Mr J R Turner

How he voted:

Member	July 2016	December 2016	January 2017
Mr J R Turner	AGAINST [stated later (see below) voted 'AGAINST' on the basis of other aspects of the proposals but was supportive of the trams operating the full length of the prom]	AGAINST	?

What he said:

Member	July 2016
Mr J R Turner	Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I think if I was a Douglas ratepayer I would be thinking the Corporation have played an absolute blinder here (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and would be absolutely delighted. Quite a bit of the motion I do not have a problem with at all, and with regard to the amendment that is before us I am quite happy to support that. What I would like to know from the Department ... I am fully supportive of them operating them for 2017-18; it gives time to assess exactly where things are going and to see whether a better model can be achieved. There is no doubt about it: since the railways themselves were modernised and investment put it, there has been quite a success story with many of their services. I was involved in the DCCL – well, the DTL before that – and we saw some investment in the railways, which were heading in a direction where we thought possibly there would come a time when they were going to close, and it was either invest in them, grow them, or see them decline. We have seen some great success stories there, so there is no reason why this could not build on it. But what I would like to know from the Department – because I think it is very important we are clear – is where the extra funding is going to come from internally. The Minister might have gone into the detail, but I was still a bit glazed over from the hour wrap-up on the debate last night from the Department of Infrastructure. Where is the extra budget coming from to operate these? Is it coming from the DoI slush fund, or are they going to maybe hammer motorists a bit more? Where is it coming from? I think we need to be clear where it is coming from. If we look at the other items on this motion: recommendation (2), yes, that is fine. Recommendation (3), the transfer of ownership – that all has to happen. The same with recommendation (4). Again, it is to do with transfer of ownership, limited minor capital works, because yes, if we are taking them on there is going to have to be money spent – there is no doubt about that – and, of course, the business case then worked up. Then we get into recommendations (6), (7) and (8), which is where I have a few points to make. First of all, the laying of the tramway on the promenade. You will be pleased to know, Mr President, I am not going to widen this out into a debate on the promenade. However, just to touch on that a little bit, there was a perfectly adequate scheme that the Department of Transport had produced, which I was involved with under Minister Anderson at the time. It had widespread public support, it was consulted upon, it incorporated ... I think it was a single track that was the option that was decided upon. All of that was thrown out and we had some whizzy new scheme based on Poynton in Cheshire, that nobody had asked for, that had just come out of the blue. We have lost five years messing around with that. We would have had it done by now, because it was a five-year scheme and I think that was in 2010 when the Department of Transport was coming towards being abolished. We would have finished it by now and we would have it. So I think we need to knuckle down and get this sorted out, instead of having a scheme that is going to work and then coming back and changing it because some consultant has come up with a great idea. Again, that is comment on the track. I hope we will actually get on with it. I think it is pretty pointless, as the Hon. Member, Mr Boot, has said, to lay the thing to the War Memorial. We can argue about the bits and pieces of it all, but we are either committed to doing this or we are not. Let’s not mess about with it. And if we are going to do it, it needs to be the full length. It is quite straight forward, as far as I am concerned. I have concerns with the next two, and I will explain why. (7) That a legal body should be established to provide a suitable vehicle to receive charitable donations to the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway. We already have one, Hon. Members. We have a body set up in statute: Manx National Heritage. It has charity status. It is the body that we have set up and established to run our heritage assets. I spent five years on the board of Manx National Heritage along with, at the time Mr Speaker, and other Hon. Members. Manx National Heritage were very keen on these assets but were not very keen on taking them on when we suggested the railways. In fact, they looked in horror when it was suggested we were going to take on the railways when it was going to be its period of decline. But of course we have had a change in management both at the railways and at Manx National Heritage. We have two very able officers there who have been working together to grow that market. The officers have not always found favour with the politicians but it is about the achievements they have made. I really think that if we are looking at smaller, smarter Government – Manx National Heritage have been lobbying to keep this facility going – that is the vehicle. Why are we setting up another vehicle? It has already got the Trust side of the operation, which can receive donations, has substantial donations. People are very comfortable giving to that body and it supports a wide range of heritage infrastructure that we have on the Island, so I do not see why we have to be looking at setting up a whole new system. That links into recommendation (8): further investigation undertaken regarding the governance of the Tramway. Well, let’s have a bit of joined-up Government here. I think MNH is the right place for it to sit. It might be that there is an element of central Government funding directed to it. Whether that is right, whether that is going to continue, that really is for another day. We are looking at the policy and the strategy here of it. So I most probably will vote against (7) and (8) on the basis that we have that vehicle already and I feel strongly that that should be where it goes. I think we should be making those decisions. We set out the stall to reduce the size of Government; setting up another body is not the answer. I think it will be a success under MNH. They have the resources, they have the marketing, they have the staffing and they have maintenance people. Rather than setting up a whole new body, I think that would be the right way to go. I will listen to the debate to see if other Hon. Members think there is a reason why that is not the right way to go, but at the moment I will support all the other items, but not (7) and (8) at this stage unless I am persuade otherwise. That is not to say I disagree with the principle; what I am saying – again, I will reiterate – is I believe we already have a suitable vehicle, ready established, that can take it on. They might not be very keen, but I think we should try and persuade them. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Can I just clarify, Mr Turner, you did say early in your presentation that you were supporting the amendment that is before us. Do you mean, by that, supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment, or that you are seconding Mr Peake’s amendment? Mr Turner: Mr President, for clarity, I will be supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment. I did not speak to Mr Peake’s because I do not think it has been seconded. The President: You are not seconding Mr Peake? Mr Turner: No, I do not think it has been seconded.
