2 TYNWALD Pages 12.12.06 · 2013. 2. 1. · Clerk of Tynwald’s Ofﬁce former space Reallocation 1. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Earnshaw) to ask the Chief Minister: (1) Which

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 12th DECEMBER 2006 13 T124

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

Price Band H

32 T2003/4

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

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

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

(HANSARD)

Douglas, Tuesday, 12th December 2006

Volume 124, No. 2 ISSN 1742-2256

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 12th DECEMBER 200614 T124

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

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

Mr D Butt, Mrs C M Christian, Mrs P M Crowe, Hon. A F Downie, The Chief Minister (Hon. D J Gelling CBE), Mr E G Lowey, and Mr G H Waft,

with Mrs M Cullen, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

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

Mrs A V Craine and Hon. A R Bell (Ramsey); Mr W E Teare (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mr T Crookall (Peel); Hon. S C Rodan (Garff); Mr P Karran, Mr A J Earnshaw and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Mr 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);Hon. R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Mr C G Corkish and Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West);

Mr G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Mr J P Watterson, Hon. P A Gawne and Mr Q B Gill (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald.


Leave of absence granted .................................................................................................................................................... 17Papers laid before the Court ............................................................................................................................................... 17Welcome to Andrew Disbury, British Council, China and British Embassy, Beijing ........................................................ 18

Questions for Oral Answer1. Clerk of Tynwald’s Office former space – Reallocation ......................................................................................... 182. Indemnity cover for Government activity – Ministers and Members .................................................................... 203. Chief Secretary – Memorandum on role and accountability ................................................................................... 214. Top civil servants – Evaluating performance .......................................................................................................... 225. Chief Executives’ remuneration increases – Tynwald approval .............................................................................. 246. Ballakilley Estate, Rushen – Public open space ...................................................................................................... 257. Douglas Head/Howe development – Green lung recreation area ........................................................................... 268. Sefton Group plc – Call for FSC investigation ....................................................................................................... 279. Airport runway extension – Presentation to Members ............................................................................................ 2810. Ophthalmic and orthopaedic surgery – Waiting list initiatives ............................................................................... 2911. Private nursing/residential home fees – Recent increases ....................................................................................... 30

Announcement of Royal Assent .......................................................................................................................................... 33

12. Cancer drugs – Restrictions on cost grounds .......................................................................................................... 3313. Ambulances – Number and crew ............................................................................................................................ 3414. Palatine Health Centre – Relocation options ........................................................................................................... 3515. Eastern District Civic Amenity Site – New tenders ................................................................................................ 3716. Eastern District Civic Amenity Site – Operating costs ........................................................................................... 3817. Local authorities – Cessation of mortgage bonds ................................................................................................... 4018. Marketing Initiatives Fund expenditure – Attraction of visitors to Island .............................................................. 4019. National Sports Centre heating – Waste heat from power station ........................................................................... 4120. Building industry – Apprenticeships ....................................................................................................................... 4121. Work permit system – Increasing requirements and effectiveness ......................................................................... 43

Standing Order 3.5(2) suspended to take remaining Oral Questions .................................................................................. 45

The Court adjourned at 1.12 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Questions for Oral Answer concluded22. Ballasalla bypass – Priority, cost and timetable ...................................................................................................... 4523. IRIS pipeline – Southern section ............................................................................................................................. 4624. Former MEA Chief Executive – Allegations re claimed expenses ......................................................................... 4725. Civil Service Pension Fund – Extra pay for Secretary responsible ......................................................................... 49

Questions for Written Answer26. Public sector employees, Grade 7 – Salary bill ....................................................................................................... 5027. Public sector pensions liabilities – Costs for last 10 years ...................................................................................... 5028. Health Service waiting lists – Length per speciality ............................................................................................... 5029. Long-term residential/nursing care – Assessment of Guernsey scheme ................................................................. 5230. Nursing/residential home residents – Payment of care fees .................................................................................... 5231. Drug and Alcohol Unit – Funding ........................................................................................................................... 5232. Mountain View estate, Douglas – Pedestrian crossing ........................................................................................... 53

Orders of the Day3. Isle of Man Post – Statement by the Chairman ............................................................................................................. 544. Report of Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives – Response – Amended motion carried ............................... 565. Animal Health Act 1996 – Diseases of Poultry Order 2006 approved ......................................................................... 616. Loaghtan Ewe Annual Premium Scheme 2002 (Amendment) Scheme 2006 approved .............................................. 61

Business transacted Page


7. Animal Health Act 1996 – Animal Health (Slaughter and Compensation) (Amendment) Order 2006 approved .................................................................................................................................................... 618. Inland Fisheries Act 1976 – Inland Fisheries (Duties) Regulations 2006 approved ..................................................... 629. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 – Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) Order 2006 approved .................................................................................................................................................... 6510. Merchant Shipping Act 1985 – Merchant Shipping (Safety Provisions) (Application) (Amendment) Order 2006 approved ............................................................................................................................ 6711. Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1986 – Merchant Shipping (MARPOL Annex 1 – Prevention of Pollution by Oil) Regulations 2006 approved ........................................................................................ 6712. Electoral Register – Call for inquiry into compilation – Debate commenced .............................................................. 68

The Court adjourned at 4.55 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 5.15 p.m.

Electoral Register – Debate continued – Motion carried .............................................................................................. 71

Supplementary Order PaperProcedural ........................................................................................................................................................................... 78

1. Papers laid before the Court ............................................................................................................................................ 782. Standing Order 2.4(1) suspended to take further business ............................................................................................. 783. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Notification of Authorisation for Directed Surveillance) Order 2006 approved ............................................................................................................ 794. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Juveniles) Order 2006 approved .................. 805. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Source Records) Regulations 2006 approved ............................................................................................................................................. 806. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Prescription of Offices, Ranks and Positions) Order 2006 approved ............................................................................................................................... 817. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Notification of Authorisation for Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2006 approved ........................................................................................................... 838. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2006 approved ........................................................................................................... 839. Regulation of Surveillance, etc. Act 2006 – Regulation of Surveillance (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2006 approved ...................................................................................................................................................... 84

The Council withdrew.

House of KeysResignation of the Speaker and thanks ............................................................................................................................... 84Precept from the Lieutenant-Governor to call next sitting of the House ............................................................................ 84

The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.

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

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

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald websitewww.tynwald.org.im

Official Papers/Hansards/Please select a year:-


Leave of absence granted Papers laid before the Court

Papers Laid

Tynwald

The Court met at 10.30 a.m.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]

PRAYERSThe Lord Bishop

LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED

The President: Now, Hon. Members, we have no Member absent today from this sitting for the day. However, the Hon. Member, Mr Cannan, will be joining us later this morning; and the Hon. Member, Mr Braidwood, equally, as he is attending a funeral.

