who would be wanting to build a shed as big as this. One shed would probably do half the farms in the north of the Isle of Man, one of these hangars. But 2840 were a farmer to propose to do something like that, he would be foolish not to engage some kind of professional expertise, in giving him some advice. I think we also need to remember our own responsibility in Tynwald, when it comes to professional fees. Yes, Government pays perhaps more than it might in terms of professional fees, but largely because various Committees of Tynwald have required, due to various reasons, Government to tighten up its capital procedures to 2845 ensure that mistakes are not made, to ensure that designs are perfect, to ensure all these sorts of thing. The only way you can do that is by employing elaborate bands of professionals to make sure that no mistakes can possibly be made. Even then, we still very occasionally make mistakes .

So, as far as professional fees are concerned, the other thing I think we need to bear in mind is that the hangar is clad in asbestos, and there has to be an asbestos survey. That is a major part of 2850 this. The hangar is an old building and, clearly, there are a certain amount of engineering and planning required there, rather than just… We are not looking at a basic rebuild of a new building with new materials.

We are trying to put new materials onto an old structure so, again, that is going to add a little bit to the costs. 2855

So a simple answer to both Mrs Christian, Hon. Member of Council, and Mr Karran, is no, I am not content with the professional fees. I would love to be able to get them lower, but we are somewhat restricted in what we can deliver. We have to follow the procedures that have been set down for us, from time to time, by Tynwald and the Treasury, and in this particular case, I think there are reasonably unique circumstances, both in terms of the significant amount of asbestos and 2860 the significant age of the structure, which require us to pay that little bit extra than we might wish to.

I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle, for his supportive comments, too.

I beg to move. 2865 The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is that printed at Item 9 on

your Order Paper, the Jurby Hangar 292 refurbishment. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Henderson Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 18 for, 2 against. 2870


_________________________________________________________________ 1375 T128



The President: In the Council, 8 for, none against, Hon. Members. The motion therefore

carries.

Pumping Station Refurbishment Project Phase 2 Expenditure approved

10. The Chairman of Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority to move:

That Tynwald approves the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority incurring expenditure not exceeding £525,000 in respect of the Pumping Station Refurbishment Project Phase 2. 2875 [Funding for the scheme is detailed under Scheme Code G18-058 – ‘Pumping Station Refurbishment – Construction Phase 2’ on Page 28 and ‘Pumping Station Refurbishment’ on Page 76 of the Isle of Man Budget 2011-12] The President: We turn, then, to Item 10 on the Order Paper and I call on the Chairman of the 2880

Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority to move. Mr Crookall, please. The Chairman of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority (Mr Crookall): Thank

you, Mr President. 2885 The Water and Sewerage Authority is seeking Tynwald approval to incur expenditure not

exceeding £525,000 in respect of the refurbishment of 10 sewage-pumping stations. These assets are at the end of their design life and are in need of refurbishment in order to bring them back up to modern-day standards.

Pumping stations are constructed as part of a sewerage system in locations where it is not 2890 possible to drain the sewers by gravity. The pumping stations are, therefore, constructed at the lowest point in the catchment areas and pump the sewage to a higher level, where the sewage then gravitates into the sewerage system or into an existing sewage-treatment works. The mechanical and electrical equipment within the underground station operates in a corrosive environment and therefore has a limited design life of about 15 years. 2895

It has been confirmed by inspection that the mechanical electrical equipment in 10 of the system’s sewage-pumping stations is now in need of replacement. These pumping stations are at Ashley Hill in Onchan; Agrimark, Ballacottier; Glen Darragh in Glen Vine; Mourne View, Peel; the Links, Peel; Ballacobb in Ballaugh; Burnside in Union Mills; Old River Road, Ramsey; Shipyard Road, Ramsey; and White City in Onchan. In addition, the telemetry and control 2900 equipment within these stations is either non-existent or does not comply with the Authority’s requirements and consequently must be replaced.

A number of contractors tendered for this work on the basis of a qualitative assessment, together with a submitted price for preparation of a target cost for the scheme. There were no local contractors in a position to submit a tender for the scheme. After full analysis of the tenders, Eric 2905 Wright Civil Engineering was considered to be the preferred contractor and was requested to develop its design and associated target costs.

Eric Wright Civil Engineering Ltd is an approved contractor and appears on the list prepared and maintained by the Department of Economic Development. Eric Wright Civil Engineering Ltd has confirmed that it will effectively act as a management contractor for the proposed scheme and 2910 that a large majority of the work carried out on site will be undertaken by Manx firms, acting as subcontractors to Eric Wright Civil Engineering Ltd successfully tendered and delivered phase 1


_________________________________________________________________ 1376 T128

of the Sewage Pumping Stations Refurbishment Project in 2010, which was completed on time and within budget. They acted as a management contractor and used Manx firms as subcontractors to undertake the civil engineering works and to install mechanical and electrical equipment. 2915

Subject to Tynwald approval of this motion, the proposed works will not lead to an increase in revenue costs. The scheme will provide the Water and Sewerage Authority with pumping stations that have an extended life and asset life. Furthermore, with the incorporation of telemetry within the pumping stations, the Authority will receive alarms notifying any equipment faults, in order that these can be addressed at the earliest opportunity in preventing sewage flooding incidents. 2920

Treasury has given its full concurrence to this financial motion and funding for the scheme is contained within this year’s capital budget. Mr President, there is a need to continue to invest in a refurbishment of the Authority’s sewerage assets, to ensure that they continue to operate effectively. Failure to keep on top of this refurbishment will only result in an increased number of expensive operation callouts and a rise in the number of sewage flooding incidents. 2925

If Tynwald approval is received for this scheme, it is intended to award the contract in July 2011 and construction will be completed in December 2011. For the reasons I have outlined, it is recommended that Tynwald approves this financial motion for the Authority to incur expenditure not exceeding the sum of £525,000 in respect of the refurbishment of 10 sewage pumping stations.

Mr President, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, sir. 2930 The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2935 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think the point is that when we look at these capital schemes we are

going to have to start looking at whether we have got the best way forward, as far as these schemes are concerned. 2940

When a pump is installed, its life expectancy depends upon the number of hours it operates each day and the amount of debris that passes through its impeller. The two components that are prone to wear happen to be the pump bearings, which start to become increasingly noisy and wear, and the impeller, which loses its efficiency and becomes more damaged by foreign objects being passed through it. These two failure points are easy to monitor, both manually and by electronic 2945 sensor. It is entirely possible for a pump to exceed the estimated life expectancy. It is a false economy to replace one due to the periodic replacement programme, when simply monitoring could give it many more years of useful service. This is borne out by the statement on page 2, item 2, the need for the scheme, which lists 10 pumping stations operating beyond their design life. This is proof in itself that it is not essential to replace equipment just because it has reached a 2950 certain age.

The same can be said about the electrical equipment which, in the past, would have had contacts prone to failure due to the arcing, but for new solid-state conductors this should not be a problem. We are in an age where we want to seek the best value for money in every undertaking we make. We would be failing our electorate otherwise if we do not. 2955

I cannot escape the feeling that we are being led by consultants in every aspect of the way this project has been progressed. Why is it components, of which many will not need to be replaced yet, require design fees of £31,000, and then other professional fees totalling over £82,000? I was under the impression that the consultants were engaged to design the sewerage system and then the operational hand was handed over to the Water and Sewerage Authority, for them to operate and 2960 maintain. I would say that it is like me putting my car into the garage for a new set of spark plugs to be fitted. I do not expect to pay for the design fees for replacing the worn-out components.

Yet, this is what we are doing here, Eaghtyrane. It seems incredible that, after handing over the operation to the Water and Sewerage Authority, Hyder Consultants, who seem to have been permanently engaged on the IRIS project since the 1990s, are still dealing with the operation and 2965 receiving design fees which should be an in-house operation. So that is one of the other questions that needs to be asked. In view of the substantial sums of expenditure we are expected to approve, we should be reviewing the present system to ensure that we are obtaining the best value for money by ensuring that all components are used to full life expectancy.

Obviously, I do not want the sewerage system to collapse, any more than anybody else does in 2970 this Hon. Court. I think it is important that we all realise that. Most of these plants will at least have two pumps, I would imagine. I think it is important that we start re-evaluating; the days we have just been able to nod something through and not think about it, needs to be addressed. We


_________________________________________________________________ 1377 T128

saw with the previous item, where we are talking about recladding a structure that we were spending out – I have forgotten how much it was, £50,000 odd on design fees – the size of the 2975 project is just rubbish, as a person who was in the building trade many years ago, that the design is the design, whether it is big or small.

I do think that these points need to be looked at and that is why I move my amendment, so the motion reads:

2980 ‘that Tynwald should not approve the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority incurring expenditure not exceeding £525,000 in respect of the Pumping Station Refurbishment Project Phase 2 until it demonstrates that the works are necessary, because the equipment in the Pumping Station no longer performs to design specifications.’ 2985 What I am concerned about is these things being led. I do think that, at the end of the day, if

there is a consultancy fee on these things, then obviously the more that we spend, the more the different parties get.

The party is over, as far as being able to just throw money at any capital scheme and I really do think that this Hon. Court should be supporting this proposal, because I think it is about good 2990 business sense. The time has got to change from the fact of how we have run the place for the last twenty years. The time has got to change, we have got to be more effective, we have got to be more efficient, as far as how we spend our money. I really do think that the points that I have raised, if there was a non-party system in this point, which would have to be agreed, but it does seem rather an absurdity that we have a situation where we are replacing pumps that will be 2995 designed, built and manufactured to a specific point of manufacture, then we would end up with a situation where those pumps would be just installed, just like the spark plugs would be installed into your car. They are replacements and I do not see why we need that sort of consultancy fee.

As well as that, I think we need to have a situation where the life expectancy of these pumps with sensible monitoring might last a bit longer. We have hard decisions to make and I hope this 3000 Hon. Court will support what I am saying, as far as this is concerned. This is not about being popular, it is not about anything else, but the fact is we have got to make hard decisions and I believe that we need to start in this sitting today, especially after the replies we have had, as far as other issues to do with the Treasury Minister’s concerns.

I hope somebody will second this proposal, because I do think that people need to know the 3005 reasons why, when we could put off spending money to a later date, as well as the issues about the replacement and such a lot of money on consultancy fees.

The President: Mr Lowey. 3010 Mr Lowey: You can say one thing for Mr Karran, he is consistent. Mr President, I agree with Mr Karran in the sense that machines and pumps can perform after

their sell-by date. I stand as someone who has a heating system in my bungalow at home, that has far exceeded its sell-by date, but it is still keeping going, so if it ain’t broke, why fix it? I know I 3015 am living on borrowed time.

The difference between me as an individual and the water board is that they have a public duty to – and responsibility to make sure that those sewerage things go. That is the big difference, no. 1. I agree, I am sure the engineers that are employed by the water board, which he was in charge of for many years and he knows the skills and the men there. They will do the maximum; maximise 3020 the use of the equipment and the suggestion that somehow, a consultant comes in today and says I am going to rip those pumps out, because they have been in five years; no problems; it does not wear.

I have got to say to Mr Karran, that he is not the only person that casts doubt on professional fees. The capital projects unit at the Treasury has specific responsibility and deals with the 3025 professional fees on every project that comes in and I do not know how many times my colleague rose in this Court and tried to explain how we have driven down professional fees (Interjection by Mr Karran) we have driven them down, that is fact. It is not just Mr Karran and the illusion is being created that it is only Mr Karran being mean and wanting to drive down costs. It is not and we have a record on this particular issue that can bear examination. As I said again, I am back to 3030 this, do we need it? I have to put my trust in the Water and Sewerage Authority. They have produced a system that is consistent with public health and looking after the interests of the consumers of the Isle of Man. They have a good record, they have a new Bill, they are constantly expanding their service to the Isle of Man. They have come along and said this is what is required


_________________________________________________________________ 1378 T128

now to guarantee the present level of support that we have and I cannot agree with the amendment, 3035 which says, well, until they can – what does the amendment actually say – it says, ‘until it is demonstrated that the works are necessary, because the equipment in the pumping station no longer performs to design specifications.’ I would suggest that the water board have already decided that they can no longer be happy – they have got the responsibility and Mr Karran says Government are always interfering from the top down. No, this is the responsibility of the Water 3040 and Sewerage Authority to produce a service to the people of the Isle of Man. This is their priority. This is what they think is required by their professionals, and I am supportive of that motion that is before us today. Again, I want to say to Mr Karran, not that it will reassure him that he alone is interested in professional fees and driving them down, we too are equally convinced that they were high in the past, but we have taken steps and have driven them down. 3045

The President: Mrs Christian, Hon. Member. Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. The Water and Sewerage Authority, which has comparatively recently taken over this 3050

responsibility from the Department of Infrastructure, recognises that there is – and the Chairman indicated – that there is an urgent need to make sure that we keep on top of the refurbishment in this particular area. While people may tolerate flooding, they are not tolerant of and should not be tolerant of sewage overflows.

Mr President, the Authority is concerned to ensure that we get the best life expectancy out of 3055 these parts of the infrastructure, indeed, some of these pumping stations are nearly 40 years old. We are not guided just by the design life and I think it is recognised that, if you have a reasonable maintenance programme, which the Authority is seeking to continue, then you can extend the life of these particular elements of infrastructure.

The other important part about it is that the telemetry control will reduce the call-outs, we will 3060 be alerted to where problems are, we will not need to keep sending people to check that things are alright and it should cut down on any emergency sorts of situations. So I do think that, while the Hon. Member for Onchan may not be reassured, I hope that some Members may be assured that we will continue to ensure that maintenance will ensure the maximum life and usage of these various pumping stations. As the Hon. Member said, when things need refurbishment depends on 3065 how much they are actually used, so there is a monitoring of the need and this is not the last phase of this, it is the second phase and there will be more works yet to come, but it is important in all of Government’s infrastructure that maintenance is not put down as a second stream element. Maintenance is quite important, particularly if you are pushed for cash; maintenance is as important as new build. 3070

The President: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member. Mr Quirk: Just in supporting the Department, which was taken over by the Water and

Sewerage Authority, I can assure Members of this Court here today that the officers from the 3075 Department – which was the old Department of Transport – and especially the sewage division does their job finely and they are experts in it. I know the gentleman sitting here, well, there are two of them sitting here today, who I have complete trust in, regarding the issues. I can assure my colleague, the Member from Onchan, Mr Karran, I am sure if a report comes in, it is digested by the Department and the officers concerned, regarding it. 3080

Two of the stations are actually in our own constituency. The Ashley Hill station has been there quite some time and there have been problems with that particular station. It is close to the school at Ashley Hill and there is a concern there, the sewage does go down towards the school and everything has to be upgraded in future. (Interjection by Mr Karran) Well, it goes down towards the school, Mr Karran. 3085

Everything in its life has to be upgraded: we are on about the 17th edition for electrical engineering specifications of qualifications and regarding the pumps. I am sure if Mr Karran wants to do a bit of delving, he would probably like to do some work on why the service level agreements by certain local authorities did not perform. That would be an issue that the Hon. Member should take up. I, for one, support the Department wholly bringing the whole issue back 3090 to the DoT at the time and then onward to the Water and Sewerage Authority and I think we have to have confidence. I do have confidence in, when these guys do the work at the Ashley Hill station and the one at White City there, they will be done right and we will be able to sleep safely in our beds, knowing we will not get a call from somebody to say something is flowing down the road. 3095


_________________________________________________________________ 1379 T128

The President: Mr Crookall to reply, please. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. I thank my hon. Vice-Chairman from the Water and Sewerage Authority for seconding me and

her comments of support. She is quite right in what she says and a lot of the… or certainly some of 3100 the stations that we are looking to replace or refurbish here now are heading towards 40 years old. It is not just a case of saying that when they get to 25 or 30 years old we have to replace them. They have been looked after, but they have now got to the end of their useful life.

Just to go back to something that the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, said, that he takes his car in for a service and if you keep servicing it, it is fine and it will keep running. One day your 3105 car will need a new engine, there is no doubt about that, as do these now.

I thank Mr Lowey, Mrs Christian and Mr Quirk for their support. I just do not know where to begin with Mr Karran. This is the fourth time in a row now that he

has just said no. He does not want people to keep fit, when we came to the Astroturfs. He was not encouraging recycling because of the Northern Civic Amenity Site. (Interjection Mr Karran) He 3110 did not want to protect our assets with the airfield, with the hangar, and now he does not want to support this, either. Maybe if you joined in Government you would actually be able to appreciate how much people do work for the Department, do work for Government, do work for the people of the Isle of Man here. (Members: Hear, hear.)

There are a lot of good people out there who do a lot of good work who work for Government. 3115 You do not have to distrust them all, but that is what you tend to be doing at the moment. You are knocking everybody. You are kicking everybody.

Mrs Cannell: Point of Order, Mr President. The Member should be going through you as presiding officer. 3120 Mr Crookall: Actually, Mr President – Mrs Cannell: It is getting very personal. 3125 Mr Crookall: Mr President – The President: Mrs Cannell, I can hear Mr Crookall perfectly well. Continue, sir. (Interjection by Mr Houghton) 3130 Mr Karran: You say that when you have got your Customs Agreement, mate, and you have

got no money after the Election! A Member: You will see to that. 3135 Mr Crookall: Mr President, the possible savings on the call-outs and the charges for cleaning

up, those sort of things need to be taken into account here. They are regular charges and they are getting bigger and bigger. It is things like that that add up and add to our costs and we are looking to save here.

It is a 20-year investment, with the undertaking of planned maintenance and preservation of the 3140 equipment, and this will increase their life expectancy. As I have already said, we may well be told that these machines, these pumps, have a life expectancy of 20 or 25 years, but we could go longer, as we have proved and as the DoT did before us when they were in charge. If you look after the machinery, then it will last a lot longer; it is not always the case, but more often than not, more often than not. 3145

Just as a quick sum to work these out, you have got 10 pumping stations and we are talking about £525,000 over a 20-year life period, which works out about £2,500 a year a pumping station, about £50 a week, I think, which to me is very good value, Mr President.

With that I beg to move, sir. 3150 The President: Hon. Members, the motion that I put to the Court is that printed at Item 10 on

your Order Paper, in the name of the Chairman of the Water and Sewerage Authority. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________ 1380 T128



FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 20 votes for, 1 against.



The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, 8 for, none against. The motion therefore 3155

carries.

Apprenticeship Update Report received

11. The Minister for Economic Development to move:

That the Department of Economic Development’s Report ‘Apprenticeship Update’ [GC 14/11] be received. [GC 14/11 was circulated with the papers for the May sitting of Tynwald] The President: We move on, Hon. Members, to Item 11 on the Order Paper, Apprenticeship

Update. 3160 Minister, Mr Bell, please. The Minister for Economic Development (Mr Bell): Mr President, at the January 2011

sitting of this Hon. Court, I moved the following motion: 3165 ‘That Tynwald recognises the importance of Government building contracts in the Manx construction industry; supports the Department of Economic Development and Treasury in their continued efforts to encourage and support apprentice recruitment and retention; and invites the Departments to report back to the April sitting of this Hon. Court with an update on the performance of the measures currently in place and proposals for new initiatives which could be implemented.’ 3170


_________________________________________________________________ 1381 T128

Hon. Members will recall that, at the April sitting, I informed this Court that such a report would be delayed and so, Mr President, today I have the pleasure in presenting my Department’s report on apprenticeships, which I believe sets out a comprehensive update for Hon. Members.

As outlined in the motion, the report covers two main strands, being (1), an update on the performance of measures currently in place relating to apprentices; and (2), proposals for new 3175 initiatives which could be implemented.

In summary, the apprenticeship programmes continue to perform well in relation to the number of apprentices registered with the Department. I trust that Hon. Members will have observed perhaps the greatest indicator of the success of this programme being the outstanding achievement rate, currently of 94% completions. 3180

I am aware that, on occasion, it has been said that we do not have enough apprentices or that we could do more to encourage employers to take on apprentices. I agree that, on the face value of having more formal training places available for our young people, it would appear to be a positive thing. However, the very foundation of a successful apprenticeship programme is that places are directly associated with realistic employment opportunities in the relevant sector. 3185

I have mentioned previously in this Hon. Court that it would be a travesty if we were to build up the hopes of our young people, for them to be without employment following their training. Additionally, as a majority of qualifications are based on NVQ model, full employment is a prerequisite to gaining the necessary certification.

I must add, however, that when it is clear to the Department that there are significant increased 3190 opportunities for apprentice places in certain sectors, we are well placed to respond accordingly. As an example of this, I have been informed by my officers that there has been a peak in demand for apprentices within the electrical installation trade, scheduled for commencement this coming September. As we have become aware of this through close liaison with employers, the Department has been able to work with the Isle of Man College and the necessary arrangements 3195 have been made to run two streams consecutively, effectively doubling the number of apprentices in this area.

Similarly in 2008, the then DTI agreed to fund additional apprentices in a number of trade areas, increasing the annual intake by some 50% that year. Those very apprentices will be completing their training and entering the industry as qualified trades persons over the next few 3200 months.

I trust that this demonstrates to Hon. Members that we do have a system for apprenticeships which is flexible enough to respond to increased demand from local industry; however, such flexibility for increased provision must be tempered by the real necessity to show that opportunities for apprenticeships remain reasonably consistent each year. It would be hugely 3205 detrimental to our young people if, by increasing the apprentice intake one year, it resulted in no apprenticeships being available the next.

The Department feels that it currently has the right balance, with a system in place which provides a consistent annual intake into the main trades, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to industry demand. I am confident in the apprenticeship training programmes we have in 3210 place, but I do not believe that we have everything right as I stand before you today.

My Department recognises that there is a scope for the development of revised or new apprenticeship programmes, particularly in the areas of new technology and the hospitality and retail sectors in general. I am committed, as are my officers, to working closely with the industry to develop further training provisions within these areas and, indeed, other areas as they are 3215 identified as areas of opportunity.

In conclusion, Mr President, I believe we have an effective, robust and sustainable apprenticeship programme in place at the present. Our continued dialogue with industry, both seeking to sustain the current provision and develop new initiatives, will ensure that we have formal training programmes which maximise the opportunities for our young people, provide the 3220 key skills for local employers and ultimately benefit the economy of the Island.

Mr President, there was, in fact, no need to debate this particular report today – it was only intended to be a laid before – but I do believe that this particular issue is of such paramount importance, especially bearing in mind that 50% on the unemployed register at the moment are aged under 24, and therefore fall very clearly into this category, along with the NEETs category, I 3225 do believe that Hon. Members need to have the opportunity at least to express their views on their ongoing ideas on apprenticeships and, indeed, how we develop our support for this sector in the future.

So a very brief summary, Mr President. Hon. Members have the update report before them and I would be very interested to hear any comments from Members, so I beg to move. 3230


_________________________________________________________________ 1382 T128

The President: Mrs Christian. Mrs Christian: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 3235 The President: Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, as the originator of this proposal, I thank the Shirveishagh for doing

the Report on this proposal, because it is an important issue. The problem that we have, Eaghtyrane, is that we have 70%, so for every £10 that is spent every year in the construction 3240 industry, £7 comes from the taxpayer, and the fact is that whilst the hon. mover has done his best as far as trying to broaden that out so that maybe we could be less dependent on the Government spend in the construction industry, which is a sizeable amount of the industry, the fact is the construction industry is still 70% dependent on Government spend.

This Report is a good aide memoire, as far as I am concerned, and I think that should be 3245 recognised. I think it is good that the mover recognises the fact that 50% of our unemployed are young people and youth unemployment is a major problem. I think it is even an increasingly major problem that there are a number of people who are not on benefit and are not on registers. That needs to be addressed. A number of parents are still keeping their children, or young people, because they are out of full-time education and not either in training or employment. I think the 3250 point has to be raised, Eaghtyrane, and I know the Minister will maybe get hysterical, like most of them do around here, in the fact that I still think we have to address the issue of Government contracts. At the moment, as a joiner by trade, the situation is that I understand the industry may be a little bit better than many, but if you have an apprentice, you have a financial liability until near enough the end of the training period of the apprentice. For that financial liability, we need to 3255 recognise that point in the tendering system.

I have talked to the mover, I wrote to the mover, of this motion and also recently to the Shirveishagh Tashtee, the Minister for the Treasury, that the issue has to be addressed, that we really do need to be looking and we need to get away from the self interests of many, as far as this issue is concerned in the construction industry. We need positive discrimination, as far as 3260 apprentices are taken on. I believe that the problem we have got at the moment with the present tendering system, you would be responsible, take on your apprentices, you are at a financial disadvantage to the company that does not do that: not only does not do that, but often will have it all subcontracted, so they do not pay the going rates for the National Insurance contributions, employers’ side, they do not have the responsibility of the way the taxation issues are – and I have 3265 to admit the taxation issues have improved – so as far as I am concerned.

