Douglas North David John ASHFORD MHK/George Ralph PEAKE Esq MHK

"There should be a dedicated tram corridor behind the parking between the parking and the footway. This would consist of a singleline track with a passing place."

Mr Peake: Thank you! So it is to include a design process in that promenade scheme. Thank you very much, Mrs Beecroft. Yes, to leave out the words, so that a design for a single line tram track should be incorporated in any future promenade highway scheme.

I am fully supportive of tramways, I am fully supportive of getting the road into a good state. I would just like us to separate out those two things and work on any designs that people want to put forward, and let’s crack on with the maintenance that the Minister has agreed to and any work on Loch Promenade, and keep that design separate.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I beg to move:

To leave out the words in recommendation 6 and in their place to insert the words: ‘That a design for a single line Tramway track should be incorporated in any future Douglas Promenade highway scheme’

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr President.

I will be supporting the Department in their efforts to move forward with improvements to Douglas Promenade.

My concern is that we are allowing spending to increase. I believe we should be looking at how to carry what is needed and deliver value for money.

I can see the proposal allows creation of a new and vibrant area around the Sefton and Gaiety Theatre, which has been called the cultural quarter. It is planned that transport links will converge in this area, delivering visitors and customers to the beginning of Douglas retail area and encourage pedestrians to enjoy and extend visits to Douglas. This is what I believe to be regeneration of our capital town centre.
In new ways of living and using the space we call ‘town’, it needs to be joined up – a clear vision of what the town will look like in the future so we can all pull in the same direction to make this happen, otherwise it is doomed to fail (A Member: Hear, hear.) and we would be pouring money down the drain if we do not agree and work together.

I am heartened by the desire and the will demonstrated by Douglas Borough Council and Douglas MHKs when we met yesterday in a meeting to find common ground and work together for the benefit of the town’s future. I am told this is the first meeting for some years and it is our responsibility to keep these meetings going and for the outcomes to be delivered. This would be a truly effective solution for a joined-up approach for decision-making and a better future for the town.
A number of interested parties and volunteer groups have contacted Members over recent days. There is a great opportunity to channel all this good will into creating a vibrant and enjoyable future; a destination worthy of visiting and spending time and money. Having history and items of architectural importance presented and enjoyed, provides an authentic backdrop for education and a willing destination for the public.

This provides a genuine opportunity for economic growth. I call on the Department’s experts and engineers to be aware of the level of investment which have been called for and urge them to use their professional experience and to carefully view the section of Loch Promenade when uncovered, to gain a full understanding of what is needed to be reconstructed and what can be re-engineered satisfactorily, using their knowledge and experience which could lead to a more efficient solution and provide the taxpayers good value. This will then be enjoyed by Douglas as an early completion. There is a need for financial prudence.

I support the action in carrying out an affordable solution for repairing the Promenade. Thank you.

Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr President.

Firstly, let me say the majority of the principles and recommendations before us today, I fully support.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Hon. Minister for getting it the right way round and coming before this Hon. Court for direction as to what is acceptable before rushing off and drawing up designs at taxpayers’ expense, as has happened in the past.

The fact he has got it the right way round should hopefully speed up the redevelopment of the Promenade, which is long overdue – and I think every Member in this Hon. Court would agree with that. I would also like to take the opportunity to praise him and his Department for the temporary

work that has been done on the north end, which has improved the situation there absolutely incredibly. As far as I am aware, the overwhelming majority of the public I have spoken to say it is worth every single penny. I would like to congratulate him on that.

Right, well, Mr President, that is the nice bit out of the way! (Laughter) As I have said, the vast majority of the principles and recommendations, I have no problem with, but the two I cannot support are points (ii) and (vi) in relation to the horse trams.

In July, this Hon. Court voted overwhelmingly 20-1 in Keys (A Member: Hear, hear.) and unanimously in Council for the track to run the full length of the Promenade: a pretty clear indication of direction by anyone’s standards, but yet here we are again. Clearly someone, somewhere did not get the result they were hoping for. I do have an amendment to move when I get to the end, Mr President.
When the Minister does come to his summing up, perhaps in his answer the Minister can explain to this Hon. Court what exactly has changed between July – when Tynwald last 2395 considered this matter and gave a very clear decision – and now? The proposal certainly has not radically changed. The only thing I can see that has really changed, Mr President, is there are 12 new faces within this Hon. Court and the Department, clearly unhappy with July’s decision, are simply chancing their arm, seeing if they can get a different result. Clearly the Department’s new mantra is, ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.’ However, it does also bring to mind for me 2400 Albert Einstein’s comment that, ‘The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.’