	December 2016
Mr J R Turner	Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President. I think if I was a Douglas ratepayer I would be thinking the Corporation have played an absolute blinder here (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and would be absolutely delighted. Quite a bit of the motion I do not have a problem with at all, and with regard to the amendment that is before us I am quite happy to support that. What I would like to know from the Department ... I am fully supportive of them operating them for 2017-18; it gives time to assess exactly where things are going and to see whether a better model can be achieved. There is no doubt about it: since the railways themselves were modernised and investment put it, there has been quite a success story with many of their services. I was involved in the DCCL – well, the DTL before that – and we saw some investment in the railways, which were heading in a direction where we thought possibly there would come a time when they were going to close, and it was either invest in them, grow them, or see them decline. We have seen some great success stories there, so there is no reason why this could not build on it. But what I would like to know from the Department – because I think it is very important we are clear – is where the extra funding is going to come from internally. The Minister might have gone into the detail, but I was still a bit glazed over from the hour wrap-up on the debate last night from the Department of Infrastructure. Where is the extra budget coming from to operate these? Is it coming from the DoI slush fund, or are they going to maybe hammer motorists a bit more? Where is it coming from? I think we need to be clear where it is coming from. If we look at the other items on this motion: recommendation (2), yes, that is fine. Recommendation (3), the transfer of ownership – that all has to happen. The same with recommendation (4). Again, it is to do with transfer of ownership, limited minor capital works, because yes, if we are taking them on there is going to have to be money spent – there is no doubt about that – and, of course, the business case then worked up. Then we get into recommendations (6), (7) and (8), which is where I have a few points to make. First of all, the laying of the tramway on the promenade. You will be pleased to know, Mr President, I am not going to widen this out into a debate on the promenade. However, just to touch on that a little bit, there was a perfectly adequate scheme that the Department of Transport had produced, which I was involved with under Minister Anderson at the time. It had widespread public support, it was consulted upon, it incorporated ... I think it was a single track that was the option that was decided upon. All of that was thrown out and we had some whizzy new scheme based on Poynton in Cheshire, that nobody had asked for, that had just come out of the blue. We have lost five years messing around with that. We would have had it done by now, because it was a five-year scheme and I think that was in 2010 when the Department of Transport was coming towards being abolished. We would have finished it by now and we would have it. So I think we need to knuckle down and get this sorted out, instead of having a scheme that is going to work and then coming back and changing it because some consultant has come up with a great idea. Again, that is comment on the track. I hope we will actually get on with it. I think it is pretty pointless, as the Hon. Member, Mr Boot, has said, to lay the thing to the War Memorial. We can argue about the bits and pieces of it all, but we are either committed to doing this or we are not. Let’s not mess about with it. And if we are going to do it, it needs to be the full length. It is quite straight forward, as far as I am concerned. I have concerns with the next two, and I will explain why. (7) That a legal body should be established to provide a suitable vehicle to receive charitable donations to the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway. We already have one, Hon. Members. We have a body set up in statute: Manx National Heritage. It has charity status. It is the body that we have set up and established to run our heritage assets. I spent five years on the board of Manx National Heritage along with, at the time Mr Speaker, and other Hon. Members. Manx National Heritage were very keen on these assets but were not very keen on taking them on when we suggested the railways. In fact, they looked in horror when it was suggested we were going to take on the railways when it was going to be its period of decline. But of course we have had a change in management both at the railways and at Manx National Heritage. We have two very able officers there who have been working together to grow that market. The officers have not always found favour with the politicians but it is about the achievements they have made. I really think that if we are looking at smaller, smarter Government – Manx National Heritage have been lobbying to keep this facility going – that is the vehicle. Why are we setting up another vehicle? It has already got the Trust side of the operation, which can receive donations, has substantial donations. People are very comfortable giving to that body and it supports a wide range of heritage infrastructure that we have on the Island, so I do not see why we have to be looking at setting up a whole new system. That links into recommendation (8): further investigation undertaken regarding the governance of the Tramway. Well, let’s have a bit of joined-up Government here. I think MNH is the right place for it to sit. It might be that there is an element of central Government funding directed to it. Whether that is right, whether that is going to continue, that really is for another day. We are looking at the policy and the strategy here of it. So I most probably will vote against (7) and (8) on the basis that we have that vehicle already and I feel strongly that that should be where it goes. I think we should be making those decisions. We set out the stall to reduce the size of Government; setting up another body is not the answer. I think it will be a success under MNH. They have the resources, they have the marketing, they have the staffing and they have maintenance people. Rather than setting up a whole new body, I think that would be the right way to go. I will listen to the debate to see if other Hon. Members think there is a reason why that is not the right way to go, but at the moment I will support all the other items, but not (7) and (8) at this stage unless I am persuade otherwise. That is not to say I disagree with the principle; what I am saying – again, I will reiterate – is I believe we already have a suitable vehicle, ready established, that can take it on. They might not be very keen, but I think we should try and persuade them. Thank you, Mr President. The President: Can I just clarify, Mr Turner, you did say early in your presentation that you were supporting the amendment that is before us. Do you mean, by that, supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment, or that you are seconding Mr Peake’s amendment? Mr Turner: Mr President, for clarity, I will be supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment. I did not speak to Mr Peake’s because I do not think it has been seconded. The President: You are not seconding Mr Peake? Mr Turner: No, I do not think it has been seconded.