Yes, we should support this proposal today, but I do not think we should be seen as the panacea, as far as this issue is concerned. I believe that the ‘Apprenticeship Update’ is on a road that we are going to have to look a lot more seriously at in the very near future, because the fact is that we are not winning the battle, as far as youth unemployment is concerned. As well-intentioned 3270 as the mover is, as far as this issue is concerned, and the previous Minister, who did a lot of work, as far as apprenticeships and wanting to get youth training. I think that this issue will need to be addressed early on in the administration of whoever is in here and in the new House, as far as coming up with a more progressive way of looking at other issues, like one suggested in the last tax Bill in another place, where I was looking at the idea that we should actually maybe give tax 3275 advantages to employers who take on young people, that maybe we need to also look at the factor that the grant system, as far as apprenticeships are concerned, to encourage apprentices, might be the other way.

I believe, Eaghtyrane, the most cost efficient way, as far as getting more employment opportunities for apprentices on this Island, is by looking at the Government contracts, where we 3280 have a positive discrimination to responsible contractors, who tender for Government work, and that is the way of dealing with it, without having to throw money through the grant system of paying that to the employer.

So with that, I will be happy to support this proposal here today, but I do not want us to feel that we can rest on our laurels, as far as this being the sum answer to the situation. I do hope that 3285 whoever is in the position of the Minister and mover of this today will look at the issue, that we have got to stop throwing money at the problem, and we have got to start making ways of getting the results without us spending taxpayers’ money, leaving them money to other sides… That tendering system and Government contract system, where we have a positive discrimination for apprentices, is a missed opportunity, and I hope the next administration will… 3290

I will be supporting this proposal.


_________________________________________________________________ 1383 T128

The President: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Quirk: Sorry, Mr President, I feel as though I am rising to support my colleague from 3295

Onchan because I think, although I do not always support, and the majority do not support, but on this particular case I do have some sympathy with my colleague there.

I am just asking him, as the report is quite good, I am just wondering whether, in future, we could have some reporting regarding the Job Club and how that is going on over there? How youths, if I could say it, or those who are unemployed, are actually engaging in their life skills for 3300 the future?

Partly, the other issue, I would love… well, it would be down to another House now, investigating with either the Chamber or the Employers’ Federation, that NI holidays for… because sometimes small employers would take on an employee, not always apprentices, but I would call them ‘trainees’, people that learn different skills, and I think if we had a little scheme 3305 that was put together, we could give work experience to those individuals. I know Mrs Christian is going to say that there are mechanisms there, but I do have some sympathy with the one that Mr Karran does say, because the major schemes that we push out in here…

Years ago, when I was a lot younger, I remember that they used to have apprentices and there was a condition as such, or an influence, that those major employers and all the employers now 3310 who do Government work or local authority work, anything to do with publicly funded money must be part of the Employers’ Federation. Surely there must be an opportunity for the Federation and Government to get together to put some sort of mechanism in place. I am wondering whether, and it is probably too late for this House, but having some views from them because I believe the new Department does meet them several times and I am sure that it is not just… there are all sorts 3315 of issues they must want to raise with you and some of them will be hairbrained, but some of them could actually be pulled together and could work out.

The President: Mrs Christian. 3320 Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President. I am brought to my feet by the Hon. Member, just to make one or two points in relation to what

he said. First of all, there are schemes at the moment where we are paying to assist employers to take

people on for a three-month programme, to see if they can fit into the work situation, some of 3325 which will go on, and have gone on, to permanent employment, in those particular jobs. So there are other schemes going on, with a limited team to deliver this. This motion is about apprenticeships, and so we have not, of course, embarked on the whole NEETs issue and I do not intend to, Mr President, but I think that the points that have been raised by the Hon. Member, Mr Quirk, do fall into our NEETs strategy and, insofar as we are able to deliver them, are working 3330 reasonably well at the moment, in trying to get young people into work.

The Hon. Member, Mr Karran, said that we are losing the battle. I would say that we are not: we are holding our own, and that is quite a challenge in itself. We do know that there are some young people who are not particularly willing to engage in the world of work but, again, we are trying to focus on getting those young people who have an aptitude for work, want to get into 3335 work, but need a little bit of support and confidence and mentoring to get them into work, to do so – as I say, with a fairly limited team.

That is not to say that we are not going to tackle further aspects of apprenticeship. The Hon. Member, Mr Karran, is tending to focus on the construction industry all the time. There are other areas where we believe apprenticeships will be useful, especially in the service and hospitality 3340 industries, and we are working with the industry to try and develop suitable programmes; nor should we think that apprenticeships are the only avenue. There are other types of courses and training, which may be more suitable for some of our young people.

So I will not stray into the whole of NEETs, Mr President, but just say that things are happening in that respect. 3345

The President: Mr Bell to reply, please. The Minister: Thank you, Mr President and albeit a brief debate, but I thank Members for

their contributions. 3350 I was very interested to hear, at the start, Mr Karran’s comment that he is a joiner by trade, but

clearly not by inclination! (Laughter)


_________________________________________________________________ 1384 T128

Mr Karran: I have joined the party and done my sentence! 3355 The Minister: Mr President, the Hon. Member has made comments about the apprenticeship

programme that we have in Government on a number of occasions and highlights the issue, related to the fact that, currently, the construction industry is largely made up of 70% of Government contracts and 30% of private. That has to be a major concern in itself. It is seriously out of balance and when you bear in mind that, in the next few years, as we know through our re-balancing 3360 programme that we set up in my Budget 12 months ago, the capital programme will reduce substantially over the next few years and, therefore, Government’s ability to feed that 70% of work coming into the market is going to be dramatically reduced. If we are so dependent on Government investment at that level, in turn that is going to have an impact on the ability of smaller construction companies to take on apprentices and provide the opportunities that we dearly 3365 would like to see.

The other point I would like to add and I have already mentioned it this morning, Mr President, we have got to break ourselves out of the complacency that, notwithstanding the fine words that are spoken from time to time, there is still a belief, or a lack of recognition, of the major – very major – challenges which are facing the Isle of Man in the next few years, particularly in terms of 3370 developing the economy and balancing Government’s budget. We will see the greatest challenge for at least a generation over the next three or four years. It is going to be a major problem confronting the new Government when it comes in and the casualties, if we are not careful, of failure to tackle these major issues are going to be our young people, not just in apprentices. I said at the outset my few words, 50% of the unemployed that we have at the moment, over 400 people 3375 are aged under 24. Fortunately, we do not have at the moment too many long-term young people. We are still managing to get them in jobs, but the economic and social problems which are going to be stored up, if we cannot encourage those young people, and find jobs for those young people to get back into the workplace, will cost the Island dear in the time ahead. Therefore, it is not just a matter of finding a few apprentices to fill courses at the College, there is a much wider social 3380 problem, which is building up within this, if we do not tackle it at an early stage.

The Hon. Member has raised, on a number of occasions, the issue of Government contracts and that we should put extra requirements on the tendering system to encourage the bidders to take on apprentices. The Hon. Member has asked this question on a number of occasions. He has been told the answer on a number of occasions: it is not a viable way forward, either through Treasury and 3385 their involvement through the Capital Projects Unit or, indeed, through the industry itself. It does not see that this would help in any way at all and, in fact, would distort the bids which come in and actually cause more problems than it would actually resolve. Whilst, in principle, it might seem an attractive idea, the practical implementation of such an idea is unworkable and I really wish the Hon. Member would accept that and move on and work with us to try and find an alternative, 3390 because this is not the way forward.

Mr President, if I can move on quickly to Mr Quirk, the other Hon. Member for Onchan, I think my hon. colleague, Mrs Christian, more or less answered his points, but he did say we should have a report on the Job Club. I can assure him that it is being very well supported and is working well at the moment. If he wants any further information on that, I would be very happy to give him 3395 the facts and indeed invite him over to see the facility we have.

National Insurance holidays – something else he commented on – is outwith my Department at the moment, but it might be something that could be looked at in the future if the situation changes.

Mrs Christian, I thank her for her comments. I would also like to thank her for the amount of 3400 hard work that she puts in in that Department in promoting initiatives in this area. I have to say one of the immediate benefits of the restructuring of Government has been bringing together all the work-related arms of Government in the Job Centre in Nivison House, across the road. That has helped to dovetail and improve the level of service delivery that we have to the unemployed and employers alike. It is working well and it is largely down to Mrs Christian and her efforts that 3405 we have such a productive unit over there. So I do thank her for that and for the comments that she made.

Very briefly, Mr President, just in summary, I would like to reiterate and repeat and repeat and repeat: the world has changed.

We cannot accept that the solutions that we have worked towards over the last few years are 3410 going to be appropriate in the time ahead. The Isle of Man has got to get back into the marketplace, fighting for economic growth, fighting for new development, fighting for new investment from whatever source it possibly can. It is only by expanding the economy, expanding the range of job opportunities that economy produces that, ultimately, we can help our young


_________________________________________________________________ 1385 T128

people. Government cannot do it all. It cannot be expected to do it all. We have to ensure that the 3415 private sector, through its own initiatives, through its investment and through the opportunities that Government, as a whole, can achieve for it by cutting through red tape, providing the environmental business to flourish, we ultimately will be able to get these young people back into work again.

It would be a terrible stain on this Government’s record, Mr President, if in the time ahead, 3420 when looking backwards, looking at what we have achieved, that we have failed our young people, that we have not given them the support and opportunities that they should have. There are still one or two Members, Mr President, in this Chamber, yourself included, who can remember back to the end of the 1970s and into the 1980s, when the employment situation on the Island was pretty desperate when, in fact, many of our young people had to leave the Island because there 3425 were no work opportunities here at all. We have done a tremendous job over the last 25 years in providing a much greater range of opportunities. It is vital now we do not let that fantastic achievement slip. Therefore, I can give Hon. Members my assurance that the Department of Economic Development, with others, will continue to pursue every opportunity to help this section and, indeed, encourage the economy to grow to supplement that, and I would ask Hon. Members 3430 for their support in that end.

I beg to move. The President: The motion, Hon. Members, is printed at Item 11 on your Order Paper, that the

Department of Economic Development’s Report ‘Apprenticeship Update’ be received. 3435 Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk None Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 20 votes for, none against.



The President: In the Council 8 for, none against, Hon. Members. Item 11 therefore carries.


_________________________________________________________________ 1386 T128

Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee First Report 2010-11

Voting deferred until July sitting Extract from the Votes and Proceedings for the May Sitting of Tynwald 12. Motion made: 3440 That the First Report of the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee [PP 73/11] be received and the following proposals be approved – Proposal (i) That the footnote be removed. Proposal (ii) 3445 To insert the following text above the definitions section of the Rules – “Purpose The purpose of these Rules is to place a duty on Members of Tynwald to identify interests which should be registered in order to inform Tynwald Court and the public of any circumstances arising from them which could reasonably be regarded as bearing upon the way 3450 in which any Member may carry out his/her duties.” Proposal (iii) (a) To remove from Rule 1 the words: “Immediate family means, in relation to a Member, any of the following- - husband or wife; 3455 - son or daughter; - step son or step daughter; - father or mother; - step father or step mother; - brother or sister; 3460 - half brother or half sister; - grandparent or grandchild; - step grandparent or step grandchild; - uncle or aunt; - nephew or niece; 3465 - son in law or daughter in law.” (b) To insert in Rule 1 the words: “private sources means any source which is not paid for from public funds”. (c) To leave out of the definition in Rule 1 of “Relevant Interest” the words: “and relates to the interests so defined wherever situated, located or published, and describes the extent to which 3470 they must be registered”. (d) To leave out the definition in Rule 1 of “Tynwald Office” and amend Rule 2 to refer to the “Office of the Clerk of Tynwald”. Proposal (iv) To add at the end of the first line of Rule 6(1) (after the words “purpose of these Rules is”) a 3475 wider scope of registration covering anything which might create a perception of bias, backdated to the 12 months before election: “… any past interest (existing at any time from 12 months before the Member’s election) or present interest which may affect, or reasonably be perceived as affecting, a Member’s judgment on the way in which he/she may carry out his/her duties, and includes in 3480 particular:”. Proposal (v) To leave out the words “shares or stock held in any company within (c) above” at the start of Rule 6(1)(d) and to insert the words, slightly amended, which follow on to the end of 6(1)(c). Proposal (vi) 3485 (a) To insert in Rule 6(1)(iv) the words “from private sources” after the words “gifts and benefits in kind”; (b) to amend £1,177 to £1,000 and £59 to £50; and (c) after “(b) gifts or benefits received from the Member’s immediate family;” to insert the words “and (c) attendance at functions in the course of governmental or official parliamentary 3490 sponsored duties”. Mr Speaker Amendment moved – To add at the end: Proposal (vii) 3495


_________________________________________________________________ 1387 T128

That Rule 6 (1) (iii) be amended to insert the words: “registered charity” after the words “political grouping or party”. Mrs Craine Amendment moved – To add at the end: 3500 Proposal (viii) That notwithstanding Proposal (iv), the Council of Ministers should introduce legislation to require candidates for election to submit to the Clerk of Tynwald a declaration of interests in the same manner as Members of Tynwald. Mr Watterson 3505 Proposal (i) – Motion carried. Proposal (ii) – Motion carried. Proposal (iii) – 3510 Motion carried. Proposal (iv) – Motion carried. Proposal (v) – Motion carried. 3515 Proposal (vi) – Motion carried. Mrs Craine’s amendment – Amendment carried. Mr Watterson’s amendment – 3520 Court divided. Motion lost. Mr Watterson gave notice under Standing Order 3.19(1) that he intended to move the same motion at the June sitting. Mr President deferred any vote on item 10 as a whole until after the combined vote on Mr 3525 Watterson’s amendment. The President: Hon. Members, turning to Item 12, you will be aware that printed on your

Order Paper is the extract from the Votes and Proceedings for the May sitting of Tynwald, detailing where we had reached on that. 3530

Subsequent to the printing of the Order Paper, Hon. Members, I received a request from the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson, who you are aware has permission to be absent today that, in fact, this matter be held over, Hon. Members – and it is in line with Standing Orders.

‘the Member who moved the motion may at any time during the same or next following sitting give notice of intention 3535 to move the same motion at a sitting, which shall be specified in the notice, to be held not later than six months after the sitting at which the motion was put and lost.’ So he has a six-month period, Hon. Members. The difficulty which arose is, in fact, that June

was specified. In this instance, Hon. Members, I am happy to allow Item 12 to be carried over to 3540 next month.

Government Departments Act 1987 Transfer of Functions Order 2011 approved

17. The Chief Minister to move:

That the Transfer of Functions Order 2011 be approved. [SD 359/11] The President: Bearing in mind, Hon. Members, the clock, and that I have already indicated

that, following our tea break, we will take Mrs Cannell’s motion, it seems logical to me that at this 3545 juncture we try to move through a few of the departmental Orders if we can.

So, Hon. Members, with your approval, I will move on to Item 17 and ask the Chief Minister to move, please.

Chief Minister, Item 17. 3550


_________________________________________________________________ 1388 T128

The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Yes, thank you, Mr President. 3550 This Order is a tidying up exercise, which does the following: it transfers departmental

functions under two new Acts of Tynwald that were Bills at the time of the Government restructure, to locate the functions within the appropriate Departments; it also removes a reference to the former Department of Health and Social Security and transfers functions under the Nurses and Midwives Act 1947 to the Department of Social Care; it also amends the Local Government 3555 Act 1985 to give the Department of Social Care powers under certain sections of that Act where they relate to public sector housing, whilst retaining the Department of Infrastructure powers under those sections for other purposes.

Mr President, I beg to move that the Transfer of Functions Order 2011 be approved, sir. 3560 Mr Bell: I beg to second. The President: The motion I put to the Court, Hon. Members, is that printed at Item 17 on

your Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 3565 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Earnshaw None Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 18 for, none against.


FOR AGAINST Mr Callister None Mr Crowe Mrs Christian The Lord Bishop Mr Lowey Mr Turner Mr Braidwood


carries.

Payment of Members’ Expenses Act 1989 Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 2011 approved

18. The Chief Minister to move:

That the Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 423/11] 3570


_________________________________________________________________ 1389 T128

The President: We go on to Item 18, Hon. Members. Again, Chief Minister to move, please. The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President. Section 6(3) of the Payment of Members’ Expenses Act 1989 ensures that the Treasury shall 3575

consult with designated bodies before an Order, setting out annual payments, expenses or attendance allowances may be made under sections 1 to 4 of the Act. The designation of a body for this purpose is by Order, which is subject to Tynwald approval.

The Payment of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 2011 designates the Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments as a body with whom the 3580 Treasury shall consult.

The Standing Committee of Tynwald on Emoluments was previously known as the ‘Joint Committee on Emoluments of Certain Public Servants’ and before 1993 it was known as the ‘Joint Committee on Remuneration of Crown Officers and Members of Tynwald’.

The Committee was first designated in 1989 and has been consulted on amendments to annual 3585 payments, expenses and attendance allowances ever since. Mr President, the purpose of this Order is to simply reflect the new name of the Committee and to ensure consultation that has taken place since 1989 shall continue in the future, sir.

I beg to move the motion in my name. 3590 The President: Mr Bell. Mr Bell: I beg to second. The President: The motion, Hon. Members, is that printed at Item 18 on your Order Paper. 3595 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 2) Order 2011 approved

European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Freezing of Funds, Etc) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved

European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) Order 2011 approved European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved

European Union (Belarus Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 approved

European Union (Libya Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2011 approved European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2011 approved

19-25. The Chief Minister to move:

19. That the European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 2) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 315/11] 20. That the European Union (Côte d’Ivoire Sanctions) (Freezing of Funds, Etc) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 363/11] 3600 21. That the European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 365/11] 22. That the European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No. 3) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 427/11] 23. That the European Union (Belarus Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 3605 2011 be approved. [SD 493/11] 24. That the European Union (Libya Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 488/11] 25. That the European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 490/11] 3610 The President: Hon. Members, as I indicated when we commenced this morning, the request

was from the Chief Minister that we take Items 19 to 25 as one. The Chief Minister will move them as one, but we will vote on them separately, Hon. Members, as agreed.

Chief Minister, please. 3615


_________________________________________________________________ 1390 T128

The Chief Minister (Mr Brown): Thank you, Mr President, and I thank Hon. Members for their patience on this matter.

I would move Items 19 to 25 on the Order Paper together but, as you have indicated, have them voted upon separately as each of these Orders relates to application of European Union sanction measures to the Island. 3620

Mr President, as I have said before, the Government’s policy is to voluntarily implement EU sanctions measures, because failing to do so could be damaging to the Island’s international reputation. Hon. Members will see that there are a number of Orders before the Court this month, one of which, Item 21, applies new EU sanctions in respect of Syria, following concerns about the situation in that country. There is also an Amendment Order, which brings the Island’s 3625 implementation of the measures in respect of Syria fully up-to-date.

The remaining EU sanctions Application Orders before the Court today concern amendments to measures against Belarus, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran and Libya that had previously been applied to the Island and approved by Tynwald.

Mr President, I beg to move that Items 19 to 25 on the Order Paper be approved, sir. 3630 The President: Mr Bell. Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr President. 3635 The President: Hon. Members, you have Items 19 to 25. In that case, Hon. Members, I put to you Item 19, as printed on the Order Paper, that the

European Union (Iran Sanctions) (Application) (No.2) Order be approved. Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Earnshaw None Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 17 votes for, none against. 3640




carries. I put to you Item 20 on the Order Paper.


_________________________________________________________________ 1391 T128

Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Earnshaw None Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 17 votes for, none against. 3645



The President: In the Council, 8 for, none against, Hon. Members. The motion therefore carries.

I put to you now Item 21 on the Order Paper, that the European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application) Order 2011 be approved.

Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 3650 We turn, then, Hon. Members, to Item 22. Hon. Members, those in favour of Item 22, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The

ayes have it. Item 23, Hon. Members. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The

ayes have it. 3655 And, again, Hon. Members, on Item 24, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes

have it. The ayes have it. Item 25, Hon. Members, that the European Union (Syria Sanctions) (Application)

(Amendment) Order 2011 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. 3660 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Earnshaw None Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare


_________________________________________________________________ 1392 T128

Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 17 votes for, none against.



The President: In the Council 8 for, none against, Hon. Members. Unanimity across the

board.

Civil Partnership Act 2011 Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order 2011 approved

26. The Minister for the Treasury to move:

That the Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 347/11] 3665 The President: Now, Hon. Members, having dealt with the European Communities

legislation, we come to Item 26. Hon. Members, in the absence of the Minister, I understand Mr Braidwood to move, please,

Item 26. 3670 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. As originally enacted, section 7 permitted a civil partnership to be registered only in a

registrar’s office, unless one of the parties was so ill they could not be moved or were detained. The Marriage and Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2011 widens the range of possible venues for marriages to include vessels in Manx territorial waters and aircraft in Manx airspace. The 3675 Order makes amendments to section 7 of the Civil Partnership Act 2011, to permit civil partnerships to be registered in similar circumstances and venues.

This Order is made under section 33 of the Civil Partnership Act 2011, which provides for the Council of Ministers to make such amendments or enactments as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of assimilating any provision connected with the formation or recording of civil 3680 partnerships to any decision made in relation to civil marriage in the Island. The Order amends section 7 of the Civil Partnership Act 2011. If approved by Tynwald, this Order comes into operation on 1st July this year for the purpose of making applications for the issue of a civil partnership document, for the purpose of signing a civil partnership document in a case to which section 19 of the Civil Partnership Act 2011 applies, for determining applications for consent and 3685 approval of civil partnership venues and for determining appeals against refusals of approvals and consents and, on 1st August 2011, for all other purposes.

The new provisions have no significant resources impact and the new processes and procedures in respect of the registration of civil partnerships at venues other than the registrar’s office are not expected to produce any significant increase in costs, revenue or manpower. 3690

Mr President, I beg to move that the Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order be approved.


_________________________________________________________________ 1393 T128

The President: Mr Bell. Mr Bell: I beg to second. 3695 The President: Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I shall be supporting this, as well, like I have supported most of the

Items on this agenda paper, when I think they are right. What is really good today is when you 3700 think back 25 years ago, this place would have been in hysterics now. 25 years ago, we would have had a situation where maybe even Hansard would not be able to actually convey the situation of what was being said by certain Members in this Hon. Court. I think today this is something that we need to be proud of, that we are an inclusive society and I think that is where we need to support the Council of Ministers and those members of the Council of Ministers over the last 3705 decade or so, who have actually gone out on a limb when it was so politically unpopular, this proposal that is in front of us today.

I think, Eaghtyrane, it is important now that we make sure that people realise that facility is here, because one of the things that saddens me about the portrayal of the Isle of Man outside this Island is the fact that we are a Government that is homophobic and that we are a Government that 3710 is ultra-right wing, when nothing could be further from the truth. I think there should be support for the Government from Members like myself, when they do actually achieve something, as far as this is concerned.

I hope that this will help to allay the perception that we see far too often when talking about the Isle of Man from people outside that we are all anti-gays, we are all wanting to flog everybody, we 3715 are wanting to hang everybody. I think the fact is that, hopefully this will end that myth that people have, as far as the Isle of Man is concerned, and I think it is important that it goes down on record to show the advancement and maturity and ability of this legislative assembly to recognise human rights on this Island.

3720 The President: Reply, Mr Braidwood. Mr Braidwood: I just thank Mr Bell and Mr Karran for their support, Mr President. The President: In which case, Hon. Members, I put the motion to the Court printed at Item 26, 3725

that the Civil Partnership Act 2011 (Amendment) Order 2011 be approved. Those in favour, please say aye: against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Civil Partnership Act 2011 Fees and Duties Act 1989

Civil Partnership (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2011 approved

27. The Minister for the Treasury to move: That the Civil Partnership (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2011 be approved. [SD 342/11] The President: Item 27. Mr Braidwood, please. 3730 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. This Order is made by the Treasury under section 32 of the Civil Partnership Act 2011 and

section 1(1) of the Fees and Duties Act 1989. The Order replaces the Civil Partnership (Fees) Order 2011, which came into operation on 6th April 2011 and prescribes the fees payable to the 3735 General Registry concerning civil partnership registration procedures; applications to the Chief Registrar for approval as a place – aircraft, vessel or vehicle – where a civil partnership registration may take place: the approval is valid, unless otherwise revoked, for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted by the Chief Registrar; applications for the Chief Registrar’s consent to have a civil partnership registration in any place aboard an aircraft, vessel or 3740 vehicle, with the consent of the owner; the registration of a civil partnership in the presence of a registrar in the various specified venues on particular days of the week or bank holidays; the additional cost per hour or part hour incurred by a couple wishing to extend the attendance of a


_________________________________________________________________ 1394 T128

registrar at a civil partnership registration; and an administration fee to change the name of the proprietor, trustee, responsible person or deputy responsible person of an approved place. 3745

Where appropriate, the fees mirror those payable for analogous procedures under the Marriage Act 1984, as amended, and the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) Regulations 2008. The new fees associated with the provision, being introduced by Appointed Day Order, are calculated to recover the costs incurred in providing the services.

