Nish as reesht

Thanks - I've not been affiliated to the green party but do care about the island's environment (as well as other things, like the state of the health system). I'm not sure I'd call Thomas 'green'; he pushed forward the Area Plan for the East with all of its proposed greenfield development for many years. The bigger issue that I am concerned about - for which I am interested to hear others' opinions - is that we have a situation where the Chief Minister has so much power as a single MHK to control the policy agenda, with minimal public backing. Lisvane had the view that we could have a mini-Westminster style setup with more of an opposition, as 0bserver says. It feels like that approach goes against the culture of Tynwald as a minimal-party system.

The recent sacking of Mr Thomas highlights the issue that the Chief Minister has a lot of power to dispose of those with who he has disagreements on policy matters. Why does Alf Cannan's position hold more weight than Chris Thomas's on the policy matters in the DOI? I suggest they should have had to come to a collective agreement on this issue as the Council of Ministers, and what we are seeing is the damaging effect of the CM's powers and patronage. A Tynwald petition has been declared 'in order' that requests the stripping down of the CM's powers, most specifically their role to hire and fire. See: http://tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/PP-2023-0095.pdf It calls for Tynwald to take back the power of appointment for Ministers. Tynwald had this in the 1980s. The Chair of the Executive Council (=CM) and chairs of eight important boards (=Ministers) had people recommended to them by a Tynwald appointments commission. Tynwald then got to use those recommendations or ignore them and select others.

And there we have it. Has the DOI's issued licence been amended by Alf then? If so, on what date?

In his recent video PM previously named the 'gatekeepers' as Will Greenhow, Caldric Randall, Mark Lewin, Kathryn Magson and Dan Davies. Do we think he is talking about the same people here, and if so who of those would instruct Callin Wild in this? He has obviously upset Hooper in the last few days, but are his questions probing higher into the top of IOMG? Greenhow and Magson are gone. Did this come from the Cabinet Office (i.e. with authorisation of Alf?) rather than DHSC? And which budget has this come out of. Also raises the question of if they have done this before to other media outlets or if this is a first. Very interesting questions which I doubt we will get to know the answer. Also wondering if there are any examples of such things being used by UK government against journalists or if we are unique.

Alf 'taking back control' seems to be in essence all about him wanting to progress Crogga gas exploration without the currently mandated checks for the protection of the environment. According to Gef (https://gef.im/news/politics/cannan-to-rule-on-crogga-licence-37633/), CT wanted to stick to the license conditions granted to Crogga, but the company wanted to amend it. It seems Alf wants to vary the license despite the Government and its professionally-hired consultants / advisers (and the former minister CT) recommending sticking to the original terms (according to CT in Tynwald today). Says Gef: "In essence, the issue is surrounding Crogga’s’ bid to alter the terms of the licence which required 3D seismic surveys to be completed before drilling could commence. The company’s CEO Richard Hubbard has claimed this is not necessary and that Crogga’s plans should be allowed to continue to the next phase." So, Crogga want to do exploratory drilling before doing a full 3D seismic survey. It seems to me a case of business interests trumping due process. The Manx Geological Survey (https://www.manxgeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Crogga-112-25-technical-summary-for-publication-JB-dgq-29-Nov-21.pdf) have previously said: The story starts in 1982 when BP drilled a borehole on Block 112/25 off the east coast of the Isle of Man, in what was then UK territorial waters. The name of the well is 112/25-1 – the first well in Block 112/25. BP was hoping to find an accumulation similar to one of the Morecambe Bay gas fields, in Triassic-age rocks. They did not find gas at the expected level but there were some indications of gas at greater depth in Permian-age rocks, around 2000 metres below the seabed. These rocks have some similarities with the Peel Sandstone but they have never produced gas in the Irish Sea. Despite their best efforts, BP was unsuccessful in getting gas to flow to surface in 112/25-1 so they declared that the well had failed to discover hydrocarbons. In 1991 the Isle of Man extended its territorial sea to 12 miles by purchasing the sea bed from the UK Government and consequently Block 112/25 became Manx. In a subsequent Isle of Man licence round held in 2017-2018, local company Crogga Limited bid for an exploration licence and was awarded the block based on a proposal to carry out evaluation work, including a seismic survey. The seismic survey has yet to be acquired and the licence is now up for renegotiation. So what if there is a significant gas accumulation? “First it will require more exploration – a 3D seismic survey, then one or probably two exploration wells to test whether there is enough gas and whether it will flow to surface at the rate required to be a commercial proposition. In the case where the results are positive, it will then take several years to develop the field by drilling boreholes and building production facilities such as a platform and pipelines. This takes us to around 2030, by which time it is hard to predict how carbon taxes on fossil fuels will affect the economics.” Test drilling without a proper survey could - it seems - result in unnecessary wells being drilled in the wrong place (+ any associated environmental impact), which the license is designed to avoid. Are we a UNESCO Biosphere or not?

Q. Tim Glover: System is clearly disfunctional. Single Legal Entity required. Does CM agree with looking into SLA? Are the public still confident in him? A. Alf: Avoids question. War in Ukraine, inflation bla bla... Significant house building planned. Q. Moorehouse: Looking a little bit irregular. What discussions happened with CoMIn members before with CT, before sacking on 6pm Sunday? A. Alf: My responsibility to deternine who serves in the cabinet. One must have confidence in all ministers; if you don't, they must go. Q. Claire Christian: Reform is mentioned in the DOI plan. However, Transfer of Functions is not mentioned. Concerned at what is going to be progressed as quick reform hasn't been reviewed by Tynwald Court. Radical changes are coming that Tynwald knows nothing about. Alf: Circumstances have changed. Person who signed off DOI Department plan is no longer in place. Q that wasn't a Q. Tim Glover: I have more confidence in Mr Thomas than this Government.