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 papers at Item 1 of the principal Order Paper:

Animal Health Act 1996 –Diseases of Poultry Order 2006 [SD 828/06]Animal Health (Slaughter and Compensation) (Amendment) Order 2006 [SD No 829/06]

Inland Fisheries Act 1976 –Inland Fisheries (Duties) Regulations 2006 [SD No 830/06]

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 –Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions) Order 2006 [SD No 869/06]

Merchant Shipping Act 1985 –Merchant Shipping (Safety Provisions) (Application Amendment) Order 2006 [SD No 847/06]

Loaghtan Ewe Annual Premium Scheme 2002 (Amendment) Scheme 2006 –

Loaghtan Ewe Annual Premium Scheme 2002 (Amendment) Scheme 2006 [GC No 35/06]

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1986 –

Merchant Shipping (MARPOL Annex 1 – Prevention of Pollution by Oil) Regulations 2006 [SD No 818/06]

ReportsResponse to the Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Initiatives – a Report to Members of Tynwald

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

Value Added Tax Act 1996 –Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2006 [SD No 747/06]Value Added Tax (Gaming and Gaming Machines) Order 2006 [SD No 800/06]

Currency Act 1992 –Currency (Beatrix Potter – The Tale of Peter Rabbit Crown) Order 2006 [SD No 783/06]Currency (Swans Crown 2007) Order 2006 [SD No 794/06]Currency (Christmas 2007 50p) Order 2006 [SD No 795/06]

Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 –Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Emergency Evacuation) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 [SD No 637/06]

Companies Act 2006 –Appointment of Registrar of Companies [SD No 33/06]

Immigration Act 1971 –Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules [SD No 547/06]Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules [SD No 781/06]

Litter Act 1972 –Litter (Fixed Penalty Notice) Regulations 2006 [SD No 890/06]

Merchant Shipping Act 1985 –Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 [SD No 896/06]

European Communities (Isle of Man) Act 1973 –European Communities (Animal by-Products Laws) (Application) Order 2007 (draft)European Communities (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Law) (Application) Order 2007 (draft)

European Community –EC Secondary Legislation October 2006 [GC No 36/06]EC Secondary Legislation November 2006 [GC No 37/06]

Appointed Day OrdersRegistration of Electors Act 2006 (Appointed Day) Order 2006 [SD No 757/06]Audit Act 2006 (Appointed Day) Order 2006 [SD No 831/06]Local Government Act 2006 (Appointed Day) Order 2006 [SD No 886/06]Sex Offenders Act 2006 (Appointed Day) Order 2006 [SD No 758/06]Licensing (Amendment) Act 2001 (Appointed Day) (Amendment) Order 2006 [SD No 761/06]


Papers laid before the CourtWelcome to Andrew Disbury, British Council, China and British Embassy, Beijing

Clerk of Tynwald’s Office former space – Reallocation

Oral Answers

Reports

General Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts [PP139/06]Isle of Man National Transport Limited Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31st March 2006Isle of Man Limited Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31st March 2006Council of Ministers’ Tynwald Policy Decisions Report 2006 [GR No 038/06]Isle of Man Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme : Report for Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal: Report for 2005 [GR No 039/06]Review of the Scope and Structure of Government in the Isle of Man, Supplementary Report into Manx National Heritage, an Independent Report to the Council of Ministers and Tynwald: November 2006Annual Report to Tynwald on Hospital Activity by the Department of Health and Social Security, year ending March 2006Annual Report to Tynwald on the NHS Complaints Procedure by the Department of Health and Social Security, year ending March 2006

Welcome to Andrew Disbury,British Council, China and British Embassy, Beijing

The President: How, Hon. Members, perhaps if I could, on your behalf, before we start with our Question Paper this morning, welcome to our Distinguished Visitors’ Gallery, Andrew Disbury, who is, I understand, a Director of Education for the British Council in China and the First Secretary of Education, British Embassy in Beijing. He is accompanied by Dr Jacqueline Yates, who is the Head of Learning for the DHSS.

So, I would say to Andrew Disbury, a very great welcome to watch our proceedings in operation this morning, sir.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

Clerk of Tynwald’s Office former spaceReallocation

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

(1) Which Department is responsible for reallocating the office space formerly occupied by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office;(2) which Department or Division will ultimately occupy this area;(3) on which date was the area vacated;(4) what is the cost per square foot of office space in central Douglas;

(5) please state the total area in question and the monthly value of this;(6) why has no action so far been taken?

The President: We turn then, Hon. Members, to the Question Paper and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw.

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

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

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

Taking each of the Hon. Member’s questions individually, Mr President, on the first part, overall responsibility for Government’s office accommodation policy rests with the Council of Ministers, acting on the advice of the Department of Local Government and the Environment.

In answer to part (2), the Department of Local Government and the Environment has been working with both the Chief Secretary’s Office and Treasury, with a view to agreeing how best to reallocate the office space formerly occupied by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office on the top floor of Government Office. The accommodation requirements of the Chief Secretary’s Office are to bring onto the top floor of Government Office its Policy and Strategy and Drugs and Alcohol Units, currently located in Prospect House.

The Treasury also wishes to bring into Government Office its satellites, currently located elsewhere: namely, the Income Tax Staff Development from the top floor of St Andrew’s House, and Oracle and the Axapta staff from the first floor of the Prospect House.

In order to achieve these objectives, Treasury needs part of the former Clerk of Tynwald’s accommodation on the top floor of Government Office. A detailed layout scheme for Treasury has yet to be drawn up by the Department of Local Government and the Environment and, indeed, costed.

In answer to part (3), the move of the various units of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office into the new Legislative Buildings was staggered, with the last unit moving towards the end of July this year.

In answer to part (4), the current cost per square foot of office space in central Douglas varies depending on the age and condition of the accommodation in question. Modern office accommodation can command rentals of approximately £19.25 per square foot, whilst older accommodation, without the facility of underfloor cabling might cost in the region of between £16 per square foot to £17.50 per square foot. Government Office would fall within the latter category.

In answer to part (5), Mr President, the total lettable area in question is approximately 5,494 square feet, which at £16.05 per square foot would give a monthly rental of £7,348 or £8,012 per month, if at the rate of £17.50 per square foot.

In answer to question (6), owing to the fact that the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office accommodation on the top floor of Government Office was not connected to the Government data network, it will be necessary to recable the area. However, a firm specification could not be given to Manx Telecom until the allocation of the space had been agreed between the Chief Secretary’s Office and the Treasury. This was agreed between the two parties at the end of September


Clerk of Tynwald’s Office former space – Reallocation

and then accepted in principle by the Department of Local Government and the Environment in October of this year.

The Chief Secretary’s Office has stressed that the fitting-out works should be kept to a minimum, but at the very least this will entail the recabling I have just referred to, repositioning of certain existing internal walls, redecoration and some recarpeting. As yet, this has not been fully costed, although sufficient funds are currently available within the Department of Local Government and the Environment’s current year’s votes.

The recent discovery, Mr President, of asbestos-containing materials, albeit only a small amount, in one of the ducts on the top floor of Government Office, and its subsequent removal, has delayed a start on the site. However, work on the internal alterations commenced on Monday, 11th December, this year. The recabling will start at the beginning of January 2007, which is the earliest date on which 2e2 staff will be available.

Barring any other unforeseen problems, the new offices for the Chief Secretary’s Office should be completed by the end of January of next year.

Mr President, I hope this Answer covers the points raised in the Question by the Hon. Member, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Earnshaw.

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

comprehensive Answer, but would he not agree with me that the level of inactivity here, between the end of July – or the middle of July, I am not quite sure the date it was vacated now; I thought it was round about 20th July – is totally unacceptable that it has been a significant cost to the public. In fact, I think it is quite scandalous that we have not had quicker, prompter action in this and I think there are other sites in Douglas where we have got a similar level of inactivity.

But I am looking for his agreement with me that it is not acceptable, this sort of delay.