Member

July 2016

Mr J R Turner

Mr Turner: Thank you, Mr President.

I think if I was a Douglas ratepayer I would be thinking the Corporation have played an absolute blinder here (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and would be absolutely delighted.

Quite a bit of the motion I do not have a problem with at all, and with regard to the amendment that is before us I am quite happy to support that.

What I would like to know from the Department ... I am fully supportive of them operating them for 2017-18; it gives time to assess exactly where things are going and to see whether a better model can be achieved. There is no doubt about it: since the railways themselves were modernised and investment put it, there has been quite a success story with many of their services. I was involved in the DCCL – well, the DTL before that – and we saw some investment in the railways, which were heading in a direction where we thought possibly there would come a time when they were going to close, and it was either invest in them, grow them, or see them decline. We have seen some great success stories there, so there is no reason why this could not build on it. But what I would like to know from the Department – because I think it is very important we are clear – is where the extra funding is going to come from internally. The Minister might have gone into the detail, but I was still a bit glazed over from the hour wrap-up on the debate last night from the Department of Infrastructure. Where is the extra budget coming from to operate these? Is it coming from the DoI slush fund, or are they going to maybe

hammer motorists a bit more? Where is it coming from? I think we need to be clear where it is coming from. If we look at the other items on this motion: recommendation (2), yes, that is fine.