Mr President, because the provisions under section 7 are new and no historical financial 3750 information is available, the General Registry is not in a position to estimate any additional income that may be generated by the new fees in the current or next financial year.

Mr President, I beg to move that the Civil Partnership (Fees) (No. 2) Order 2011 be approved. The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey. 3755 Mr Bell: I beg to second, sir. The President: The motion I put to the Court is that printed at Item 27 on your Order Paper,

Hon. Members. 3760 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Earnshaw None Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 19 votes for, none against.




carries.


_________________________________________________________________ 1395 T128

Fees and Duties Act 1989 Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 approved


That the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 be 3765 approved. [SD 344/11] The President: We move on to Item 28, Fees and Duties. Mr Braidwood. 3770 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. New provision is made in the Civil Partnership Act 2011 and the Marriage and Civil

Registration (Amendment) Act 2011 to enable marriage and civil partnership ceremonies to take place at places other than a registrar’s office with the approval and/or consent of the Chief Registrar. A statutory appeal is provided to the High Bailiff from a refusal of approval or consent 3775 by the Chief Registrar.

This Order is made by the Treasury under section 1(1) of the Fees and Duties Act 1989. It prescribes the fee payable to the General Registry in respect of appeals to the High Bailiff against any refusal by the Chief Registrar to approve a venue or to grant consent to a ceremony at any venue. Only one fee will be payable if the appeal is brought under both provisions at the same 3780 time. The prescribed fees collected by the General Registry under this Order are in respect of the appeal to the High Bailiff procedures under the corresponding provisions in section 7(6) of the Civil Partnership Act 2011 and section 19(6) of the Marriage Act 1984, as amended, which came into operation by Appointed Day Order. The provision of the fee in respect of appeal to the High Bailiff is not expected to produce any significant increase in costs, revenue or manpower. 3785

Mr President, I beg to move that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 be approved.

The President: Mr Bell. 3790 Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr President. Just two questions, I suppose, really. We have moved three Items, three Regulations, in

relation to civil partnership. Does this complete, now, the number of Regulations which need to be brought in, to support the Civil Partnership Act, when it came in? Is this the end of the line now?

And, secondly – I do not know if the Member has the information – do we know what level of 3795 interest there has been in civil partnerships and, indeed, have any taken place since this was first brought in?

The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen. 3800 Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. Eaghtyrane, I wonder if the mover could advise – the fee under Statutory Document 344/11 is

£102 – how that fee was settled upon. Also, and I appreciate he probably will not be able to give a definitive list to the next question now, but perhaps, with your agreement, he could circulate what grounds for appeal would be allowed and what grounds might be disallowed in relation to lodging 3805 an appeal with the High Bailiff, sir?

The President: Mr Braidwood, reply, sir. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. 3810 In answer to Mr Gill, it is £102, but the grounds for appeal, that would be entirely up to the

High Bailiff. The appeal is to him and if he felt there was grounds for that appeal to be granted, then it would be the High Bailiff who would do that.

In relation to Mr Bell’s questions, Mr President, I do not know how many have been picked up with the civil partnership, also, I believe, because of the Marriage and Civil Registration 3815 (Amendment) Bill, which we were waiting to come through, so we could put the majority of the Orders through now for the Civil Partnership Bill. I am not completely sure, but I feel this near enough completes everything which needs to be put in order for the Civil Partnership Bill.


_________________________________________________________________ 1396 T128

The President: I think probably the next one, Item 29, will cover that, but nevertheless, the 3820 motion I put to the Court is printed at Item 28, Hon. Members, that the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Appeals About Venue) Fees Order 2011 be approved.

Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Marriage Act 1984 Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 approved


That the Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 be approved. [SD 343/11] 3825 The President: Item 29. Mr Braidwood, please. Mr Braidwood: Mr President, via the process of internal review and public consultation, it

was recognised that there was a need to modernise and improve upon the services delivered to the Island’s population through the Civil Registry. 3830

The Marriage and Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2011 introduces amended and new provisions in order to modernise and simplify marriage procedures. The Regulations are made by the Treasury under sections 35 and 51(5) of the Marriage Act 1984, as amended, and prescribe the fees payable in respect of new provisions related to the solemnisation of civil marriages introduced by the Marriage and Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2011. The new provisions associated 3835 with the fees will come into operation by Appointed Day Order.

Mr President, the Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 prescribe the fees payable to the General Registry concerning registration procedures for notice of marriage given under housebound persons’ or detained persons’ provisions; applications to the Chief Registrar for approval as a place, aircraft, vessel or vehicle where a civil marriage may take place – the approval is valid, 3840 unless otherwise revoked, for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted by the Chief Registrar; applications for the Chief Registrar’s consent to have a civil marriage in any place or aboard an aircraft, vessel or vehicle with the consent of the owner; civil marriage in the presence of a registrar in the various specified venues on particular days of the week or bank holidays; the additional cost per hour or part hour incurred by a couple wishing to extend the 3845 attendance of a registrar at a civil partnership registration; an administration fee to change the name of the proprietor, trustee, responsible person or deputy responsible person of an approved place.

Where appropriate, the fees mirror those payable for analogous procedures under the Civil Partnership Act 2011, as amended. 3850

The prescribed fees in the Regulations have been calculated to cover the costs incurred in providing the services. Mr President, the fee provisions are new and no historical financial information is available. The General Registry is not in a position to estimate any additional income that may be generated by the new fees in the current or next financial year.

Mr President, I beg to move the Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011. 3855 The President: Mr Bell. Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. 3860 I just really want to make comment on this because I think it is helpful to be clear. The

Government sees this change in legislation as a great opportunity for the Island to maximise the potential for civil weddings to be taken in venues around the Island.

I think it is important that the General Registry and whoever else is involved, actually, are as flexible as possible to make sure that we maximise places where people, for whatever different 3865 reason, who want to have a civil wedding in a place of interest or a special place for them. For example, we have the castles, we have the Laxey Wheel, you have the TT Grandstand, where we know people would come to the Isle of Man to be married in an appropriate place at the TT Grandstand. These are great opportunities that other countries around Europe especially and further afield are taking already of attracting people into their places to have civil marriages in 3870 their venues.


_________________________________________________________________ 1397 T128

I think the point I would say… the Hon. Member who moved this, Mr Braidwood, said that the Registry do not know yet how much money this might generate. I personally believe – and I am not alone on this – that there is the potential to generate substantial income not only for Government, but actually for the Island, by bringing people to the Island especially to have 3875 weddings. You have only got to go to places around Europe where, in fact, there are people who promote civil weddings in those areas in all sorts of venues that are attractive or special. It is big business and I do not think we demean people having a civil wedding in a place that is of special interest for them if we are able to provide the facility. I do think there is a need to be, actually, quite proactive in this area. There is a need to ensure that there are enough designated registrars to 3880 deal with it and not just say, ‘Well, we have only got one or two, so we cannot do it.’ Well, if that is a problem, get out there and appoint people temporarily to take on these roles. As long as they are trained – and the training, I suspect, is relatively easy, there is a procedure to set out – then I think that we should do that. I just think that we are not demeaning marriage at all and people will choose whether they have a church wedding or a civil wedding. 3885

What we need to do is expand it more. Just to give an example, in Castletown, we have got Castle Rushen castle. You can only have a marriage in the ‘wedding room’, as they call it; you cannot have it in the castle grounds outside, which is just nonsense and it is time we moved on. If people want to have a marriage in their own garden because it is the right venue – I am not just talking about an ordinary small garden, but an appropriate garden and it may be a small one – then 3890 it is not for us, I believe, to say no. What matters is that they have a legal ceremony that actually recognises that they have been married and, as long as we provide an opportunity for that to take place at a venue of their choice, then I think we should do what we can to do that: the law change now allows that to happen. I hope we maximise that to the benefit of not only ourselves, but actually the individuals involved who would like to make that a special occasion for themselves, 3895 where they decide not to have a church wedding.

The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member. Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. 3900 Perhaps I could ask the same question again and hope for a more full answer. I know from a

previous Order what the fee was, how it was reached, what the thinking was to think that is a fair and reasonable fee. That is the same question I would like to ask him in this regard.

I concur with the Chief Minister’s sentiments: there is a balance to be struck between optimising opportunities and encouraging people to come here, but we know when we go over the 3905 balance, where we are almost fleecing people, or pricing ourselves out of the market. So here we are talking about from £12 for one service and £11, sorry, is the lowest, £12.40, £18, £65 for this for that. Then we go into hundreds and then we go to £1,500. I do not know if that £1,500, which is the application to the Chief Registrar for approval as a place, aircraft, vessel or vehicle, where a civil marriage may take place and that gives you three years’ approval and then I am not clear if 3910 you have to pay an additional £200 to apply for that specific place. So one is… actually £1,500, which does seem a great deal of money and marriages are horrendously expensive. Speaking as the father of three adult daughters, who are all single, I realise it is a very expensive and I have been trying to suggest that Gretna Green is a very interesting venue!

But it is an expensive undertaking, quite rightly and quite understandably. These are additional 3915 costs. I do not say that they are excessive, but I cannot say that with certainty, because I do not understand how they have been reached, what consideration there was and what justification there is, so particularly in the £1,500 fee for an application for approval. I wonder if the mover could explain, not repeat the price – I understand the fee – but why the fee is how it is, the level it is, how that was reached and what thinking went into that? 3920

The President: Mr Karran, please. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think the input from the Chief Minister on this point is very good,

but the fact is, will he make sure that his Government actually is joined up. We find that the likes 3925 of the tourist division of the Department of Economic Development is actually promoting this facility and making sure that it is promoted outside the Island. I am sure that the likes of… there will be a number of people who want to get married in TT Week, in particular, but I do think it is important, not just saying it in here, but he has to make sure he follows it through with his Government Department, so we actually find that we have Government Departments actually 3930 working together instead of working against each other.


_________________________________________________________________ 1398 T128

The President: Lord Bishop. The Lord Bishop: Mr President, I am happy to support this, but I do have some concerns 3935

which I hope are shared with people who would not come from the same religious perspective as me, in that I do not think a wedding is just an event and I do not think a marriage is a wedding.

I think that we do run the risk of just saying that, somehow or other, you can come along for an event for which you pay – and these fees are perfectly reasonable – and then afterwards, that is it. It is all done for you and there is no kind of ongoing concern. I think I want to say that that is one 3940 of the things I am proud about, about church and chapel weddings, that there is that ongoing concern, but I think we do need to be aware of that because we are dealing with people, not just with a system and not just with something that people come along to, like buying a bus ticket and then going to the place and then taking off somewhere else afterwards.

So, I am supportive, but I want to say that I hope that we think a little bit more deeply about 3945 this whole question of marriage.

The President: Mr Callister. Mr Callister: Thank you, Mr President. 3950 I just want to clarify some of the practicalities of this, which I do not think all of them were…

as we took this Bill through the Legislative Council. Would the Member just confirm that, in order for the registrar to make the arrangements for such a wedding in a certain place, he has to have the agreement of the owner of the property or the land that is in question, and therefore if, for instance, the top of Laxey Wheel were chosen or maybe on top of Tynwald Hill, it would be a requirement 3955 for the appropriate Department or committee to give approval before the registrar could make that decision. Likewise, that would apply to the owners of airlines and shipping lines as well?

The President: Mr Braidwood to reply, please. 3960 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr President. I actually took the Civil Marriage Registration (Amendment) Bill through the House of Keys,

then it was slightly amended in the Legislative Council and then it went back down to the Keys. But even when I was putting it through the House of Keys, I was, again, in agreement with what the Chief Minister has said, the opportunities for the Isle of Man, for marriages to be taking place 3965 in hotels, on vessels or whatever, because what we are doing – and I tried to explain, initially, in moving this motion – was that all the General Registry is trying to do is to cover its costs. In the UK, it comes under local authorities, and they can really charge what they like. In actual fact, the fees that we are prescribing now are a lot lower than in the UK, so there is the opportunity of trying to bring people over. 3970

In response to Mr Callister, the Hon. Member of Council, the owner’s permission has to be granted. Also, the Registrar has to give permission, as well. He has to give approval. If he does not feel it is a fit and proper place, or the Registrar could be in danger or whatever, if it is on a vessel on the sea, then he can refuse it.

In regard to the query by the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, the £1,500 fee will apply for 3975 three years – so if a hotel goes for an approved place, they will pay a fee of £1,500. The person who wants to get married in that hotel would then pay the fee of, say, £200, to be married there – or more, if it is at a weekend or on a bank holiday. The fees which we are prescribing are just to cover our own costs at the present time. As I said, we do not know how much that will generate.

So, I would like to thank Mr Karran for his support. I understand where the Lord Bishop is 3980 coming from, Mr President.

I beg to move. The President: The motion, Hon. Members, that I put to the Court is printed at Item 29 on

your Order Paper, that the Marriage (Fees) Regulations 2011 be approved. 3985 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now, Hon. Members, I think it is an appropriate time at which we took our teabreak. When we

resume our deliberations on the Order Paper, when we come back, we will be taking Item 49, Hon. Members.

Thank you. 3990



_________________________________________________________________ 1399 T128

Breast care Appointment of dedicated specialist surgeon

Amended motion carried

49. The Hon Member for Douglas East (Mrs Cannell) to move: That Tynwald is of the opinion that a dedicated consultant breast care surgeon should be appointed rather than a general surgeon with an interest in breast. The President: Thank you, Hon. Members. As I indicated before we took our break, we are taking, at this stage, Item 49 on the Order 3995

Paper, headed up ‘Consultant Breast Specialist’. I call the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, to move, please. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. Also, can I put on the record my sincere appreciation at your agreement to be able to take the 4000

debate at this juncture in time, bearing in mind the extent of public concern. Mr President, I think, to be fair to the whole subject matter, I need to touch on a little bit of

history, before we get onto the substantive matter. It was back on 12th March 1996 in the House of Keys, a former Member of Tynwald, Mr Kniveton, asked the then Health Minister, ‘When do you intend to introduce screening for breast cancers in the Isle of Man?’ At that time, there was a 4005 mobile unit that visited the Island for the Marks & Spencer staff for screening, and also for the Isle of Man Post Office workers.

Needless to say, things eventually got to the floor of Tynwald. On 19th June 1996, Mr Kniveton moved:

4010 ‘that Tynwald is of the opinion that a National Health Service programme of breast screening be introduced within six months.’

That was in June 1996. At that time, it had been originally recommended by a Dr Jackson in 1978. At this point, there were 5,000 women who signed a petition, asking for breast screening to be 4015

introduced into the Isle of Man, and that was undertaken in 1995. During the debate on whether or not Tynwald should set up a breast screening programme, the Health Minister of the day, Mr May, indicated that in 1994, 21 Manx women had died of breast cancer, and so it will be no surprise to learn that, in fact, he was the Member that got up to his feet to second the motion that was moved by Mr Kniveton. There was a number of very interesting things came out of that debate. 4020

At that time, the petition and the Joint Women’s Council for the Isle of Man wholeheartedly supported the initiative and they, during those days, represented 11 organisations. Today, the Joint Women’s Council represents around 25 different women’s organisations, and it has grown from strength to strength. During that debate, the Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Rodan, gave a very well-informed contribution, particularly so, I think, in view of his medical background. He said, and I 4025 quote,

‘Experience in Britain has shown that of the 25,000 new cases of breast cancer, women who are treated in specialist centres by breast cancer experts survive longer than those treated in smaller hospitals by general surgeons.’ 4030

He was very right and I believe that is still the view today. On 15th October 1996, the Health Minister moved that Tynwald approve expenditure not

exceeding £106,000 to actually set up the breast screening and the Minister said at the time: ‘I would anticipate that the unit will be ready to receive its first clients by the beginning of April 1997.’ 4035 By 5th May 1998, we still did not have any breast screening recall service at all, despite the

fact that the Minister had promised it two years previously. In fact, breast screening recall did not start until the beginning of 2008. So Tynwald debated the policy in 1996, the money was approved several years later, but it was not until 2008 that it started. So, although it was supported by a 4040 unanimous vote during that time, it was very long in coming to pass.

There was also an offer at that time – well, in fact, it was more than an offer, it was a contribution that was made by the women’s organisations of quite a large sum of money to the Department towards the setting up of the breast screening and recall service for the Isle of Man. I think it would be fair to say they had to fight tooth and nail for this and it has taken an inordinate 4045 length of time to actually bring it to pass.


_________________________________________________________________ 1400 T128

Moving forward, Mr President, in the House of Keys on Tuesday, 23rd March 2010, a Question was raised by myself to the former Health Minister, Mr Teare, in respect of what arrangements are in place to provide breast reconstruction surgery for Island residents and how many residents require this surgery. He went on to say that there was a business case. He also 4050 dismissed it in the medium to long term by saying it will cost approximately £1 million to set up such a service.

Hon. Members, Mr President, why did I ask that Question? The reason I asked that Question was that, since the retirement of the general surgeon who had responsibility for breast surgery in the Isle of Man, Mr Clague, the Department had recruited a locum specialist breast surgeon and 4055 she has been in place for the last two years. She is highly skilled, highly trained and can do sentinel node biopsy – which is a very important part of breast surgery – and breast reconstruction work, and had performed three breast reconstructions on-Island for Island patients, but then management had stopped her from doing those. Presently, if anybody, a woman, needs or requires breast reconstruction, she has to go off to the UK, to the mainland. 4060

So it was stopped here, and I felt it was a nonsense that if we had recruited such a surgeon, albeit on a locum basis, and she had these skills, we ought to be utilising them because not only is it better for the patient – those who are able to have breast reconstruction at the same time as mastectomy, which many do – it also involves one procedure. It also maintains the contact with her family and often young children, and to the taxpayer in the Isle of Man, of course, it costs a lot 4065 less money, so it is more economical to offer breast reconstruction or some degree of breast construction on-Island. But at that time it was dismissed.

I followed it up the same year, when the new Minister was appointed, Mr Anderson, on 2nd November, and in the House of Keys, I asked him whether the Department had now considered the business case, which was referred to by the former Minister, to provide on-Island breast 4070 reconstruction surgery and what the outcome was. He replied that there would be a three-year strategy. In year 1, they would fund and appoint a consultant breast surgeon; year 2, introduce sentinel node biopsy service; and lastly, year 3, to provide breast reconstruction surgery on-Island.

Now, I was very, very pleased and I thought, obviously, the Department, being a responsible Department, had acknowledged the importance of this and everything was on course and how 4075 wonderful it was. The breast cancer patients were delighted. They assumed that now the services of the locum breast specialist would be made secure. Of course, that has not happened and did not happen in November 2010.

Anyway, Christmas came and it went. I followed that up with more Questions to the Minister, some in written form, asking him to explain to me what a delayed reconstruction was. He 4080 explained that it could be carried out weeks or even years later. Under the cancer code, if you like, the level, the standard at which the service has been operating at for the last two years, a lady who finds herself in the position where she has breast cancer,, and she has to have a mastectomy, should be automatically offered a breast reconstruction at the same time, at the same discussion as that which occurs when they are discussing surgery. It is done, but of course, the option is that it is 4085 delayed, so that you either have to wait until they are referred, or they have to wait until they finish their chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and some ladies, once they get over that actual surgery and that operation, cannot bring themselves to face yet another operation and so many ladies are not opting for it and others are having to wait.

More questions were asked in terms of the costs. What did it cost for the three on-Island breast 4090 reconstruction procedures, vis-a-vis the ones that were performed in the United Kingdom. The Department said that in 2008-09 the three breast reconstruction procedures that were carried out in the United Kingdom was a cost of £17,111. In 2009-10 the three breast reconstructions carried out at Noble’s Hospital came with a total cost of approximately £13,500.

In that question I did ask them to include travel, accommodation, the pre-op visitations and the 4095 post-op visitations that would be expected. I asked about theatre time for the present locum and the Minister said to me, that it is one day a week and it is a four-hour duration. I do understand from the research that I have done on this, that the simplest breast reconstruction, which is called the implant, which is inflated slowly over time, is a four-hour procedure. So, to my mind, if you have got one theatre session of four hours, that gives you the opportunity, maybe, to do one breast 4100 reconstruction, but it certainly does not stretch to do lumpectomies, removal of cysts, or any other type of breast surgical work that is required.

I followed it up with the Minister, in terms of how we were getting on with the advertisement for the consultant breast cancer surgeon on 22nd March 2011, and he said:

4105


_________________________________________________________________ 1401 T128

‘The Department will, hopefully, be in a position to advertise for a consultant general surgeon with a primary special interest in breast care. This mirrors practice in many hospitals in the UK and we believe, while meeting the needs of our breastcare patients, this is also a cost-effective approach that suits the Island.’

He went on to say that this particular post, this person appointed, would have to partake in the on-4110 call rota for general surgical emergencies, which is one in four.

The meaning of one in four, Hon. Members, Mr President, is one day in four and one weekend in four. So out of an eight-day week, Monday to Monday, two of those days this particular surgeon would be required to cover general surgical on-call commitments. That, of course, is when everybody jumped in alarm. They considered it to have been a U-turn, because in November last 4115 year it was stated a consultant breast surgeon. There was no mention about the general surgery requirement. So this is when things started to get really quite heated and the breast cancer patients became quite agitated, and that is when my work really started in terms of having to look into this in greater depth.

At that sitting of the House of Keys on Tuesday, 2nd March 2011, the Minister kept saying 4120 how he had the support of the breast cancer organisations, the breast cancer charities, and he did say, in answer to one supplementary question, that there was a meeting of the Council of Cancer Charities. They had a presentation by the Department on the way forward and representatives at that meeting, I believe… at least one of the breastcare organisations, and that charity gave its approval of the Department’s stance in the matter, because that was quickly followed up on 1st 4125 April in the Manx Independent by a letter from the President of Breakthrough Breast Cancer Isle of Man, which is headed, ‘We did not approve breast surgery ad’, and of course she went to great length to explain what in fact occurred, and the way she put it – and I will sum it up, because I am not going to read it out – is that they were presented with this situation, and they did not have input into the discussion about whether or not it was, in fact, a good idea. That is the last piece of written 4130 evidence from this particular individual representing Breakthrough Isle of Man.

So what happened after that? Well, Mr President, a group of breast cancer patients came together, past and present. These are women who are currently under the care of the locum consultant breast specialist – others were under the care of the previous general surgeon who had a responsibility for breast surgery – and they came together and they decided that they would put 4135 together a petition on the matter and it would be an all-Island petition. That was commenced with.

All Members, Mr President, including yourself, have had an information pack posted to you, to those who did not attend the presentation last Thursday. So you have a copy of this in your pack. What I can report is there were 7,244 Island people signed that petition. There was an online petition, which gathered 154 signatures, and there was a Facebook site, which got 192 people 4140 supporting it. That in itself was 7,590. Add to that the voice of the Joint Women’s Council, another 6,000, then you are talking about a considerable amount of concern with our people about the continuation of the present level of service that they have come to trust and rely upon.

Then we turn to the job description and the business case. Now, Hon. Members, we received a very last-minute and rushed presentation at lunchtime, provided through the Health Minister with 4145 a senior clinician at the Hospital and our officers from the Hospital, in an attempt to explain what they see as some of the… how shall I describe it as a parliamentarian – inaccuracies, shall we say, in the way in which the group of breast cancer patients have run the campaign and the way in which I have assisted them.

We learned at lunchtime that they had produced a different job description. That begs the 4150 question, does it not, why then, when asked in writing that the Health Minister provide myself and the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, with the job description and information sheet and the business case in May, now he tells us today there is a different one? Why did he not circulate that information to us? Why did he not advise us? I will suggest why that has not happened and I would suggest this. Once the Department sought permission to place the 4155 advertisement with the Royal College of Surgeons, that the Royal College of Surgeons possibly came back and said, ‘you need to amend this’ and that is probably why there is a different job description now.

Today, Mr President, I have to deal with the information that was provided to me by the Minister and I will. The first thing I would point out, Hon. Members, is that on page 2 of the first 4160 job description and information sheet, it talked about duties of the post and it said the post will have up to 10 programmed activities, which will broadly comprise the following: seven and a half PA. What is a PA? A PA is equivalent to three and a half hours. So you calculate 7½ x 3½ hours would be direct clinical care. Clinical care of inpatients and outpatients, including provision of one in four non-resident, on-call, cover for general surgery and urology. We are told at lunchtime 4165 today urology is being dropped!


_________________________________________________________________ 1402 T128

I am pleased about that and I would hope that that has probably been as a consequence of some of the scrutiny that the campaign and the Royal College of Surgeons have been giving to the matter. But the urology was included. It was repeated again on page 3:

4170 ‘The newly appointed consultant will partake in a one-in-four non-resident on-call for general surgery and urology with the other three consultants.’