The President: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President.What I can agree with the Hon. Member is the fact that the

turn round is something that everyone, I think, would wish to happen. However, when you change from one particular form – in this case, it was the Tynwald Office – to offices for Government: I have explained the recabling, sir, and of course, these delays do come into question. Certainly, it is something that I am quite aware of and is something that we will put every effort into, to try to get that turned round and people in position as quickly as possible.

The President: Hon. Member for Ayre.

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr President.Could the Chief Minister please confirm that, in view of

the various arms of Government which will be relocated into the third floor, this will release office space which is currently rented by Government and save money; or, is it an instance where Government is continuing to expand?


The Chief Minister: Yes, I would certainly hope that

the Hon. Member’s suggestion at the end of this question is not something that is happening and that is the expansion. I certainly did, in answer to the original Question, inform Hon. Members that Prospect House is an area where lots of these are located. There is the same across in Finch Road and one would hope that bringing those in to the centre, as it were, would actually make that then, that that accommodation is not required for rental, sir.

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

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, is Prospect House not owned by the Government anyway, Ard-shirveishagh?

Could the Shirveishagh also tell us, inform this Hon. Court: is there to be a change in the relocation policy of office space, where we are tying up Government revenues for the next 20 years plus, where the likes of £40 million of our national reserve is tied up from the interest from those payments to Panamanian companies at the present time? Will this be a move in the way of trying to change this nonsense?


The Chief Minister: Yes, well, in answer to the Hon. Member, I think the building across the road in Finch Road, in fact, that does belong to Government, but Prospect House is questionable. I would have to check on that. I am not sure, it might very well be. I know Jack Nivison House is up side and that is part of our investment from insurance, but certainly, the Hon. Member raises questions there which I would rather leave for the incoming administration to address, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President.I wonder if I may ask the Chief Minister, does he recall

the fact that many people were encouraged to vote for the redevelopment of the ‘wedding cake’ and Legislative Buildings on the understanding that there would be clear cost advantages in freeing up some of the space in the old building, so that we would pay less rent elsewhere?

Attached to that, could he confirm to this Hon. Court as to level 5 in the new Legislative Buildings: it was our understanding that that also would be used for offices and, at present, it does not seem to be the case?

The President: Now, Hon. Member, we are not going to develop this into a debate on the whole of Government buildings. Chief Minister, answer the first part of the question.

The Chief Minister: The Hon. Member is quite right. In the proposals for the ‘wedding cake’, if we can call it that, it was to release other office space that would save… Going back to the Hon. Member for Ayre’s question about rental outside, that was the whole idea and that was the principle.

Of course, we have yet got room still up there in the Barrool Suite, which has not been allocated, so I would certainly hope that that would be the case, that it will certainly save rental for Government in the future.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Lowey.

Oral Answers

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 12th DECEMBER 200620 T124 Oral Answers

Clerk of Tynwald’s Office former space – ReallocationIndemnity cover for Government activity – Ministers and Members

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.Could the Chief Minister confirm that Tynwald Court was

told that the use of the vacated rooms of the Clerk of Tynwald was a priority for the Government Secretariat to move into at Budget time? Or, was this taking the opportunity to expand the office space of the Government Secretary?


The Chief Minister: No, I think, as I have tried to explain, we have, at the moment, got persons outwith Government in all areas of Douglas, and it was really to centralise, to bring them back in. It certainly is not, in my opinion, the principle of expansion of that particular Office.

The President: Now, Hon. Members, the Question is getting too wide. A final supplementary, Mr Earnshaw.

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Eaghtyrane.I do not want to milk the Question, but I would just like an

undertaking from the Chief Minister, if he would please, that he will do his best to ensure the Government gives prompter action to these sorts of activities in future?


The Chief Minister: Yes, for the next two or three days, sir, the answer is yes. (Laughter)

Indemnity cover for Government activityMinisters and Members

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

What is your Government intending to do in relation to the fact that Tynwald Members serving on Government Departments and Statutory Boards have no indemnity cover as Ministers and Departmental staff have in the course of discharging their duties?

The President: Question 2. Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Henderson.

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

The President: Again, the Chief Minister to reply.


I would confirm that legislation has been drafted by the Attorney General’s Chambers, which will provide that Tynwald Members who serve on Government Departments and Statutory Boards will be relieved of personal liability in respect of the performance of their functions, if they act in good faith and in the honest belief that they were at all material times, acting within the scope of their functions.

Moreover, Mr President, the relevant Government Department or Statutory Board will have the power to indemnify a Tynwald Member against liability, which he or she may have incurred while serving on a Government

Department or Statutory Board, if that Department or Board is satisfied that the act complained of was within the scope of the Member’s functions and the Member acted honestly and in good faith.

Mr President, the legislation will be available for introduction to the branches in the new legislative session, subject to the direction of the new Council of Ministers, sir.

The President: Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.I thank the Chief Minister for his positive Answer this

morning.If he could confirm that this has been something that has

been of great concern to Tynwald Members and backbenchers and, also, could he give some level of comfort currently, whilst we await the introduction of this legislation, whereby Tynwald Members working on Government Departments, chairpersons of Boards, while discharging their Government duties in good faith… is there anything currently to indemnify their actions, should that be required, or legal costs?


The Chief Minister: Until such time, Mr President, that the legislation is in place, that is something that has been causing concern, certainly for some little time now, Mr President. The first tranche of legislation, which is, of course, to be submitted to the Council of Ministers by the Attorney General’s Chambers, will provide indemnity to the current Members of the Manx Electricity Authority in response to their concerns.

But I think I would have to leave at this time and check. The Hon. Member is saying if it is done in good faith: well, certainly, if it is done in good faith and not without any malice aforethought, that is a wonderful defence. I would have thought that if Members were to act within that parameter, they would certainly be secure, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe.

Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President.Could I ask the Chief Minister if he would make serious

enquiries of the Attorney General, if this legislation will also apply to members of the Isle of Man Post Office when they act in their dual role as trustees of a multi-million-pound pension fund.

Thank you.


The Chief Minister: That is another area, as I have already said: it does cover the functions on behalf of the Department or Board. Of course, we are now stretching it, Mr President, out into what is a pension fund which could very well be under a different legal strategy.

So, that is something, again, I would like to check, before I make a decision on that one, sir.

The President: I think we may stretch it further – Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr President.

TYNWALD COURT, TUESDAY, 12th DECEMBER 2006 21 T124Oral Answers

Indemnity cover for Government activity – Ministers and MembersChief Secretary – Memorandum on role and accountability

Mr President, when the Chief Minister said that the draft legislation is being prepared by the Attorney General’s Chambers, can he advise whether or not there is in place, at the moment, a piece of draft legislation; whether or not he and his current Council of Ministers have actually seen it; and if not, why not?

Can he advise the parliament here when he expects it to actually come forward? He has mentioned it is in draft, it is the first tranche. Is there a timescale on this? Bearing in mind, yes, we will have a new administration, surely this Chief Minister must have a better idea of when it is coming.


The Chief Minister: I can assure Hon. Members that the Attorney General’s Chambers were asked to treat this as a strict priority. I am delighted to be able to say that, in fact, that is what is happening and it will be coming forward very, very soon for the new legislative administration.

So, I would be looking forward to that very, very early on in the next year, 2007.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh inform this Hon. Court: will the same priority be put on the duties of backbench MHKs who are doing their duties?

Will we see a stop to any abuse in the future of Ministers calling Hon. Members liars, knowing that their legal costs will be covered by the taxpayer and the Hon. Members of this Hon. Court have to foot their own bill, if they do so?

