Douglas South Hon Kathleen Joan BEECROFT MHK/Hon William Mackay MALARKEY Esq MHK

n/a

Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President.
I rise to congratulate the Minister on bringing this motion forward today to, at least for the time being, save our heritage and our horse trams. I think the Department and the working group should be congratulated for the work they have done in the past six months, when we were shocked to find out that Douglas Town Council were pulling out from operating the horse trams.
I would also like to congratulate the Department for how they managed to get the running costs down on operating them, and it is great seeing full trams up and down the Promenade, as we have been noticing in the last few weeks and which I have observed quite a lot.

Mr President, I can understand, from the Minister’s points of view, this is to give us two years’ breathing space to find out what is wanted moving forward for the future. We do not know what our finances are going to be, but what I do know – and I keep saying this, Mr President – is that tourism is a thing that we must push for the future for the Isle of Man economy. We have opportunities to grab more and more in tourism to help our economy. It has grown 1% in the last year or so; there is a lot further for it to go. I believe the horse trams, the Electric Railway, the Steam Railway and all the other items that we have that make this Island unique have to be maintained, and obviously there has to be some cost to this.
Mr President, I have got a very small amendment circulating at the moment. I listened with interest to what the Minister said at several presentations and here today with regard to how far the horse trams should run across the promenade. I am a 100% firm believer that it should not terminate at the War Memorial. If we are going to have it at all, it has to be the full length of the promenade.
Mr President, I also understand the dilemma that the Minister and several other Ministers have been in for the last five years at least: the promenade is in a terrible, terrible state, and every time the horse trams are mentioned and we go to Planning it seems to hold up the work going forward on the promenade. So, I can understand, at this stage, that a spade has to be put into Loch Promenade and we need to get on with some work. For that to happen, the horse trams will have to terminate at the War Memorial for the immediate future, for the time being, for that to happen, so at least we can get on with some of the work. I am also heartened to hear the Minister saying that there will be facilities laid in future if we want to lay those tramlines from the War Memorial to the Sea Terminal. What I am a little bit distressed on in the motion is at (6), where it is asking us today to approve:

That the new single line Tramway track should be laid from Derby Castle to the War Memorial as part of a Douglas Promenade highway scheme.

I think that really holds the hands of any Minister moving forward in the future, that this Hon. Court has said they have only to run from Derby Castle to the War Memorial, and any hope of it ever getting reinstated from the War Memorial to the Sea Terminal will really tie up the Minister’s hands moving forward for the future.
So my very short amendment, Mr President, purely sees to remove the word ‘War Memorial’ and reinstate ‘Sea Terminal’, because at least, going forward to the next Minister, or this Minister, the option will be there to lay the lines. We have had the reassurance from the Minister that the facilities will be there for that to happen, but I believe it has to be put into this motion going forward today. That is the reason for my very slight amendment. It would now read: ‘That the new single line Tramway track should be laid from Derby Castle to the Sea Terminal as part of a Douglas Promenade highway scheme.’

Again, I understand what the hold-up is from being involved in the Douglas Council. I have probably seen more presentations on this promenade than most people sitting here, because we were getting them on a monthly basis in the Council every time the plans changed and every time the Minister changed in the Department – a new Minister would come in with a different idea and a different plan. At one stage, there was a plan ... I think it was maybe Minister Ronan at the time who said, ‘We are starting and we are putting the lines down between the Sea Terminal and the War Memorial on the pavement side’ – (A Member: The sea side.) ‘on the sea side, pavement side,’ – which everybody seemed to agree with, and then that was changed because Minister Gawne came in and then found out that that was okay but there was nowhere else to take them after that because nothing had been planned.

Then there have been up-cries between hoteliers with regard to parking and coach stops. There is an issue with parking on Loch Promenade, and that too I can understand, but there are schemes in the pipeline, from what I understand, and there have been for development, again, of the bus station site or Walpole Avenue, which will involve car parking. If, in the near future, that goes ahead, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever why the tramlines cannot then be laid and horizontal parking be taken off the promenade, because there is sufficient parking on Loch Promenade to cope with these vehicles that will keep the hoteliers and everyone else happy. But we must make sure that there is facility for that to happen in the future – and I hope it is in the near future, not the long future.

So I am asking you today to support my amendment that at least allows the next Minister, or this Minister if he is the next Minister, to have the right to come back to Tynwald – he will have to come back for the money – to lay those lines from the Sea Terminal to the War Memorial.