We now know that has gone. It then went on to the person specification, the professional qualifications that would be 4175

needed: full registration with the General Medical Council and on the General Medical Council specialist register or eligible for entry within six months of interview. That is quite common. In a lot of these jobs that are advertised by the British Medical Journal and on the NHS online sites, they ask to be included on the special register within six months of actual interview, so that is not uncommon, but I think the point to be made here is that our current locum consultant breast 4180 specialist has been on the specialist register, operating on breast only and nothing else, since 2008. So, since 2008 she has purely just been doing breast work and nothing else. That can be checked by Hon. Members on the General Medical Council register.

The suggested job plan at that time said that there would be two theatres, one of three and a half hours and one of four and a half hours, and just three clinics. Currently, we have four clinics. 4185 We only have one theatre, but we have four clinics. So the first thing I did when I got a copy of this was I made an appointment to go and see the formal general surgeon who had a responsibility for breast surgery and I visited him at his home. He was as concerned as I was, and he said there is a shortage of clinics, and there is also a dilution of the elective general surgery in dealing with emergencies. His concern was he had empathy for the three general surgeons having to operate a 4190 one-in-three, but he said it should not impinge on the breast care service, and he did not believe that the breast care service should have to take on-call general surgery. He said there was a risk that if this person was practising breast surgery most of the time and then, occasionally, on the on-call, had to rush in to do an emergency operation and it was a tricky bowel operation or something of that nature, that general patient might be put at risk, because of the non-elective practice of 4195 general surgery. So that was the starting point. He advised me to make contact with the Royal College of Surgeons, to try and find out who the person would be who would be appointed to receive the Isle of Man’s application, so I thank Mr Clague, because he helped me very much from the start and he pointed me in the right direction.

So to the Royal College of Surgeons I went and, eventually, after a number of e-mails, I was 4200 put in touch with a consultant general surgeon, a Mr Zeiderman, who is Director for Professional Affairs for the North West. I e-mailed him – all Members have this, and they can see my e-mail to him – where I had a concern that, because of the escalating number of breast cancers, which up to 31st March were somewhere around 90, that there would be a risk of that service being cut, and also the dilution of the elective general surgery, in dealing with general emergencies. 4205

He responded to me and he said, and I quote: ‘Thank you for your recent e-mail and for explaining the situation around the proposed appointment of a new consultant surgeon with an interest in breast disease. Unfortunately, what you have asked me to address is outside the remit of the College in the appointment of a consultant, to ensure that the conditions of the post will enable the 4210 appointee to deliver a safe and effective service to patients. The College adviser will need to consider the professional content of the post, ensuring that…’

so that there is a balance of activities in terms of theatre, teaching, managerial work, research work and, of course, study, which is an essential part of any consultant surgeon who is appointed. 4215 Unfortunately, he goes on to say, ‘the need for the post and the way in which it will fit into the service is determined by the Trust’ – in this case Noble’s – ‘and the College has no input into this process.’ But then he tries to be helpful and he says, ‘in my experience, a general surgical appointment with a special interest would usually involve a 50% commitment to each.’ That made me even more concerned because, currently, we have 100% service and this gentleman was 4220 suggesting that it would be 50-50.

I then had heard of the… well, in fact the Holcombe Report is referred to in the Isle of Man’s Department of Health business case. They refer to a Holcombe Report. This was a review of breast services in the Isle of Man, dated November 2007. Christopher Holcombe is the consultant breast surgeon, clinical director of breast services and lead cancer clinician, Royal Liverpool and Broad 4225 Green University Hospitals NHS Trust. I made contact with him and asked him and said I was very interested in him securing, or seeking, to secure a good breastcare service here in the Isle of


_________________________________________________________________ 1403 T128

Man. I understood that he had done this review and this study and it would be interesting to have sight of his Report.

I actually received it the next day. I was quite shocked, because I thought I might struggle in 4230 getting a copy. I had been told by other members of the Department, if it was an internal report, I could not see it. Christopher Holcombe sent it and it was not under private and confidential cover or restricted cover, so I thought it was befitting to actually furnish all Hon. Members with it.

He starts off by saying it is unlikely that a replacement similar to Mr Clegg, who can do breast, general and vascular surgery, will be found. 4235

A newly appointed modern breast consultant is unlikely to be on the general surgical on-call rota. It is a very important point to remember, Hon. Members.

There were a number of things that were of interest in here and should be of interest to Hon. Members. He made 10 recommendations. There was only one where he recommended that Liverpool continue to be engaged. That was his view at the time, that breast reconstruction should 4240 be carried out in Liverpool by the team who visit the Isle of Man, but all the other services, he felt, should take place in Noble’s Hospital on the Island. He described our service at that time as fractured. He said it was fractured. He also went on and he looked at the programmed activities. He looked on the recommendations that he was basing some of his findings on, and he says, and I quote: 4245

‘The provision of breast services on the Isle of Man has not kept step with modern developments in this field. In particular, there is no MDT, no on-call plastic breast surgery provision, no sentinel node biopsy, limited access to breast reconstruction and no screening service, although this is planned.’ 4250

He says: ‘As breast surgery becomes increasingly specialised, complex and multi-disciplinary, the provision of this service by the generalist with an interest becomes increasingly difficult. These recommendations seek to enable long-term recruitment and retention.’ 4255 You will find, Hon. Members, that if you actually read through the business case, which the

Minister did not give you an updated copy of at lunchtime, but you will have one which was obtained by myself and the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, in May, which was in your information pack… he makes some very valuable comments in here and he is trying to be 4260 helpful, in terms of how he sees us going forward. It is interesting that, in 2007, he was referring to the Isle of Man having 60,000 population – 2007 was not that long ago, four years ago, 60,000 population. We are estimated at around 82,000, although I hear figures of around 85,000. I gather we will not know for sure until the end of September when, hopefully, the results of the census will be made public. 4265

He also says that the service receives around 700 symptomatic referrals per year, which results in around 53 diagnosed cancers per year. That was back in 2007. We have gone from 53 up to 93 this last year. That is quite an increase. The referrals per year, I have taken again from the business case amount, on an annual basis, according to that as 1,248. The Minister, in his information pack today, is quibbling with my figures and saying I have got them wrong. Well, I have only taken 4270 them from your business case, Minister.

He goes on about maintenance and skills and he makes the point that the modern breast surgeon now, during the last 12 months of their training, focuses just purely on breast surgery, because it is becoming so complex and they do not do any general, surgical work and they certainly do not partake in on-call general surgery. What he says in here is very interesting on that 4275 aspect of things. He says:

‘the biggest factor in recruiting and retaining high-quality staff will probably be the interest of the specialist work in which they are to be involved. There has been increasing specialisation within surgery, well illustrated by the English national oncoplastic training programmes, where senior breast surgical trainees spend a year without any general 4280 surgery or on-call commitments, learning the techniques of breast reconstruction and plastic surgery. This has been highly successful in producing a cohort of highly trained, specialist breast surgeons, capable of managing the whole spectrum of breast disease and able to provide a wide range of reconstructive plastic surgery procedures.’ 4285

He then goes on to say: ‘However, this has often been at the cost of general surgery and many of these trainees, when they are appointed as consultants, are not undertaking significant volumes of general surgery and are not on the on-call general surgery list. This is due to the demands of a high-volume breast practice, a rapid loss of skills in general surgery, due to the lack of 4290 use and training in general surgery that today has much less breadth and depth than in previous years.’


_________________________________________________________________ 1404 T128

He suggests that it will be a difficulty for us. Needless to say, at the very end of his Report he says:

‘Overall, it is striking how particularly the surgical service has not kept up with modern developments in breast 4295 surgery.’ That was November 2002. I took up correspondence with Mr Christopher Holcombe, Mr

President, and I basically asked him, as it was a very interesting Report, but bearing in mind it was 2007 – the population is larger, the cases of breast cancer exceeding 90 for the first time – 4300 ‘whether your recommendations would still be the same for the future operation of breastcare services here. I look forward to your response and am sincerely grateful for your assistance.’

He came back to me and he said most of the principles are the same. He said the big challenge you face, as I see it, is that cancer care, including breast cancer, is becoming increasingly specialised and technical. He then goes on to say: 4305

‘It would be reasonable for you on the Isle of Man to recruit a whole-time breast surgeon, as even the more routine work is now much more specialised and would warrant this: example, screen detector cancer, sentinel node biopsy and oncoplastic wide local excision.’ 4310 So he was basically saying to me, fairly the same but, in fact, you need a whole-time breast

surgeon. I went back to him more recently and asked him about the dispute the Minister and I had in writing, I believe of which all Members were copied, in terms of a set of recommendations, or regulations, 1996, which describe the training of a general surgeon with an interest in breast vis-a-vis the oncoplastic guidelines dated 2007. Just to be absolutely sure, he said the oncoplastic 4315 guidelines are more about the guidance for that sort of surgery. Further, the consultant said to me there was no correlation between the two.

So the task has not been easy, Mr President, because I have endeavoured, through all of this, to try and meet with the Minister, together with my colleague, Mr Houghton, so that we could get round the table and discuss what it is that we had concerns about – and it was only in the last 4320 fortnight the Minister offers to meet with his clinicians. Chris Holcombe said, when I asked him about the one-in-four rota, he said it could be one night in every four, could be one day and night in four, could be one week in four and this could be with cancellation of routine activity, when on call or continuation of these. But it would generally be that that person doing that rota will be on call 25% of the time. So we have had 50%, we have had 25%, but we still know there is a 4325 percentage that is taken away.

The final piece of evidence – and you will be pleased, Mr President, that I will wind up after this and let the debate flow. I made contact with the President of the Association of Breast Surgery, Mr Richard Rainsbury, who is an eminent surgeon, a figure who is regarded as a great authority in the world on breast surgery and he was very helpful. I sent him a long and detailed e-4330 mail, and all the facts and figures that I pulled out of the Isle of Man Department of Health’s business case and Hansard in terms of the figures of breast diagnosis and sent that off to him and asked his opinion.

I was aware that, under the normal standards, one has to have quite a large population to be able to warrant a breast surgeon, or a breast specialist. Indeed, with our small population we did 4335 not satisfy that criterion, nevertheless, my research uncovered that, in fact, to have one breast specialist in post now dealing with the amount of work that was coming through, the patient load was high enough to justify a dedicated breast surgeon just for the task. He went on, he was very helpful and pointed me in his e-mail, which Members have, he pointed me out to the special provision that is made out in the European Journal of Surgical Oncology, dated 2005. Section 4 of 4340 that covers small jurisdictions, such as islands, and the criterion there is that each surgeon must deal with at least 10 breast-cancer cases a year, or up to 30 a year; one surgeon. Our surgeon here has been dealing with a much higher rate on her own.

He went on to say, he congratulated the Island and I was very proud, when I received this e-mail, to get such praise from such a high-ranking individual in the world of breast surgery. He 4345 said:

‘Firstly, can I congratulate the breast unit and the locum consultant breast surgeon on the key steps which have already been taken to implement a high-quality breast service for Islanders. 4350 These laudable developments include screening, specialist clinic, specialist nurses, MDT

meetings and the potential for providing a comprehensive sentinel node biopsy and breast reconstruction service in the future. You have been fortunate in securing a specialist surgeon with


_________________________________________________________________ 1405 T128

the necessary leadership to make these changes, often difficult in a small Island. Moreover, the MDT includes a visiting oncologist, giving the externality which is so important in preventing 4355 isolation and ensuring best practice. It is clear from the activity figures provided that the breast service meets and, indeed, exceeds the requirements of a modern breast unit established by the ABS guidelines…’

And then he goes on to point us to the European Journal of Surgical Oncology. He says that the recommended minimum case-load in that document is 30 per year, per surgeon. In the United 4360 Kingdom, the average is around 50 to 100 new breast cancer patients, per surgeon, per year.

He suggests that with the figures we have, a strong argument could be made for additional specialist input, perhaps in the form of a breast physician. This recommendation is also supported by the high new patient referral rate – 25 new patients being referred a week. Again, this is taken from the Department’s business case, which is a very big workload for a single surgeon. 4365

Then he goes on to say: ‘A single four-hour theatre list is not nearly long enough to even carry out the very basic breast cancer surgery.’ The ABS guidelines recommend at least two per week and if we were going to roll out sentinel 4370

node biopsy and breast reconstruction, then we would need additional theatre times, another two a week.

He went on to say: ‘Breast surgery is becoming increasingly sophisticated and the overwhelming majority of breast units in the UK are 4375 now appointing pure breast specialists in order to keep up with the rapid pace of new developments and the escalating workload.’ He went on, of course, to say that the appointment of a general surgeon with urology interests

would be a very retrograde step. I wish to place on the record that the Department has now 4380 withdrawn the urology aspect from their… The Minister is shaking his head, but I go by the written word, Minister, of what you have provided to me and my colleague. The urology was part of it. I have read it out to Members. It is now not featured, and so that has been accepted by Mr Rainsbury, but he went on to say it would be detrimental to service development and, most important, detrimental to patient care. 4385

The other point that he makes… and if Members go back to the presentation – the very rushed one we had at lunchtime – we were told in no uncertain terms, and it is reaffirmed in some of the information the Minister has given us today in his information pack, that they expect the incidences of breast cancer to start coming down. Indeed, they believe that it has peaked in the Isle of Man. Bearing in mind we have only had a breast screening recall service start at the beginning 4390 of 2008 – February 2008, I believe it was, so we are just over three years – the Department is under the belief, just dealing with the breast screening and recall, that once we have recalled all the patients that we have already screened we will become familiar with those patients, so that when they come for subsequent screening, if there was something that perhaps looked a little mysterious it might be passed aside because, ‘Oh, yes, that lady had it last time and the time before – it’s not 4395 anything significant or anything we should be concerned about,’ and as a consequence the numbers will come down. In fact, that is not the case, because the President of the Association of Breast Surgery says:

‘Addressing your final point about whether breast cancer rates are levelling off, there is clear evidence that this is not 4400 the case.’ Not the case! It is predicted to continue to rise between 2005 and 2024, representing an

increase from 41,900 to 55,700 new cases per year in the United Kingdom over that period and not forgetting, Hon. Members, that when we had the first debate in 1996, the Hon. Member for Garff 4405 quoted the figure of 20 odd thousand, 25, I believe he said in Hansard. That has grown to 41,900 and predicted to rise to 55,700. So it has not peaked in the United Kingdom, where they have breast screening and recall. So, if it has not peaked in the United Kingdom, what evidence do we have that it has, in fact, or is about to peak here in the Isle of Man? In fact, he goes on to say that the World Health Authority predicts a global epidemic of cancer, including breast cancer, with 4410 cancer becoming the leading global cause of death, ahead of heart disease, by 2030. Those are the predictions. He said,

‘I am glad to have provided the information. I hope this strengthens your case for the appointment of a specialist breast surgeon to a permanent position.’ 4415


_________________________________________________________________ 1406 T128

I can say, Hon. Members, Mr President, that I received the correspondence between Mr Upsdell at Noble’s Hospital and Mr Rainsbury that took place on Sunday, I have received a copy of Mr Rainsbury’s response. He has asked that I be circulated with it, but he has not necessarily given permission for it to be circulated to Members, but what I can say to you is that he has not changed his opinion. His opinion has not changed. He acknowledges that the job description does 4420 now not include urology. That was acknowledged and that part of the letter was read out to all Hon. Members during the lunchtime presentation, but his view is still one and the same.

So, he has not withdrawn his view or changed his opinion in any way, shape or form. Mr President, I have letters, I have an opinion from Prof. Blamey, who was also… he retired a

year ago, but he was the President of the Association of Breast Surgery and quite a large file of 4425 letters from individuals Island wide.

What I am asking Hon. Members to do, is to really consider this very seriously today, to forget who the mover of the motion is, to forget it is me who is the messenger, to try and cast aside your feelings about me as an individual and as a personality, because we have had conflicts in the past and we have had variants of opinion and we have clashed on many issues, but then together we 4430 have pulled together on other issues. I am asking Hon. Members to cast aside all of those feelings that you have about me as an individual. All I am is the facilitator for the people in the Isle of Man who suffer with breast cancer. That is all. I acknowledge there are other types of cancer and that we should be doing as much as we possibly can, but we have for breast cancer.

We have had a wonderful service. We still have a wonderful service. The people do not want 4435 to see that service diluted in any shape or form, (A Member: Hear, hear.) whether it is 50%, whether it is 80%, whether it is 75%, whether it is 70% and there are lots of percentages that have been featured today at our presentation at lunchtime, about the reduction in the breastcare side of things. But whatever percentage it is, Hon. Members, it is a reduction in what we have now. I am merely asking the Court to approve my motion, as written, that we go for the appointment of a 4440 dedicated consultant breast surgeon and not a general surgeon with an interest in breast. The main, salient point here, Mr President, is that the Department want the new person coming in to partake in general surgery on cover, one 24-hour period every fourth day.

I think that is too much. If we need some general surgery input, then we should be looking at that and we should be looking at that separately. I do not feel that we should be poaching the 4445 breastcare service that we currently enjoy.

I beg to move. The President: Mr Houghton, Hon. Member for Douglas North. 4450 Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. The President: Mr Anderson. Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. 4455 I would like to, like the mover of the motion, put on record that you do not actually judge what

I am saying on the person, but on the information that person is bringing on behalf of the Department and behalf of the professionals of the Isle of Man.

I, like Mrs Cannell, am a lay person. I am not a professional. I take advice from professionals. The business case for this post has been worked up by commissions and professionals, so what I 4460 am saying is ignore the messenger and just listen to the message.

Mr President, I believe that the motion that the Hon. Member for East Douglas has put down is a flawed one, and that is:

‘That Tynwald is of the opinion that a dedicated consultant breast care surgeon should be appointed rather than a 4465 general surgeon with an interest in breast.’ Mr President, the Department’s proposal is exactly as the Hon. Member’s motion begins: that a

dedicated consultant breast care surgeon should be appointed. This is evidenced and outlined in the job description and job plan approved by the Royal College of Surgeons and in the 4470 Department’s three-phase plan for the development of Island breast care services. Both of these documents have been made available to Hon. Members.

Based on the job description and person specification within it, when the post is appointed, the Department will have a dedicated consultant breast care surgeon, but they must hold the formal job title of ‘a consultant surgeon with a special interest in breast care’, as directed by the Royal 4475


_________________________________________________________________ 1407 T128

College of Surgeons. Its governance remit covers the approval of all surgical job descriptions and job plans.

Two elements of this motion are therefore co-requisites. To vote for a motion that proposes the Department of Health should not appoint a general surgeon with an interest in breast, is to actually vote against the Isle of Man having a dedicated consultant breast care surgeon. The Hon. 4480 Member’s motion, therefore, is contradictory, paradoxical and therefore flawed.

A motion to accurately reflect the intention of the Department of Health, Mr President, is one that I am going to move as an amendment and I would like that to be circulated now, if it has not already been done, sir.

I am moving an amendment that is framed to accurately reflect the intention of the Department 4485 to improve the very good service that the Department currently provides with breast care services, and I am grateful for that being circulated at this moment.

Services will be enhanced, not downgraded. This is a progressive step and not a retrograde step. Mr President, this debate must be based on facts, and the facts show the Department’s proposal to be sound – a proposal that was made by senior clinicians, doctors and nurses who 4490 understand the business of health and understand the needs of patients, a proposal which has received strong support from breastcare charities, members of the public, clinicians independent of Noble’s Hospital and also those in the Department. I would again reiterate to Hon. Members, despite the nuances of the job title, which may have caused some confusion, that the breastcare service available on the Island will not only be as good as it is now under the current locum – who, 4495 I would remind Hon. Members, is both eligible and welcome to apply for the post and whom we cannot appoint, of course, without openly advertising the job – but the post will be enhanced as follows. Phase 1 of the Department’s three-phase plan… and Mrs Cannell is right, at one stage this was a three-year plan. It is now a three-phase plan, because we believe once we have got the consultant in place we can actually move it forward faster than the three years. The first phase is to 4500 appoint a dedicated breastcare surgeon to the post; phase 2 is then to introduce a sentinel node biopsy service; and phase 3 is to offer on-Island breast reconstruction. I would reiterate, Hon. Members, it is a positive that this is a three-phase and not a three-year plan, and we hope, upon appointment, to be able to promptly develop these services, ideally in well under these three years.

Additional outpatient clinics and additional theatre sessions per week will be available to the 4505 postholder, which will increase our capacity to accommodate the service enhancements that I have mentioned. The postholder will, therefore, be a highly skilled breast surgeon and a dedicated breast surgeon with specialist registration who will lead the service on the Island and develop it further, enhancing the level of care available. This is exactly the same type of job the locum consultant was doing before taking up her locum post here on the Island. The current breast 4510 surgery workload is quite sustainable within our current resources and, indeed, as I have just said, such is the current capacity, we will be able to enhance our service, accommodating this extra workload without the need for a second breast surgeon. Although there has been an increase in the number of detected breast cancers, as was to be expected following introduction of our call and recall service, this has now peaked and numbers have returned to their pre introduction of call and 4515 recall state. The indications are there will be 55 to 60 breast cancers detected per year, as there were before the breast call and recall came in, and I just put on record the figure that Mrs Cannell was quoting was that high peak, those 93 cases that we had in a 12-month period.

Although it is true breast cancer is increasing across the developed world, the increase will be gradual over the next two decades and any increases over the next few years can be well 4520 accommodated within the proposed postholder’s workload. The number of breast cancers diagnosed between 1st January and 15th June this year stands at 26 detected breast cancers. Extrapolated, this would put us on a course of between 55 and 60 cancers this year, or approximately 1.15 people diagnosed each week. This is much lower than in 2010, which I have said we expected to be high due to the introduction of our call and recall breast screening service. 4525

I should point out this rise was always anticipated by professionals and has not been a surprise. Subsequently, these figures mean that an average of less than two patients a week require breast surgery. The present locum undertakes two to three operations per week. I can confirm to Hon. Members that only two breast operations per week were undertaken at Noble’s Hospital between 1st January and 13th March this year. This compares to a peak of 42 surgical procedures in a week 4530 for one consultant surgeon with a special interest in upper gastro and colorectal surgery.

I now move to the responsibilities on all parties to communicate clearly, truthfully and factually on the petition.

Mr President, the Department has – and I will deal with the petition a little later – the Department has worked hard to communicate clearly the intentions of this post and the benefits it 4535 will bring. Unfortunately, that communication work has been continually frustrated by misleading


_________________________________________________________________ 1408 T128

and irresponsible comments from certain quarters. Mr President, the petition, in particular, has caused concern and fear for those who have gone through the trauma of breast cancer to be told, in future, the first-class service provided to them was going to be downgraded. That, of course, is not the case. In fact, that is what we should be concentrating on; the person who will fill the 4540 permanent post will be as qualified at the same level as the present, temporary, locum postholder. Without looking in depth, most people would sign a petition opposing a downgrade of a service, but the vast majority do not appreciate the service is not being downgraded, but enhanced, and I am very pleased for those who have said they signed the petition, but now understand what the Department is doing to improve the service, who would not have signed if they knew the facts 4545 before and that had been explained to them. I had a relative in that category, who only signed because she was asked to do so as a former breast cancer patient.

Mr President, I have spent three and a half hours going through the names, making careful notes, so that I can explain to my constituents the facts and not the slanted view that has been put on it by the Hon. Member and the breast cancer action group. I will not do what a former Tynwald 4550 Member, Mr Victor Kneale, once did, and spend a huge amount of time in breaking down and ridiculing a public petition. I neither have the Court’s time or the appetite for such an exercise. However, I would comment, to give advice to those who might seek to conduct such an exercise in the future.

Firstly, that signatures without printed names lose credibility and vice versa. The online names 4555 also had no addresses, although I knew who Brenda Cannell was.

Secondly, there are many addresses from off Island, and probably from shop counters… and shows people are very obliging and, if asked to sign, will do and will oblige, even if they are not directly or indirectly impacted.

The third point I would make, that a comments column online is useful, as it sometimes shows 4560 their level of understanding or not, as the case may be. Many more, including those at the Joint Women’s Council last week came up and thanked our team for clearly explaining; ‘If I had known that before this evening, I would not have signed.’

Hon. Members, we have a responsibility, as Tynwald Members, to relay such information to the public and to reassure the public, rather than fostering a climate of fear. I am grateful to 4565 Tynwald Members who have availed themselves of that opportunity. We have provided the evidence for the proposed improvements, and I am also grateful for the continuing support, despite being publicly criticised by the action group, of both Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Breastcare Support Group. They had questions about the proposed service at the beginning. After all, they know more about trauma than most of us and are engaged helping those affected. 4570

They would not support a downgrading of service. They listened and they heard – recognised it will be an improvement.