Some notes from CT's comments: * 6pm on Sunday - CT sacked. * Monday morning - meeting with Crogga took place, seemingly involving Stu Peters, KLB, DEFA minister. * License for Crogga is held by DOI. When did CoMin last discuss the license? * Resigning from Housing board immediately. * Spoken statement was different from written statement in that is missed out "good governance". Claire Christian: * Why is reform so last minute, before summer recess. Why was reform not identified as urgently needed in Department Plan or in last six months?

When asked if he is committed to his manifesto promise to break up the DOI into smaller operational chunks: Alf: "You know full well this is not a one party state" -- laughter follows Becoming clear from Alf's statement and Q&A that reform of the DOI is a smokescreen - the real reason for the sacking was to override CT on Crogga using powers in the Government Departments Act 1987.

Without fundamental reform of the structure of CoMin / Department (members) / Departments, we will be going round in circles forever. Guernsey are using a sort-of Board / committee system. I don't know lots about Jersey but I think when they moved from Committee-based government they ended up with a single legal entity for the Government. Just some ideas. What we could have are resurrected Boards of Tynwald or similar to oversee mainly operational things (e.g. Highways Board, Airport), a smaller executive 'Council of Ministers' (say of seven) to collectively initiate policy, and Tynwald 'policy boards' to actively be consulted and involved on the proposed policy from the smaller CoMIn as it develops, but before it is taken forward. They could look at policy and secondary legislation / regulations. Forget the Departments and make Government into a single legal entity, while moving all the operational stuff to the Tynwald boards. That way, you have 'collective responsiblity' in the middle (CoMin) but without an automatic majority in Keys (because of Departmental members, who would cease to exist), coupled to wider Tynwald involvement in the development of policy before it comes into force.

Tynwald petitions for redress report is out. http://tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/PP-2023-0095.pdf Most in order (although some of Trevor Cowin's have been thrown out).

Paul has done a video with Charles Guard but it would be good to have some written coverage from Manx Radio's website too - don't think there has been any yet. They seem to be slowly putting them out one by one.

I haven't seen Charles Guard's petition, but this is what I think he may be getting at. Correct me if I am wrong, as not looked into it before. In July 2017, Tynwald approved the following resolution: "That Tynwald approves the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £20,730,000 in respect of works associated with the reconstruction of the highway from Peveril Square to Strathallan Crescent at Douglas Promenade. [MEMO] [Reference: Scheme code G18-050 Item No 9 on page 35 under the heading ‘Douglas Promenade; Detailed Estimates of Government Departments and other Bodies 2017-18’ and Appendix 5 on page 93 under the heading ‘Full Capital Programme including 2017-18 Approvals, Ongoing Schemes – Department of Infrastructure – Douglas Promenade’]" In the scheme and full works, £5.2m was allocated for the horse tram to run the whole length as per the scheme. This was not then done, and the money spent on other things i.e. the work undertaken did not match what was approved. DOI claimed there was a botch up on making the budget for the project, stating that the complex signalling arrangements were forgotten. As I understand it (I haven't seen his petition), Section 13 of the Treasury Act states that: "Subject to section 12(3), any expenditure incurred under this Act shall be defrayed out of monies provided by Tynwald." So, Treasury must gain authorisation from Tynwald to spend money. This comes from the Budget, but may also occur under expenses motions brought with concurrence of Treasury (i.e. the above Government motion). However, the Act also states in (3)1f that Treasury has a duty among other things: "to determine priorities of expenditure, to give directions to designated bodies and departments of Government as to accounting and economies, and to consider applications by designated bodies for supplementary expenditure;" I think what he is getting at is that Treasury / Government can seek to get money approved by Tynwald (i.e. for Section 13), which requires a successful financial resolution, but then change the priorities afterwards within the total sum approved by Tynwald without any involvement of them or notifying them. Happy to be corrected.

Looks like Government are going to continue fighting rather than listening. Apparently the chair of the BMA's statements weren't "supported by the evidence" according to Mr Hooper.

I was told by a political member of DHSC about a month ago that the CQC report on the hospital was promised to be published by the end of March, but that Manx Care are holding up the approval of it and subsequent release. The reason given was that there were supposedly errors in the conclusions / statistics about maternity care (where it states certain important statistics are worse than Pakistan, which is currently ranked bottom). The suggestion was that the CQC had done their analysis wrong, but I would guess it's far more likely they were given poor information at the Manx end. The political member thought DHSC would release the report before the end of April, but that has not happened. Wish someone would ask Hooper where it's got to.

Although there is likely large wastage from Manx Care board / structure etc., if this is put to one side, the funding gap that Manx Care are claiming they have for this financial year (23/24) is £342m - £302m = £40m. The Treasury only granted £302m for funding the Mandate in the budget this year. The Financial Plan of Manx Care (July 2022), however, states they require £342m to fund everything properly, or £314 for a bare-minimum of trying to meet legal / mandate service requirements. See attached table from the Financial Plan. The Manx Care financial plan says: The 'other priorities' (3-6) include things like "mandate requirements" ("Advocacy services, Intermediate Care, Flu vaccinations, screening, 111 service, reducing delayed transfers of care from acute and social care settings, reporting on 18 week Referral to Treatment (RTT) performance"), and "core service delivery" (e.g. "implementation of the Ockenden recommendations to bring our Maternity & Women’s Health services up to the expected standards"). Lawrie Hooper said on Twitter that they are unable to fund Priority 2 with the £302m allocated, meaning that unfunded are "Mandatory Training, Safeguarding, Information Governance, Section 115 costs and the impact of implementing the recommendations of the CQC."