Mr C G Corkish MBE

How he voted:

Member	July 2016	December 2016	January 2017
	Malarkey Amendment In recommendation 6, to remove the words: ‘War Memorial’ and to insert the words: ‘Sea Terminal’.	Ashford Amendment In (ii) to remove the word ‘Broadway’ and insert the words ‘the Sea Terminal’
Mr C G Corkish MBE	FOR	AGAINST	?

What he said:

Member	July 2016
Mr C G Corkish MBE	Mr Coleman: Thank you, Mr President. We seem to be being a bit distracted here with assertions that we will get the tramway between the War Memorial and the Sea Terminal, but actually when you read recommendation (5), what recommendation (5) actually says is that the business case for retaining the Tramway and the new combined facility of the site of either Strathallan tram depot or Derby Castle should continue to be evaluated during the operations in 2017 and 2018. What the result of that could be is a business case which says we are not going to keep it. Okay? That is what that says, and you know it says that, Minister. The Minister: That is not what the business case will say. (Laughter) Mr Coleman: Okay! So really, whether we vote now for extending from the War Memorial to the Sea Terminal is a bit moot, isn’t it? Because the 2017-18 business case decision could probably override the lot. I just put that in for your consideration, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr President.
	December 2016
Mr C G Corkish MBE	Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr President. We have all received much correspondence on this subject. The Promenade, as we know, equals vehicles, equals car parking, equals horse trams. The most succinct, short and correct message sent to me – as it would have been to other Hon. Members here – read, ‘I understand Tynwald had agreed the continuing service last session.’ It would appear to those interested parties, of which there are very many, that there is a concern that the Department of Infrastructure, the Minister, is wishing or trying to overturn the resolution of this Tynwald Court carried on 20th July this year – as has already been said – by an overwhelming majority of Members after a full debate on the subject. Now then, if this type of action is allowed to proceed, then I see a very dangerous precedent being set for the future of debate and decision in this place. In relation to the horse trams’ future, this was fully debated in Tynwald in July – the Members then present voting on what was before them and, evidence supplied, voted thus: (a) to keep the horse trams running, initially under the auspices of Isle of Man Transport, Department of Infrastructure; and (b) to retain the track over the full length of the Promenade, i.e. to the Sea Terminal. This decision was taken in the knowledge that a figure of £750,000 was the likely or estimated cost of renewing the track between the War Memorial and the Sea Terminal. As far as I am aware, no evidence has yet been produced regarding the potential cost of reinstating this set of tracks any time in the future if they were now to be removed and tarmacked over. Hon. Members may assume that, should a decision be made to close that Loch Promenade or southern section of the Promenade, then such a decision would likely be irrevocable. In relation to this point, there are no statistics to show the final destination of horse tram passengers, and this was admitted by the Minister in a Keys Question tabled on 10th December, so without full and informed statistics the Minister and his Department cannot estimate the loss of income should the service end at the War Memorial or possibly Broadway. Mr President, it is worth mentioning that the cost of £750,000 for that Loch Promenade section, the southern section, would equate to 3.3% of the estimated £23 million cost for the whole of the Promenade project. We can perhaps say, Hon. Members, that this would be a short-term saving over a long-term loss. It would be important to note that the July resolution was the ratification of the decision to transfer the operation of the horse trams from Douglas Corporation to the DOI and that they should continue to operate under the auspices of Isle of Man Bus and Rail public transport together with some of our Island’s other heritage transport systems: Isle of Man Railway, MER and the Snaefell Railway. From my time in DED heading up tourism, I was and remain acutely aware of the importance of our heritage transport systems, as they are to the many enthusiasts there are in the world. Here, I would pay homage to Isle of Man Bus and Rail in the way that they have sold this aspect of our tourism offering to visitors and locals alike in this respect. They have celebrated anniversaries at every opportunity and provided real reasons for and succeeded in attracting heritage transport visitors. So I say to them, well done! Mr President, I believe that whilst our horse trams alone will not be the driver for attracting such visitors – and here I count non-heritage-transport-orientated visitors too – they are a part of the whole package we offer. It is ‘our differences that make the difference’ we told the world in our advertising campaigns in the recent past. Start taking away our differences and we weaken our attraction. Start taking away our differences and we will morph into just any other UK resort on offer at a point in time, where staycation looms large in would-be holidaymakers’ minds. We enjoy here and offer the visitor a safe, secure and welcoming overseas destination, with our own differences that make the difference. I believe that some, not all, of our treasured uniques of the past can be and are valuable to our future, to dangle before the eyes of the visitor and, importantly, the tour operator, the coach operator and the cruise directors. If we look back into recent history, we were willing to allow the Laxey Village icon – I do not refer to you here, Mr President (Laughter) – to disintegrate (Laughter) unwanted. I refer, of course, to the great Laxey Wheel, which appears on almost every tourism publication and daily on television regional news programmes, thanks to the last Edwin Kneale – who we will both remember, Mr President – who saved it with his own money. We can greatly benefit from it today. Mr President, Hon. Members, it is so easy to do away with many of the items of the past, both in private life, indeed, and in public life, in a belief that we are being virtuous and streamlining, but once they are gone, they are gone. Shoprite and Tesco will tell you that on the run up to Christmas, as they will also offer ‘buy one get one free’. Hon. Members, we know what we have now and if we lose the horse trams or part you will not be able to buy one let alone get one free. We need all the help and attraction we can get in a hard and competitive world. Keep, use and exploit everything unique we have to our benefit or throw them away, and their undoubted and proven benefits never to return. Referring to the motion, Mr President, I can agree most of the principles as shown there, but before I close can I just mention the fact that there have been many references to car parking and concerns for vehicles, especially to the retail sector here on the Island – it is a related issue on this concern and indeed referred to by the Hon. Minister. It is that ongoing problem of ample car parking, especially in central Douglas and the town centre. How long has that been an issue in this Hon. Court and other places in the Isle of Man? Horse trams and vehicles together cause a problem in relation to our shops and businesses if there becomes a lack of car parking on Douglas Promenade. Some time ago, Douglas Borough Council presented plans for a multi-storey car park in Lord Street, which could have been built by now if the go-ahead was given. Between Treasury and Douglas Borough Council, the plan failed, sadly. Perhaps now is the time to revisit such a plan and do the Douglas town centre car parking issue a big favour. Thank you, Mr President.