The umbrella organisation of the Council of Cancer Charities fully endorsed the Department’s proposal and they have agreed to supply a member for the interview panel as a layperson to make sure they have a voice in that policy. 4575

Mr President, I now move on to clarify the requirements of being on call. Mr President, I think it is also vital we are clear on the ‘on call’ element of this role and what it actually entails.

As I have emphasised many times over recent weeks, this is a minor element of the role and will not impact on the volume of breast cancer cases we can deal with and it will not cause any increased waiting times. Quite simply, there are no negatives and many positives. We maintain our 4580 service. We will enhance our service over the coming months and years and we will also be able to meet the Royal College of Surgeons’ direction that we increase on-call general surgical cover from one in three, considered by the College to be onerous – too onerous – to one in four. The one in four is a period, and this I think is very important to emphasise because I think it came out quite wrong a little earlier – the one in four is a period of 24 hours in every four days and one weekend 4585 from 1700 on a Friday evening until nine o’clock on a Monday morning in every four weekends.

Emergency admissions, as we know, average about 4.5 emergency general surgical missions in any 24-hour period. Of course, many of these will not require an operation and when admissions come in under the new consultant surgeon, it is likely that the ongoing care will be provided by one of the other consultants, ensuring that general surgery does not take precedence over breast 4590 work.

This practice is completely in line with hospitals of a similar size to that of Noble’s, as Hon. Members will have seen from the job descriptions distributed to them and provided for them.

Out-of-working-hours cover, it should be noted, sees the consultant at home resting but on call. The consultant is not routinely in a clinical environment outside of normal working hours unless a 4595 very serious emergency arises. The on-call workload is, in the main, carried out by the consultant’s medical teams with the consultant working to oversee and advise.


_________________________________________________________________ 1409 T128

I would just like to mention adherence to the guidelines and requirements, Mr President. I would like to remind Hon. Members that we are meeting the requirements laid down by the Royal College of Surgeons and the professional body for medical practitioners. It is not simply about the 4600 views and involvement of laypeople, although this is critical and welcome; the key is to gain the support of the professional clinicians in the area and, of course, the Royal College. It would not endorse the job description and job plan unless they were clinically based and sound – that is what we have waited for to this point before progressing.

There have been substantial tweakings to get the post defined to their high standards and gain 4605 the Royal College’s approval. The surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer, as published by the Association of Breast Surgery at the British Association of Surgical Oncology 2009, stated explicitly that breast cancer surgery should only be performed by surgeons with a specialist interest in breast disease. I am sure it will not escape Hon. Members that this is why we have described the job in line with the Association’s guidelines. I would also note that the current 4610 locum has the lowest number of patients requiring procedures of any of our surgeons and is the only surgeon not participating on the on-call rota.

In similar jobs across the UK in similar hospital services, the surgeon would expect to take part in a general surgical on-call emergency rota – it is what the doctors expect to do.

The Hon. Member has asked opinions from those off-Island with out-of-date data and an out-4615 of-date business case. She has had the first draft of the business case and that has been refined as it has gone back and forth to the Royal College for refinement several times. The off-Island experts are not, therefore, basing their comments on this information. If they did, you would get a different comment or view. If you want a question answered in a particular way, you ask it in a particular way. We brought the same question to the same people with the accurate data and they have given 4620 us a different and more accurate answer with the full knowledge of the facts.

Now I come to the breadth and depth of support. Mr President, Hon. Members will be aware of the body of support the Department’s plans have received from a wide and varied range of organisations and clinical professions, including the Isle of Man Council of Cancer Charities, Isle of Man Breast Care, Breakthrough Breast Cancer Isle of Man, the Royal College of Surgeons, 4625 retired Professor Howard Scarffe, Dr Malcolm Clague, Mr Roy Clague, and, lastly, we have had a letter of support from Mr Peter Evans. Unfortunately, that letter he hoped would have been published in the paper and it has not been, but I think it gives a very good insight and I will refer to that now, Mr President:

4630 ‘I was the radiologist with responsibility for breast radiology (my job title was “general radiologist with an interest in breast disease’’) until my early retirement at the end of 2010. I have recently seen the letter from Julie Stokes about the replacement breast surgeon. It would appear that the topic is generating opinion which is becoming very (almost too) public. I should be grateful for the opportunity to add my own comments. The local cancer charities pushed hard in my early years as radiologist here for the provision of call/recall breast 4635 screening. Since its introduction, this up-rated service has resulted in high breast cancer pick-up rates on the Island over the last two years. Indeed, figures for the first year of screening showed a pick-up rate of breast cancer, which was the best of any region of the UK by a significant amount. This is down to the quality of pictures provided by the radiographic staff at Westmoreland Road and the film readers in Coventry, who decide which ladies need to be recalled for further tests 4640 and treatment. It is recognised that the first full round of screening boosts the numbers of breast cancers detected, which then return towards the underlying (pre-screening) rate. Therefore, the figures over the last two years cannot be used as the basis for the amount of recurring work from breast cancer which can be expected in future. The underlying rate for the incidence of breast cancer on the Island is approximately 55 new patients a year. I am told that the figures for the first 4645 half of 2011 confirm this impression.’

And, Mr President, I quoted those figures earlier on. ‘Mastectomy is required in the minority of breast cancer patients and there are many ways of achieving reconstruction 4650 for those who need it. Setting up such a service here would require discussion by hospital administration with theatre staff, anaesthetists and, ultimately, the newly appointed breast surgeon; in management jargon a ‘business plan’ is required. It would be most unusual to invite any locum consultant to introduce a new service. When a permanent breast surgeon is appointed, I would expect the Hospital to discuss with that person what level of breast reconstruction is appropriate here and which patients would be better referred to a plastic surgery centre (oncoplastic breast surgery). 4655 Whether the Hospital needs a surgeon who does only breast surgery or breast and general surgery will clearly revolve around the workload. The previous surgeon and his team dealt with this surgical workload in approximately two days per week. If there is to be expansion of the service to provide – for instance – breast reconstruction on Island, then this would require more time. To appoint a consultant surgeon to look after 55 new breast cancer patients each year, plus the follow-up of patients 4660 who have completed their treatment (and patients with benign breast disease) would not (in my opinion) provide enough work for a full time post. The alternatives are therefore to make the job part time (usually an unpopular and unattractive option) or give that person other surgical work to make the job full time. Adding extra responsibility to the


_________________________________________________________________ 1410 T128

breast surgeon post does not imply that a reduced level of skill in breast surgery (or the associated general surgery) is required. 4665 Any surgeon appointed here to a post ‘’with an interest in breast disease’’ would automatically have experience in general surgery which would have been acquired prior to breast specialisation. The current breast surgery locum will undoubtedly have experience in the type of general surgery required for the proposed job. I believe I am right in saying that any medical consultant post which is appointed on a permanent basis must be advertised and interviews held. In the interest of fairness, an existing locum cannot simply be made permanent, 4670 however capable the locum and however desirable it might seem. From what I have seen and heard, everyone involved wants the best appointee for the post of Breast Surgeon. I wish the hospital well in its search for a permanent replacement for Mr Malcolm Clague and hope that everyone is happy with the person who is eventually chosen to succeed him. May I take the opportunity of thanking the staff at Noble’s and particularly the radiology staff and the breast radiology 4675 team, who made working at Noble’s such a pleasure over the last twelve years. Yours etc Dr Peter Evans’ [MB, FRCS, FRCR 4680 Consultant General Radiologist with Special Interest in Breast Disease, Gibraltar] Mr President, all experts who understand the needs of a patient and services here on the

Island… You have heard that the Member for East Douglas has the support of off-Island experts. We know they have answered her questions, framed in such a way to elicit answers in her favour. 4685 We know their true position in this debate. Mrs Cannell does not have the support of any medical practitioners on the Island, either in or without the Department of Health.

Understanding, Mr President, of general surgery… General surgery has a somewhat unfortunate name, one perhaps not befitting the varied and critical surgical work undertaken in this specialist field. Of course, any of us would be forgiven for shirking at the thought that any surgical 4690 procedure we were to undergo could, in any way, be ‘general’. All surgery is an unsettling experience. The term perhaps does not engender the same images of neuro or plastic surgery, but let us be quite clear: despite its name, general surgery is a specialty and one of only nine. To be more accurate, general surgery relates to surgery of the torso. The other eight specialties are cardiothoracic; neuro; oral and maxillofacial; ear, nose and throat; paediatric; reconstructive; 4695 trauma and orthopaedic; and urinary. Hon. Members may note that I have not mentioned breast surgery because this, in fact, is a sub-specialty of the specialty of general surgery, amongst other sub-specialties which include colorectal, endocrine, upper gastrointestinal – that is the liver and stomach, transplant and vascular. Therefore, Hon. Members should be in no doubt the only way to become a breast surgeon is to specialise in general surgery. It is therefore wholly appropriate to 4700 have the proposed post advertised as a consultant surgeon with a specialism in breast care.

It is this special interest that recognised the role requires a general surgeon who is specialised in breast surgery – that is to say, someone who is a dedicated breast specialist surgeon. Indeed, the UK experts who provided Mrs Cannell with their opinions are general surgeons.

Mr President, when all is said and done, I absolutely understand the desire of everyone to have 4705 a first-class breast care service in the Isle of Man – a desire we share. Remember, our clinical team only have the patients’ best interests at heart. People have become rightly concerned about the issue, due to misleading information, and I have worked hard to set the record straight with the public interest organisations and Hon. Members through such presentations that we laid on today – and it was not a ‘rushed presentation’. It was a presentation that was put on following some 4710 information that went out last week that I felt we needed to clarify before this debate.

My clinical colleagues are extremely concerned by the information put in the public arena. At best, they view it as irresponsible, at worst, dangerous. The protection and enhancement of our breast care services is exactly what I would want to see and what the Department proposes, and I truly believe that the proposal the Department has made is the best and only way forward. 4715

In effect, Mr President and Hon. Members, there are not two sides to this debate, only one. The Department, including its clinical experts, the Council of Cancer Charities, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Isle of Man Breast Care, the Breast Action Group and Mrs Cannell all want the same thing: a dedicated breast surgeon and enhancements to our breast care service. That is what it is proposed. That is what the job description describes. That is what the Royal College of Surgeons 4720 approved.

We are now, I believe, quibbling over semantics and the nuances of her job title. As I have said time and time again – I want to reiterate it now – the postholder will be trained to the same level and will be equally as competent as the current locum surgeon, but we want a permanent surgeon to lead this service. 4725

Mr President, I would therefore implore Hon. Members to vote in favour of the amendment in my name. To vote against my amendment delays the development of the Island’s breastcare


_________________________________________________________________ 1411 T128

service, for which the Department has worked long and hard to bring to fruition for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Man. My motion should be supported, as Mrs Cannell’s motion brings no benefits to patients and their families. 4730

I would just like to touch on one or two things the Hon. Member made in her contribution that I had not prepared for.

Mrs Cannell referred to the Holcombe Report: that was dated 2007 and she is correct, it was an internal document, commissioned for the Department from Prof. Holcombe. That Report was within the Department and it was not for public release. Prof. Holcombe has released it and he is 4735 rather embarrassed now that he has. He did not realise it was going outside of the Department. However, we have to recognise the Holcombe Report was a snapshot of the services four years ago. Prof. Holcombe said that it was a fractured service. It was a fractured service at that time and I would like to put on record my thanks to the team that have improved the service and have planned what is actually happening now. We have put in breast call and recall. We have put a 4740 locum into the post, we developed the business case.

Once we get a permanent postholder in, we will be developing the service even further, so that is a historical document. Of course, we did not go on all Prof. Holcombe’s recommendations, because one of those key recommendations is that we should have a visiting surgeon visiting the Island and we did not think that was appropriate for the ladies of the Isle of Man. We recognise 4745 that we should have somebody on-Island and the majority of their time would be spent as a specialist breast surgeon.

In relation to the reference the Hon. Member made to me refusing to meet her, there were two occasions the Hon. Member refused to meet me and I have invited her twice to come in to get a better understanding of our business case, because I knew she was confused about the business 4750 case. She has refused to do so, because, she says she had got the motion coming to Tynwald now, anyway, but that opportunity was given on two occasions. So I refused to meet her on one occasion because, by that time, she had called a public meeting and I said I would give her that information at the public meeting. However, I was more than happy, my door has always been open, my clinicians would have been very happy, for her to come and have it explained and 4755 corrected in certain areas. It is unfortunate that she has taken the stance she has, because it has unsettled members of the general public.

Mr President, I hope Hon. Members will support the amendment in my name, which reads: Delete all the words after ‘Tynwald’ and add, ‘supports the Department of Health ensuring 4760 that the Breast Care Service is maintained and enhanced to ensure that there is no diminution in the present level of service provided within the Island, and supports the Department continuing to provide a dedicated breast care service led by a surgeon specialising in breast surgery, thereby securing the service provided to patients.’’ 4765 The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. Mr Bell: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The President: Lord Bishop. 4770 The Lord Bishop: Mr President, I have had the unfortunate privilege of being closely related

to someone who had very serious surgery for breast cancer a decade ago. There will be people in the public gallery who know, as well as I do, that it is a frightening experience for the patient and for the patient’s family. I also have a close family member involved in cancer research. I have, 4775 therefore, looked and listened into this issue over the last decade with very great care and, as a result, cannot support this motion and want to support the amendment.

Even in centres with far greater population bases than ours, there are normally general surgeons with breast specialisms. We all know, and we have been reminded, about the recent catch-up spike in this statistical graph of cases on the Island. This is not what it seems. What we 4780 might consider to be real is the scenario offered to us earlier in the debate about the risks to a patient of a general surgeon with breast specialism, called on to perform bowel surgery. When I was in my late teens, I had to have two very serious operations, performed in one case as an emergency by a general surgeon. If I had been offered the choice of being operated on by a general surgeon with breast specialism, or waiting with my perforated duodenum for another surgeon to 4785 become available, it would not have been a choice.

I am delighted to support the amendment, which I think does it all.


_________________________________________________________________ 1412 T128

The President: Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member for Malew and Santon. 4790 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to echo some of the points from the Lord Bishop there. Anybody who has been

touched by cancer knows the frightening thought of how long you may have and the worry, and even the family involved are touched by it and I think people, unless they have actually been there, do not realise what everybody goes through. 4795

One of the concerns that people have is when they are having a good service and then they think it is getting changed. It is the worry of who is going to come in and take over from this person who has been giving me good service. It does not matter whether it is a surgeon or whether it is any Member in here, when you are representing people, or whether you are providing a service, it is that worry to anybody else: the change. 4800

If you go to the dedicated breast surgeon, the dedicated one, you do not know whether that person is going to be as good in that field as the general surgeon with a specialty in breast. It is still the worry of ‘is that person any good at the job?’ and to that I have got an amendment, if it has been circulated:

4805 To add at the end (whether the main motion is amended or not): ‘and refers the matter of the provision for breast care to the Social Affairs Committee, with an instruction that it report on this matter at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the Department has maintained and enhanced the provision of the breast care service and complied with the Minister’s public commitments’. 4810 This is the stick to make sure that the service is actually enhanced. There is a trust issue behind

this. There is a trust that whether the Department will be enhancing the service: it needs that oversight and, hopefully, this new Tynwald committee which will be set up in the new House with Members from here will be able to scrutinise and make sure the Department is providing the 4815 service that the people and the Department want. The Department says they want to provide the service. Mrs Cannell says she wants a better service. What people need is something there that will give them some reassurance that the Department is being monitored, that they are providing that service.

I would hope that Members would support my amendment that we actually make sure the 4820 Department continues to provide a good service and enhances what it has got. Even if it is just the specialist who comes in, we have to make sure it is enhancement, because from what the Minister told us at lunchtime, you could appoint a specialist breast surgeon and they can do 40 hours. We were told that a number of consultants do additional hours on top of that, providing a service. If your specialist comes in and says, well, I am only happy to do 40 hours and I do not want to do 4825 any more, you may not have an enhancement.

You may have a service that is not providing what you thought you were getting. You have to have something there to say it is enhanced. If you just go with the motion, you could end up with a specialist who is just prepared to do 40 hours and go home and you have got no real independent oversight, if that is a better service. So we have to have some oversight in there and I hope 4830 Members will support.

I beg to move my amendment. The President: Mr Speaker. 4835 The Speaker: Mr President, I am very happy to support this particular amendment and I will

give the reasons why it is, I think, at this stage very important for there to be a degree of parliamentary oversight of this proposal.

I will begin, though, by saying, I think Mrs Cannell has actually done a service by putting the motion down (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) for debate to give the opportunity – (Applause from the 4840 public gallery)

The President: Public gallery, applause and you will be put out. Thank you. The Speaker: – to give the opportunity for some clarity to be brought in. I also welcome the 4845

Department’s provision of information today on the latest occasion, so that we can try and form an objective view about this. The motion on the Order Paper, in effect, is for a dedicated breast surgeon with no general surgical commitment, and that is not what the DHSS wants. The current need within the NHS is for there to be a permanent breast specialist and a general surgery


_________________________________________________________________ 1413 T128

provision that is currently lacking. The information released today by the Department… Malcolm 4850 Clague, who was the general surgeon, who retired in 2009, having provided the consultant element of the on-Island breastcare, has said. It says in that letter that was circulated to Members and is in the public domain:

‘With a population well below 100,000 a fourth Consultant General Surgeon, as well as a dedicated Consultant in 4855 Breast Care, is probably an over-provision of the service at this time.’

That being so, not surprisingly, the Department is attempting to kill two birds with one stone and to utilise one post to deliver both requirements.

There is a requirement to meet, and an obligation to meet, the Royal College of Surgeons’ 4860 standards and, indeed, the contractual obligations that exist to reduce the on-call rotas to no more onerous than one in four. In other words, a fourth general surgeon provision to help cover the emergency care is required, i.e. having four and not three individuals doing general surgery work. One can well understand the Department wishing to fulfil this particular deficiency and it is doing that as well as attempting to address the problem of a dedicated breast service, which we have 4865 enjoyed for the last two years through the full-time attention of the locum. Therefore, the question is will doing it this way – the two activities in the same post – provide better general surgical cover across the Hospital? Will that be at the expense of reducing the present breast cancer service and do so in a way, very conveniently, that has no additional cost to the Department?

What the public are asking, what patients are asking and what we are asking is will there be a 4870 diminution in the current service to patients through fewer hours or fewer facilities being offered to the cause of breast care. That is what people want to know. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Now, the Department says ‘No’, it does not mean that. The one-in-four requirement, they say, can be met without reducing the current number of clinics or theatre sessions. Indeed, the number of theatre sessions is intended to go up to two from one, according to the job description that has been 4875 circulated. So, one might ask how can that be, how can it be possible, given that the present locum is paid for 62 hours, albeit 16 for emergency breast on-call services, which rarely, if ever, are called upon. Given that, is the intention to deliver the same or, indeed, ‘enhanced services’, as the Department maintains? Is this to be met by increasing numbers of lists or the throughput of patients? Currently there are four clinics of three and a half hours, with five streams of patients 4880 being seen, potentially, at each clinic, and there is one theatre session currently.

The intention, we are told, is that the new post will comprise four clinics, but with eight streams of patients being seen by various members of the team and two theatre sessions. So, on the face of it, it is being strongly indicated by the Department that there is a way to deliver the enhanced services, and I can understand the professional case that has been advanced and, indeed, 4885 can accept much of it. The trouble is the public are not yet convinced and they do not have confidence that, at this point in time, the Department are able to deliver those commitments in the way they say, which is the reason I support the amendment in the name of Mr Cregeen, to give an opportunity for independent parliamentary scrutiny over this and report back (A Member: Hear, hear.) to Tynwald Court. This is where the business has started today, in terms of parliamentary 4890 debate, and it is therefore appropriate that we get a direct report by that committee.

Is it all simply a question of terminology and quibbling over semantics, as the Minister has said? I have listened carefully to the explanation about the definition of general surgery and how breast is not a specialism in the way the other nine specialisms are. Of course, there has been public comment to the effect that the locum consultant breast surgeon is registered with the 4895 General Medical Council as a breast specialist with years of experience, and of course it was, I think, very helpful today at the presentation, and perhaps the Minister could have done well to elaborate further on the point that the General Medical Council, we were advised, does not recognise breast surgery for the purposes of specialist registration for doctors trained in the UK. Nor does the GMC recognise breast surgery as a sub-specialty of general surgery for the purposes 4900 of specialist registration. That is a point the Minister did make. All UK-trained breast surgeons, therefore, appear in the GMC specialist register as general surgeons and the only way a surgeon practising in the UK can appear in the GMC specialist register as a breast surgeon is if they have trained overseas. That is probably quite significant information in this particular instance. So, again, the parliamentary committee, the social affairs committee, can test the validity of that 4905 particular argument, the one about semantics, and test the new quality of service against the existing.

Having said all that, and given the Department’s acknowledgement of the way it intends to maintain or enhance the service, does there remain a case, as the motion says, for a full-time dedicated breast surgeon with no general surgical commitment? Having looked at the Isle of Man 4910


_________________________________________________________________ 1414 T128

situation and the numbers involved, the Department very clearly believes that there is no such requirement – that it can kill two birds with one stone.

Of course, with all due respect to the professional advice that is being offered up, there is professional advice also being given in the wider context of global developments, incidence of cancer rates generally, and we have heard some of that this afternoon from the mover of the 4915 motion.

Mr Rainsbury, the President of the Association of Breast Surgery – and I think the communication to Mrs Cannell that has been circulated… she did refer to –says that breast surgery is becoming increasingly sophisticated and the overwhelming majority of breast units in the UK are now appointing pure breast specialists in order to keep up with the rapid pace of new 4920 developments and the escalating workload.

During a plenary session at the Association of Breast Surgery Annual Conference in Manchester last week, the majority of breast surgeons identified themselves as pure breast surgeons with no on-call commitments. The wide range of new developments, and I will not necessarily quote exactly what they are, but they demand even greater specialisation. Mr 4925 Holcombe, as well, has made the same point, that the big challenge is that cancer care, including breast cancer, is becoming increasingly specialised and technical.

So the argument that is being made against the backdrop of the Island situation is that we are, in terms of practice, seeing increasing subspecialisation within breast surgery. We are seeing a greater workload and, apparently, the trend nationally is for individuals who are pure breast 4930 surgeons. That appears to be the trend. Therefore, is it going to be practical or possible for an individual recruited on a contract for 40 hours, with a one-in-four requirement for general surgery work, to be able to meet the expanding demand? The Minister says ‘Yes’ – the figures envisaged are such that that would be possible. We have heard that the way it could be done is that, over and above the 40 hours, any requirement for increased special service would be added on to that. That, 4935 of course, depends if time will tell that the numbers peaked at 93 or 94, whatever it was, and are going to fall back more in line with the previous two years’ growth to 56 breast cancer cases dealt with annually.

So, are the numbers going up or down? Well, of course again, these other eminent professionals are saying that age factors generally, demographics, the European age standardised 4940 rate for breast cancer being predicted to rise from 119 per 100,000 to 124 per 100,000 over the next 12 years, they are making that particular argument and there does appear to be an overall growth upwards.

So, Mr President, that is the backdrop to it and the Department has advanced a case that this particular way of doing things is suitable for the Island’s needs. I do believe that that needs to be 4945 tested against the evidence of both time and practice and I would therefore ask the Court to support the amendment, so that the Court has an opportunity to return to this debate and see if we are right to place confidence in the case that has been made today.

The President: Mr Gill, Hon. Member for Rushen. 4950 Mr Gill: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. I do not intend to speak for too long on this matter, although I do recognise the sensitivity and,

indeed, importance of it. I think and I daresay I would be speaking for many people in this Court, not just on the floor of 4955

the Court, but those in the gallery, those listening on the radio and thinking it is a great shame that we have actually reached this point of having a debate in Tynwald, because this seems eminently to me that both sides could have resolved their differences and understood the matters better through communication and, for whatever reasons, that has not happened. It is not particularly helpful to cast blame around in that matter, but I think those who have that responsibility and have 4960 not worked that through, really have a duty to reflect on that and to assure us and the public that that unfortunate situation will not be allowed to happen in the future. I do not say that with much confidence, Eaghtyrane, I have to say, because of the entrenched positions of people for whatever their motivations have demonstrated.

I think what I would say, however, as a constituency MHK – and I say this to the Government 4965 generally, but to the Department of Health and the DHSS, as formerly is – I can sense that the Members would be frustrated dealing with the Department, because, in the last few years we have had a policy and a practice of not helping us to represent our constituents’ interests, even when we have that permission to do so for that specific area of concern, even when it is in writing. They confirm that that is the Department’s policy and practice and I think that is very unhelpful. It 4970


_________________________________________________________________ 1415 T128

might be more convenient for them, it might be that they will respond to their constituents, but with a copy of the letter for us, but that is in your service in this Court, sir.

