H O U S E O F K E Y S O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H I A R E A S F E E D

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Tuesday, 25th February 2014

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website www.tynwald.org.im/Official Papers/Hansards/Please select a year:

Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office. Supplementary material subsequently made available following Questions for Oral Answer is published separately on the Tynwald website, www.tynwald.org.im/Official Papers/Hansards/Hansard Appendix

Volume 131, No. 10

ISSN 1742-2264

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2014 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Present:

The Speaker (Hon. S C Rodan) (Garff); The Chief Minister (Hon. A R Bell) (Ramsey); Hon. D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Hon. W E Teare (Ayre); Mr A L Cannan (Michael); Hon. T M Crookall (Peel); Mr P Karran, Mr Z Hall and Mr D J Quirk (Onchan); Mr R H Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mrs K J Beecroft (Douglas South); Hon. C R Robertshaw and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon. J P Shimmin and Mr C C Thomas (Douglas West); Mr R A Ronan (Castletown); Hon. G D Cregeen (Malew and Santon); Hon. J P Watterson, Mr L D Skelly and Hon. P A Gawne (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Secretary of the House.

______598 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Business transacted

Leave of absence granted ...... 601 Welcome to visitors from the Swiss Embassy ...... 601 1. Questions for Oral Answer ...... 601 1.1. Vulnerability in the population – Definition for policy guidance ...... 601 1.2. Physically disabled persons – Government policy and employment ...... 603 1.3. Breast cancer treatment – Assessment and use of Kadcyla ...... 606 1.4. Wet age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) – Accelerating treatment regime ..... 609 1.5. Peel sewage outfall – Effect on bathers’ health ...... 614 1.6. Peel bathing water – Achieving EU excellent standard ...... 617 1.7. Area Plans – Revision ...... 620 1.8. Douglas Harbour traffic statistics – Collection and publication ...... 622 Suspension of Standing Order 3.5.1(2) to continue Question Time – Motion lost...... 623 Procedural – Question 10 deferred to next sitting ...... 623 2. Questions for Written Answer ...... 624 1.9. Licensing scheme for airline routes – Estimated cost of drafting ...... 624 2.1. Manx Electricity Authority – Performance related pay and bonus policy ...... 624 2.2. ICE 2014 Gaming event – Cost of attending; tangible benefits ...... 625 2.3. Douglas Harbour – Monthly traffic figures, 2013 ...... 626 2.4. New bus ticketing system – Procurement, delivery, installation schedule ...... 627 2.5. Waste water – Statement ...... 628 Order of the Day ...... 629 3. Consideration of Clauses ...... 629 3.1. Control of Employment Bill 2013 – Consideration of clauses commenced ...... 629 The House adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m...... 661 3.1. Control of Employment Bill 2013 – Consideration of clauses concluded ...... 661 3.2. Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2013 – Clauses considered ...... 672 The House adjourned at 5.44 p.m...... 721

______599 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

PAGE LEFT DELIBERATELY BLANK

______600 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

House of Keys

The House met at 10.00 a.m.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Speaker: Moghrey mie, Hon. Members.

5 Members: Good morning, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The Chaplain will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Chaplain of the House of Keys

Leave of absence granted

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have granted leave of absence to the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall, for this afternoon.

Welcome to visitors from the Swiss Embassy

10 The Speaker: It is my great pleasure to welcome to the Public Gallery the Ambassador from Switzerland, His Excellency Mr Dominik Furgler, and his wife, Mrs Hayam Furgler. They are accompanied by First Secretary for Financial and Fiscal Affairs at the Swiss Embassy, Ms Rebekka Benesch. You are very welcome to the Isle of Man. 15 Members: Hear, hear.

1. Questions for Oral Answer

CHIEF MINISTER

1.1. Vulnerability in the population – Definition for policy guidance

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Chief Minister: 20

______601 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

What analysis he has made as to what constitutes and defines vulnerability in the population, to guide policy-making of the Government; and if he will make a statement?

The Speaker: Hon. Members, we turn to Item 1 on the Order Paper, Questions for Oral Answer. I call the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.

25 Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The Speaker: I call the Chief Minister, Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell.

30 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr Speaker, the Council of Ministers have discussed the importance of having a workable definition of ‘vulnerable’ within which to set policy-making parameters for protecting the vulnerable – one of the Government’s core objectives. The Social Policy and Children's Committee have discussed this issue, and have agreed that ‘vulnerable’ is impossible to define accurately, not least because it is subjective and individual 35 circumstances change, with people requiring support at different times and at differing levels. Consideration is being given to using the triangular model, where people will move between support levels as their needs change. Most people will access universal services, moving up to additional needs, then complex needs, with acute and statutory needs at the top. This model defines people based on their needs and recognising that not everyone that is or 40 feels vulnerable actually needs support. I am very happy to distribute this model to Hon. Members, if Hon. Members would like that.

The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Hall.

45 Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Chief Minister for his reply. Notwithstanding the fact that this is an extremely large agenda, but does the Chief Minister not agree with me that vulnerability must be defined relative to some benchmarks, with of course the natural benchmark being relative to poverty and deprivation, which should be considered in various dimensions? I am wondering why this has been largely absent to date, and 50 is the Chief Minister tackling this? Would he further not agree that data and information needs are going to be especially helpful, almost essential, I would have thought, if the Government is to genuinely deliver on its commitment to protecting the vulnerable in the population?