Member

July 2016

Mr C G Corkish MBE

Mr Coleman: Thank you, Mr President.

We seem to be being a bit distracted here with assertions that we will get the tramway between the War Memorial and the Sea Terminal, but actually when you read recommendation (5), what recommendation (5) actually says is that the business case for retaining the Tramway and the new combined facility of the site of either Strathallan tram depot or Derby Castle should continue to be evaluated during the operations in 2017 and 2018. What the result of that could be is a business case which says we are not going to keep it. Okay? That is what that says, and you know it says that, Minister.

The Minister: That is not what the business case will say. (Laughter)

Mr Coleman: Okay! So really, whether we vote now for extending from the War Memorial to the Sea Terminal is a bit moot, isn’t it? Because the 2017-18 business case decision could probably override the lot. I just put that in for your consideration, gentlemen.

Thank you, Mr President.

December 2016

Mr C G Corkish MBE

Mr Corkish: Thank you, Mr President.

We have all received much correspondence on this subject. The Promenade, as we know, equals vehicles, equals car parking, equals horse trams. The most succinct, short and correct message sent to me – as it would have been to other Hon. Members here – read, ‘I understand Tynwald had agreed the continuing service last session.’

It would appear to those interested parties, of which there are very many, that there is a concern that the Department of Infrastructure, the Minister, is wishing or trying to overturn the resolution of this Tynwald Court carried on 20th July this year – as has already been said – by an overwhelming majority of Members after a full debate on the subject. Now then, if this type of action is allowed to proceed, then I see a very dangerous precedent being set for the future of debate and decision in this place.

In relation to the horse trams’ future, this was fully debated in Tynwald in July – the Members then present voting on what was before them and, evidence supplied, voted thus: (a) to keep the horse trams running, initially under the auspices of Isle of Man Transport, Department of Infrastructure; and (b) to retain the track over the full length of the Promenade, i.e. to the Sea Terminal.