That was never the way. It is not the way across Government. If that is to be Government’s way – that the MHKs cannot represent their constituents – then make it across Government. Do not do it piecemeal. Do not do it in presenting issues like medical care, which are understandably 4975 very anxiety provoking for those individuals and their loved ones at that time.

I hope that that message will be taken on board. I am looking to the Chief Minister and to the Health Minister, because this is the Government which has introduced that practice, that policy, and this is the change I have seen in my short time in this Court. I am sorry that the hostility from the Chief Minister is the response we are receiving. So, what to do? 4980

The Department has had the opportunity to counter some of the… or to better tell their story. They are well resourced to do that. They are clearly well able to do it, when it suits them. It is very disappointing that message has not been coming through that, that clarity has been lacking, because that helps nobody, including themselves. Again, I can only ask that they reflect on that.

In terms of moving forward, I think that the two amendments before us in Mr Anderson’s 4985 name and enhanced by Mr Cregeen’s amendment actually go as far as giving us the confidence that the service is not to be diminished and, indeed, is to be enhanced. If that is the case – and I have no reason to doubt the health professionals when they have advised us about that… I do not doubt that for a moment and I do not doubt their commitment to enhancing the service and to maintaining the best possible service within resources. So I think that should be good enough to 4990 move us forward.

I hope that, as a Court, we will accept that, we will vote on that, we will look forward to the comfort the committee report will bring, but I do hope that, in doing that, the other message about allowing and encouraging Members to represent the interests of constituents and meeting with people… so not refusing to meet with other Members when they have a presenting issue… I 4995 cannot see how that could be helpful, certainly not in the circumstances we had it from either side, but with that change of attitude and that appreciation of trying to resolve issues between ourselves, rather than across the floor, I hope that we can support the two amendments, which will, hopefully, have that effect, sir.

5000 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw. Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane. As Mr Gill, who has just resumed his seat, has said, this is a sensitive issue and it is a great

shame, I agree, that it has ended up where it has today, on the floor of this Hon. Court, but there is 5005 more to this motion, in my mind, than meets the eye.

I would like to lead the thoughts of Hon. Members in another direction because the issue, to me, is who runs the Hospital. Is it to be the Minister and his officers, or is it to be pressure groups? If it is the latter, we are in trouble.

Eaghtyrane, I am on my feet today to represent cancer charities on the Island. I chair the 5010 Island’s Council of Cancer Charities and have done so for the last five years. The CCC, just for the information of Hon. Members, represents nine charities. It represents Isle of Man Anti-Cancer Association, Manx Cancer Help, the Anthony Nolan Trust, Hospice Care, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Bowel Cancer Isle of Man, Breast Care Isle of Man, Macmillan Cancer Support and the Isle of Man Lung Cancer Foundation, and today I am representing all those charities and speaking 5015 on their behalf.

The first question I want to pose is: who becomes involved with these charities? As often as not, it is people who have personally suffered the disease of cancer or someone who has cared for a loved one who has succumbed to the illness. Their sincerity and commitment to the charities they support are unquestionable. Why do they do it? Invariably, it is to help others who may suffer 5020 cancer in the future. What do they do? The answer to this can vary. Much depends on the particular skills of the individuals concerned. It covers such things as the vital ingredient of fund raising, which can take many guises, but it also covers, crucially, support by way of counselling for patients recently diagnosed, as well as those undergoing treatment and those who are, hopefully, recovering from the illness. 5025

Considerable skills are required to do this and most patients being counselled derive great comfort from talking to someone who shared their own personal experience.

Some of the charities I am representing today provide many additional services to these and Hon. Members will be well aware of the good work undertaken by Macmillan and Hospice Care, the two largest charities represented. Most involved with the charities are volunteers. Many work 5030


_________________________________________________________________ 1416 T128

tirelessly, year-in and year-out, for others. Many make a lifelong commitment to these tasks and their driver is caring for others.

All the charities I have mentioned have been involved over the last few years in working up a better cancer charity for the Isle of Man… better cancer strategy, I beg your pardon, Eaghtyrane – a better cancer strategy for the Isle of Man. It has been a long and, at times, arduous road. Funding 5035 has not always been easy to come by from the Department. The Department of Health have competing issues from other parties, other charities who want to push their case, and there is a balance the Department has to strike.

One way and another, the cancer charities have achieved success and, as Chairman for the last five years, I am pleased to have been a part of that process. I like to think we work in partnership 5040 with the Department and I believe we have an appropriate level of trust and understanding between us. We have a good relationship. I know, in fact the charities all know as well, that they cannot do everything all at once, but by working with the Department we are achieving some solid outcomes and I am grateful to the Minister and his predecessor for what has taken place during my time. 5045

So let us examine what has been going on with the action group, headed by Mrs Cannell. What has been the impact on the charities of their actions? To begin with, the charities not directly involved with breast cancer view the action of the group as extremely selfish and aggressive. To them it has been a ‘me-me-me campaign’ and we should be mindful, Hon. Members, that cancer can strike any part of the body, and it does. Why, therefore, should a dedicated surgeon be 5050 employed for breast surgery, rather than, for instance, bowel cancer? The same, no doubt, goes for other illnesses

For those involved with the breast cancer charities, the impact has been much closer to home. The charities are populated by the caring people I referred to earlier. They are not politicians, but they have been dragged mercilessly into a political scrap. (A Member: Hear, hear.) 5055

Thankfully, they have had the toughness of mind to resist the pressures which have been put on them, unfair pressures; but it has had an impact and it has caused damage to the charities concerned, an unintentioned damage, perhaps, but the outcome has been felt from the many who have signed the campaign petition Mrs Cannell has run.

I do hope the damage caused will be repaired in time. 5060 Mr Henderson: What damage? Mr Earnshaw: It is not deserved and it will take some time. 5065 Mr Henderson: Give us some evidence, Adrian. Mr Earnshaw: I now want to mention the public meeting at the Manx Legion Club a little

while ago. Personally, I was surprised that attendees were invited to sign the petition on the way in. Many signed, but my surprise came from the fact that they were invited to sign before hearing 5070 the arguments for and against.

Once inside, I listened to the cases being put by the two parties. I do not know the current jobholder, Miss Hamo, who works for the hospital as a locum, but what was clear is she is greatly appreciated by patients she serves. This is understandable. If you are diagnosed with cancer it is, at least for the vast majority, a shattering experience. I have a lot of personal knowledge of this 5075 illness through my own family.

Those who believe their life has been saved, however, regard the surgeon as their saviour; but that, when you think about it, is the job of the surgeon. They are professionals and their function is to save lives, not to lose them.

Miss Hamo is doing her job and I can perfectly understand how much her patients think of her. 5080 The point I am trying to make here, Eaghtyrane, is that others can fulfil this role just as well as Miss Hamo, however good she may be, however popular she may be. As a professional, she is simply doing her job, and this has been the consistent message of the Department.

At the Legion Club, my colleague, Mr Anderson, endeavoured throughout the evening to get his point across that the advertised job for a general surgeon with a specialism in breast care would 5085 not result in any diminution of the service provided to patients at Noble’s Hospital. Sadly, the message seemed to be falling on deaf ears and few were interested in listening. All evening, he met hostility and I felt he was continuously unfairly rubbished by a variety of contributors. The joy of politics! All this is a shame. In my view, Mr Anderson is an upright man who conducts himself properly. He is a decent man and he is an asset to the constituency he serves in Glenfaba. He has a 5090 tough job to do as Minister for Health, and running the Department of Health is not an easy task.


_________________________________________________________________ 1417 T128

Eaghtyrane, I want to summarise the views of the cancer charities. All have been united in their support for the Department. At the CCC our medical adviser is Professor Howard Scarffe, a retired distinguished oncologist. The Isle of Man Anti-Cancer Association has among its number Mr Malcolm Clague, the former breast surgeon at Noble’s Hospital. Writing in Isle of Man 5095 Newspapers this week is his twin brother, Dr Roy Clague, who retired from his position of consultant physician in rheumatology at Noble’s.

We have the full support of other professionals. Between all the cancer charities I have named, plus the medical professionals, we have all supported the direction of travel of the Department in this matter. We are united. We cannot all be wrong. 5100

Hon. Members, this sadly has been a bitter issue and a lot of hostility has been evident towards the breast cancer charities and some others. I am not going to attack the action group for their efforts, Mr President, other than to say they have been, in my view, misled and egged on by Mrs Cannell, the mover. The time has now come, however, to draw a line under this matter and move on. We need to do this in the interests of patients who will have suffered many fears and 5105 uncertainties over this matter at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.

Now we come to the two amendments. I will be guided by the Minister regarding this. Personally, I would like to vote against the motion as it is presented on the Order Paper, because I think we are getting in rather a muddle with the amendments that have been put before us. I am not sure how helpful he sees the second amendment that has been put down. The first one is his 5110 own. I will certainly support that. I will listen to what he has to say about Mr Cregeen’s motion when –

Mrs Cannell: Amendment. 5115 Mr Earnshaw: Amendment, later on. The point I was to make, Eaghtyrane, overriding this, is let’s make sure it is the Department of

Health who run the Hospital and not anybody else. The President: Mr Malarkey. 5120 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. I had not really intended to speak this evening, but it is a very emotive subject and very late in

the day we got given a presentation at lunchtime with regard to where the Minister stands with this. 5125

Over the last few weeks, with a very open mind, I went to the presentation that was given down at the Legion Club. I have had letters, like other Members had, from constituents and made a point of actually going and sitting and speaking with constituents, rather than trying to talk to them on the phone to get a feel as to where the emotion was coming from and what their views were. It is a very emotive subject. I think cancer probably affects the lives of every person in this Hon. 5130 Court tonight. Somewhere down the line we know somebody, we know of somebody’s family, or it may be part of our own family. It might not necessarily be breast cancer, but cancer certainly affects people’s lives.

My own mother was diagnosed with cancer in 2002. After surgery, the family was quite upset to find out that the prognosis was that only 10% live over two years. At the time the surgeon who 5135 did the operation, Mr Paige from Broad Green brought the news to us and we were obviously quite upset about it. I am happy to say that she got the all clear some seven year later and my family actually believed that that man could walk on water because he had done such a fantastic job and we got eight more wonderful years with my mother. So it does affect everybody, Mr President, in all sorts of ways. 5140

When I went to speak to my constituents and listened to some stories, just like I have given you, heartfelt ones, and how grateful they were to Miss Hamo, who I have never met but I believe she can walk on water on some of the stories I have been hearing, on the service that she has been giving on this Island, I can understand why the emotion of the gallery and people who like her so much… I truly do, but I have to be realistic as to what we have to do as parliamentarians in here 5145 and what Government policies are. Government policies are we have to advertise this job. Believe me, I do not believe in locums. I have found out through my own Department how much, through mental health and other areas, locums cost taxpayers dearly, so I do believe that this job has to be filled and filled permanently, if possible, and there is a procedure to go through to do that.

So the real discussion of today is down to job description. The argument I have had with my 5150 constituents, at the end of the day, is I will not vote for anything that is going to make the breast cancer surgery in the Isle of Man less than what we have today. I will not come into this Chamber


_________________________________________________________________ 1418 T128

and vote for anything that is going to demean that service that we already have. Whether it is with the present consultant or whether it is with a different consultant, I want to hold my head up high when I walk out of this Chamber tonight, knowing that the service is not only going to be as good 5155 but probably better, and if I am not happy here and here, I will not be voting… I would vote for Mrs Cannell’s motion today.

Come lunchtime today, I had an opportunity to ask some questions that I had not had an opportunity to ask before. I do think the Minister was rather late in the day and I think, had this happened a lot earlier, a lot of information that has been flying around could have been squashed a 5160 lot earlier and I do not like when this Government comes to us at the 11th hour and starts giving us the real facts. It should have been done a lot earlier. But I do say that when I walked out of that meeting today I was a lot happier than I had been. I had a chance to ask the experts, get some information, the information that was not clear in my mind, information that was flying backwards and forwards from Departments, from circulated letters, from e-mails. As laymen, how are we 5165 supposed to take what is true and what is not? We are talking about surgeons here. We are talking about specialists who have spent a lot of time training to do these jobs, specialising in things.

The first thing I wanted to know is when the present locum took the job, what was her job description then? Was she just a specialist in breast cancer? We got told today, most definitely, she was a general surgeon who specialised in breast cancer. She was not solely a breast cancer 5170 surgeon. That cleared one point up for me. We were also told that she had, since taking the post, to get rid of the backlog, specialised in breast cancer. We also got told she is still recognised as a general surgeon in breast cancer, as far as the Medical Association is concerned. So she is more than allowed to apply for this job. There is absolutely nothing stopping her, even with the present job description, going for this job. 5175

I think what I am trying to get at, Mr President, is I have come to the conclusion today that certainly the service in the Isle of Man is not going to be diminished in any way. I think it is going to be enhanced. I have always had this problem with this 80%, 20%, 60%, 40%, who is on call, who is not on call, but it was described to us with a little chart on a little piece of paper today on a wall, which made it a lot clearer to us. It was a lot clearer to us because we had not had this 5180 information before. It had not been forthcoming.

The two amendments coming through this evening, I think, say it all. I think I am inclined to go with the Minister’s amendment on one condition: that the amendment by Mr Cregeen goes with it, because this makes them accountable and then it has to come back to this Court, whether we are all here or not – I do not know after the Election – but this debate will be on Hansard. The 5185 promises made by the Department will be on Hansard and we will be able to come back, hopefully – I say, hopefully – after the Election and hold the Department to account because clearly everything it says and the Department has promised in here today, if this amendment goes through, it will have to keep.

So, as I said at the start, Mr President, I have no intention of voting for anything that does not 5190 enhance what we already have and I believe after lunchtime’s debate and discussion and the amendments before us this evening, I believe that we will be able to hold the Department to account.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle. 5195 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I do not doubt people’s genuine fears and concerns in relation to this very serious matter. There

can hardly be anybody in the Isle of Man who has not had family members or friends affected, and that certainly includes me, but I do think the petition, as well-intentioned as it was, did rather point 5200 to an outcome which would encourage people to sign it, because the very first line of it says:

‘ The annual number of breast cancer cases has exceeded 90 for the first time, yet David Anderson, MHK, the Health Minister, is planning to downgrade our dedicated breast surgeon.’ 5205 So immediately people were getting the impression that the whole service is being

downgraded. Yet, if we look at what has now come forward as an amendment, if I went round to each and every person who signed that petition, several thousands of them, and if I came up with the petition that said, ‘I support the Department of Health ensuring that the breast care service is maintained and enhanced to ensure that there is no diminution in the present level of service 5210 provided within the Island and supports the Department continuing to provide a dedicated breast care service led by a surgeon specialising in breast surgery, thereby securing the service provided to patients’, I do not think there will be many people out of that several thousand who signed the


_________________________________________________________________ 1419 T128

petition who would not have signed that particular petition if it was raised in that way – but that is the amendment that we have with us, before us tonight, which I will be supporting. 5215

I think I would also like to put on record my appreciation to the Minister for the information and briefing today and the full explanation given by himself, the officers who were there and the professional officers who were there, too, which hopefully will have done much to reassure people who attended.

The one thing I would say is there has been criticism about the lateness of that briefing but, in 5220 fact, as I understand it, it could well be that it was held pretty quickly in response to the information – a huge amount of information – circulated by Mrs Cannell in a letter dated 16th June – only received then, presumably, last Friday. So for the Department to have analysed the information, sought to provide, then, the clear, correcting information of the inaccuracies that were contained in some of the information distributed, that is why we had a presentation today. I think 5225 that is self evident.

Just in relation to the amendment from the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen, before seeing his amendment, I had actually written down a note saying that, as a commitment on behalf of my constituents of Middle, many of them who I know signed the petition and, indeed, across the Island and, hopefully, if elected, I had a note here that I would continue to monitor the 5230 situation to ensure that improvements actually happen. I know we have got the amendment from Mr Cregeen, which obviously, then, puts it in the hands of the Social Affairs Committee, but I am also equally aware, as we all are here in Tynwald, that the Tynwald Policy Decisions Report also would have been obliged to give an update from time to time about how the Department of Health was dealing with this particular motion that, hopefully, we will agree tonight. Having said that, I 5235 know the extra amendment that has come forward… I am more than happy to support that because it is only doing really what I think the Tynwald Policy Decisions Report also would have done.

With that, Mr President, I think the final thing I would like to say is, unfortunately, there are several thousand people who signed the petition who will not be privy to the briefing that we had today, who will not have had all the information and explanations that we have had today and in 5240 recent weeks when we have been individually clarifying matters with the Minister for Health – and I thank him for that. So it is unfortunate that by the petition being signed in a way by the several thousand people, they will not all be listening tonight and will not get the detailed explanation that we have all been privy to, that people in the Gallery have and, of course, those who are listening to Manx Radio. I just think we somehow now need to ensure that those across the Island get similar 5245 reassurance, particularly those who signed the petition, because they are the ones who have a presumption that the service is being downgraded, when, in fact, there are fantastic enhancements that are being pledged to us.

Thank you, Mr President. 5250 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Corkish. Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr President and Mrs Cannell. In beginning my contribution to this debate, I may say that I do not speak from a totally

detached position but I am involved in the area of cancer care and research as Chairman of the Isle 5255 of Man Anti-Cancer Association referred to by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw, an Association which, for 50 years, has raised many millions of pounds for research and care not only in this area, but for many areas in cancer research and help.

I do regret, as other people have said, Mr President, that this emotive and sensitive subject has become so public and that the excellent, valuable and life-saving work carried out over a long 5260 period of time by gifted and dedicated professionals in this particular field has become somewhat, perhaps, forgotten and almost overlooked.

Such is the role of politicians that, sooner or later, and probably often, we will be compromised in our deliberations on issues that come before us. The Members of this Hon. Court sought office to help, assist, facilitate and give to our Island wherever we can to the best of our ability – it 5265 sounds a little corny, but there it is – and we take advice, where possible, as has indeed the Minister for the Department of Health. I therefore seek some clarification, as much as possible, to add one or two points on this issue for our consideration in this important debate and irrespective of who is moving this motion.

Can I just refer back to the advertisement, just to clear up my perception and view of this, the 5270 original advertisement placed. It was said by some that it was a general surgeon with an interest in breast/urology. This is completely incorrect. As I understand it, the job description clearly states a consultant surgeon with a specialist interest in breast care.


_________________________________________________________________ 1420 T128

There is no urology surgery, as such, involved, except as part of the normal general on-call rota, which will, in theory, cover urology, but in practice a consultant urologist would be called in 5275 for emergency work. There has been assurance by the Department and the hospital that this post is for a specialist breast surgeon with a small proportion of their remit for general surgery on-call work.

The increase in cases that Mrs Cannell quotes as an alarming rise in cases is largely due to the expected increase in cases following the introduction of the call-recall screening services, of which 5280 service the Isle of Man Anti-Cancer Association was instrumental in starting and part funding. Most of these are very early cancers, or in fact pre cancers, which are eminently treatable. The numbers currently being diagnosed are showing a decline back to our normal rate of approximately 60-70 cases a year and they are unlikely to go above the peak of last year, according to both Malcolm Clague, now retired, and Dr Peter Evans, who was the resident 5285 radiologist.

The information the mover of this motion has given to both Chris Holcombe and Mr Rainsbury, President of the Association of Breast Surgery in the UK, may have been thought to have been skewed to suit her case. For instance, she attributes all of the new innovations in the breast service, such as call-recall screening, breast care nurses, MDTs etc, to the present locum 5290 consultant. This is totally incorrect, as all the aspects of the service she mentions were introduced by Malcolm Clague, and some many years ago.

Two of the Island breast cancer charities, together with Isle of Man Anti-Cancer Association, as I say, were very involved in campaigning for the call-recall service.

Mr President, I believe the action group and Mrs Cannell are incorrect in their statement that 5295 the present locum consultant is a breast specialist. She is, in fact, a general surgeon with an interest in breast care, and that was her last locum post. In the Isle of Man, she is, doubtless, grateful for the fact that she does not have to be on call. The local consultant at present has considerable administrative time in her working week and also spends a number of Fridays in Liverpool for training sessions, thus keeping her skills level up, and all paid on a locum basis at a significant 5300 cost.

A dedicated breast centre requires a population of 300,000 to 350,000 and at least 150 newly diagnosed patients a year. We are nowhere near that figure in the Island. The proposed post is in keeping with other towns and areas in the UK of similar size, or often considerably larger, where the breast surgeon has to cover general surgery on calls. In an ideal world, and mentioned by Mr 5305 Rainsbury, breast surgeons would prefer to concentrate 100% on breast surgery, but in real terms and finance this is only happening currently in the very large centres. Towns such as Cheltenham and Chichester have consultant general surgeons with an interest in breast care as their title but, in effect, they are specialist breast surgeons. The action group and Mrs Cannell have apparently not taken this fact on board. Mr Rainsbury refers to a patient referral of 25 per week, most, of course, 5310 thankfully diagnosed as non cancers, and as being expected by a population of 300,000, and requiring two surgeons.

In the Department’s job description is the provision of a named permanent specialty doctor to support the new consultant post – not mentioned by Mrs Cannell, I do not think – and to participate in the on-call rota. 5315

Mr Rainsbury further quotes a current figure of 190 per 100,000 and increasing, which is approximately 50 a year for our population, as has been mentioned earlier. We have a higher rate than that, but similar to the north west, which is higher than some areas in the UK, and would not indicate that our figures are going to rise above 100, as I think Mrs Cannell predicts. There is no way a similar sized population in the UK would have anything different to what the Department 5320 are proposing.

The breast service needs a permanent member of staff to develop the service on a permanent basis. The locum consultant can leave at any time, giving very little notice. She may also retire. Her age is uncertain – I am not sure of the lady’s age – but, either way, she will not be planning to be here for long, especially as she lives in London, I think. 5325

The key steps which Mr Rainsbury congratulates the Island on were all put in place at a time when we had a general surgeon in place with an interest in breast and they were not as a result of us having a specialist surgeon. Mr Rainsbury makes the point that breast surgery is becoming more specialised, as indeed Mr Speaker alluded to earlier – ‘specialised and sophisticated’ I think he said – rather than less. Where does it all end? Do we end up needing three different breast 5330 specialist consultants specialising in different aspects, or three different consultant pathologists specialising in different types of pathology, or three different oncologists specialising in different oncology? We need to have a sustainable solution for the future. The fact is that the Island is never going to be able to afford this trend towards increased specialisation, with a population of 82,000.


_________________________________________________________________ 1421 T128

Mr President, we have been well and worthily served by our breast care surgeons in the past. 5335 The Department of Health repeatedly, and I believe honestly, say that this level of care will not diminish. No reduction and I, like many people and, in fact, all of the Members of this Hon. Court, would not support anything less. (Members: Hear, hear.)

There are, and there will be, many watchers, both within this Hon. Court and without, who will ensure that the promises made in respect of this important and emotive issue, amply illustrated by 5340 the number of public in the gallery present in this Court today, will be kept and honoured.

Can I just add that my charity has an excellent working relationship with the Department of Health that will continue.

Mr President, I will be supporting the amendment in the name… or I would like to support the amendment of both, echoing what Mr Malarkey, the Hon. Member for Douglas South, has said, 5345 that the Department of Health amendment is a good one; but I would like to see the amendment in the name of Mr Cregeen of Malew and Santon also in plurality, perhaps, with that, to ensure that what we expect, and I believe will be honestly given by the Department of Health, will be honoured.

Thank you, Mr President. 5350 The President: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, I think it has been a very interesting debate. I came into this debate

this morning with the idea that maybe one should totally support the Government on this proposal, 5355 but I am actually more concerned now than I was before because what concerns me is the likes of… We did have the presentation, we had almost half an inch of papers given to us at dinner time, and there were some interesting contributions within that, but we have got no opportunity to actually go and talk to those individuals about the contributions that they have put in black-and-white. 5360

I think that the issue should not be about who signed what. I think what we need to do is work out what is right and what is wrong, and I have to say that I have found it very difficult to work out what is fact and what is fiction, as far as this debate is concerned. Little things concern me. We are told that there is not a downgrading of the service, which is a full-time service, but now it is going to be 80% of the service that it was supposed to be. 5365

I know that you defy logic in this place, on an item-by-item basis, and we can pogo on our heads, and I might be only a humble person who started his academic life in the Sunshine School at Pulrose, but the fact is if we have got a full-time service and we are told that we are going to end up replacing it with 80% of a full-time service, then that is a downgrade in anybody’s logical argument outside this Hon. Court. 5370

I also think that it is important that, whilst sitting next to the Chief Minister, we understand that the amendments have got the ‘royal prerogative’ as far as the support as far as these amendments are concerned, so there will not be any revolution as far as these amendments are concerned. My only concern is who will be on the Social Affairs Committee, allowing for the fact that we did see an improvement on the fact that what was proposed at the last House is a revelation compared to 5375 10 or 15 years ago, when the moon would have fallen out of the sky for such proposals.