55 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Yes, I completely agree with the Hon. Member. Council has been grappling with this issue now for some time, as with the Department of Social Care. As I have said in my Answer, it is not an easy straightforward definition to draw up, but we are working 60 hard to actually try and find an acceptable level of description, which as far as possible would capture our overall understanding of what ‘vulnerable’ actually means, because it is very much at the forefront of our strategic objectives. In terms of more data, again I would agree with the Hon. Member. I think we have more work to do to ensure that we have the requisite level and breadth of data to enable our policies 65 to move forward.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______602 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

70 Could the Chief Minister clarify, then, how he knows when his policies are conforming with one of the three main commitments, which is protecting the vulnerable, if there is no definition or benchmarking? And secondly, in the Council of Ministers, he said they have discussed defining vulnerability: could he confirm whether they have discussed defining fuel poverty, which is a related issue, 75 and what the decision of the Council of Ministers was in that regard?

The Speaker: That is broadening it out, Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Yes, it is moving away from the original definition, but it is part and 80 parcel of the overall definition that we have to identify. The Department of Social Care, I think, has been working on developing an understanding of what fuel poverty means in the Isle of Man context. We are struggling to put an overall definition of vulnerability and a broader need together that the rest of Government can work on. Discussions are taking place, not just in the Council of Ministers but in other Departments 85 too, to ensure that the general line of each Department does recognise vulnerable, although I do accept that vulnerable is subjective and may well vary from Department to Department.

1.2. Physically disabled persons – Government policy and employment

The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Singer) to ask the Chief Minister:

What (a) central Government and (b) local government policy is in relation to employing physically disabled persons; and how many physically disabled persons are employed by Government?

The Speaker: Question 2. Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. 90 Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The Speaker: Chief Minister to reply. 95 The Chief Minister (Mr Bell): Mr Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the Hon. Member’s Question, there are a number of established policies which are of direct relevance, including Government’s policies on recruitment and selection and equal opportunities. In respect of recruitment, it is a requirement that, subject to control of employment legislation, all 100 recruitment to central Government public sector posts is on the basis of merit and without discrimination. In keeping with these principles, Government’s Equal Opportunities Policy requires that no central Government public sector employee is subject to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of gender, marital status, age, sexual orientation, colour, race, disability, religion or 105 ethnic origin or is disadvantaged by conditions or requirements which cannot be shown to be justified for sound operational reasons. It is important, in this context, to state that Government is committed to promoting equal opportunities and fairness at work, and that these established policies endorsed by the Council of Ministers will underpin this. 110 With regard to part (b) of the Question, it must be for each local authority, as an employing authority in its own right, to determine, with the requirements of legislation and good practice,

______603 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

its own policies with regard to recruitment and the employment of physically disabled persons. This is not a matter for central Government, but for the local authorities themselves. Statistics regarding members of staff with physical disabilities are not generally collected by 115 the various employers comprising the Isle of Man Government. Therefore, I am unable to give an indication of the number of people who may have a physical disability currently employed across central Government.

The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Singer. 120 Mr Singer: I thank the Chief Minister for his answer. Chief Minister, I seem to remember that there was a recommended percentage of physically disabled people that should be employed by Government – I think it was something like 5%. So is this in fact not policy any more? 125 Does he have with him – or maybe he has not, or he could get for Hon. Members – the number of physically disabled people who are employed in each Department?

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

130 The Chief Minister: As I have said, Mr Speaker, Government does not keep statistics of those with a physical disability. I do not think it would be possible to give a breakdown of the range of figures that the Hon. Member asked for, although I understand where he is coming from.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft. 135 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We know that the Chief Minister has confirmed that he is in favour of the Equality Act, and it is one of his priorities. Could he confirm what difference it would make to the policies, to the collation of data, etc if this Act was actually in force now? 140 The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: I cannot give any statistical figures for this.

145 The Speaker: Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you. So could I ask the Chief Minister, was I incorrect in believing or having the impression that there was a recommended percentage of physically disabled people who should be employed by 150 Government? The Chief Minister is aware, as I am, within our own constituency, of one physically disabled person who has made 400 job applications and still not got a job. Could a request be made to each Department and Statutory Board, therefore, to furnish details of the number of physically disabled people they employ – I am sure they should have some kind of record of that – and to 155 impress on them that it is important that these people are given an opportunity?

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

The Chief Minister: Once again, Mr Speaker, I do not think it would be possible to identify the 160 exact number of people with a physical disability across Government. I do not think it would be appropriate to probe the individuals on that basis. But what I can assure the Hon. Member, if it would put his mind at rest, is that we will raise the issue with the Council of Ministers and ensure that all Departments are reminded of the

______604 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

need to treat everybody equally. The Equality Bill is being drafted at the moment, it is very close 165 to going out to public consultation, and that I hope will reinforce this Government's commitment to equality at every level and in particular in the workplace.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell.

170 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Chief Minister goes back and discusses it with his Council of Ministers, will he also consider that in fact it is policy of Government – it is quite a long established policy – that 5% of the workforce ought to be – or 5% of job opportunities ought to be for disabled people? Would he seriously consider making an effort and each Department making an effort to 175 gainfully employ – in other words, to go out and gainfully advertise for those who have a disability, to take up the opportunity to have a Government position, in compliance with the policy of Tynwald?