Will he make sure that balance will be put into any proposals, so that parliamentary duties are seen as important, so long as they are doing it without fear or favour?


The Chief Minister: Yes, again, Mr President, I think we are in a position here whereby that legislation is coming to the branches. Therefore, Hon. Members will have an opportunity in the Keys and in the Legislative Council to actually look at that legislation, amend if necessary.

But certainly, in answer to the Hon. Member, I think I come back to the scope of the Members’ functions, and that the Members acted honestly and in good faith. I think you are on pretty solid ground, if you keep that in mind, sir.

Chief SecretaryMemorandum on role and accountability

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

Will you make available to all Members of Tynwald Court the memoranda/ memorandum submitted, to the Council of Ministers recently by the Chief Secretary (Mrs Mary Williams) on her position, role and accountability?

The President: Question 3. Hon. Member of Council, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. I beg leave to ask

the Question standing in my name.



I have arranged, Mr President, for the memorandum referred in the Hon. Member’s Question to be circulated to Members of Tynwald.

However in circulating the memorandum, I should perhaps explain that under the Council of Ministers Act 1990, the proceedings of Council are statutorily confidential, and it is certainly not normal practice for such papers to be disclosed. Such papers, Mr President, would normally be exempt from disclosure in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; but I am conscious, sir, that this paper is merely a factual statement of the statutory position of the role of Chief Secretary, its authority and accountability.

I would therefore wish to add, Mr President, in considering the paper – this is the paper that was put to Council – Council concluded that these issues should be addressed as part of the consideration of the overall recommendation of the Select Committee on Civil Service Pensions, a report which is due to be delivered to the July 2007 sitting of Tynwald.

The Select Committee made a series of recommendations, all of which are receiving active consideration, with the July 2007 deadline in mind.

I should add, Mr President, the Council of Ministers also requested the Attorney General to investigate what changes would be required to the Civil Service Act, to enable the Chief Minister to take leadership of Civil Service Commission issues. This is a further issue being addressed as part of that review, sir.

The President: Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: I would like to thank the Chief Minister, sir, for his reply.

Could I ask the Chief Minister, in his twilight hours, (Laughter) if he would leave an aide-mémoire to the staff and incoming Chief Minister? Although he says reports to the Council of Ministers are sacrosanct, could he explain to the Court how it is we discuss the Council of Ministers’ proceedings a month after they have taken place, and why information papers supplied to the Council of Ministers should be denied to the Members of this Court, to see how the Council of Ministers have arrived at their decisions?

Is it not a healthy thing to be told all the story, so that we can make a judgement on your judgements, sir?


The Chief Minister: Yes, Mr President, this is rather an unusual one, because the Summary of Proceedings of the actual Council meeting where this took place has not actually been sent out to Members as yet, (Mr Lowey: Yet.) so therefore it has not been raised.

But now that it is raised that this memorandum was produced to the Council, I think it is only right and proper, as I explained, Mr President. It is a factual statement and therefore it is something that we have asked the Attorney to actually address, at the same time that he is addressing – which in my opinion is the big issue – the Civil Service Pension, sir.


Chief Secretary – Memorandum on role and accountabilityTop civil servants – Evaluating performance

So, it is something that, as I explained, under the Act probably we could have kept it confidential, but I see no point, in this particular case, of doing so, sir.

Top civil servantsEvaluating performance

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

Who judges the performance of the top civil servants and who makes the evaluation for this?

The President: Question 4, Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

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



First of all, before addressing the specifics of the Hon. Member’s Question, it is, I believe, important to make clear that the Civil Service Commission is committed to effective performance management across the whole of the Civil Service. To this end, the Commission and the Personnel Office on its behalf has put considerable effort into improving the existing staff reporting and appraisal mechanism applicable to the members of the Civil Service.

Significant improvements to the existing mechanism and, I quote, the ‘Performance and Development Review Scheme’ were introduced with effect from 1st April this year. I am informed, Mr President, that they have been generally welcomed by the Civil Service.

Perhaps then, Mr President, if I go on to numerous pages of notes that I have here, I will actually state that, in addition and with the effect from 1st April 2007, the Commission is to implement a provision requiring annual incremental progression to be subject to formal confirmation by a jobholder’s reporting officer. Now, this requirement, which will be applicable to all members of the Civil Service not already on the maximum of their current pay-scales, is designed to ensure that incremental progression is afforded only to those officers whose performance is judged to be at least – and I quote – ‘at an acceptable standard appropriate to their grade.’ This, in my view, is an important step and one that I would certainly endorse.

Turning now, Mr President, to the specifics of the Hon. Member’s Question and assuming that his reference to the ‘top civil servants’ is intended to be a reference to chief executive and chief officer posts and the post of Chief Secretary, then I can confirm that each of the posts is subject to the provision of the Civil Service Performance and Development Review Scheme, which I have already mentioned.

With regard to the chief executive and chief officer posts, and in line with the applicable reporting framework, the Chief Secretary acts as a reporting officer and as such is responsible for the implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of that scheme, as it appears to such posts.

This framework, which has recently been formalised

by the Civil Service Commission, and which has been endorsed by the Government Officers’ Association (GOA), reflects an approach which has been in place in respect of the departmental chief executives for some time.

Now, Mr President, it is important at this juncture to say that the Chief Secretary’s role in ensuring compliance with the Scheme in no way impacts on the accountability of an individual chief executive or chief officer to their Minister or Board, in relation to the functions and duties of that Department or Board. As a key element in the performance and development review process, the Chief Secretary, as reporting officer, has an obligation to secure the active involvement of the Minister of the Department or Chairman of the Board concerned. In particular, the Minister or Chairman is asked to contribute to the postholder’s annual performance and competency assessment review.

Having taken into account the views of the Minister or Chairman, as appropriate, the Chief Secretary then has a duty to formalise the overall assessment of each individual postholder’s performance, in accordance with the requirements of the Scheme.

With regard to the post of Chief Secretary, a broadly parallel approach has been taken, but with the reporting officer being an individual independent of the Isle of Man Civil Service, appointed by the Civil Service Commission. That independent person, as part of their role as reporting officer, is obligated to secure the active involvement of the Chief Minister and His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor, as contributors to the postholder’s annual performance and competency assessment review.

As with Chief Executive and Chief Officer posts, the role of reporting officer in no way impacts on the accountability of the Chief Secretary, in respect of advice to the Chief Minister and through the Chief Minister to the Council of Ministers and to His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor, in relation to their respective functions and responsibilities.


Mr Karran: Would the Ard-shirveishagh, given the reply, explain to this Hon. Court that, by that reply, basically they are out of control?

Would the Chief Minister, also… He states that the performance seems to be satisfactory as far as he is concerned, but I would say that most people believe that those at the top are out of control. Will we see some initiative from the Council of Ministers to claim some sort of control over who judges the performance of the fat cats that are in the Civil Service at the present time –?

The President: Now, Hon. Member!

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh resolve to get some policy to get some accountability through himself or the Office of Ard-shirveishagh and the Council of Ministers to get some accountability on the public sector?


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President.Well, of course, I did explain in the Answer to the

Question, Mr President, the Performance and Development Review Scheme has been in operation since April of this year. Another part, in addition to that, will be effective as of


Top civil servants – Evaluating performance

1st April next year. Therefore, what I am saying to the Hon. Member is: all this has been debated and agreed, and it is a formula which is in being at this time.