I think that we do need some clarity and, unfortunately, the Minister has not got the right to reply. I was quite shocked that people who have been here not only five years, but even longer, do not seem to realise that on an amendment they do not have the right to reply, as far as an amendment is concerned. I hope that Mr Butt will be replying to the points that are raised because 5380 I do think we need to know that. If we are told we have got a full-time post now and we are then told that we are going to have a full-time post but 80% of that post is going to be filled, then it is a reduction in service. We need to be clear, we need to be straight and we need to stop the lhiam-lhiat-ism. We understand within the Court that we are in a difficult situation, as far as this debate is concerned, but we should not be trying to define the situation where we are trying to turn black 5385 into white, and I believe on that point alone… I think that needs to be clarified.

I have to say that I am very pleased that when we talk about the medical service today it is a far better medical service. When I remember, as a Member for Health, the situation we were not even allowed any representation on the theatre users’ group, so we had little control over the interventions and the activity lists, as far as theatres are concerned. I am really pleased that, whilst 5390 it has not gone far enough, I have a lot more confidence in the structure and I have heard reasonably good viewpoints about the medical director and that the situation is that it has improved out of all recognition.

What I have to say, as far as this debate is concerned, is I think that is something that we need to clarify, Mr Butt. Let’s be honest about it. If it is a downgrade on the service and we cannot 5395


_________________________________________________________________ 1422 T128

afford it, then let’s be straight about it, but let’s stop this ‘economics of La-La Land’, as far as the situation is… If this is being done partly on the basis of financial problems, then let’s have that clear and understood one way or the other.

I would also like to just say that I am concerned – and I am sure that I have no fears – that we have some absolutely fantastic consultants within the hospital. We have got some absolutely 5400 fantastic consultants who are a real asset to our society and a real honour and pleasure to our society, as far as they contribute well to us. What I am concerned about is I do hope that this is an issue on the basis of professionalism and not personalities, as far as this whole affair is concerned, because it does worry me that that is one thing that does concern me as well. I do hope that we are finding a situation, as far as this issue is concerned, after the Hon. Member of Council, Mr Butt, 5405 the Member for Health, clarifies the point of how a full-time post becomes an 80 % post, but then it is actually an increase in the services.

I think the other thing that needs to be made sure of is the fact that we are doing this on the basis of professionalism. I have to say, Eaghtyrane, as far as the Health Service is concerned, it is far better, it is more accountable than it was when we had no control over our consultants, as far as 5410 input is concerned, on a number of issues, and in many cases there should not be the waiting list there is in the hospital. We knew that when I was Member for Health but was not Minister. I think it is important that we must make sure that this is being done on the best of professional clinical advice, as far as this is concerned.

Those are the only two caveats I have got that I want the Member for Health to sort out, 5415 because I am very, very concerned because there will be decisions that will have to be made in the future. This needs to be clarified, that it is not a financial issue and it is not a clash of personalities as far as the present people.

We are all against locums. We want to change. What we have to do, Eaghtyrane, as a former Member for Health, is manage to develop the strategy, as far as our Health Service is concerned, 5420 that it is not a cul-de-sac, coming to live on the Island, for people’s careers. Many of the things have been fought on, as far as trying to keep an element of teaching within the Hospital in the past and I do feel that that is a problem that we have got.

What I am concerned about is here we are today, we get a presentation, we get some letters on which I would have liked to have been able to go back to the individual, because I have the highest 5425 regard for him, just to clarify a few points. If we are doing this debate today on the grounds that it is efficiency and effectiveness, then we need to clarify those points. If we are doing this thing today because of the economic situation, the people outside this Hon. Court need to be informed, as far as that is concerned.

As far as I am concerned, I am quite happy to see the Hon. Member for Santon and Malew’s 5430 amendment going forward. I think we have come a long way with the proposals that came at the last sitting, which I congratulate… [Inaudible] on, which were so impossible so many years ago, that now are acceptable. But I do think that we do need the Department to come clean, as far as the issue of whether cost is leading this or whether it is the service that is actually leading this requirement. 5435

The President: Hon. Members, I am conscious of the clock. It is my desire, Hon. Members, if

practical, to finish this debate this evening. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) I have to tell you, Hon. Members, that I still currently have four Members wishing to speak

before I invite Mrs Cannell to wind up. If you are conscious of that, Hon Members, I am quite 5440 prepared to continue.

Mr Anderson: Mr President, point of order. Could you clarify for the Hon. Member for Onchan, who has just resumed his seat, that I do

have the right to reply to an amendment that has been put on the floor of the Court, since I moved 5445 my amendment?

The President: You can speak to the amendment later, sir. Mr Butt, Hon. Member. 5450 Mr Butt: Thank you, sir. Mr President, I will start by addressing the concerns of the Member for Onchan, Mr Karran,

about the workload and the job plan. Firstly, can I assure everybody in this Court that this application to provide a new consultant

for breast care is not driven at all by politicians or by our senior civil servants in the Department; it 5455 is driven by clinical need and at the request of the clinical staff.


_________________________________________________________________ 1423 T128

Secondly, it is also nothing to do with money whatsoever. Since Mr Malcolm Clague retired, the breast care service has needed some direction. He, as Mr Corkish said, did set up all the things in place now. He set up the teams and the staffing as it exists now. He was the man behind making the breast service the modern system that it is now but, once he retired, he had to be replaced. In 5460 the short-term, a locum was appointed. Unfortunately then, I think for nearly three years, the Department has not managed to resolve that situation and now we have come to the point where it is being resolved. It has not been driven by cost.

In the last few months we have had many, many debates over this about how we go forward with the breast care service given to us by the clinical staff. There was to be a three-year plan to 5465 improve the service. The first was to appoint a consultant to lead the three-year plan. The second was to bring in sentinel node biopsy, and the third was to bring in, where possible on the Island, breast reconstruction. That was a three-year plan.

Mr President, while that has been being formulated, we have fought to find funds to do that. To bring in sentinel node biopsy is going to cost money. To bring in breast reconstruction on the 5470 Island is going to cost money. Obviously, to pay for a consultant surgeon is going to cost money. This is not cost neutral. I think Mr Speaker said that it is cost neutral. It is not cost neutral. This will cost money, and within the Department we had quite a battle to find the money to achieve this.

If I could just move on to the current workload, which answers Mr Karran’s question, the 5475 current locum has a job plan, which I think has been circulated to Members earlier on. In the job plan, there is one theatre per week of four hours. In that theatre, two to three patients per week are dealt with. The current locum has a 30-hours-a-week direct clinical commitment – that is 30 hours per week. The locum is actually contracted for a total of 62 hours, of which 16 are for emergencies. That leaves a spare 16 hours per week which the locum can work. In fact, the locum 5480 often goes across to England, most weeks, and works in Liverpool, and in Liverpool the locum keeps up her skills and provides a service in Liverpool, and we pay, as a Department, to send her over there to make sure her skills are maintained. So there is spare capacity within the post to provide the extra services. The current workload for the locum was busy when there were 90 cases per year being referred and there was a peak, because of the call and recall, where 90 cases were at 5485 the peak, or 93 cases.

On 12th July this year, Mr President, in the next two or three weeks, we are going to introduce bowel cancer screening, which I am very grateful to the Treasury and other people for being able to maintain for us. Bowel cancer screening is going to make a big difference to our workload, as well. Bowel cancer will kill about 25 people per year at the moment, and we will have the call-5490 and-recall system for that. We know and we are resourcing for that, that there will be, over the next two or three years, a big increase in the number of bowel cancer patients and the work that needs to be done to look after them – we will need extra staff and facilities – but we do know, and it happens everywhere where there is a recall system, those levels will go back down roughly to where they are now. 5495

Mr President, I am convinced from the figures we have before us this week that, so far this year, 26 cases have been diagnosed of breast cancer and it is quite likely that, by the end of the year, it will be around about 60. The plateau has been reached and is now coming down.

I was interested to hear what Mr Speaker said about the rate of cancer increasing over the years. I think he said that, over a 12-year period, the rate will increase 119 per 100,000 to 124 per 5500 100,000, and that equates in 100,000 to five extra people over 12 years, if what he said is correct. That means in the Isle of Man we are perhaps talking about four extra people over 12 years that are likely to come through to us with breast cancer. There will be increases because the population is ageing and there will be more people living longer who will become afflicted with breast cancer, but that will be on a gradual rise, as with the gradual rise in the age of people living. It is not going 5505 to be unmanageable and, as time goes on and we need more resources, we could then bring them in.

If I could just talk about the new workload which Mr Karran has an interest in, as well. We had a presentation at lunchtime, for those who were there, which showed that, at the moment, there is one theatre per week and we intend to increase that to two theatres per week – two four-hour 5510 periods. Of that second theatre, in theory, 50% of that will be for general surgery. In practice, if needed, it could be used for breast surgery. So even at the very minimum, there will be a 50% increase in the amount of theatre time available for the breast cancer surgeon.

In addition, there will be, by the terms of the job description, an enhanced medical team to support this breast surgeon. So there will be more resources in terms of people and medical team 5515 to work with the breast surgeon. I think Mrs Cannell quoted a comment from one of her experts


_________________________________________________________________ 1424 T128

from across, that it is likely to be 50-50 in terms of general surgery and breast care; in fact, the reality is, it will be 80-20 in favour of breast care.

If I can just turn to the supervisory element of being on call, Mr President, I make no direct comparisons but I have spent a lot of my life on call and I know what that means. You have to be 5520 available on the phone to give advice or attend, if necessary. I was not there to save lives; I was there for other reasons. These people, surgeons, have a very important role. We heard today that when you are on call as a surgeon, on the on-call rota, your job is basically supervisory. You are at home, but available. You give advice to the team who actually are working in the hospital, doing the surgery, dealing with the emergencies. We were told today by Mr Steve Upsdell, who I have 5525 ultimate faith in, that the person on call would very rarely get involved in actual hands-on involvement in the hospital with the surgery, unless there were some dire emergency. The person is on call to give advice and provide advice to the team who are there, who are doing their duty, anyway. We are also told that there are between 4 and 4.5 episodes per day of emergency admission – not all of those end up in surgery. Only a small proportion of those will actually need 5530 surgery.

Mr President, can I just turn to the current locum. This is not about the locum and it should not be about the current locum. It is about the position that we need to fill. I do understand, and I have had people say this to me personally, that the current locum is very popular with her patients, very sympathetic with people, and breast cancer patients find her a boon to them in their struggle for 5535 what they are trying to go through. But, Mr President, that person is a locum and we cannot rely on a locum to lead the service through into the future. A locum, as somebody else said earlier, can go at any time at fairly short notice and we would be left with a big hole to fill, and I am sure, if she did go, she would leave a big hole. It is very important to point out and keep saying that that locum is a consultant surgeon with a specialist interest in breast care. That is her grade, that is her 5540 rank. That was her rank when she arrived here in the Isle of Man – that is still her rank and still her grade. She is able to apply for this job: she fits the criteria exactly. There is no reason why that person should not apply for this job. She is experienced, she is of an age where she could perhaps lead a team, she has the expertise.

I would just make another point, sir, about that. The selection panel for this post will not be me 5545 or politicians or senior civil servants. The selection panel will be medically qualified people and they will include a member of one of the breast care cancer charities. A lay member will be on that appointment committee to decide if this person, whoever it is who is appointed, will be suitable, as far as the charities are concerned. I think it is very important to bear that in mind.

I would just like to make another point about the cancer charities. We have had mention of 5550 those from two Members. I know that Sharon Maddrell, who is the Chairman of Isle of Man Breast Care, was initially opposed to what we are trying to do. She spoke to us and spoke to our medical experts and she put a letter into the paper where she basically said the problem with this issue is the terminology of what the post is described as. A lot of it is to do with that.

Sharon Maddrell, Mr President, is an advocate and when I used to prosecute in the courts many 5555 years ago –

Mr Houghton: She is not. You are mistaken. (Interjections) Mr Butt: Oh, sorry. Apologies then. 5560 I was going to say I thought she was the advocate. Apologies, Mr President. Mr Houghton: Postmaster, Ramsey. Mr Butt: Right. Well, I do hope that Sharon Maddrell, who is referred to in this, is not the sort 5565

of person who would be easily persuaded by the Department to roll over and just take what we say at face value. I am sure she is independent enough to actually make her own mind up and make her own decisions on that.

Mr President, I think the main point of this is, which is mentioned again by somebody else, who actually runs the Health Service? The Minister is responsible for the Health Service – that is a 5570 given and there is no doubt about that – but the actual clinical running of the day-to-day operations of Health have to be done by experts.

If we were to support this motion today, which I know is a popular idea from a lot of people, it would actually mean that Tynwald would start to run the Health Service. Tynwald would have to make decisions on how things are run and Tynwald, believe me, would have to find an awful lot 5575 more money if they decided they would run it. Every day, or every year, in the Hospital, hundreds of decisions, or maybe thousands of decisions are made by the staff in the Hospital and the Health


_________________________________________________________________ 1425 T128

Service generally, some of them life and death decisions, but all of them will be about quality of care for people. Those decisions are made, day in and day out, by the experts and clinicians and they should be left to do that. We provide the finance and some policy and direction, but we 5580 should provide no more. Tynwald should not be the body that decides on individual job applications or procedures as to what should happen. Surely, they should oversee on how the money is spent and are we providing a good service, but they should not be making the decisions as to who does what.

Mr President, I will just turn to a couple of points made by other Members. 5585 Firstly, to Mr Gill. He actually said the Department have been putting their message across in a

very poor way. Now that may well be true, but I do not think it is for a lack of trying. We have been putting our message across for months now and the recognised charities throughout the Isle of Man have listened and have understood and we have heard evidence today from two Members about how most of the charities have understood the message we are trying to get across and that 5590 we are doing the right thing.

There are some people who do not get the message or maybe get misinformed, and we cannot help that.

To Mr Malarkey I would like to apologise for the late briefing today. It is rather late and it has perhaps not given people enough time to read everything that is there but, in fact, it is because the 5595 proposer of the motion gave us a briefing on Thursday with some information and, for whatever reason, some of the information which we think that she gave was not as accurate as perhaps it could have been, and the people in England who responded to it were given, perhaps, different messages to what the actual facts were, and we had to respond to that. That was last Thursday. We have had a couple of days to go through the information and try to respond to it. So apologies for 5600 the late briefing today, but we did not have time to try to correct what were perhaps genuine errors by the proposer, but they were errors.

Mr President, I would just finally go on to say that, like Mr Malarkey, I would not vote for anything that would cause a reduction in this service. I would not do so. I have been in the Department for just over a year now and this has been a discussion topic for quite some time. I 5605 would never contemplate supporting the move that we are proposing if I thought in any way there would be any reduction in service. I am convinced, and I will guarantee, there will be an increase in service whoever we appoint as the consultant. Had I thought we were going through this for the wrong reasons or to save money, I would have left the Department and resigned. No doubt about that at all. 5610

Mr President, I will just reiterate a couple of other points: this is not a reduction in service; it will cost us money; we are not doing it to save money. I am convinced that there will be provided a better service with more clinic time, more surgery time, and we will have the ability, as things develop and as specialisms develop, to give more time to whoever is in the role to increase the service into the future. 5615

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Chief Minister. The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. 5620 I am not going to go over a lot of the points that have already been made, because clearly they

have been made very well by those who are contributing to this debate, but I do think it has been a really interesting and measured debate here today, which I think is important, because it reflects the mixed public opinions, in other words the different sides of the point that is being made by those who are concerned and interested in the whole subject matter. 5625

My view, as Members will know, is that I believe Tynwald is the right place, when there is such important public concern for us as politicians to debate the public issue and I believe that is exactly the right thing to do and this is the right place to do it. We have, thankfully, a position where our people can freely express their concerns on any subject matter without fear and this is one where that has clearly happened. I think we are all conscious of the amount of effort and work 5630 that has gone in by the Minister, his Department, officers and consultants and others to try and portray the case to those who have concerns, to try and settle them with what is actually going.

I want to make it absolutely clear that, not only as Chief Minister, but also as a Member of the House of Keys for my own constituency, I would not support anything that was going to reduce this service. My whole life in here and those of many of us, if not all of us, has actually been to do 5635 what we can to enhance the Health Service.

I think we are the only country in the British Isles that is actually increasing expenditure on health, when all the rest are cutting back and that is because we are trying to continue to develop


_________________________________________________________________ 1426 T128

and improve and create more effective services. So I think I would like to make that clear, and that is where I, and I know everybody else, stands. May I say that we all have the same objective here 5640 today and that objective is – and it is Government’s objective also – through the Department of Health, to continue to be committed to provide, at the very least maintain, the present level of breastcare service and to enhance the service as much as we can, whilst ensuring that it is, using Mrs Cannell’s words, safe and effective. Of course, that is what we want. None of us are arguing about that, and I think it is important that we make that point very clear. 5645

The paramount issue for us with our Health Service, regardless of the politics, is to ensure we can do the best for the patients, and that is really what we are trying to do. So we are committed, as Government, to ensure that we provide, as much as we can, the service that this Island needs. I know I have certainly done it and other Members have done it – listened carefully to many views that have been put to us by constituents and by others. We have listened to the debates, what has 5650 been said, we have read it through the press, and the Minister has been questioned numerous times by Members who have written to him, e-mailed him, phoned him, including myself, to get clarification on issues, and he and his staff have endeavoured to clarify it in the best way possible to help Members understand what is going on.

So I think the debate itself today reflects the interest that everybody has in this whole subject 5655 matter. Politicians or not, it does not matter. We, of course, have the duty, as Members of Tynwald, to represent the people of this Island and we are the ones closest to them, in terms of public service, who have to make the decisions where we can. I think it is important to make it clear, and we do have difficulty sometimes all, as politicians, to make it clear the separation between the job of the politician and the job of the professional. I think, as the Hon. Member of 5660 Council, Mr Butt, said, we do rely on professional advice and they have to make decisions in healthcare for the good of the patients, and our role is to have clear policies of what our objectives are and how they are then achieved and how we fund those objectives.

Can I just say that, again myself, I have no problem. I have been a Minister for Health and Social Security – many years ago now – and clearly then it was the same. We always like to move 5665 on from the locum, to get a full-time position. A locum is an interim measure. It fills the gap until we get to the stage where we can actually identify either the funds, and also have the ability because of support services that are needed for a permanent consultant… are put in place. That, again, comes back to the work that has been done already over a number of years.

As far as I am concerned, both amendments are fine. One from the Minister makes it clear that 5670 we are committed to continue to maintain the service; and the other one – the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen – makes it very clear that it should be reported back by the new Scrutiny Committee. I have no problem with that. I am a big supporter of the Scrutiny Committees. In fact, it was the amendment I put that made some changes that helped, I think, make it better. That was supported by Tynwald Court, because I do believe, and always have 5675 believed, Tynwald has a role. Government has one role, and Tynwald has another role.

Tynwald is there to safeguard the public interest, if in fact, the Government is deemed to not be doing what it said it would or is going astray. Members who know me will know that my view has always been very firm on that. I have no problem with that amendment. I think it will be helpful, because there will be people who will continue to have a suspicion that, whilst we say this, we are 5680 actually not doing it. From my point of view and that of my colleagues – and I know of the Minister – there is no problem, because what we are saying is what should be put in place. If they are not being put in place, it does not matter who you are in here, representing the people of the Island, we want to know why it is not being put in place. The commitment is clear: we want to improve the service, have a full-time consultant and, where we can, enhance that service for the 5685 benefit of the patients and the people that we have a responsibility to look after.

So, Mr President, with that – and I am not going to spend much time, because most of the items we could all say have been said, and I think there have been some very good contributions that have actually put a lot of things on the table and, hopefully, have helped people understand what, in fact, it is that we are trying to do through the Government and, also importantly, that in 5690 fact Tynwald itself is supporting a way forward that will give us a better service in the longer term, sir. I hope Members will support both amendments.

The President: Mr Anderson. 5695 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr President. Speaking – Mr Karran: Point of order, Minister.


_________________________________________________________________ 1427 T128

This is speaking to the amendment – 5700 The President: Speaking to the amendment. Mr Karran: Not the right to a reply… 5705 The President: Speaking to the amendment. Mr Karran: People should realise that. Mr Anderson: Mr President, speaking to the amendment, I would like to just make the 5710

comment that I am quite happy to support the amendment adding to my own amendment, in the name of Mr Cregeen.

However, I would just like to point out one or two issues that Mr Cregeen actually raised in his contribution, when he said it was about holding the Department to account. I see this as the reporting-back basis to this Hon. Court through this Committee. He did make the point that if the 5715 consultant was appointed, as we advertise it, and then does not agree to any extra sessions, which all consultants do on a regular basis, we might be worse off than we are at present. That, quite clearly, is not the case, because the job plan is actually increasing the capacity to what was there already and we know that the capacity within the current job plan is not being fully utilised, anyway. So I have got no problem with that and I have got no problem with that Committee 5720 reporting back, because the Department has the intention.

I would just like to emphasise, in no way, shape or form is this actually a cost-cutting exercise, as Mr Butt has already pointed out. The supplementary staff who will have to go to support the substantive post in the future is something that we have had to argue with Treasury. We have had the support from Treasury for developing this area, and so in respect of that point of view, it is 5725 actually enhancing the service; more resources into the service at a very difficult time for Government. We are very grateful that Treasury had actually supported our business case.

In relation to the comment made by a few Hon. Members, that this is late in the day that we have made a presentation to Tynwald Members, we have been putting the same message out, consistently, for many weeks now. However, other information came forward and we thought we 5730 should respond to it in a timely manner. (Interjection by Mrs Cannell) That is what we have been doing. We have been responding to that.

So, Mr President, I am very happy to support the amendment that builds on the amendment that I put forward and look to the Court’s support.

5735 The President: Mr Crookall, Hon. Member for Peel. Mr Crookall: Thank you, Mr President. I doubt there is anybody in this Hon. Court that has not been touched by this, by their

constituents or family members, or whatever, and I just feel it is a shame that it has actually come 5740 down to this and needed this debate to clarify the situation.

If I have one criticism of the Department it is that it has taken them weeks and weeks to clarify the situation on where they are and what is going to be on offer when they advertise for a consultant surgeon. That said, I think over the last few weeks there have been an awful lot of accusations and misrepresentation going on, confusing figures put in the public domain. 5745 Irresponsible things have been said, as well. I think information has probably been used that it is now wished could be taken out if somebody could go back in time, but that is not possible.

But, as most Members have said today, everybody in here would not support any sort of a diminution in service, and that is what it is all about. What we have had now is clarity from the Minister and his Member from the Department and the team, at dinnertime, in the briefing that we 5750 have had, that that is not going to happen. That is not going to happen. We have their word on that and we have an amendment put through now by Mr Cregeen, which I hope Members will support, and I am happy to support that.

We have had confusing figures put in the debate about figures going up from 63 to 93, but we were not told by certain people that they were coming down again. They are coming down. We 5755 have been misled. The public have been misled.

Mrs Cannell: You have been misled.


_________________________________________________________________ 1428 T128

Mr Crookall: No, these were your figures. We had figures of 60,000 population in 2007. The 5760 whole thing has been messy, but now I believe we have some clarity from the Department and I am more than happy to support the Minister’s amendment, followed by the amendment by Mr Cregeen which goes on top of that.

Thank you, Mr President. 5765 The President: Mr Houghton. Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the Hon. Member for East Douglas, Mrs Cannell, for

the hundreds of hours of work she has done in these latter few months, day and night. I know that 5770 because I have worked with her, worked alongside her and I know she has worked many times at home, in addition to all of that. The amount of work she has done and striven to get the information out of the Department and then having to look elsewhere, to other leading organisations, all that the Hon. Member has mentioned, goes to her credit and without question.

I would also like to pay tribute to Julie Stokes and the action group for having the tenacity to 5775 form an action group because they were getting no sense either and the action group themselves had been running themselves and briefing Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell has had nothing to do with running them. I know that and I can put that on record. So all these stupid, immature jibes that have been floating around tonight, shooting the messenger are completely unfounded. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) 5780

Mr President, like the Hon. Member for East Douglas, I would like to give a contrary opinion, just to put a little bit of balance in, because the way the balance of the debate has gone, has been the other way, of course, although we are all reassured now, because the Department has come at the last minute with all its guns and reassured us. We are all now reassured. Why could they not have done that at the start? Why could the Minister not have met myself and Mrs Cannell, like Mrs 5785 Cannell so ably set out earlier in her opening remarks, to meet with the appropriate people and meet also with people who were in the public gallery this evening, who were most concerned and who were not getting the answers? Why could that not have happened – and do not come up with this: I have got a lesson; it is another lesson; they have learned another lesson. All I hear in this place is, ‘Oh, well, a disaster has happened, but we have learned lessons.’ We learn no lessons in 5790 this place at all. How sad an indictment that is.