The Speaker: Chief Minister. 180 The Chief Minister: I think we all want to see Government play its part, Mr Speaker, in offering as many opportunities to those with various disabilities as possible. That policy has been in place for a long time. It is still in place today. It will be reinforced when the Equality Bill comes out very shortly and we will continue to pursue that end. 185 The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Acknowledging that the Chief Minister will not have statistical information to hand, I just 190 wonder if he would clarify in broader terms what difference the Equality Act will make in assisting in this area?

The Speaker: Chief Minister.

195 The Chief Minister: The Bill is being drafted at the moment, Mr Speaker, and when it is complete, we will be able to give a full description of what is in the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas, Hon. Member.

200 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Council of Ministers has a subcommittee or a committee called the ‘Tynwald Advisory Committee on Disability’. Will the Chief Minister consider referring this matter for investigation by that Council of Ministers’ committee?

205 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

Mrs Cannell and other Members: It is a Tynwald committee.

The Chief Minister: It is a Tynwald committee, Mr Speaker, but the committee, I know, 210 watches progress in Government and if there are problems, the problems are raised with us. So that process is already in train.

______605 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

HEALTH

1.3. Breast cancer treatment – Assessment and use of Kadcyla

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Minister for Health:

What recent assessment he has made of the drug Kadcyla for treatment of Breast Cancer; whether it offers superior effectiveness; what recent discussions he has had with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence regarding the drug; when he expects it may also be available to patients in the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement?

215 The Speaker: Question 3. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

220 The Speaker: Minister for Health, Mr Anderson.

The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Hon. Member is no doubt aware, trastuzumab emtansine, for which Kadcyla is the trade name, has very recently been included in the English Cancer Drug Fund (CDF) list. It has 225 therefore not yet undergone assessment by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, commonly known as NICE – the organisation on which we and the English National Health Service rely on the assessment of clinical cost and effectiveness of drugs; nor is it available in Wales and Northern Ireland or in Scotland, although the Scottish Medicines Consortium is hoping to deliver guidance in June of this year. 230 As a matter of policy, we do not fund CDF drugs, and we therefore do not fund Kadcyla for Manx patients and have no plans to do so, unless and until it is approved by NICE. I remind Hon. Members of what I said in my Answer to him within another place on 10th December last year, which is that NICE assessments are highly complex and sophisticated and beyond the resources of a small jurisdiction such as ours. That is why we rely on the highly 235 respected NICE for guidance. Without such guidance from NICE, we are unable to make any assessment of Kadcyla and we cannot say whether or not this offers superior effectiveness. The Department has had no discussions with NICE and has had no plans to do so, as any assessment of effectiveness by NICE must follow due process, and we have no grounds for seeking to interfere with that. Although I understand that NICE may be able to issue guidance in 240 August of this year, I cannot predict what the guidance will be and when, if at all, Kadcyla might be available to Manx patients. If NICE guidance is unfavourable, we might never make it available. Mr Speaker, to avoid repetition of earlier replies to the Hon. Member and others, I draw his attention to what I said to all Hon. Member in my letter about CDF of 3rd February this year and 245 also to my Answer of 10th December last year. These provide further details on why we do not fund CDF drugs, on doubts about their effectiveness and our other higher priorities for spending on cancer treatment, should resources become available. Finally, Mr Speaker, it is of course open to a specialist to submit an application for provision of a specific treatment, if they believe the circumstances of a patient are sufficiently exceptional 250 to merit their exception from this policy. That applies to this drug as it does to any others.

The Speaker: Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Minister for his reply.

______606 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

255 Would he not agree with me that the green light for this revolutionary drug is positive and encouraging news and a huge step forward in targeting advanced stage of breast cancer, which is accessed, as he has mentioned, through the Cancer Drug Fund for English patients? Does he not find that it is also regrettable and somewhat embarrassing that he is having to deny the benefits of this drug to our people which, based on evidence, can extend women's lives 260 by almost six months and beyond in some cases and reduces many bad side-effects associated with standard chemotherapy?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

265 The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not in a position to pass judgement on this drug. As I have explained to the Hon. Member, we rely exclusively on NICE for determining if a drug like this should come in to regular practice. The Hon. Member alludes to it being on the Cancer Drug Fund in the UK. That is something we do not have on the Isle of Man, and for the reasons I have already stated. 270 So I am not in the position to make a judgement on this particular drug. We rely on the permissions from NICE to do that, and when they make their determination, we will take it from there.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft. 275 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the Minster confirm whether he feels it is satisfactory that when our citizens are sent across for treatment that they are denied this drug and others, when people in the bed next to them are receiving it? Would he acknowledge that this is actually causing a great deal of upset 280 to these people, when they are already in difficult circumstances?

The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: I realise, Mr Speaker, it is a difficult situation that Manx patients do find 285 themselves in. We have to recognise this was a political decision made some time ago by the English Government. It is not available in other places as well and therefore, with the resources we have got, we must target it where we think it is clinically most effective and that is why we have not got a cancer drug fund. Hon. Members will be aware that charitable organisations are seeking to establish a fund… were seeking to establish such a fund in the Isle of Man, where we 290 could assist them. However, that has seemed to have run into a brick wall at the moment.