We heard in the great debate yesterday over the future of our sea ports, etc. that the way forward is for more cruise liners coming to the Island. We heard about deepwater berths. If we have a deepwater berth for them to get off the cruise liner and they walk up the jetty by the Sea Terminal, wouldn’t they like to jump onto a horse tram at that stage and do the length of the promenade to see what Douglas is all about? They are not really going to walk for half a mile up the promenade, looking to see where the horse trams start. They will want the whole adventure of the whole promenade.
This is all keyed into where we go forward for the future. I just do not want us today to block that off by saying we are only going reinstate it in the future from Derby Castle to the War Memorial. I want us, today, to leave the options open and hopefully they will be options that we will take up: that the line will be maintained; the future of our horse trams will be maintained for the sake of Douglas Promenade; and, at the same time, this will not hold up the development moving forward to get the road sorted out in the near future, instead of having to go back for more planning applications, more delays, which we just cannot afford, Mr President. I beg to move:

In recommendation 6, to remove the words: ‘War Memorial’ and to insert the words: ‘Sea Terminal’...

...Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President.

Speaking to the amendment brought back from the Hon. Member for North Douglas, I fail to see what this brings to the motion, (Several Members: Hear, hear.) to be perfectly honest.

I did actually give Mr Peake a copy of my amendment yesterday in the hope that maybe if he wanted to improve on it, or whatever, he could have done, and he gave it back and said he did not agree with it.

What Mr Peake does not do is save the tramline between the War Memorial and the Sea Terminal, which is exactly what my motion does today. Quite clearly, reading them out, my motion says that the new single-line tramway should be laid from Derby Castle to the Sea Terminal as part of the promenade highway scheme. It is like a directive to the Department.

What more does Mr Peake want? This is a bit wishy-washy: that a design for a single line track should be incorporated in any future Douglas highway scheme. Where do you want it running: round Onchan before it gets to Sea Terminal? There is no direction to it.

The motion, I believe, is very clear. All my amendment does is make it clear that in the future it will run all the way to the Sea Terminal from Derby Castle.

I am afraid Mr Peake’s motion ... I do wish he had come and spoken to me yesterday when I gave him my copy, and then maybe we could have elaborated a little bit to try and help yours along.

I would suggest that we support the amendment put down by me, and not the one by Mr Peake…

...Mr Malarkey: Mr President, to the latest amendment coming forward, which I think is trying to derail the situation this morning, (A Member: Hear, hear.) does the Member who proposed this not listen to why the Minister is here today? The present arrangements and agreement with Douglas Town Council run out in September. That is why he has had to come today to get agreement on a way forward. If you agree to the amendment coming forward today, before the Minister can sign anything he has to come back to Tynwald.

Mr Cregeen: Only on Strathallan.

Mr Malarkey: When is the next Tynwald? October! So what do we do between September and October and coming back? Does everything fold up because we cannot sign a new agreement, we cannot move forward? This is nothing more than a bit of a delaying tactic, to be perfectly honest. (Interjections)

Mr President, believe me, Douglas Town Council give nothing away for nothing, if they can avoid it.

Mr Quirk: Are you sure of that?

Mr Malarkey: They are still seething over the bus station site, believe me, because it gets brought up nearly every month in the Council (Interjection) about Government getting it back.

If there is an agreement coming forward where we can take over the terminus building ... Yes, it might be in a state. Mr Cregeen has suggested, maybe in the future we could look at combining with the MEA –

Mr Cregeen: No, I didn’t!

Mr Malarkey: – or the MER section, or combining them together? (Interjection) There are lots of options moving forward, but at least we would actually own the building moving forward. (Interjection by Mr Cregeen)

Basically, Mr President, to ask this to come back to Tynwald again before we actually start giving the Minister permission to sign off, I think is a bit of a nonsense. I think we are here today to decide: do we want to keep the horse trams; how far do we want them to run; do we want this Minister or the next Minister to carry on negotiations and keep going? We cannot be running back to Tynwald every five minutes, every time a Minister wants to make a decision, so I believe that the amendment by Mr Cregeen, I am afraid, does not warrant being supported, sir.

I will be brief, I am sure everybody will be glad to know. I do not intend to go on like some other people. would like, first of all, to put on record my thanks to everybody who has been involved in getting it to the position where it is today. There has been such a huge amount of work, blood, sweat and tears gone into getting it to this point so it could come before you before parliament went into recess. I think everybody involved really does deserve congratulations on that. (A Member: Hear, hear.)

I think that shows the commitment to trying to save what is a really iconic heritage feature of

the Isle of Man. They have put in the work, and the comments this morning ... I know Members have agreed with little bits of it, like recommendation (6) and things like that, but the general feeling has been one of such positivity of trying to save the horse trams, trying to find a long- term solution, that it really does gladden you. It seems to be, with one voice, we want to save them, but we have got reservations about some of the other things, which is absolutely fine because the main point is to try and find a long-term solution so that we do not lose them.

Everybody who sees the horse trams knows it is the Isle of Man. It would be awful if we lost them and, with the feeling in here today, I do not think that this going to happen at all, because it just seems to be such a feeling of positivity towards keeping them for generations to come, which is actually really the right thing.