This decision was taken in the knowledge that a figure of £750,000 was the likely or estimated cost of renewing the track between the War Memorial and the Sea Terminal. As far as I am aware, no evidence has yet been produced regarding the potential cost of reinstating this set of tracks any time in the future if they were now to be removed and tarmacked over. Hon. Members may assume that, should a decision be made to close that Loch Promenade or southern section of the Promenade, then such a decision would likely be irrevocable.

In relation to this point, there are no statistics to show the final destination of horse tram passengers, and this was admitted by the Minister in a Keys Question tabled on 10th December, so without full and informed statistics the Minister and his Department cannot estimate the loss of income should the service end at the War Memorial or possibly Broadway.

Mr President, it is worth mentioning that the cost of £750,000 for that Loch Promenade section, the southern section, would equate to 3.3% of the estimated £23 million cost for the whole of the Promenade project. We can perhaps say, Hon. Members, that this would be a short-term saving over a long-term loss.

It would be important to note that the July resolution was the ratification of the decision to transfer the operation of the horse trams from Douglas Corporation to the DOI and that they should continue to operate under the auspices of Isle of Man Bus and Rail public transport together with some of our Island’s other heritage transport systems: Isle of Man Railway, MER and the Snaefell Railway.

From my time in DED heading up tourism, I was and remain acutely aware of the importance of our heritage transport systems, as they are to the many enthusiasts there are in the world. Here, I would pay homage to Isle of Man Bus and Rail in the way that they have sold this aspect of our tourism offering to visitors and locals alike in this respect. They have celebrated anniversaries at every opportunity and provided real reasons for and succeeded in attracting heritage transport visitors. So I say to them, well done!

Mr President, I believe that whilst our horse trams alone will not be the driver for attracting such visitors – and here I count non-heritage-transport-orientated visitors too – they are a part of the whole package we offer.

It is ‘our differences that make the difference’ we told the world in our advertising campaigns in the recent past. Start taking away our differences and we weaken our attraction. Start taking away our differences and we will morph into just any other UK resort on offer at a point in time, where staycation looms large in would-be holidaymakers’ minds.

We enjoy here and offer the visitor a safe, secure and welcoming overseas destination, with our own differences that make the difference. I believe that some, not all, of our treasured uniques of the past can be and are valuable to our future, to dangle before the eyes of the visitor and, importantly, the tour operator, the coach operator and the cruise directors.

If we look back into recent history, we were willing to allow the Laxey Village icon – I do not refer to you here, Mr President (Laughter) – to disintegrate (Laughter) unwanted. I refer, of course, to the great Laxey Wheel, which appears on almost every tourism publication and daily on television regional news programmes, thanks to the last Edwin Kneale – who we will both remember, Mr President – who saved it with his own money. We can greatly benefit from it today.

Mr President, Hon. Members, it is so easy to do away with many of the items of the past, both in private life, indeed, and in public life, in a belief that we are being virtuous and streamlining, but once they are gone, they are gone. Shoprite and Tesco will tell you that on the run up to Christmas, as they will also offer ‘buy one get one free’.

Hon. Members, we know what we have now and if we lose the horse trams or part you will not be able to buy one let alone get one free. We need all the help and attraction we can get in a hard and competitive world. Keep, use and exploit everything unique we have to our benefit or throw them away, and their undoubted and proven benefits never to return.

Referring to the motion, Mr President, I can agree most of the principles as shown there, but before I close can I just mention the fact that there have been many references to car parking and concerns for vehicles, especially to the retail sector here on the Island – it is a related issue on this concern and indeed referred to by the Hon. Minister. It is that ongoing problem of ample car parking, especially in central Douglas and the town centre. How long has that been an issue in this Hon. Court and other places in the Isle of Man?

Horse trams and vehicles together cause a problem in relation to our shops and businesses if there becomes a lack of car parking on Douglas Promenade. Some time ago, Douglas Borough Council presented plans for a multi-storey car park in Lord Street, which could have been built by now if the go-ahead was given. Between Treasury and Douglas Borough Council, the plan failed, sadly. Perhaps now is the time to revisit such a plan and do the Douglas town centre car parking issue a big favour.

Thank you, Mr President.