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 295 Just to clarify, can the Minister repeat what he read out and ascertain whether or not my understanding is correct: did he say that if a specialist makes a recommendation for a patient for the use of this drug, and that it would benefit that particular patient, an Isle of Man patient, then would the Department finance the drug?

300 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Yes, I will do that for the Hon. Member: I will read out that paragraph again:

‘It is of course open to a specialist to submit an application for provision of a specific treatment, if they believe that the circumstances of a patient are sufficiently exceptional to merit their exception from this policy. This applies to this drug…’

______607 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

So that door is available, and then that goes to the Clinical Recommendations Committee Exceptions Committee. 305 The Speaker: Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware – as I am sure he is – that Scotland found itself in a similar situation to 310 the Isle of Man, in not making an equivalent cancer drug fund available and focusing on an individual funding request system, and as a result of an expert review and an inquiry, a £21 million orphan medicines fund was set up to cover the cost of medicines for patients with rare event conditions? Does the Minister therefore feel that perhaps we should at the very least follow Scotland's 315 lead and it is about time that we got on with the matter, as a matter of urgency, about how we can best enhance our access of range for new medicines that appear to be constantly coming onto the market now, when the situation at the moment is inadequate on the Isle of Man?

The Speaker: Hon. Members, please keep supplementary questions short. It is not a debate. 320 Minister.

The Minister: I can only reiterate, Mr Speaker, what I have said previously: in an ideal world, if we had unlimited resources, we would have such a fund. However, the Hon. Member seems to make the point that we should be making a case, maybe to Treasury, for a specific fund. I think if 325 we had the sort of money that we are talking about, we would be looking to enhance the services that we already have, rather than going down the road of the Cancer Drug Fund in the UK.

The Speaker: Mr Karran. 330 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Shirveishagh son Slaynt just clarify: so if individuals find themselves in the situation where they are in bed next to a UK patient and there are clinical recommendations as far as the consultant is concerned, your Department will take on board their recommendations, to put it towards their Clinical Committee? 335 And would the Minister also inform this House, would the situation that… How do we in this Hon. House get the assurance that your experts are better than the experts as far as cancer treatment in the United Kingdom, to override those recommendations?

The Speaker: Mr Anderson. 340 The Minister: Can I make it clear, Mr Speaker, that a case has to be made that it is exceptional circumstances to the protocol that is in place, and then that goes to our Committee, which looks at those exceptional circumstances and decides if those circumstances are exceptional. 345 The Speaker: Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, in such cases when an application has been made by a specialist, in special 350 circumstances, has the Minister any idea of how many occasions such an application has been made, and how many times the Clinical Recommendations Committee have actually agreed with the recommendation and financed such a drug? If he has not got that information at hand, could he provide Hon. Members with it as soon as possible, please?

______608 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

355 Mr Hall and Mrs Beecroft: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Mr Speaker, Hon. Member will know that I have not got those figures at my 360 fingertips. I will see if I can find those for her.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 365 The Minister, I believe, said it was a political decision in England for it to be available, so I would have thought, by default, could he confirm that it is actually a political decision here, that our citizens are treated the same? And if our citizens are not treated the same, would the Minister confirm that he believes this is not in contradiction to their human rights? 370 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: I think I would have to take advice in answering that; but what I can say to the Hon. Member is that we really rely on clinical judgements, rather than political judgements for 375 drug use.

1.4. Wet age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) – Accelerating treatment regime

The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Houghton) to ask the Minister for Health:

What action his Department has taken to accelerate the treatment regime for patients suffering from Wet ARMD since June 2012?

The Speaker: Question 4, Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton.

380 Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The Speaker: Minister for Health, Mr Anderson to reply.

385 The Minister for Health (Mr Anderson): Mr Speaker, as I have reported many times to this House, the introduction of this service to the Island remains a high priority for my Department, but requires the funding of major resources in all aspects of the service. Until such time, however, as this becomes a feasible option, we must continue to work with our tertiary centre to ensure our patients receive the best care available to them. 390 To this end, our patients receive the most up-to-date care and newly developed drugs possible. As I reported to this House in October last, the use of Eylea or aflibercept have resulted in reduced visits to the UK, and I am aware that the development of even longer acting drugs continues to be worked upon, which we intend to support as they become available. The volume of patients requiring treatment for ARMD has increased beyond anyone’s 395 expectations, both on-Island and in the UK, and together with UK patients, our patients did begin to experience an increased waiting list for treatment.

