Airport.

[madmanxpilot]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

the job of the CAA (IOM or UK) to let people know of the status of an Airport and you can see why they wouldn't publicise it unless things got actually dangerous rather than just potentially so in future.  There might be a risk of an airport operator suing because of reputational damage for example.  And anyone else is going to follow the lead of the regulator.

The IOM CAA refer to the issue of informing the public in their enforcement policy. I’m not so sure that they would be worried about sued. 
 

So, they obviously deemed it wasn’t in the public interest for this information to be released.

The UK CAA’s policy goes into a bit more depth, but is basically the same, see the last two pages here:

UK CAA Enforcement Policy

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

On what basis? ( As a public body and given justification )

Well it would surround the justification, which could be disputed.  Obviously there's plenty of justification in this case, but I was trying to suggest reasons why publication wouldn't be automatic - as the documents MMP links to show.  They also illustrate that the main concern with publishing is when there are: successful prosecutions, revoked or varied licences or approvals.  Court orders or formal undertakings for example.  

Under Advisory the UK CAA do mention "Using publicity* to highlight issues and encourage compliance",  but the *  leads to "We recognise that publicity on enforcement-related matters can have significant effects on stakeholders" and it leads to paragraphs of provisos.  I suspect that if safety isn't immediately compromised (and it isn't here) publication will depend on the attitude of the organisation they are monitoring and how they are cooperating.  But it's difficult to tell as it's clear that most of what is written relates to the other sorts of organisation they regulate, rather than 'aerodromes'.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well it would surround the justification, which could be disputed.

I was rather thinking about a public body akin to a local authority not being able to sue for reputational damage. But if you’re  the regulator then justification would be absolute.

The former is the Common Law position and would be followed here. In the UK it’s been superseded by statute. It’s also the ECHR position.

[Roger Mexico]

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I was rather thinking about a public body akin to a local authority not being able to sue for reputational damage. But if you’re  the regulator then justification would be absolute.

To be honest I was thinking more in terms of the UK where many airports are commercial organisations, though I assume there would be some sort of reasonableness test even for regulatory actions.

Going off-piste, the idea of public bodies not being able to sue for things such as defamation (as is the case in England) reminds me to ask how the DHSC were able to support the issue of the Cease and Desist letter.  Especially as none of the named civil servants were DHSC employees.

[NoTailT]

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/airport-spends-almost-1-2m-with-compliance-firms

So was any of this spent with SpakeReynolds Co Ltd?

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

To be honest I was thinking more in terms of the UK where many airports are commercial organisations, though I assume there would be some sort of reasonableness test even for regulatory actions.

Going off-piste, the idea of public bodies not being able to sue for things such as defamation (as is the case in England) reminds me to ask how the DHSC were able to support the issue of the Cease and Desist letter.  Especially as none of the named civil servants were DHSC employees.

Well, we were discussing Ronaldsway and it’s IoM CAA notice. It’s definitely Not commercial, not currently ( if ever ) run for profit.

In IoM or UK, even for a non public body,  if it sued I’d expect the court to stay proceedings and tell it to challenge the notice first, rather than using reputational risk as a back door appeal or mitigation or limitation of freedom of speech mechanism.

Perhaps Moulton ( DHSC/Cabinet Office ) didn’t get the best legal advice. Interesting question. There’s a very grey area that’s a sort of a cross over between a local/public authority not being able to sue, but identifiable employees being able to. And that relates to the appropriateness of the authority taking up cudgels on their behalf, or paying for/underwriting their legal fees.

We’ve had a couple of instances on MF where, in its alleged patriarchal employee protection role, DBC have written demanding things. We’ve always been robust and told them to get lost.

[trench12]

Arkell v Pressdram 1971

 

perhaps the best response to threatening letters from solicitors for uncovering 'alleged' malpractice

 

 

[Yibble]

14 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

There's another Manx Radio item today saying that it's his view that "The Isle of Man airport now has an airport director in which the Civil Aviation Administration has confidence".  Apparently it turns out that they use wider criteria than just neckwear.

🤣 Roger, I raise my glass to you for that retort. 👏

[Roger Mexico]

53 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/airport-spends-almost-1-2m-with-compliance-firms

So was any of this spent with SpakeReynolds Co Ltd?

Probably not, but as ever it's worth looking at the exact question and answer:

The Hon. Member of the House of Keys (Mr Glover) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure–

Who has been engaged to provide compliance support to the Airport; what the procurement process was; and what the costs are to date.