The Minister, obviously, will be answering the individual questions and things that have been brought up in the debate, but the only thing I would add is about recommendation (8). I think it was Mr Quirk who brought that up, saying we should be looking at the whole heritage transport system, etc. But it says for ‘further investigation’. I think we have to have a bit of a reality check here. We have only had a matter of months to get it to this state. How much longer would it have taken to bring a proper proposal forward for anything other than what is on the paper today? It would have been impossible for us to bring something forward saying ‘This is what we think we should be doing for the whole of the heritage transport system.’ That cannot happen in that length of time, which is why it is under ‘further investigation’.

There is no commitment today in recommendation (8). It is just saying ‘investigate further’. It will have to come back, it will have to have further debate, but for me the main thing is the will in here to vote through on all the other parts of it at least that save the horse trams for the future.

Thank you, Mr President.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Malarkey): Thank you, Mr President.
I am not standing to argue the case one way or the other. I have well documented my views, Mr President. I am standing to thank the Council of Ministers, my colleagues, for allowing me to step outside Council today.

I will be supporting one of the amendments. At this stage, Mr Cretney's amendment, I am afraid, does not exactly say where he wants the tram to run from and to. (Interjection) It does not say in this, and I am not having a discussion about it, but I will be supporting one of the amendments.

What I do stand for, Mr President, is no matter what the outcome of the vote is over the

amendments, please Members, support the final resolution because that is most important. Just because you do not win your amendment, do not turn your back on the resolution. We need to get on with getting the Promenade done.

I will be supporting, hopefully, one of the amendments that makes it run the full length, which has always been my stance, but if that fails please support the whole resolution as the package that is on the agenda.

The Minister for Health and Social Care (Mrs Beecroft)

Thank you, Mr President.

I will try and be brief on this one. I am not surprised it has turned into a very emotive and charged debate because the horse trams, quite rightly, always do bring that out in everybody. There is not a perfect solution, and I think we have to remember that we have heard today so many different people wanting different things, and it is exactly the same outside in the community, so everybody is never going to get exactly what they want, because it is impossible. I am sure there is no doubt that I support the horse trams 100%, because it was me who brought the emergency debate to the House of Keys when Douglas Borough Council were going to stop running them, and I was desperate for them not to just go off into oblivion. They are iconic and I do believe very strongly that they are something that is a symbol of the Isle of Man and that we should strive to keep them. But we do not have to keep everything exactly as it was. I think the compromise of them stopping at the War Memorial, rather than going to the Sea Terminal, at the moment, is something I can live with because we are retaining the horse trams. Part (vi) of the motion does say that there is going to be a tramway corridor left in the plans so that, if they are required in the future, if they are wanted in the future, if we can afford them in the future, then we are going to get them. I think that is a compromise that I can live with.

The parking is another huge issue – and quite rightly for all the retailers that are affected by bad parking on the Promenade – they are struggling already. They are competing with the internet; they are competing with people with less money in their pockets. If anything restricts the parking further, I think they are going to really struggle. They are struggling already.

So for me, again, keeping the parking as much as possible on the Promenade is the way to go. People have said we can have bigger multi-storeys at either end of the Promenade; we can have more of these. Yes we can, but they are not there yet. That is something for the future. We have to look after the retailers today. When there are more multi-storey carparks or different ways of transport that stop the congestion in the town centre, then yes we can – because the tram bcorridor is left there – look again at that angle, but that is not for today.

The deepwater berth was mentioned. That is something I am very enthusiastic on finding out more about. I think it is possibly a way that we should be going, and yes, at that point, we may well want to extend the tram track down to the Sea Terminal to meet the cruise passengers disembarking there. But, again, that is not for today. We do not need that today, and provisionb has been made in the motion presented by the Minister.b But, as some people have said – and it certainly resonated with me from what I am hearing –b whatever the plan, we are going to lose support for everything if we do not do something, because people are thoroughly sick and tired of nothing being done on the Promenade. We really do have to bite the bullet and get on with it at some point.
To me, the proposition that is before us today is the most sensible because we are retaining the horse trams. Provision is being made for the future, when there is more parking available, when there is a deepwater berth, when it necessitates going to the Sea Terminal, when it is sensible to do so. That is still there in the motion. We have not said no to it. It is absolutely there, and I am sure that the Minister in his summing up will confirm that and confirm his intention to listen to people should that become a viable option in the future.
So, whilst it may not be my favourite solution today and while it may not be everybody else’s favourite solution today, I would urge Members to vote for the proposal that is on the table by the Minister because it is satisfying the three main requirements that I believe that we have to address today, and it is leaving it open for the future so that we can do things in the future when we desire to do so.

I think it is a very sensible option that is on the table and, as I say, I urge Members to support

it.