______609 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Approximately 18 months ago, however, in response to this increase, our tertiary centre appointed a further ophthalmic consultant, to ensure our patients were dealt with in a timely manner, and I am pleased to say, that is happening. 400 Whilst our ultimate intention remains to bring whatever is practical and sustainable to the Island, in whatever form fits best with clinical guidance, patient need and safety, and our budgetary and head-count ability, we can only do so with careful thought and decision-making, bearing in mind that this service requires multi-disciplinary support, including access to emergency cover to ensure safety. 405 A patient shared-care pathway has to be developed with our partners at Aintree and Liverpool Hospitals to identify what could be safely developed on Island. We also need to ensure that we do not risk losing this expertise at Aintree and Liverpool, which they provide for our ophthalmology patients We must seek the best fit for the Isle of Man and, as this has been determined already, should sit within Noble’s for the reasons I have already alluded to 410 previously. So to summarise, Mr Speaker, whilst repatriating some of this service is fundable within existing resources, the problems remain of head count and space. We are addressing these as best we can, but I must remind Hon. Members that at a time of effective fixed resource allocations, major service improvements can only be achieved by service reductions elsewhere, 415 and that any improvement must also compete against other priorities, which in some cases might be higher. In the meantime, ARMD patients are being treated by an expert centre. Whilst there may be difficulties for some patients to travel to Liverpool, I am reassured that there are no patient safety concerns and our patients are receiving the very best of care there. 420 The Speaker: Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s opening address, he stated that patients suffering from age-related macular 425 degeneration are being treated in a timely manner. Can he provide this Hon. House with proof of that? And also, in June 2012, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists provided specific guidelines in respect of age-related macular degeneration. Can the Minister explain to this Hon. House what he has done, what his Department has done in respect of follow-up on those guidelines? 430 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: Mr Speaker, I alluded in my original Answer that we were slipping behind the targets and that Aintree had put an extra consultant in place, so that we hit the national UK 435 agreed targets, which I think from memory is something like 18 weeks from referral to treatment, and our patients are hitting that target. (Interjections) Hon. Member may tut-tut, but that is the national agreed framework, (Interjection) and we are achieving that. In relation to what the Hon. Member was saying, work continues to try and find a solution for trying to get some these patients referred within Noble’s Hospital and we are looking… to do 440 that we must have an agreement with Aintree about a shared-care pathway for individual patients. As I also said earlier, the result of new drugs coming online does mean that patients do not have to travel – some patients do not have to travel – as frequently as they did, so that is a help, but it is a priority of the Department but it is a priority of the Department to try and find what 445 sustainable service can be moved onto the Island, but to do that there are many strands of work that need to be done.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer.

______610 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 450 Could the Hon. Minister tell us why his Department now has the policy that wet ARMD treatment, including injections, must be carried out only in Noble’s, when there are other options, and why his Department rejects these, when treatment could have been externally financed and well underway on the Island? Would he also like to reconsider his statement that treatment, as guidance, should be within 455 18 weeks, when in fact, as I pointed out to him several times before, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists insists that treatment should be within two weeks of identification (Mr Houghton and another Member: Hear, hear!) and here, it appears to be almost a minimum of eight weeks?

460 Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: I think I will circulate the criteria that the UK use and which Aintree are 465 achieving at the moment, for Hon. Members, just to give them guidance. If the Hon. Member can refresh my memory on his earlier supplementary?

Mr Singer: Why his Department has a policy that wet ARMD, including injections, must only be carried out in Noble’s and why his Department rejects these when treatment could have 470 been externally financed and well underway on the Island?

Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Minister. 475 The Minister: I think the Hon. Member raised with the Department the potential for a private provider to come in and deliver a service. I spoke at length yesterday to our commissioning agent that deals the hospitals in the North West, who gave me a very good understanding of why no NHS providers use private companies in the UK. Individuals go to private companies in 480 the UK. They do not provide service to the NHS as such, because what they do is quite limited, there is quite a fixed amount of work that they can do, and anything that falls beyond, outside of that, has to be picked up by the tertiary centre. We would not want to go down that route where we have got a private provider in to provide a service that was not complete in itself, and that is why we have to be careful that when we develop the service, we are very clear about 485 what we can deliver on Island, and what we should still continue to deliver off-Island through our tertiary centre. So I am afraid that the case that the Hon. Member has made for getting a private company in unfortunately does not stack up, because they do not deliver the breadth of service that is required to give patients confidence if something went wrong with what they were delivering. 490 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister advise me whether our own eye consultants are capable of delivering the 495 service for wet ARMD at Noble’s Hospital or at Ramsay? Have they put a plan forward to solve this problem? If so, why has not been progressed and are they regularly advised of the actions being taken by the management of the health service regarding finding a solution?

500 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

______611 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Minister: The present consultants would require some updating of their skills, I understand, to provide the service, but it is not just the consultants; you have to have a team of people underneath the consultants and from the figures that have been provided to me, there are up to five positions required, if you wanted to deliver the whole of the service back onto the 505 Isle of Man. You would have to have various grades underneath them. Some of those might be able to deliver some of the injections themselves. However, that would require training. So it is a head count issue as well and my understanding is it could be somewhere between three and five as maximum, so there are lots of areas that we are wrestling with to try and deliver this service on-Island, recognise what Hon. Members are saying and completely agree, it 510 would be great to have on-Island what of this service we could deliver on Island, but we must make sure it is a sustainable solution. We do not want to be in a position where we lose the services of our specialised tertiary centre, which has a massive wealth experience.

The Speaker: Mr Karran. 515 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, would the Shirveishagh son Slaynt not agree that the issue of head count, if we do not address this issue here, people go blind –

Mrs Beecroft: Hear, hear. 520 Mr Houghton: Hear, hear. Simple as that.

Mr Karran: – as far as that is concerned. Would the Shirveishagh not agree that we all appreciate that he is under severe economic 525 problems because of this Government’s actions over the years, but the fact is, is he now telling us that there should be a different standard of care as far as ARMD is concerned, like cancer care is concerned on this Island? Does he feel that he needs to try and fight in Council of Ministers to get the priority to get these issues addressed? 530 Finally, would the Shirveishagh also explain why we cannot take suitably trained nurses and technical theatre technicians which would help, which would be at a cheaper price of emolument which could help to resolve the issue, I am led to believe?

