Chris Thomas

No one. Just there to try to help with accurate information and context.

CURA, the economic regulator, now regulates gas, not OFT. What is wrong with MUA supplying gas wholesale?

Thanks for compliment. I am thick-skinned. Added in a few more words of explanation for people who did not listen to Mannin Line today about Port St Mary Post Office retirement and possible closure. My basic point was that Hissingsid did listen apparently but didn't mention anything about what was said in the programme.

What services provision? Access to cash is important. DfE should report to Tynwald in October on that but does not seem to be doing so. Community hubs are important, and Southlands seems to be Welcome Centre pilot site in south. Social security and pensions payment matters, and Treasury are evolving arrangements. Vehicle licensing is the responsibility of DoI and it has promised many times to report on what it plans but as yet plans remain opaque. Postal services are evolving. New access points and methods are being introduced all the time. The independent retail network includes sub-post offices. The Port St Mary changed situation has been known about for more than a year. The local MHKs and Commissioners have tried to make alternative arrangements. The Post Office has always welcomed clarity and certainty from Tynwald and Government about plans and acknowledged all the good will from the local partners which have kept that sub-post office open.

What are you unclear about? You are hardly unbiased commentator. There is nothing in your comment to enlighten anyone where you are unclear. You do state you understood that Ms Edge had a sore throat, and so therefore you seem to realise I phoned in given the suggestion made on Mannin Line that the Post Office had not responded.

For clarity, acting speaker is a non role for 5 minutes to act as speaker for Speaker election. Apparently I was proposed as normally the MHK with my service would fulfil that role. It is an insignificant role and election.

You misremember. When did I propose that? Several sports grounds were ruled out during and through the Area Plan process before the plan got to the public inquiry. I also spoke against development at public meetings, pointing out that a developer who was interested in the site suggested that Council might allow that but Council made it clear this was completely untrue.

Is your view reliable? For instance I have not been in 10 years, only since 2013. Just three things to do with the election as evidence against your assertion (and I could cite other things in many areas of policy): I took the law through CoMin and Keys which will be used for the election; Only MHKs will vote for CM because of my motion at Christmas 2017 to cease MLC involvement, and I used a constitutional process to do that which had only once been used before; and CM election is delayed by a week to encourage focus on policy and ministerial team because of my motion in Keys on 29 June 2021. But an important point is that it is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit!

Yours was a very partial quote and the rest was: "Surprised that Manx press did not report the May Tynwald Public Health Regulations vote for backbench amendment as a vote of no confidence. Only Mr Quayle and one other voted against the backbench amendment I had drafted over the previous bank holiday weekend, with all the Ministers taking the opportunity to vote against Chief Minister’s position when he announced in his summing up speech his incredible decision that the vote on Government-brought law was a ‘free’ vote. I think this ‘isolation’ led to Mr Quayle’s announcement of his standing down as Chief Minister nearly three months before his predecessor made the same announcement." Many backbenchers have spent a long time preparing and lobbying for successful public health legal amendments and policy changes since last May.

Evening. Post Office is not being corporatised. That is Tynwald and Board policy. It is - or should be at least - an arms length statutory board.

I am not sure I am tinkering around the edges. Having only elected Keys member vote for the Chief Minister seems a significant change, as does moving to a Single Chamber Tynwald, comprising Keys voting members and perhaps also non-voting indirectly elected representatives. It was my motion in May 2015 that established this Independent Inquiry considering the FUNCTIONING OF THE BRANCHES OF TYNWALD etc.. As I said to an apparently angry Peter Karran in Tynwald this month when he was trying to get me to give way in my summing up: "but what I am trying to do is to go beyond 30-year politicians who say, ‘I tried this. It did not work. Let’s try it again,’...... I have tried to look at this anew. I am trying to look at this anew. Putting down the way that we vote (added: for Chief Minister) is some little change that we have made. This is another little change. We have reviewed, in our Committee, the committee system, and I genuinely think that this is a moment, with the Tynwald Inquiry, where we could end up with a small amount of incremental tiny steps and actually make sure the public understand what we are doing, and therefore we will make sure we maintain our connection between this ancient, valuable Tynwald and the contemporary public". You are right. I doubt Lord Lisvane will cite arguments in Manx Forums. I believe he will find Manx Forum contributors' contributions helpful if they are submitted formally. Citing the press release: "The selection of witnesses to give oral evidence is at Lord Lisvane’s discretion, but written submissions are welcome, and should be addressed to the Secretary. They should be received by Thursday 2nd June in order to be taken fully into account in the Review. Receipt by 13th May will allow Lord Lisvane to decide whether to take oral evidence on a submission. At its sitting in June 2015 Tynwald resolved: That the Isle of Man Government should establish an independent review using its powers under the Inquiries (Evidence) Act 2003 examine the functioning of the branches of Tynwald and to consider options for reform. The Isle of Man Government has asked Lord Lisvane KCB DL to undertake the Review and to report to Tynwald for its sitting on 19th July 2016. Lord Lisvane has been asked to: • examine the functions of the branches of Tynwald • assess their efficacy • consider the scrutiny structure required by the parliament • recommend any options for reform Under section 4 of the Inquiries (Evidence) Act 2003, the proceedings of the Review will be held in public, at the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas. Times of sittings and the names of witnesses will be published on the Review’s webpage https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/offices/cabinet-office/review-of-the-functioning-of-tynwald/, hosted on the Isle of Man Government website. The sittings will be live streamed via a link on the Tynwald website (www.tynwald.org.im) and will be recorded and a transcript produced by the Tynwald Hansard Team. The contact point for the inquiry is Michelle Norman, Secretary to Lord Lisvane’s Review, c/o Attorney General's Chambers, 3rd Floor, St. Mary's Court, Hill Street, Douglas, Isle of Man. IM1 1EU, telephone (01624) 685452, e-mail SecretaryTynwaldReview@gov.im. All evidence received, both written submissions and transcripts of the oral evidence, will be published on the Review’s webpage. If all or part of a submission is not for publication, this must be clearly indicated."