If there are to be any changes, I would suggest that those changes will be looked upon, as we always review and revise, and if the Hon. Member has anything specific that he wishes to bring to the attention of the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers, I am quite sure we will be eager to hear.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President.How does the Chief Minister reconcile his claim that the

proposals he has described have met with general acceptance across the Civil Service when, as I understand it, there was a second unanimous vote on the floor, a vote of no confidence, at the recent GOA Annual General Meeting in the Civil Service Commission? (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.)

Secondly, after answering that, could he advise us if he would agree with me that the proposals he describes, and those which we will hear more of in due course, will result in a split Civil Service, a further demoralising division within the Service and yet another – a further – large pay increase for certain senior civil servants?


The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr President. The Hon. Member enlightens me that we have a situation

with the GOA, which is a part of the negotiating team. If that is the situation, I would again say to the Hon. Member: has the complaint or have any observations been made by them to anyone in respect of that particular area of concern? Certainly, the last thing we would want is a split in the Civil Service from the hierarchy to the middle ground and so on.

It is a unified Civil Service: to get the very best out of the Civil Service, they should all be working together for the benefit of Government, for the betterment of the people of the Isle of Man. It certainly is of concern to me, if the Hon. Members are saying that this is something that is not working and it is not producing what we intended it to do, when we passed it through this Court, sir.

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

Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President. Just a couple of points.

Would the Chief Minister not agree that self-regulation seems to be the order of the day here? How can the Chief Minister have total…? He made great stress of the fact that it would be an independent arbitrator appointed – appointed by the Civil Service Commission of which one of the members is the Chief Secretary. That cannot be right, sir, that she appoints an independent arbitrator to judge on her decisions.

Also, again, I find the involvement of His Excellency in this, in political matters, contrary to the wish of this Court, which is to divorce the Crown from the political scenario. I just find the whole scene rather upsetting, sir.


The Chief Minister: Yes, well, if I can take it in reverse

order, the Hon. Member has been around for quite a long time in this particular Court and is well aware –

Mr Lowey: I know.

The Chief Minister: – of where this was born from: it was born from the fact that when the Lieutenant-Governor actually presided, the Lieutenant-Governor was in a position where the Government Secretary actually reported to the Governor. That has slowly but surely been moved out of that particular area, whereby the Chief Secretary now… As we well recall an incident where it was this Court that questioned the fact that His Excellency was informed about something, in my time before, before I was, and it was reversed, so that it was the other way round.

So, I think this is something that is coming through by evolution that, in fact, that could be something that could be very well now questioned. But, certainly, the Chief Secretary still has a duty to go to His Excellency, to inform him, to advise him and to answer questions from him.

The Hon. Member says about self-regulation. Well, if the self-regulation is within a strategy that safeguards it from what the Hon. Member is suggesting… But certainly the independent person that I was interviewed by, last year, in respect of the Chief Secretary, was someone who was off-Island, who came, asked questions, and went away and reported. He was, as the Hon. Member so rightly says, appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but that is the way in which it is set up and that is the way it is operating at the moment.

So, if it is a case that the wheel is broken and needs fixing, well, it is something we will have to get a grip of. Certainly, that is what is in position and that is what operates at this time, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr President.Would the Chief Minister see benefit in conducting a

more up-to-date review of the pay and conditions of senior civil servants with comparable jobs in industry?


The Chief Minister: Again, we are operating under the scheme which is in existence.

I thank the Hon. Member for his first question in Tynwald; but I well remember him 10 years ago asking me questions in the Junior Tynwald, when he was a mere schoolboy at Castle Rushen, so I was expecting, perhaps, him to be on his feet.

But, certainly, this is something that we have moved from an area where civil servants were at the back of the queue, when private businesses were earning a lot more, and we were losing one heck of a lot of people from Government out into the private sector.

Now the situation is that we are on par, I would say, that we can keep our staff here. (Interjections) But in fact what is being suggested is that perhaps the salaries are greater than… But it depends who you are actually comparing it with and I think this, again, is important (Interjection) that we get apples and apples, instead of apples and pears.

But it is something that, if Hon. Members are saying, Mr


Top civil servants – Evaluating performanceChief executives’ remuneration increases – Tynwald approval

President, this is a concern, I am quite sure that people are listening and action will be taken, sir.

Mr Lowey: Could I just ask one supplementary, because I think it is relevant?

The President: Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Would the Chief Minister not agree that we have an independent commission, an Appointments Commission set up and operating now on the vast array of Government appointments? Is this not a classic, where the Civil Service should make an independent… an independent adjudicator should not be being appointed by the people who will be adjudicated on, and that is a role for the independent Commission which we have already set up?

The President: It may well be; I think the Chief Minister has answered the question. Chief Minister.

Chief Minister: Yes, I think there are two areas of comment: one is that the new body that is set up could very well be appointing people to the Commission. That is the start, so we could have a change in that direction.

But certainly that is worth consideration of trying to make it transparent and if that person was then appointed outside of the Civil Service Commission, even if its perception has to be addressed, the same as reality.

Chief executives’ remuneration increasesTynwald approval


Will you undertake to seek the approval of Tynwald before the Chief Secretary or the chief executives of Departments receive any increase in their current rates of remuneration?

The President: Question 5, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.




As Hon. Members may be aware, it is the function of the Civil Service Commission to determine scales and the rates of salary for all members of the Civil Service. This is a statutory duty placed on the Commission, as I have already suggested in another Question, by the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Act 1990 and is subject only to any requirements imposed by resolution of this Court, as to the settlement of such matters by way of negotiation or arbitration or indeed both.

To this end, at the October 1991 sitting, Tynwald approved a constitution for a Joint Negotiating Committee for the Civil Service, comprising representatives of the

Commission and the Isle of Man Government Officers’ Association. The principal functions of the Joint Negotiating Committee being, and I quote:

‘to secure the largest possible measure of co-operation between Government and the members of the Civil Service in the determination of pay and other terms and conditions of service and to achieve a sensible balance between the need to provide efficient, cost-effective services in the public interest and the duty to be a sensible employer.’

An arbitration agreement was also approved by this Court at that time, the purpose of which is to ensure the orderly settlement of disagreements on those occasions when they may arise.

These existing mechanisms as approved, again, by this Court underpin collective bargaining arrangements for the Civil Service and I believe that it would be entirely inappropriate to bring before this Hon. Court individual proposals for changes in the pay or terms and conditions applicable to specific posts or groups of posts within the Civil Service. To do so could, I suggest, potentially undermine the integrity of existing arrangements and would possibly be counterproductive, sir.

The President: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, is it a fact that there has just been a new agreement to improve the pay of the senior cardinal, or whatever they are called, at the present time in the region of £30,000, which means another £15,000 on their pensions for the rest of their lives? Why has the Council of Ministers agreed to this? Does this not undermine any pay negotiations with the rest of the people in the Isle of Man, as far as the public sector is concerned?

Will the Ard-shirveishagh, in his last few days as it, come out with a timescale in order to get the policy changed in the interests of transparency that these people at the top, the fat cats that run the Government, (Interjection) have a situation where their review and pay are approved by Tynwald, to bring some sort of accountability? Would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the tutting should be for the poor taxpayer who has to pay out £100,000-odd a year for many of these so-called ‘experts’?