The Speaker: Minister to reply. 535 The Minister: I am not sure about the detail the Hon. Member spoke about in the final part of his question. However, I must emphasise that our patients going to the Northwest are in no worse position than UK patients are. They are on the same waiting list band as patients in the UK. 540 So be under no illusion, the service that is being delivered to our patients is the same as what is being delivered in the Northwest of England.

The Speaker: Mr Singer.

545 Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister recall that the idea of bringing across a private team was going to be done and it would be within the cost of the NHS now, and the advantage of that would be that these people on-Island could be seen within two weeks, if they came over every two weeks, and could be then, if necessary, referred for immediate treatment across, whereas now, they have got to 550 wait at least eight weeks, just to go across? (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) That is a long time to wait if you are suffering from wet ARMD, which advances so rapidly.

______612 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Is the Minister also aware that in the UK, that nurses grade 6 , 7 and 8 are qualified to give the injections and therefore, why could we not be doing that on the Island, (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) instead of having to send people across every month? And some people go across twice a 555 month, because they cannot have two eyes at the same time. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) Finally – if the Minister can remember this third part – is there any private treatment for ARMD available or proposed to be available on Island by any of the Hospital's ophthalmology consultants, but is not carried out by that consultant on the NHS?

560 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: As far as the third point, I have no knowledge of that, Mr Speaker, so I do not know the answer to that. As far as the solution, I think that what the Hon. Member for Ramsey is putting forward 565 about a private team coming in, he explained what the advantage is: they would parachute in, they would do the work, and then if there are any problems, we then refer those people who have got problems to the tertiary centre in the UK. We have a contract with the tertiary centre in the UK. Anything that goes against that contract, we have to be very clear, we are putting something else in place to make it sustainable. 570 Otherwise we will not have the services of that specialist centre in the UK. They can quite easily expand their boundaries to take up any slack because the Isle of Man are pulling out of a contract. I you think we can cherry pick at contracts, I am afraid that we cannot. What we will do is lose the services of a tertiary centre that has got a fantastic track record. We cannot replicate what they do, the breadth of service that they supply in the UK. 575 (Interjection by Mr Singer) There is no way we can do that. What we need to do is to develop a shared care pathway, to make sure we can get the best, the most optimal use in the Isle of Man in the long run. But we must have the backing of a tertiary centre like Aintree or Liverpool to back that up. (Interjection by Mr Houghton)

580 The Speaker: Supplementary, Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to my feet over a comment the Hon. Minister made, that this is the same service for Island residents as if they were living in the UK. However, one of my constituents over 80 years 585 of age was abandoned at Manchester Airport. (Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.) She could not read the signs on where to go, did not like to speak to strangers, she had been up since four o'clock in the morning to catch the red eye for this service, and was reduced to tears through her experience – over 80 years of age – how can we compare this with a service which is similar to that experienced by people in the UK? (Interjection) 590 The Speaker: Reply.

The Minister: The very reason the Hon. Member has clearly made this morning is why we are trying to deliver some of those services on Island, but we must recognise there is no magic wand 595 to wave and all of a sudden it happens. There are complications. As far as that individual patient is concerned, if they were abandoned at Manchester, I would like to hear about the details of that patient and look into it for the Hon. Member.

The Speaker: Two more supplementaries. The first of those, Mrs Beecroft. 600 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst acknowledging budgetary restrictions because of what I believe is a flawed budgetary process, will the Minister not acknowledge that by not treating these people in an appropriate

______613 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

and timely manner, it is actually penny wise and pound foolish, because it costs more to look 605 after somebody who has gone blind (Mr Karran: Hear, hear.) than to stop them going blind in the first place?

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

610 The Minister: I am afraid, Mr Speaker, there we differ: that we are not being treated in an appropriate timeframe. My understanding is that we are treating people in the same… or they have the ability to be treated in the same timeframe as the UK care pathway stipulates. So if you have examples where that has not taken place, I would be happy to look into them. 615 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. After that last comment, perhaps the Minister would like to have a look at the 620 recommendations from the Royal College of Ophthalmology – the latest recommendations – as to maximum time that should be taken from identifying wet ARMD to seeing the specialist (Mr Houghton and Mrs Beecroft: Hear, hear.) and having the first treatment. I think he will find out that it is two weeks, which he keeps repeating… he will not accept, when it is being repeated to him. 625 And would he not agree that he has been telling us that it is an urgent matter for getting on for three years? How can that be an urgent matter and how many people do we consider have deteriorated eyesight or even lost their eyesight because of this dilatory policy of his Department?

630 Mr Houghton: Hear, hear – 18 months since June 2012!

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Mr Speaker, the time that I mentioned was from referral to treatment. I will 635 look into that and make sure that what I quoted was correct. If not, I will come back. And the Hon. Member says this is an urgent matter and it has been going on for years. There are lots of things in the Department that are under pressure and, as I have said already, and he knows full well of our budgetary constraints, there are a lot of things going to be highlighted from the inspection of the services that will tell us about clinical recommendations that need 640 improving currently. If we are going to actually do something extra, we have to decide what we are not going to do on Island. This is a service that I believe we can do some on Island, (Interjection by Mrs Cannell) but we need to have a carefully managed plan to make sure what we do is sustainable.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

1.5. Peel sewage outfall – Effect on bathers’ health

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

______614 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

What effect a sewage outfall less than one nautical mile from the bathing area at Peel might have on the health of bathers? 645 The Speaker: Question 5. Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I ask the Question standing in my name.