I tried to move the petition item ahead of the budget, but was told this was impossible. I have also remarked that the sewerage order is after the budget, which includes it.Strange. Other orders have been made after the budget in previous years, but I doubt ever for a completely new charge. Why are we even adding a new way of public revenue raising by secondary order, surely this deserved a debate in Tynwald ahead of the budget? It was clear in the February 2013 Keys readings of the Flood Risk Management Bill that the sewerage charge clause was merely enabling in respect of this measure. For instance a sewerage rate could have been levied for over a decade and it never was. Chairman WASA said clearly that a debate would take place if a charge was going to be introduced, about the size of the charge and about the way it was allocated between people and premises etc.. There is room in the new utility authority finances to accommodate no sewerage charge revenue in 2014/15. That needs to happen now. Governments should not introduce unfair charges without consultation and public support. Then we need to have a proper debate about this particular charge and about how government plans to increase this type of user-pay charge without changing direct taxation. I summarized some of what I said on Manx Radio Agenda programme last night on my facebook page: "IOM is not financially bankrupt, but if it introduces an unfair charge it would be morally bankrupt. That’s the wrong way of going about politics. There are resources in WASA to accommodate the financing of the new utility authority if the sewerage charge is not passed by Tynwald. Thereafter we need an inquiry into the whole of public revenue raising. It’s wrong for government to be bringing in a...n unfair charge, it would be right for the government to be reviewing rateable values and to be reviewing the alternatives to rateable values as the basis for taxing and financing utilities. We need to be doing the right thing to get out of our public revenue raising crisis, to stop it becoming a political crisis. We need to be debating the tax cap and the whole basis of taxation. I don’t expect there to be a profound review of public revenue raising tomorrow, but there ought to be. People are angry that they were not consulted about this unfair charge, and that Tynwald has not debated it. A shift of government financing to user-pay charging - a whole new basis for public revenue raising - should not be delivered using a piece of secondary legislation, an order. There should be a wider debate in public and in Tynwald on how government, local government and utilities are financed. We need fair public revenue plans for coming years, not merely the assumption that people who live in smaller houses and are less well off pay more than those who live in bigger houses and are richer".

Flood Risk Management Act had its appointed day order only on 30th January 2014. The ability to charge a sewerage rate was never taken up during the life of the original s11 of Sewerage Act, but if it had been, some consultation would have had to have taken place. The legal requirement for this consultation was also changed on 30th January 2014, but obviously this was not discussed at this time. Sewerage Charge Order was made on 31st January by WASA Chairman, subject to Tynwald approval this Tynwald sitting. The accounting costs of sewerage given in the answer to my question last week are greater than they would have been a few years ago, given changing basis of financing and accounting. This is relevant to sub-clause 7 in the new s11 of Sewerage Act 1999. Many people have raised issues with collecting the charge, and when I phoned around at end of January people in various parts of government and local government were still waiting to be informed about charge so that they could determine how it would affect what they would need to do if the sewerage charge was approved by Tynwald. There has been no debate of this actual sewerage charge. There was a little debate of the sewerage charge enabling clause during the 2nd reading and clauses stages in Keys in February 2013, but there was no opportunity to debate the actual charge in January 2014 Tynwald because this was merely a statement by WASA chairman. Questions could have been asked of WASA Chairman, but it was clear from his statement that the charge was coming in a year earlier than WASA had expected and also in a different form than had originally been envisaged. I have asked questions before and since. And so on. It is an unfair charge which has been rushed in.