The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr President.First of all, I must repeat that, of course, all this has been

done within the Scheme (Interjection by Mr Karran) and the way in which the legislation was put before this Court.

I have heard that figures quoted of some civil servants and that this top layer getting something like £20,000 extra in their pay. Well, from my information that I have gleaned, that is certainly not the case. In fact, the implementation of the proposals from existing salaries to the new pay ranges would provide for increases for individuals of something between £111 per annum to £6,000 in the first year.

These are the figures which, as I say, I am only getting from my enquiries, but certainly this is not something that comes to the Council of Ministers for approval. There is a joint position where it is negotiated and I have already suggested in another Question, it would be absolutely – I think totally – inappropriate to bring onto the floor of Tynwald and discuss the salaries of our top individuals in their posts. Therefore, until such times as that is changed,


Chief executives’ remuneration increases – Tynwald approvalBallakilley Estate, Rushen – Public open space

I would suggest that they are acting in a way that has been passed by Tynwald Court and therefore it has to be appropriate at this time, sir.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr President.Could the Chief Minister, since he seems very complacent

about this situation, (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) please confirm that he does have the authority in his current role to direct the Chairman not to enter or to finalise any arrangement without the Chief Minister? Since it is a possibility and a probability that he will no longer be Chief Minister by the end of the week, would he at least do that to allow the new administration the opportunity to get some control over this situation, which sadly this administration seems to have failed to have taken by any kind of serious rick whatsoever?

Mr Karran: Hear, hear.


The Chief Minister: First of all, there is no complacency. I do not know where the Hon. Member is coming from, but I know he is very au fait with one side of the negotiating panel (Interjections) and therefore he is obviously a lot more interested and a lot more perhaps up-to-date than I am, sir.

Certainly, there is a direction from the Chief Minister’s Office to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, but surely that is a situation that is a negotiating body. As I say, if we started to interfere in the particular area of individual posts, I think that is something that we would actually rue the day that we got into that position, where we would be debating in a Court situation like this the individual salaries of people that actually work for us.

However, I was interested to see that this is one of the points in our hopeful Thursday’s election, which is certainly mentioned in some other important issues that should be considered and progressed. Therefore I would have every confidence in the new Chief Minister elect and the Council of Ministers addressing what obviously, to some, is a great problem. But I can assure you it is something that has been done quite legally within the process of the schemes available and is not therefore something that we are sitting back being complacent, sir.

The President: Finally, Mr Karran, Hon. Member for Onchan, final supplementary on Question 5, sir.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh repeat that there is only £120 a week increase for the top area of civil servants that are coming, and there is not an increase of some of the top civil servants at somewhere in the region of £20,000-odd-plus?

Would the Ard-shirveishagh also assure this Hon. Court that he will take on board the legitimate concerns that the Hon. Member for Rushen has brought out, to make representation that these people should not be able to make up their own pay agreements, as far as this issue is concerned?

The President: Hon. Members, the point is made. Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Yes, I can repeat that I did not say

that it was only about £120; I actually said they ranged from £111 to £6,064.

Of course, I think this is where we get into the problem of not understanding the whole of the situation with regard to this. It could be that Members are looking at the top scale points of that particular post, but whether or not the person who is in that post (Interjection by Mr Karran) is on the top scale is something that you have to address.

So, what I am saying to you is, at this time, it would provide for increases for individuals of between £111 and £6,064, and that is the fact that I have before me, sir.

Ballakilley Estate, RushenPublic open space


Would you instruct the Department of Local Government and the Environment to carry out a report on the feasibility of the Ballakilley Estate in the Parish of Rushen being zoned as a public open space and recreational area for the south of the Island, and to report back to the April 2007 sitting of Tynwald with recommendations on how this can be achieved?

The President: Question 6, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.



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

The Hon. Member’s Question is framed in such a way, perhaps, to suggest that he may not be aware of the land use zoning in the current Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan, and the working party which was set up following the approval of that Plan by this Court.

In summary, Mr President, the Local Plan zones varies parts of the Ballakilley Estate for educational use. Here it was the possibility of a primary school, which, of course, would include a playing field and other recreational facilities. Also, there was the additional burial space for Rushen Church and for, as the Member has requested, recreation, civic uses and the possible Southern Community Hospital.

Hon. Members are quite aware that part of this was subsequently acquired and the development was as the Southern Community Health Care Project.

The written statement which accompanies the Local Plan contains a development brief, which requires that a comprehensive plan should be prepared. To assist in the preparation of this comprehensive plan, there was established a working party with representatives of most of the parties having an interest in that development.

The working party is administered by the Rushen Parish Commissioners, and includes both Port Erin and Port St Mary Village Commissioners.

In the circumstances, Mr President, I would suggest it is therefore not necessary for the Department of Local


Ballakilley Estate, Rushen – Public open spaceDouglas Head/Howe development – Green lung recreation area

Government and the Environment to be instructed to carry out a feasibility report regarding the zoning of the Ballakilley Estate, as the land within that estate has already been zoned for a variety of public and civic purposes, including recreational use, as suggested by the Hon. Member.

However, I am informed that the landowner wishes to see part of this land utilised for residential housing, in return for releasing the remaining land for public and civic purposes. As the land is not zoned for residential development, this matter will not be resolved until after it has had full and proper consideration, as part of the process for formulating the new Area Plan for the south of the Island, a process which is scheduled to commence next year, when, Mr President, I am sure, the Department of Local Government and the Environment and the Commissioners in the area will note the interest of the Hon. Member, and include any other interested persons in that consultation, sir.

The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Does the Chief Minister join with the three MHKs for

Rushen in welcoming the Hon. Member for Onchan’s sudden interest in the ongoing work of the Rushen MHKs and local authorities for the area, to try to get exactly what you have explained to us – what we are endeavouring to achieve at the Ballakilley site? Does he agree that, with the leader of the unofficial opposition on our side, success is waiting just round the corner?

Several Members: Absolutely. Hear, hear.


The Chief Minister: Mr President, I can confirm, in fact, that in my latest information, on checking this particular one, I find that the new MHKs for Rushen have actually sought a meeting with the Chief Executive of the Department of Local Government and Environment to discuss the development at Ballakilley. So, I would suggest that with the three Members already united in what they wish to see there, this is something that will certainly be gaining momentum, I would have thought, next year, sir.


Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that this proposal has been here for something like 10 years, and what we have is a situation where people are now wanting deals done and the original concept could well be lost?

Would he not agree that it is a sad opportunity that he has missed by not just simply saying yes to it, in order to get people off the fence and make sure that there is a transparent process, as far as this opportunity is concerned for this area, as far as the people of the south of the Island?


The Chief Minister: Yes, I think that was actually made at the time in 1999, that there was a desire that this should happen. So, the answer in 1999 was yes and the continued answer, I would suggest, would be yes.

However, there is a legal process which you must go

through with this land. It is owned by someone other than Government ,and therefore they must have the obvious opportunity to have some say in the negotiated deal which brings this into the situation of being recreational.

Therefore, as I have already suggested there, Mr President, I know that the estate that own this particular area is saying, ‘Well, a small proportion of that can be for housing; that will compensate for us then allowing the other land to be used for recreational’. This is something that I would have thought would be a desire that an agreement can come about and, in fact, it should come to fruition.

The President: Now, Hon. Members, a strict supplementary, without debating it, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree that the situation is of what he has decided on will actually work against the long-term interest, because deals are being done at this present time?

