TYNWALD has finally decided to spend close to £2 million to preserve the Queen’s Pier in Ramsey after a lengthy debate lasting throughout this afternoon.

The decision has been greeted with enthusiasm in Ramsey and by the town’s MHKs who have fought for many years to persuade other members of Tynwald to give the financial backing necessary to save the pier from deteriorating beyond repair.

Work will now start on a scheme which will protect the pier from further decay and decline, including the preservation of timberwork and the iron frame.

Queen’s Pier is the second longest pier in Britain behind Southport and has been closed for many years and the subject of a number of debates ever since.

Government has delayed making a decision many times but today it was given a simple choice - spend money to preserve it, or spend slightly more and demolish it.

A heated debate continued all day with virtually every member of the House speaking on the subject, some vehemently in favour and others totally against saving the pier.

The scheme - approved by just one vote in the House of Keys, but overwhelmingly approved in the Legislative Council - with ensure stability of structure for at least five years and is designed to reduce health and safety risks at beach and sea level and for vessels which might have contact with pieces of the pier which could break off the structure.

Infrastructure Minister Phil Gawne said that failure to approve the resolution today would have meant the pier would have to be demolished. He had considerable support from the more senior politicians in parliament, but most of the younger members wanted to see the scheme abandoned.

Once the initial project is complete, the pier will remain closed to the public long-term with the hope that it will be totally refurbished in the future at a cost estimated around £10 million. “We will do it only when our economic position improves and we can afford it,” said Treasury Minister and Ramsey MHK Anne Craine.

One of the main opponents of the refurbishment plan - Rushen MHK Graham Cregeen - said during the debate that a lot of people in the Isle of Man felt that any money spent on the pier would be a waste and spending money now sends out a message that the government has got its priorities wrong.

“My priorities for the Island are health, education and economic security and this is going to be a tough five years ahead . . . now is not the time to commit to ongoing liabilities. The time to save the pier has long gone past.”

He claimed it was a project with no economic gain. He said he had canvassed on the subject of the pier but only a couple of people in his constituency had wanted to keep it.

He added, “Where is this on the list of priorities? A vote for the pier is against the health, wealth and well-being of the Isle of Man.”

Eddie Lowey MLC urged members to look back at history before making a decision. He said that in the 1970s, when the government had little money in reserves, a decision was taken to buy the Gaiety Theatre for £50,000 rather than let developers knock it down and build a hotel.

“We had to spend a great deal of money on the Gaiety, but to have demolished it all those years ago would clearly have been a huge mistake. The opportunity was taken by Tynwald and it was a good one.

“And who could think about Laxey without its wheel? We are proud of that history. It doesn’t generate money but it’s part of the Isle of Man’s history and Laxey Wheel was also saved by an individual with government support . . . I could make a lot more comparisons.

“Ramsey’s Pier doesn’t look great at the moment, but I can’t imagine Ramsey bay without the pier. I believe we should support the motion.”

Geoff Corkish (Douglas South) said the issue of the pier was a non-starter. “The refurbishment will run into long long millions of pounds. The £1.8 million is only the start - and for what return on investment? There is no pay-back. I’m sure that £2 million spent wisely and invested in Ramsey would have far greater benefit for the town.

“To spend this money in this economic climate is nothing short of obscene. I cannot condone public money being spent like this. . . We have a public duty to spend our money wisely.

“The money is a recurring extravagance for us, our children and our children’s children.” He added, “There has been a sense of romanticism over the issue of the pier. But in my opinion this would be dead money.”

Bill Henderson (North Douglas) felt that government should get its priorities in order and highlighted incidents where hospital patients had been denied the opportunity to obtain life-saving drugs because of a lack of government money and there is the threat of redundancy for many employees all over the Island.

“I think it’s grossly unfair that if there is nearly £2 million ‘going spare’ that it would be spent on the Queen’s Pier. I believe that money should be taken and given to the Health Service. There is no question in my mind about that.”

David Cannan (Michael) supported a motion proposed by Mr Henderson that the decision should be adjourned for six months when the Island’s economic position might have improved. Mr Cannan said he had found very little public support for the spending of government money on the pier.

“We are considering spending £1.8 million on the pier and we won’t even be able to walk on it . . . it is wrong. I believe an adjournment is a necessity.”

Peter Karran (Onchan) believed there were “fewer than half a dozen voters in Onchan interested in saving the Queen’s Pier”. He said it constituted “a criminal act” to go ahead with spending money on the pier at the moment and that the matter should be adjourned.

Mr Gawne said an adjournment would serve no purpose. “Either we go ahead with this proposal or we demolish the pier. It’s as simple as that . . . Tynwald has been debating this issue for more than 20 years - surely we can make a decision?”

Ramsey MHK Allan Bell highlighted that the Queen’s Pier was a very important issue for people in the north, even though he accepted that support for saving the pier was very limited elsewhere on the Island.

He expressed disappointment in the lack of support from fellow members for saving the pier and felt that an adjournment would “serve no purpose”, a view supported by fellow Ramsey member Anne Craine.

“It would be weak for us to put this off now and leave it to another administration to make the decision.” The adjournment vote failed by a large majority.

David Callister MHK pointed to previous decisions taken by government to dismantle the railway line between Douglas, Peel and Ramsey and the loss of the largest ballroom in Europe at the Palace Hotel.

“We made those mistakes - let’s not make another here today,” he added.

Chief Minister Tony Brown, speaking as the debate entered its third hour, said Tynwald had a responsibility to the nation to consider and urged members to take responsibility and make a positive decision to preserve the pier for the future and future generations.”

The debate was adjourned late in the afternoon and resumed in the early evening following a recess when a vote was taken resulting in the House of Keys approving the scheme by 11 votes to 10 and the Legislative Council by seven votes to one.