650 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Gawne.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Gawne): Gura mie ayd, Loayreyder. With the present sewage outfall lying within 300 metres of the bathing area in Peel, it is generally accepted that bathing water quality could already be affected with a possible, 655 although not directly proven, knock-on effect on the health of bathers. Any future outfall located further away from the bathing area will have a lesser effect on the bathing area, which would be lessened even further with the provision of treatment of the sewage. We understand that precise outfall locations and levels of treatment are presently being 660 investigated by the Water and Sewerage Authority with the objective of protecting bathing water quality.

The Speaker: Mr Karran, supplementary.

665 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, is it appropriate to locate a regional sewage works where the outfall is close to a population density and can the Minister guarantee that the new proposals will comply with Blue Flag bathing water standards?

A Member: There aren’t any proposals yet! 670 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I think, provided that the treatment works are built to the required standards, then you can 675 actually put them pretty much anywhere. I do understand that there may well be perceptions about sewage treatment works but provided they are built and maintained to the appropriate standards, they can pretty much be built anywhere. As far as guaranteeing that the new works will comply with Blue Flag bathing water 680 standards, I cannot at this stage give any guarantees, and it may be better to direct the question to the Chairman of the Water And Sewerage Authority, who may have a clearer understanding of what the Authority is proposing to build.

A Member: Hear, hear. 685 The Speaker: Mr Karran, supplementary.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, so the Shirveishagh who is responsible for the environment is washing his hands, as far as the responsibility to make sure that anything complies with the 690 Blue Flag bathing water standards – he will not guarantee that? Are we to understand that the sewage works built at Peel will provide a lower standard of bathing water hygiene protection, compared to the neighbours of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Is there a difference, as far as the standards are going to be, as far as this nation is concerned, to the adjacent nations that surround us – ?

______615 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

695 Mr Anderson: It will be a lot better than it is at the moment, anyway.

Mr Crookall: Absolutely.

The Speaker: Reply. 700 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Certainly, I am not washing my hands of this; what I am doing, as Minister responsible, is complying with the resolution of Tynwald in March 1990, which some Members may recall, that the EEC bathing water quality standard be adopted as an objective in respect of those activities 705 and marine water quality. The Directive referred to at that stage was Directive 76/160/EEC, which was adopted by the European Parliament on 8th December 1975. That said, there is a new Directive, which was adopted in UK law in April 2008. I understand that the new Directive is to be applied in both the United Kingdom and in Ireland – indeed, across the whole of Europe – by 1st January next year. 710 At this stage, there has not been any consideration across Government as to whether we would wish to comply with that standard. However, going back to the issue in relation to Blue Flag status, there would be a huge amount of work unrelated to the issue of sewage treatment that would need to be [Inaudible] to ensure that Blue Flag status could be guaranteed in Peel.

715 The Speaker: Final supplementary, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, so the promises made when most of the Hon. Members in this Hon. House, with the exception of a few of us, that were made, are now to be broken, as far as this was supposed to be our central way of sorting out the Island’s sewerage problem, as far 720 as we would have Blue Flag status for all Island… they are be broken as far as that is concerned. Does the Shirveishagh actually say that that is going to be the case, that we are going to have a lesser standard than the UK and the Irish Republic, and is this more to try and cover up for the consultants’ work in the past (Mr Crookall: Shameful.) as far as the issue is concerned, than actually deal with the issue of environmental protection? 725 Mr Quirk and another Member: Shame.

The Speaker: Minister.

730 Mr Karran: Truth –

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. You are not getting any broken promises from me. (Interjections) I am complying with what I have been asked to comply with –the resolution. (Interjections) 735 The Speaker: Order! Order! (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) The Minister is replying.

The Minister: I am complying with the resolution that Tynwald set down for us. 740 I think there is a serious question that the House of Keys/Tynwald/ Government needs to ask, and that is: is it acceptable for us to have our citizens having a lower standard than the citizens of the rest of the European Union. But that is quite a big and significant question to ask, because what we have done is designed our sewerage treatment system to comply with the 1976 standard, the 2006 – was it 2006? (Mr Watterson: 2008?) No, it was the 2006 Directive. 745 (Interjection by Mr Watterson) The 2006 Directive is much more stringent, and I would imagine would require substantial investment, if we were to bring our standards up to meet that.

______616 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

It is still possible that Blue Flag status can be met, but really, that is down to the standard that the Water and Sewerage Authority wishes to build its treatment works too. It is only required to meet the 1976 standard, but I know that my officers have asked for space to be 750 provided so that if we decide at some point in the future to adopt a more stringent standard, that can be met as well.

The Speaker: Taking one final supplementary, Mr Cregeen, Hon. Member.

755 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister advise if anybody else has raised any of these concerns with the Department, or is it just the Member for Onchan and his ex-candidate who has property nearby who has raised it?