Would he not agree that the legislation is there for the Department of Local Government and the Environment to take the initiative, get this issue off the fence and get the issue resolved for future generations?

There will be a motion next month on this Agenda Paper.


The Chief Minister: Yes, I would suggest that the Hon. Member is perhaps being a little unkind as to ‘nothing is happening’, because I know that the previous Members of Rushen were also very interested in this, and were progressing it.

But there is a way in which it has to be done, and we cannot circumvent that, even if we had a motion saying that this Court is of the opinion that it should happen; we still have to go through the proper legal process.

Now, the Hon. Member is saying that deals are being done. That is something that concerns me, because the way in which the Hon. Member has said that is that deals are being done in which to extract more cash out of Government than needs be the case. So, therefore, I would have thought again the Department of Local Government must look at this with a bit of urgency, to make sure that, in fact, that is not what is happening.

Douglas Head/Howe developmentGreen lung recreation area


Since the Douglas area desperately needs a green lung recreation area, will you as Chief Minister instruct the Department of Local Government and the Environment to report back to the May 2007 sitting of Tynwald with recommendations for designating the Douglas Head/Howe area for such a purpose, stating the costs for likely compensation to the landowners, and the basis therefor?

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


Douglas Head/Howe development – Green lung recreation areaSefton Group plc – Call for FSC investigation

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



In response to the Hon. Member for Onchan, and after consultation with the Department of Local Government and the Environment, may I firstly advise the Court that in the current Douglas Local Plan, that part of Douglas Head which falls within the town boundary is already zoned as public open space, excepting the small group of buildings around the former Douglas Head Hotel.

Then I understand, also, that much of that land is also the subject of a dedication covenant, which is exercised by the Corporation on behalf of the residents of Douglas, and which effectively prevents further building on that part of the headland, and permits access for public rambleage.

Thirdly, the land to the south of the town boundary, Upper Howe and the Nunnery Howe, in the Parish of Braddan, is designated as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.

So, Mr President, it can therefore be seen that there are already in place measures which protect the headland from inappropriate development and, to an extent, facilitate public access to it.

The wider question of providing additional green recreational space in the Douglas area is one which should be canvassed, as part of the formulation of the new Area Plan for the east of the Island. Commencement of this Plan is scheduled for next year, and I have no doubt that all those with an interest in the provision of space for recreation and leisure – including, for example, the Department of Tourism and Leisure – will take an active part in that process, and that, again, full consideration will be given to the Hon. Member’s suggestion, as he has put forward today, sir.

The President: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, would the Ard-shirveishagh not agree with me that it will be disappointing outside this Hon. Court that, once again, he is very much on the fence on this issue, like the previous issue, when he has the power to direct the Department of Local Government to actually come up with a policy decision and use the legislation, if needed, in order to be in the interests of the public, instead of the self-interests of a few landowners?


The Chief Minister: Well, of course, Mr President, we must remember that the Chief Minister cannot direct the Minister of any Department to do anything. Therefore, it is up to the new Minister of the Local Government Department, which will consider this, and I am quite sure, again, the Hon. Member is looking for – (Interjection by Mr Karran) Sorry, I did not catch that, Mr…

Mr Karran: You make the agenda.

The President: It does not matter. Continue, Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: The agenda. So, with the result, all I

can say, Mr President, is if the Hon. Member was looking for an answer to his question as to whether or not it would be good for this to happen, we could all probably say yes, but there are certain legal things that have to happen and be in place.

As I have already said, it is happening and it is scheduled for next year. Therefore, I would look forward to the Hon. Member putting in his interest and his comment, and hopefully not, as he has suggested, that people once again are making money out of Douglas Head, as he has suggested in Ballakilley, sir.

TREASURY

Sefton Group plcCall for FSC investigation

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

(a) Would you agree that any apparent breaches of FSC Practice Note 12/2006, relating to the responsibilities and duties of directors under the laws of the Isle of Man, should be investigated by the Financial Supervision Commission, especially when they relate to a Manx public company;(b) would you also agree that adherence to clauses 1.3.3.1 (loyalty), 1.3.3.3 (no secret profits) and 1.3.3.5 (conflict of interest) in Practice Note 12/2006 is particularly important for a director of a major Manx public company, and that any breaches that are not speedily investigated and rectified could reflect badly on the reputation of the Isle of Man as a premier financial location;(c) are you aware that some shareholders in Sefton Group plc have expressed concern that certain related party transactions have taken place without having been approved by shareholders in general meeting, apparently in conflict with clauses 1.3.3.3 and 1.3.3.5;(d) in the circumstances, will you ask the FSC to investigate whether the statutory duties of the Sefton Group directors in relation to their shareholders have been complied with in respect of related party transactions between companies owned and/or controlled by Graham Ferguson Lacey and the Sefton Group (and its subsidiaries) including transactions relating to Lesley Vondy House, Ronaldsway, Ballasalla and Atlantic House, Circular Road, Douglas; and(e) will you ensure that if any breaches in the responsibilities and duties of directors have occurred, then appropriate prosecutions will be pursued as specified in clause 1.3.3 and that you will ensure that the directors account to the company for any benefit they received (clause 1.3.3.5) or losses caused to the company by such breaches?

The President: Question 8, Hon. Member, Mr. Karran.


The President: Minister for the Treasury.

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


Sefton Group plc – Call for FSC investigationAirport runway extension – Presentation to Members

Hon. Members will be aware that the Hon. Member asked a very similar Question at the October Tynwald sitting. I am mindful of the need generally to keep Answers brief, but before I respond directly to his five questions, I feel very strongly that some general points need to be made regarding parliamentary privilege.

In doing so, I will quote from the First Report on Parliamentary Privilege of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK, published in March 1999:

‘The privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament places a corresponding duty on every member to use the freedom responsibly. […]The absolute privilege of freedom of speech enables members to comment on the activities of individuals, companies, representative bodies, interest groups or anyone else without fear or favour. For the most part this immunity is exercised responsibly in both Houses. In the Commons the Speaker frequently reminds members of the duty each of them owes to the House and to the public not to abuse the privilege. The Commons procedure committee has reminded members that the purpose of privilege is to protect the institution of Parliament, not to set individual members outside the law, and that members should use parliamentary privilege responsibly. Within this framework there are occasions when members make observations on identified or identifiable people which may be unfairly critical or even defamatory. Such statements can damage the reputations and businesses of individuals. The statements may be reported widely and even prominently in newspapers and television and radio broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings. Those impugned, however, cannot clear their names or obtain compensation. Because of the legal immunity afforded […], they have no legal redress’.

Mr President, turning to the specific questions in relation to part (a), any breaches of Isle of Man company law that occur in regard to a company incorporated within the Island could, where applicable, be reviewed and investigated by the Financial Supervision Commission. In some cases, these may need to be referred to Her Majesty’s Attorney General for consideration.

However, it should be noted that the Commission does not necessarily investigate each and every breach and will normally need to have cogent evidence of misconduct presented to it, before proceeding with enquiries. It is the seriousness of a breach which is relevant, rather than whether the company is a public or private company.

In answer to part (b), Mr President, the Practice Note referred to is a Practice Note offering guidance only. The formal requirements are set out in the legislation and it would not be appropriate to say that adherence to some provisions is more important than adherence to others, whether in a public or private company context.