Mr President, what I would like to say and just reiterate – all along what the Hon. Member for East Douglas has already set out in great detail – is the way the events went. I do not want to cover line by line on that and I do not intend to do that. But she pointed out u-turns in the appointment and the way it worked out for the appointment of a breast surgeon. She reminded you that the 5795 Minister said he was having a consultant, specialist breast surgeon to do that three-stage procedure that we heard; sentinel node and breast reconstruction in the third year etc. That has been heavily debated tonight.

Then for the question that she extracted from the Minister in November, it was a changed circumstance and that is when the suspicions started building up. The Minister did not want to 5800 know; myself and Mrs Cannell badgered the Minister; it is our duty to do that, both in the House and outside the House, but proper, honest answers were not forthcoming. Perhaps the Minister has learned a lesson from that. How many more lessons does the Minister need to learn when he realises that he is dealing with very determined people, who will not give up?

Then we asked for the Minister to provide us with the Holcombe Report and they would not do 5805 that: they would not let us have it, because the Holcombe Report was, as has been set out this evening so eloquently by Mrs Cannell, that there were areas and elements of criticism in it, where the service on the Isle of Man is ‘fractured’. That was the quotation of it and so that was denied us. Mrs Cannell had the initiative to contact Christopher Holcombe, who e-mailed it to her. The Department really fell, they really fell from grace when they realised that the Holcombe Report 5810 was circulating interested parties in the Isle of Man.

The Department has played down the information and the advice that has come back from the President of the Association of Breast Surgeons, Richard Rainsbury, who stands by his word and knows what he is talking about, but they set out to water that down, of course, during the presentation today – the presentation, that was so late in the day, that Members of this Hon. Court 5815 were concerned about, but now they have been reassured. Richard Rainsbury, do not forget, congratulated the high quality of service we already have here in this Island and being fortunate for securing, at the locum basis, a high-quality surgeon.

Mr President, the Hon. Minister, when he put forward his comprehensive response today, about the Hon. Member Mrs Cannell’s motion was flawed and we had this eleventh-hour 5820


_________________________________________________________________ 1429 T128

presentation with all his Department’s big guns to deal with that, I asked a question at that. For those who attended, I asked a question. Members will remember me asking this question. We have got all the qualified people, plus the back-up people, who were there to answer all the questions, but there was somebody else who was missing: the person they employ as a locum. Why did they not bring her along for her to finish off reassuring us all that all is bright and beautiful. Why was 5825 she not invited to come? The answer I have got –

Mr Anderson: Point of order, Mr President. He was told the answer to that in the presentation. 5830 The President: Yes. Mr Houghton: I am just getting to that. The answer to that was given, it was watered down

and it was not acceptable, Minister. Yes, of course, I was given an answer to that. But it was quite obvious: if you have got a specialist… Here is a locum. Here, as a locum, they were so worried, 5835 they brought… and they have taken time – valuable medical time now, of Mr Upsdell’s time – this evening to sit through this debate, listening to all of this. He cannot advise – unless he can, of course, sending you information sheets across to members from the Department, which he may or may not have done. We have wasted a lot of his time and I apologise, not just to him for that, but I apologise to the Island for that because patients need his care – not him sitting in here, listening to 5840 all this.

But I home in on this point: if the Department is so convincing, ask yourself why did they not bring the locum consultant surgeon, to tell us all was bright and beautiful? I am sure, if that lady – who I have never met or spoken to – had been brought to the briefing and sung that hymn to us all, that Mrs Cannell would have been quite happy to withdraw it; but that lady was nowhere to be 5845 seen. Of the Department’s huge and comprehensive pack of information that we have got, there is nothing there… There is a lot about Miss Hamo’s movements, statistically – nothing from Miss Hamo. I would have loved to have seen a foreword from Miss Hamo to say all is bright and beautiful. So I am not sure whether all is bright and beautiful or not.

Turning, Mr President, to the objectivity of all this and the playing around, of course, with 5850 politicians, in what they have to say and the reassurance they are given with these two amendments that are before us. If you read the Hon. Minister’s amendment – and I shall read it out, just so that we can all really understand it – it says, if it is amended:

‘That Tynwald supports the Department of Health ensuring that the Breast Care Service is maintained and enhanced to 5855 ensure that there is no diminution in the present level of service provided within the Island, and supports the Department continuing to provide a dedicated breast care service led by a surgeon specialising in breast surgery, thereby securing the service provided to patients.’ Well, if they are providing that on the eleventh hour, if everybody believes that – and all credit 5860

to the Member for Malew and Santon for backing that up – to have a watch committee by this parliament, to watch that the Department does that… why are we here? I tell you why I am here on all of this: it is because I care. I care, like I hope every other Member of this Court – sometimes I wonder whether they do; they care about themselves. But I care about what is going on here, because I see far too many prevarications by the Department. I see an unprofessional approach, 5865 and so it worries me and concerns me. That is why I back Mrs Cannell to the hilt. That is why.

Now, Mr President, the watch committee, which follows anything – as the Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen has already stated – his amendment can be added to the one that I know everybody will support tonight, the Department amendment, or the one that is on the Order Paper by Mrs Cannell. A watch committee: most speakers speaking after the Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen, put that down, 5870 mentioned – including the Chief Minister – that they support the watch committee. That is what I would call them; that is what they are there for – a parliamentary watch committee.

Now, I ask this Hon. Court if they would put a doubt in their mind as to why Miss Hamo was not brought this afternoon to reassure us. Other Hon. Members in this Court also must have a doubt. That is the reason why they appear to be supporting the watch committee. So there is a 5875 black mark on that Department, no matter what they say.

No matter how you dress it up, Mr President, the watch committee is there because there is a degree of distrust in what is going on here.

Thank you, sir. 5880 The President: Mrs Cannell to reply.


_________________________________________________________________ 1430 T128

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President. It has been a fairly predictable debate, as far as I am concerned, because I knew that I would be

faced with the opposition from the male Members of the Court that I have faced. 5885 A Member: Shame. Mrs Christian: And a woman. 5890 Mrs Cannell: It is a shame, an absolute shame. Mr Teare: It is shameful making that comment. Mrs Cannell: The Minister was first upon his feet moving his amendment and he said that my 5895

motion was flawed and he went… What I am not going to do, Mr President, I am not going to respond to the personal abuse and

criticism that I, as an individual, have received on behalf of raising this issue in Tynwald Court, save to say that I have not led this campaign; I have assisted it from the rear. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) The people have led this campaign. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Why they did not go 5900 to another Member of Tynwald, I do not know, but they came to me and I took an interest.

So that is the first point and how dare any Member of this Court accuse me of otherwise! (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) I do not need to use issues like this as an election platform. If there is a consequence of doing it, I lose my seat, because I have spent so much time and dedication and commitment to this, then I am philosophical about that. If my people are upset because they did 5905 not get a call to me at canvassing time, because I have been too busy with this, then so be it. I accept that, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) because I feel it was my duty to bring the people’s concern with regard to the breast care service to this Court, because there was a policy change underfoot. At least the Chief Minister had the dignity and respect of Tynwald Court to say that he felt it was the appropriate place to be discussing this issue. It is a policy change. 5910

So I am not going to respond to the personal criticisms. What I would say is that the petition has been… There is a lot of criticism. I am not going to respond to any of the criticism, because that is all very negative and what I was hoping for was that we would have some very positive debate on this very important issue.

What I would say, though, with the Minister’s opening remarks is that he said that breast 5915 surgery is part of general surgery; it is not recognised as a sub-specialty. Well, he ought to know, because I have reminded him on several occasions, that the Association of Breast Surgeons (ABS) have applied to the General Medical Council for breast surgery to be acknowledged as a sub-specialty in its own right. I am reliably informed by the ABS and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO), that it is likely to receive approval by mid-next year. I am looking not 5920 just now, Hon. Members, but now and into the future. I will not say any more on that point from the Minister at this juncture.

The Bishop said very little, other than he knows about it and he is supporting the amendment. Then Mr Cregeen moved the amendment for it to be referred to the Social Scrutiny Committee,

as and when it is appointed after the General Election on 29th September. I think the one thing we 5925 want to remember here is that the job advertisement is advertising for a 40-hour-week post. It is a 40-hours-a-week post. The sentinel node biopsy and breast reconstruction, if it is to be rolled out, will be totally reliant on there being additional hours worked by the new person coming in, because if it is not possible to do those two procedures now, with a surgeon who is working 44, on average, hours a week, then it is not possible for someone else coming in, working four fewer 5930 hours a week, to be able to roll out that new service. So I think it is a sort of carrot and a stick. The Department shows the carrot to get everybody to bite, but then uses the stick, to put them back into the position that we were two years ago.

It is interesting to note that, in the new job description which was supplied to Members at lunchtime, there is no mention at all about sentinel node biopsy. It does not feature at all. 5935

Of course, in addition to all of that, Mr Cregeen, in talking about his job advertisement for the 40-hour week – none of that takes into consideration any private work the individual might want to undertake. There seems to be this perception within the Department that whoever comes in, they are limited to advertising for 40 because that is the rules and regulations with the Royal College of Surgeons – okay, that is accepted – but they seem to consider that anybody coming in for this new 5940 role will want to do those extra hours and will want to do the general on-call surgery because it gives them more money.


_________________________________________________________________ 1431 T128

So they are after the money. It begs the question what is safe for the patient? Do we want surgeons operating 60, 70 or 75 hours a week? These are the sorts of things that came up at the public meeting and they were not adequately addressed by those who were on the panel 5945 representing the Department.

Mr Speaker: I thank him for his comments. He at least, I knew, would understand the subject matter and he did. I thank him for that and for appreciating the actual concerns raised by the breast cancer patients.

Mr Gill said he supports the amendments. He is disappointed that the Department has not 5950 managed to speak with myself and my colleague, Mr Houghton, my friend, in the early days, so that we could get this resolved. I am disappointed that did not happen, too, but I was faced with no choice today. I had to raise it, because we had not got anywhere, in terms of being able to get round the table and meet.

The Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw: oof! Very disappointing – quite alarming, really. 5955 I imagine he is going to get a tough time when he goes out canvassing in Onchan with the comments he has made: pressure groups should not be running Noble’s Hospital; I have led the campaign –

Mr Henderson: Egged it on. 5960 Mrs Cannell: – egged it on; led by Mrs Cannell. That is why I wish to clarify it right from the

start: I have not. I have not, but I am prepared to take the knocks, because that is the nature of the job, isn’t it?

(Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) I will be the whipping girl, if you like, for the better good, for the 5965 people in the Isle of Man. I will take that and I do not mind taking that. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) But I refuse to be criticised by those who themselves have perhaps been subject to something similar in the not-too-distant past, before they were spoiled by the Council of Ministers’ carrot.

Can I say, you say pressure groups should not be running Noble’s Hospital: no, they should not 5970 – but the Department should be mindful of public opinion. (Mr Henderson and Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Look what happened the last time a Health Minister got up and ignored public opinion, regarding the relocation and the rebuilding of Noble’s Hospital. Over 10,000 signed that petition. I appealed at the Bar of Tynwald. (Interjection by Mr Anderson) I am on my feet, Minister – my turn! My turn. 5975

I appeared at the Bar of Tynwald. My hon. friend and colleague for North Douglas, Mr Henderson, before he was involved in politics, attended at the Bar of Tynwald, as did a number of others. Tynwald backed their buddy, the Minister, and it is likely to happen today. I knew that before I walked in here today. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) You can predict what the vote is going to be. The Hon. Member for Onchan is right, it is ‘clubby-clubby, buddy-buddy’. If I wore trousers 5980 and a suit and had a gruff voice and was a man, I would probably get more co-operation from you from time to time, but I do not. (Interjections)

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Mr President I am sorry, Mr President, there has to be some respect for Members. 5985 Several Members: Absolutely. Hear, hear. The President: Okay, point is taken. Mrs Cannell. 5990 Mrs Cannell: Yes, I will show the same respect that they have shown me, throughout this

entire debate. (Mr Houghton and Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) What I was going to say is that there was public concern, public pressure, the last time and that

particular Health Minister lost his seat. 5995 The Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mr Malarkey, said – and he is correct – that the locum,

when she came in two years ago, got a huge waiting list down. We cannot afford to have waiting lists, when breast cancer is an issue. You cannot afford to have huge waiting lists like this. If it is non-symptomatic, that is fine, but there is a great deal of work goes into assessing whether or not it is symptomatic disease – in other words, cancer – and to what degree it is, where it is, what it is, 6000 and the extent of treatment and/or surgery that is required. That is a lot of work involved in just doing that with one patient. You cannot afford to have people waiting to be seen again. So it is down and it needs to stay down. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.)


_________________________________________________________________ 1432 T128

I have not got his confidence quite so much, though, in that, because promises have been made by this Minister for Health, in Hansard, that they will be honoured by the Department. Having 6005 chaired the Scrutiny Committee – the only Scrutiny Committee at the moment – of Tynwald, one of our responsibilities is looking at the Policy Decisions Report produced by Government every year, in terms of their update on the policies and decisions adopted by this Hon. Court. I have to say, we struggle from time to time, in terms of trying to get it through to the relevant Department that the interpretation of the motion and the intention of the parliament is different from how they 6010 perceive it. We struggle, trying to get your policy decisions into action with Departments, because of the degree of perception problem, and the wording. So I do not quite have that.

Minister Quayle moaned about the petition, inaccurate information pack; he said the Tynwald Policy Decisions Report, blah, blah… Scrutiny Committee… Yes, it is, but we will not be in being, once this House dissolves and Tynwald Court has its last session. There will be no more 6015 Tynwald Policy Decisions Report considered by a Scrutiny Committee of Tynwald, as it is now. We will have three standing Scrutiny Committees, and they sometimes might oversee similar policy matters or legislation. So we do not know how it is going to be formed; we do not know what the format is going to be. We certainly have no idea who the membership is going to be, because we have to wait until after the General Election. 6020

Mr Corkish: I am glad that he actually declared that he is involved with a cancer charity, and I think a lot of Members who got to their feet today are actively involved with a cancer charity. Now, why the charities have fallen out, and it has got a little bit nasty, with individuals getting nasty with each other, I do not know why that is. I do not know why the charities see the action group as a perceived threat – 6025

Mr Earnshaw: I don’t think he was saying that… Mrs Cannell: – but what I would say is that the action group is made up of former members of

both Isle of Man Breakthrough and Isle of Man Breast Care. 6030 Mr Houghton: That tells you something. Mrs Cannell: They broke away from those two organisations to form the action group,

because charities are apolitical. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) They are apolitical. Their whole 6035 intention is to raise funds, awareness, help people and they need to work closely with Government, because they need to be able to influence the Health Department in terms of what they want for the people in their charity and also, from time to time, might ask for contributions towards certain initiatives that the charity wants to do. So it is important that they keep good working relationships. So you cannot expect a breast cancer charity or two to take on Government and start 6040 opposing what it is that they are trying to do, when it is perceived as being a downgrade of a current service, can you?

So having the support of the charities… The charities would do nothing other than support the Department. They are totally reliant upon the Department’s goodwill and working relationships.

6045 Mr Anderson: The other way round. Mrs Cannell: It is not. (Mr Earnshaw: Partnership.) It is not. Goodwill and good working

relationships are absolutely crucial, (Interjection by Mr Houghton) if a charity such as a cancer charity is going to continue to function, in respect of its own interest in that type of cancer. 6050

The breast screening and recall service… I think the one thing, perhaps, I did not make clear at the onset: the breast screening and recall service calls women aged between the ages of 50 and 70. We are getting more and more women under the age of 50 who are developing symptomatic breast disease. Why is that happening? We do not know. How do they get to see the current surgeon? They are referred through their GP. The referral rate is pretty high, at the moment. These are ladies 6055 not being picked up by the breast screening or recall, and for the Department to totally focus their strategic development of this service just on that, I think is very foolish, and also very risky and could potentially put breast cancer patients at risk sometime in the future, unless the service is closely monitored.

The information we got from the Department at lunchtime, when it gave the numbers of those 6060 patients diagnosed from January to June, being 26: six of those were detected after having a mammogram. They were screen detected. Twenty were detected through symptom detected… So that gives you an idea of it. Not all of these cases that are coming up are as a result of the mammogram service – the screening and recall service.


_________________________________________________________________ 1433 T128

That is the one thing that we should be very mindful of. There are more and more young 6065 women who are being diagnosed. That is why I have taken this issue so seriously, to be honest, because I have been quite alarmed at the amount of younger women with this problem.

Mr Corkish also went on to say, in an ideal world we would all live by and put in place Mr Rainsbury’s opinion. I think it is an absolute disgrace to talk about the President of the Association of Breast Surgery in such a demeaning way. I think we have to have due regard to such experts. 6070 He is the expert. He is the expert. (Interjection by Mr Corkish) He was going on about what he was describing, and he was also saying that it was not the locum consultant surgeon who is in post currently who is responsible for the improvements; that those improvements were put in place before she came. I would ask the Hon. Member to re-read Mr Rainsbury’s opinion, because I do not think he has understood it correctly. 6075

Mr Karran raises a good point: how can 100% resulting in 80%… be not a downgrade? We still have not had an answer to that.

Mr Butt: the one thing I would take issue with him is that he talked about the present consultant being registered as a general surgeon with an interest in breast. I would ask him, as Member for Health, tonight, if he feels as though he is capable, to log on to the General Medical 6080 Council website and put in the name of the consultant locum breast care surgeon. All it will ask you is ‘Is it a male or female?’ You click on female, and all her particulars and qualifications will come up on screen.

You can then ask for more information and that site will tell you that she is on the specialist register, and that she has only concentrated on breast surgery – only, with no general surgery – 6085 since 2008: just pure breast surgery since 2008.

The Chief Minister – I acknowledged him before – said it is the right place for the policy debate. But obviously he is going to support his Health Minister – as they always do. They always rally round together. (The Chief Minister: Matey-matey.) (Laughter)

Again, the Hon. Minister, speaking to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member, Mr 6090 Cregeen, with regard to the question of surgeons may not agree to more hours: that is a huge possibility, because the actual job description and application specifies 40 hours a week. It specifies two theatre sessions of three hours – not four, Mr Butt, but three – and it specifies three clinics a week. Now, if any of the new enhancements are going to be rolled out, or any private work is going to be undertaken, that is going to have to be accommodated by doing extra hours. 6095 There is no compulsion within the job description to actually agree to that. So you could, in fact, as Mr Cregeen said, get somebody applying who satisfies all of the criteria laid down in the revised job description, because the area, where they want to roll out and enhance is all subject to negotiation after the post-holder has been recruited and is in place.

That person could say, ‘Well, I am not interested in this. I just want to specialise in what I’m 6100 doing.’

Before I finish, Mr President, I would just like to thank the Minister for circulating some of the letters from a retired oncologist, a retired radiologist and a retired general surgeon. My experts at least are all in practice still. (Interjections and laughter)

The letter from Mr Clague to the Minister is dated 16th May 2011. I think there is one very 6105 pertinent paragraph towards the end: it is the second to last.

Mr Anderson: Go on, read it all. Mrs Cannell: You should have read these before coming here, Minister. 6110 ‘The post as envisaged is not really one that most applicants would identify as being a general surgeon with an interest in breast care, as it has a relatively small elective general surgical component but a significant on-call commitment. It is also not a dedicated breast surgeon, with no general surgical commitment. How many candidates there are out there that will find such a post attractive and how happy a successful applicant would see themselves in the long term 6115 remains to be seen.’

(Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Now, to me, that is key. So he is obviously very aware of the awkward position that the poor gentleman finds himself in: he has a visit from me, then he has a visit from the Minister, and then he has a visit from the Minister’s experts in the Hospital. But he 6120 still corresponded with me and I am pleased that he put that into the latter to the Minister, because he is still saying there is a doubt that, in fact, we will be able to get this individual, and whether or not we would keep them, because of the limitations.

I had an e-mail from the President of Isle of Man Breakthrough: 6125


_________________________________________________________________ 1434 T128

‘Thank you for all the research you are undertaking on this very important topic. We are all aiming for the very best breast care service here on the Island and will not be happy with anything that is second best or a downgrade, which is totally unacceptable.’

(Interjections) But she did not accuse me of scaremongering or whipping it up into a frenzy. She 6130 said, ‘Thank you for all the research you are undertaking.’

So do not let the Department, Hon. Members, think that it is all on its side, because it is not. It is not.

Just to finish, I will quote again from the business case which the Minister has not circulated to Hon. Members, but I did. ‘Breast care service activity’ – this is for the year up to August 2010: 6135

‘The current referral rate to the breast care team is around 24 new patients per week. These are seen in the symptomatic clinic, with follow-up patients, and this may involve up to 38 patients in a morning clinic. Breast screening recall patients are also being seen in the afternoon – up to 10 patients. The histology review clinic usually sees four to 12 patients.’ 6140 That is quite a large caseload. Outpatient attendances from 1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010

were 2,255 attendances. Just in April and May – two months – in 2010 last year, there were 377 patient attendances. It is those figures that were supplied by the Department in their business case that were submitted to the President of the Association of Breast Surgery. Nothing more – no 6145 skewed figures: those were the figures quoted.

Mr President, I obviously will not be supporting either amendment, because I have to stick purely and simply with the motion on the agenda, because I think that is the best way forward.

The Department’s amendment is curious, in that it does not acknowledge any of the general surgery, on-call commitment of going for a new person for this post. It just says that Tynwald: 6150

‘supports the Department of Health ensuring that the breast care service is maintained’

- maintained as one, maintained as it is – 6155 ‘and enhanced’

- that is your sentinel node biopsy and your breast reconstruction – ‘to ensure that there is no diminution in the present level…’ 6160 How can it be enhanced to ensure that there is no diminution in the present level of service?

The present level of service is just simple surgery, because the present incumbent is not allowed to practice her expertise here. So that is why I think it is a little curious. They talk about ‘enhanced’; it cannot be enhanced, if they are literally going to keep it at its present level. 6165

‘… and supports the Department continuing to provide a dedicated breast care service led by a surgeon specialising in breast surgery, thereby securing the service provided to patients.’ Well, of course, that is where they get away with it, is it not, Mr President? ‘A dedicated breast 6170

care service led by a surgeon’ – a surgeon. So they have dropped the generality of it but, in fact, they are after one of the same.

So, all this amendment is, really, is playing with words, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) but it is to try and bring you back on course with what they have desired all along, so I would ask the Court to reject it. 6175

Thank you, Mr President. The President: Hon. Members, we have reached the time when you make your decision on

Item 49 on the Tynwald Order Paper. Hon. Members, the motion I put, therefore, is that printed on the Order Paper and to that you 6180

have the two amendments: the amendment in the name of Mr Anderson and the amendment in the name of Mr Cregeen. I propose, Hon. Members, to put them in that order.

So, first, I will put to you the amendment in the name of Mr Anderson. Hon. Members, those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.


_________________________________________________________________ 1435 T128



FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Houghton Mr Brown Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mrs Cannell Mr Anderson The Speaker Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys 16 for, 5 against. 6185



The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, 9 for, none against. The amendment therefore

carries, Hon. Members. I put to you, now, the amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr

Cregeen, which will build onto that amended motion. Hon. Members, those in favour of Mr Cregeen’s amendment, please say aye; against, no. The 6190

ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Henderson Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran Mr Brown Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker


_________________________________________________________________ 1436 T128

The Speaker: Mr President, 20 votes for, 1 against.



The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, 9 for, none against. Hon. Members, both amendments having carried, they will replace the motion on the Order

Paper in that order – Mr Anderson’s and Mr Cregeen’s building upon it. 6195 So I put to you Item 49, as amended. Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye; against,

no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:


FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Earnshaw Mr Houghton Mr Brown Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mrs Cannell Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cregeen Mr Malarkey Mr Robertshaw Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Gawne Mr Gill The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 17 votes for, 4 against.



The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, 9 for, none against. The amended motion

therefore carries. 6200


_________________________________________________________________ 1437 T128

Announcement of Royal Assent The President: Hon. Members, it has been a long day and I think it is an appropriate time at

which we were to take our break. Before we do, Hon. Members, can I just announce that, in fact, the Children and Young

Persons (Amendment) Act 2011 received Royal Assent this day and, though reluctant I am to give you yet more work, I think I should alert you to the fact that Mr Quayle has two further papers 6205 which, if they have not been circulated, would be available for Members if you so wished to have further reading which will be relevant, as I understand it, to Item 51 when we reach that tomorrow. So there we are, Hon. Members, two further papers you could collect either tonight or, in fact, in the morning.

That said, Hon. Members, the Court will now rise and we will resume our deliberations back at 6210 Item 13 on the Order Paper at 10.30 in the morning.

Thank you.

The Court adjourned at 9.13 p.m.