The Minister of Infrastructure (Chief Minister Cannan):

At an airport many activities are carried out under the banner of compliance. It is a key area for an Airport. Some of the activities in which the airport has to demonstrate compliance are:

• Wildlife control
• Flight calibrations
• Safety
• Security
• Lighting
• Building drawing, control and technical document management
• Aerodrome Safeguarding
• Airport construction
• CAA licencing
• ATC licencing

A lot of these activities are carried out using professional services, so below is a list (not exhaustive) of companies that have been engaged in 22/23 to carry out these services

NATS (Services) Limited Atg Airports Limited Burroughs Stewart Associates Global ATS Limited Rapiscan Systems Limited CCJ Group Ltd Airport Operations Limited Leonardo MW Ltd Smiths Detection Watford Ltd I D Gateway Niscam Ltd Mr Phillip Neil Manning Infotech Systems Ltd Eye Spy Security Intl Airport Visual & Navigational Aids Ltd Park Air Systems Limited RoSPA Enterprises Ltd Quelitex Limited Tex ATC Services Limited Disclosure Scotland Air Navigation Solutions Ltd Flight Calibration Services Ltd Lemaurey Ltd Birdstrike Management Ltd Redline Assured Security CAA International Limited Osprey Consulting Services Ltd Civil Aviation Authority

The total amount spent on these above companies was £1,190,231.28, although not all of this would necessarily be classed as compliance activities, however there is no easy way to split these amounts out. Procurement has been undertaken in compliance with Financial Regulations.

Now what you can see here is a classic case of the way they deal with a sloppily-drafted Written Question or FoI[1].  They've taken everything that can even be remotely classed as "compliance" (not you will note "compliance support") looked at every possible supplier involved and summed up the total spend to all of this in the last year and then given that as the reply.

It's a classic case of trying to hide a grain of sand on a beach, but. as ever with IOMG cunning plans, it backfires because it tells us very clearly that there's something here they want to hide.

What I think Glover was trying to discover was (as discussed on this topic previously) how much the Airport had been paying consultants for "regulation compliance and licensing; processes and policy; quality and continuous improvement; airport management; training certification and competency; operational procedures; and airport strategy and planning" as was asked in a follow-up question by Stu Peters at the February 2022 Tynwald[2]  This in turn was based on a Keys question from Paul Quine in November 2020 which revealed that:

The terms of reference for consultants Lemaurey are to support, offer advice and give guidance to the Airport team in the following areas: regulation compliance and licensing; processes and policy; quality and continuous improvement; airport management; training certification and competency; operational procedures; and airport strategy and planning. The company were originally selected from three organisations that were approached and asked to quote for such work.

The consultancy has cost a sum of £64,182.12 since 1st April 2019.

In reply to Stu, the then Minister, Crookall, agreed with him that "these are all fundamental aspects of running an airport and that the new Director, when appointed, will be expected to manage these functions without relying on external consultants".  Which doesn't explain why these services weren't supplied by the previous Director (Reynolds didn't go till October 2021).

Glover should have tried to find out how much Lemaurey (and possibly others) had been paid since November 2020 up to now.  If it was £64k for 18 months, presumably it would have continued to increase[3].  So no money might have gone to Reynolds and Spake (could even the DoI be that daft), but a lot of that cash could be because of them.

 

[1]  Sometimes they do it with careful ones as well and answer the question they wanted you to ask rather than what you did.  This does risk come-back from further questions though, providing the questioner is persistent enough.  Obviously you'd expect an MHK and former journalist to have the right skills to craft a precise question, but whatever.

[2]  You see @Stu Peters can not only ask questions if he wants, he can even do a bit of research for them.  Go on Stu, give it another try!

[3]  I suspect it actually dates from (at the earliest) the Airport being placed under 'Special Attention' in December 2019 and the April is there just as the start of the financial year.  So the £64k might be the rate for less than a year and might have increased since - especially after Reynolds' departure.

[TheTeapot]

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Burroughs Stewart Associates

I'd have hoped lessons had been learnt and that these inept fucks were never given any work by iomgov ever again.

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I'd have hoped lessons had been learnt and that these inept fucks were never given any work by iomgov ever again.

As far as I can see, IOMG rarely consider giving work to anyone else.

[TheTeapot]

35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

As far as I can see, IOMG rarely consider giving work to anyone else.

Yeah...

We have a proven track record of managing successful construction projects...

Douglas Promenade

[Dirty Buggane]

Have 

6 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Yeah...

We have a proven track record of managing successful construction projects...

Douglas Promenade

Have they included that one in the shiny pamphlet  promoting there expertise.  

[Blade Runner]

Genuine question.

What is/ was wrong with the Douglas Promenade job?

Having driven it a few times since rebuilding took place, it looks ok, not an architectural statement, but its a local road and its quite flat without suspension destroying potholes

Is it tens of millions over budget or something?

 

[WTF]

3 minutes ago, Blade Runner said:

Genuine question.

What is/ was wrong with the Douglas Promenade job?

Is it tens of millions over budget or something?

 

it looks very little like like the pretty drawings that adorned the sea terminal , the tram tracks aren't finished as the so called plan showed, the kerbstone drainy things with little holes in them block up at the drop of a hat , the pretty lighting doesn't work properly anymore, larger vehicles can't pass between the trams and parked cars ,  lots of parking spaces have been lost.  and it went way over budget.