I am sure that, based on cogent evidence presented, Her Majesty’s Attorney General and the Financial Supervision Commission are always mindful that prompt investigation and remedial action in relation to company matters are needed to protect the reputation of the Island as a premier financial location. Again, this applies to all companies.

In answer to part (c), Mr President, I am not aware that some shareholders in the Sefton Group plc have expressed concern that certain related party transactions have taken place without having been approved by shareholders in a general meeting. If the Hon. Member has specific details of such shareholders and their alleged concerns, I suggest, in the first instance, he directs them to the company itself.

In answer to part (d), Mr President, the Financial Supervision Commission, upon receipt of relevant and cogent evidence, will examine any matters brought to its attention. This, in turn, could trigger the exercise of its

powers, including to petition the High Court under section 26 of the Companies Act 1992, seeking the disqualification of someone to act as a director. However, as already mentioned, the Commission would not commence investigation without such evidence being presented to it.

Finally, Mr President, at part (e), if any cases come to light where it is apparent that a director may have improperly benefited from company funds or caused losses to the company through improper behaviour, then these are likely to be referred to Her Majesty’s Attorney General for consideration in the first instance.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Eaghtyrane, if the Shirveishagh Tashtee has got a problem as far as asking these questions, I just hope that he has the same problem with other sections of the community as well.

The President: Minister for Treasury, if you wish to reply, sir.

The Minister: Mr President, I do not have a problem with any Member asking any question on any issue. What I do say, though, is that those questions must be based on clear availability of evidence that wrongdoing has taken place, otherwise this not only damages the individuals referred to in the questions, it also damages the reputation and integrity of this Hon. Chamber, when questions are being asked without any basis of foundation.

Airport runway extensionPresentation to Members

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

With the track record of our capital projects, will you give a presentation over the options and reasons for the decisions which have been made as far as the extension of the runway at Ronaldsway Airport is concerned to all Members of Tynwald before any further decisions are made as far as this capital project is concerned?

The President: Question 9, Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. (Interjection by Mr Karran) Question 9, sir. (Interjection by Mr Karran) Hon. Member for Onchan –

Mr Karran: I would just ask, on the previous Question, what actions were taken after that one.

The President: Were you asking Question 9, sir?

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

The President: Treasury Minister.

The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Bell): Mr President, I should like to take this opportunity to remind Hon. Members that capital spending by Government Departments over the last five years has been well within the overall budgets agreed by Tynwald.


Airport runway extension – Presentation to MembersOphthalmic and orthopaedic surgery – Waiting list initiatives

From 2001-02 to 2005-06, the Government Departments have completed 35 major projects at a cost approaching £300 million, comfortably within the funds approved by Tynwald. This takes into account the fact that three projects did overspend to the tune of £3.3 million in total.

The often repeated criticism of Government’s capital programme may have given the impression that it is out of control and that overspending is common. The reality is that all but a tiny fraction of capital spending by Departments over the past five years has been delivered within budgets approved by Tynwald. (Mr Earnshaw: Hear, hear.)

Regarding the Department of Transport’s proposals for the runway end safety zone, Hon. Members may be aware that the Department has presently reached the stage where it is considering which contractor it will employ to progress with the design of the scheme.

Treasury sought and received, earlier in the year, a presentation from the Department on this important project, in order to gain Treasury concurrence to their progress thus far. However, it is not the role of Treasury to take responsibility for such a presentation to Members. This would more properly fall to the Department of Transport, as the sponsoring Department.

I am sure the Department would be willing to share with Members the strategic thinking and options they have considered in developing the project to its present stage. Indeed, I am able to confirm that it is the intention of the Department to do so.

However the timing of any presentation is a matter for the Minister for the Department of Transport to consider.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh Tashtee explain to this Hon. Court what sort of costs are proposed, as far as this proposal of the extension of the runway?

Could the Shirveishagh not also explain to this Hon. Court when he talks about budgets being kept in order, which budgets: the original budget or the issues of what has been cut out of the capital projects in the first place?

Would he not agree with this Hon. Court that, if he believes in transparency and the problems we have got as far as Government financing is concerned, will he not instruct the Minister for Transport to do a presentation in the interests that this is a major financial capital project and we need to know more detail?

The President: I am sure we will get the detail, Hon. Members, when it comes to Tynwald. Treasury Minister?

Mr Karran: Long before that!

The Minister: Mr President, I do not have the current estimated costs of this particular scheme and neither do I have the power, Mr President, to instruct the Minister for Transport to give a presentation.

If the Hon. Member had listened to the Answer I was giving, though, Mr President, he would have realised that I have already stated that it is the intention of the Department of Transport to make a full and detailed presentation to Members, which will include the strategy and rationale behind the scheme in the first place and all attendant costs.

In terms of his other question, Mr President, my comments in relation to the capital programme relate to the

sums of money approved by this Hon. Court.

The President: Yes, Hon. Members, I would point out that I personally – I do not know about other Members, but I know there were other Members there – have already had a presentation in relation to it.

Several Members: Hear, hear.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Ophthalmic and orthopaedic surgeryWaiting list initiatives

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

Will you as a matter of urgency have your Department commence waiting list initiatives for ophthalmic and orthopaedic surgery waiting lists, given that they are probably the longest of any waiting lists in the Health Service?

The President: Question 10. Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Ta mee shirrey kied yn eysht y chur ta fo my ennym. I beg to ask the Question in my name.

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

The Minister for Health and Social Security (Mr Rodan): Thank you, Mr President.

As Hon. Members are aware from Reports earlier in the year, waiting list initiatives in orthopaedics and ophthalmics have already been undertaken. I confirm orthopaedic waiting list initiatives are continuing, both in outpatient and inpatient joint replacements.

The orthopaedic team have continuously performed one extra joint replacement operation per week for the last 12 months. In November this year – last month – we have increased this to two joints per week, in order to try to cope with the demand for surgery.

We will also be performing a further six joint replacements in free theatre time which has been allocated to orthopaedics.

Mr President, we have performed approximately 25 extra outpatient clinics in orthopaedics which, whilst reducing the wait for a clinic, also regrettably increases the wait for the inpatient waiting list.

It is our intention to continue with these waiting list initiatives and thereby limit the time waited for orthopaedic interventions. We are currently reviewing how the ophthalmic waiting lists may benefit from further use of resources to reduce both outpatient and inpatient waiting times.

Ophthalmic waiting list initiatives have been undertaken in outpatient clinics. Whilst this reduces the clinic wait time, again, the conversion from outpatient to inpatient treatment is approximately 43 per cent, and therefore an impact is seen on the inpatient waiting times.


Ophthalmic and orthopaedic surgery – Waiting list initiativesPrivate nursing/residential home fees – Recent increases

Mr President, the Department is, of course, subject to constraints in delivering services within available resources, which prevent us making as much progress as we would wish.

The President: Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I thank the Shirveishagh for his Answer and indicating

that some waiting list initiatives are in progress or have been in progress.

In relation to my Question, would he agree with me, though, that for ophthalmic surgery and orthopaedic surgery, they are currently the highest numbers of people waiting and certainly for anything up to 12 to 17 months?

Would he further agree that somebody waiting, say, for a hip replacement can very often suffer excruciating pain, and they are living in a world

Documents

2 TYNWALD Pages 12.12.06 · 2013. 2. 1. · Clerk of Tynwald’s Ofﬁce former space Reallocation 1. The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Earnshaw) to ask the Chief Minister: (1) Which