I would also like to take the opportunity, Mr President, to remind this Hon. Court and Hon. Members that, as already mentioned, the then amendment by the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, was supported overwhelmingly by Tynwald. In fact, the current Minister 2405 and all of the current Council of Ministers voted for Mr Malarkey’s amendment, which was for a single line track from Derby Castle to the Sea Terminal. The Minister has already said in his introductory remarks that the debate was ill-informed, but I would still like to know what has changed the Minister’s and others’ minds to say it should now be terminated at the Villa. Personally the option I have always favoured is the single line track with a passing place on the seaward side, but clearly that option seems to be off the table as it is not finding favour.
To terminate the tram tracks at the Villa is absolutely ludicrous as far as I am concerned. Firstly, where are passengers going to alight? Secondly, could you find a more dangerous spot on the Promenade to be moving a horse for the return journey? I could not think of one. You have cars coming down the road, not just wanting to carry on but also moving over and indicating ready to turn right up towards Finch Road. I am sure the Minister will say, ‘Well, there is going to be junction improvements and something can be done with Sefton Island for alighting passengers.’ One of the arguments that, from memory, has been put forward by the Department for wanting to retain the double track in the centre of the road was that it did not require planning permission and allowed them to get on with the scheme, but surely if those 2420 sort of works are to be undertaken to junctions and to Sefton Island – which is the only way I can see it being made safe for alighting passengers – then it will require planning permission in that area, so that argument no longer holds water. To my mind, I think there are other undercurrents in this decision, Mr President, and it has been brought back here today mainly because of ambitions for the electric railway to extend down the Promenade to the Villa.

If the trams are going to terminate at the Villa – being blunt, Mr President – as far as I am concerned, you may as well close the trams down. It will kill the service stone dead. Who in their right mind is going to walk all the way over to the War Memorial in all weathers in order to ride the horse tram to Strathallan? I know I would not. In fact, quite a lot of regular users of the service have made clear to me that, if these changes happen, for them, it is also the final straw and they would no longer use the service.

The Minister has recently been talking about how the last season saw higher passenger numbers and a decreased deficit. As an aside, I am still not convinced on the decreased deficit, as I think the previous operators had a much more robust process of allocating costs and exposing true cost, but I am digressing there.
The proposal, I believe, will actually lower passenger numbers and thereby income. There are those that disagree with me, but certainly that is what I believe.
One of the beauties of the horse tram service, Mr President, is that it currently connects up not just with the MER, but also the bus stops by Regent Street and, of course, is within a short 2440 walking distance of the Sea Terminal itself. That would be lost under these proposals.

It has also been suggested in the past that having that section of track is uneconomical; there is no benefit, but how can the Department say that because they do not have the figures. In another place, I asked a similar Question, Mr President, and the Minister began his Answer by saying:

The data held does not currently allow me to accurately advise on how many people started and terminated their journey at the Sea Terminal, as we do not record alighting passengers anywhere in our public transport operations.

So if we are not recording the number of people who are alighting at the Sea Terminal, how can we say there is no economic benefit to having the track run that length?

The claim has also been made, Mr President, that there is a £750,000 saving to be made by not laying the tracks from the Villa to the Sea Terminal. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to explain how that is broken down, since recommendation (vi) still has a tram corridor set up for future extension. I believe from previous answers given in this Hon. Court, that the track has already been purchased. The only way I can get to the £750,000 saving is if you are excluding the track. Maybe, eventually, the Minister will be able to clarify that. Without including the track, I just cannot see where that £750,000 comes from.

After Tynwald Court gave such a clear and overwhelming direction in July, I have to say, I am actually very saddened that the Department has felt the need to come back with this again. I hope, Mr President, that Members of this Hon. Court will stand by the decision that the track should run the full length, which was fully debated in July and voted for by all but one of the Hon. Members who were present in July and still present here today.

Nothing that I can see has changed between July and now, and therefore I can see no reason for people to have changed their mind in relation to the length of the track, but we will wait and see with interest how people vote on this.

I think I have now spoken for long enough, Mr President. I wish to move the following amendment:

In (ii) to remove the word ‘Broadway’ and insert the words ‘the Sea Terminal’ and that point (vi) be deleted.

So the amended recommendation (ii) would read, Mr President, ‘(ii) The twin tracks between the Sea Terminal and Summerhill are to be renewed in the current location;’.

The President: Just for clarity, Hon. Member, what is your proposal for recommendation (iv)? Mr Ashford: That it be deleted, Mr President.
The President: I beg your pardon?
Mr Ashford: That it be deleted, Mr President.

The President: Be deleted, thank you. Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I am happy to second that proposal.

Certainly, I supported the move in July to continue the horse trams all the way, the full length of the Promenade. I think that is the true value of that heritage asset. It is as close as I think we are going to get to joining up our heritage assets between the Terminus and the Steam Railway and the bus network as well. I think this represents the best move in terms of what I think the public of the Isle of Man expects and I think the visitors as well.

What I have not seen, really, is a compelling case for me to change my mind since July, and I think that Mr Ashford’s amendment delivers that and I am happy to second it.