Recommendation (3), the transfer of ownership – that all has to happen. The same with recommendation (4). Again, it is to do with transfer of ownership, limited minor capital works, because yes, if we are taking them on there is going to have to be money spent – there is no doubt about that – and, of course, the business case then worked up. Then we get into recommendations (6), (7) and (8), which is where I have a few points to make.

First of all, the laying of the tramway on the promenade. You will be pleased to know, Mr President, I am not going to widen this out into a debate on the promenade. However, just to touch on that a little bit, there was a perfectly adequate scheme that the Department of Transport had produced, which I was involved with under Minister Anderson at the time. It had widespread public support, it was consulted upon, it incorporated ... I think it was a single track that was the option that was decided upon. All of that was thrown out and we had some whizzy new scheme based on Poynton in Cheshire, that nobody had asked for, that had just come out of the blue. We have lost five years messing around with that. We would have had it done by now, because it was a five-year scheme and I think that was in 2010 when the Department of Transport was coming towards being abolished. We would have finished it by now and we would have it. So I think we need to knuckle down and get this sorted out, instead of having a scheme that is going to work and then coming back and changing it because some consultant has come up with a great idea. Again, that is comment on the track. I hope we will actually get on with it. I think it is pretty pointless, as the Hon. Member, Mr Boot, has said, to lay the thing to the War Memorial. We can argue about the bits and pieces of it all, but we are either committed to doing this or we are not. Let’s not mess about with it. And if we are going to do it, it needs to be the full length. It is quite straight forward, as far as I am concerned.

I have concerns with the next two, and I will explain why.

(7) That a legal body should be established to provide a suitable vehicle to receive charitable donations to the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway.

We already have one, Hon. Members. We have a body set up in statute: Manx National Heritage. It has charity status. It is the body that we have set up and established to run our heritage assets. I spent five years on the board of Manx National Heritage along with, at the time Mr Speaker, and other Hon. Members. Manx National Heritage were very keen on these assets but were not very keen on taking them on when we suggested the railways. In fact, they looked in horror when it was suggested we were going to take on the railways when it was going to be its period of decline. But of course we have had a change in management both at the railways and at Manx National Heritage. We have two very able officers there who have been working together to grow that market. The officers have not always found favour with the politicians but it is about the achievements they have made. I really think that if we are looking at smaller, smarter Government – Manx National Heritage have been lobbying to keep this facility going – that is the vehicle. Why are we setting up another vehicle? It has already got the Trust side of the operation, which can receive donations, has substantial donations. People are very comfortable giving to that body and it supports a wide range of heritage infrastructure that we have on the Island, so I do not see why we have to be looking at setting up a whole new system.

That links into recommendation (8): further investigation undertaken regarding the governance of the Tramway. Well, let’s have a bit of joined-up Government here. I think MNH is the right place for it to sit. It might be that there is an element of central Government funding directed to it. Whether that is right, whether that is going to continue, that really is for another day. We are looking at the policy and the strategy here of it.

So I most probably will vote against (7) and (8) on the basis that we have that vehicle already and I feel strongly that that should be where it goes. I think we should be making those decisions. We set out the stall to reduce the size of Government; setting up another body is not the answer. I think it will be a success under MNH. They have the resources, they have the marketing, they have the staffing and they have maintenance people. Rather than setting up a whole new body, I think that would be the right way to go.

I will listen to the debate to see if other Hon. Members think there is a reason why that is not the right way to go, but at the moment I will support all the other items, but not (7) and (8) at this stage unless I am persuade otherwise. That is not to say I disagree with the principle; what I am saying – again, I will reiterate – is I believe we already have a suitable vehicle, ready established, that can take it on. They might not be very keen, but I think we should try and persuade them.

Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Can I just clarify, Mr Turner, you did say early in your presentation that you were supporting the amendment that is before us. Do you mean, by that, supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment, or that you are seconding Mr Peake’s amendment?

Mr Turner: Mr President, for clarity, I will be supporting Mr Malarkey’s amendment. I did not speak to Mr Peake’s because I do not think it has been seconded.

The President: You are not seconding Mr Peake? Mr Turner: No, I do not think it has been seconded.