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.
|
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.
|