760 Mr Houghton: Hear, hear.

A Member: Tut-tut!

The Speaker: Minister. 765 The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. There are a number of people who have raised this issue with the Department –

Mr Karran: Absolutely – the Commissioners have! 770 The Minister: And I think the most important thing for me – the nub of this – is that we currently have a standard which is different from what is going to be imposed across the European Union. That is something that obviously we need to be concerned about. However, the Water and Sewerage Authority are complying with the standards that Tynwald 775 have set for it, and indeed are making space available to meet the more stringent standard, should Tynwald choose to apply that standard across the Isle of Man.

1.6. Peel bathing water – Achieving EU excellent standard

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Karran) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:

How the excellent bathing water standard as defined by EU law will be achieved at Peel?

The Speaker: Question 7, Mr Karran. 780 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I ask the Question standing in my name.

The Speaker: Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Gawne.

785 The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Gawne): Gura mie eu. I am assuming you meant Question 6?

The Speaker: Question 6 – I beg your pardon. Question 6.

______617 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

790 The Minister: If it is Question 7, I think you would be looking for someone else to answer!

A Member: You never know! (Interjections and laughter)

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. 795 The EU Directives on Bathing Water Quality do not directly apply on the Island, but in 1990 Tynwald Court agreed that the EU Directive (76/160/EEC) should be adopted as an objective. Peel bathing waters consistently fail the excellent designation and regularly fail the good designation of the 1976 Directive. The new 2006 EU Directive (2006/7/EC) which applies to EU states in 2015 is generally considered more stringent, and therefore compliance of the Peel 800 bathing waters when applied to those standards appears even worse. It is understood from the Water and Sewerage Authority that the Peel scheme will be designed to ensure compliance with the 1976 EU Directive as directed by Tynwald, but provision will be set aside to accommodate future treatment if more stringent objectives are applied. Gura mie eu. 805 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, thanking the Shirveishagh for the previous Answer, and the fact that he has now clarified the point that we are now wanting to have lower standards, even 810 though we have paid top dollar for this so-called Island-wide policy as far as IRIS is concerned, will the Minister review the standards, as far as his Department are working to, to report to the House why he thinks lower standards of bathing water quality as far as the Island is concerned, compared to our EU neighbours next door? Will the Shirveishagh also inform this House over the issue that the local Commissioners are 815 under the illusion that his Department is trying to bring about Blue Flag status, as far as Peel Bay and the beach is concerned, because of the effects it will have on tourism in that local authority? Can he also condemn the disgusting way that his so-called hon. colleague can come along and try and blacken people’s names (Mrs Cannell and Mrs Beecroft: Hear, hear.) on the issue that it is a local authority has made this representation? 820 Mr Crookall: That is rich, bearing in mind the paper this morning!

The Speaker: You had dealt with the latter issues.

825 Mrs Cannell: You had not.

The Speaker: – in relation to the previous Question –

Mr Houghton: He is right. 830 Mr Karran: Not of Peel Commissioners.

Mr Houghton: The Commissioners did not ask you to put that question.

835 The Speaker: Hon. Members, please! The Minister is on his feet. He is entitled to be heard. Minister.

The Minister: Gura mie eu. In relation to the IRIS scheme, I must reiterate that IRIS meets the standards that were set 840 down for it at the time. What it does not do is meet the new standards which have come along subsequently, and that is something that the Hon. Member is now asking me in the

______618 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

supplementary and certainly, I think, across Government we will have to look at this, because it is very difficult to defend the position where we are saying to our citizens, let alone visitors to the Isle of Man, that we have a lower standards than the rest of the European Union currently 845 apply. So I think that is something we are going to have to look at but it does come with quite a considerable cost associated with it. Now, whether in the past at some point we should have had this consideration of whether we should meet the 2006 standard is for others to decide. What I know is that if we are to impose that standard… well, we simply could not meet the 850 standard in the timescales that are going to be applied across the rest of Europe, and certainly it would be a considerable amount of money to upgrade all the facilities to meet that standard. Added to which, it is not just about sewerage; there is also the pollution in the river associated with the mining operation in Foxdale, as well as run-off from agricultural land. There are quite a lot of issues there that would have to be considered and significant investment 855 required.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Hall.

Mr Hall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 860 Just a point, if the Minister could just clarify that, in terms of the design and location of the sewage treatment works at Peel: were the consultants tasked for it to comply with the EU bathing water standards 2006, and also the Blue Flag standards, and what guarantees were they actually asked to provide? If he could just clarify that, that would be great. 865 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I merely impose the standards. I do not know what the inner machinations of the Water and 870 Sewerage Authority are, in relation to what they have designed and what they have actually done in relation to what we have asked. But what I do know is that my officers have clarified with the Water and Sewerage Authority that they must meet the 1976 Directive, which is Tynwald policy, but also suggested that space should be made available within the design to meet the 2006 standard, if Tynwald at some point 875 in the future chooses to impose that standard.

Mr Houghton: And we will meet that –

The Speaker: Final supplementary question, Mr Karran. 880 Mr Karran: Thanking the Shirveishagh for the assurance that we will have Blue Flag status, as far as Peel is concerned, would the Shirveishagh be aware, as well as many of us in this House are aware – maybe the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk is not aware – where you have had Public Accounts Committees with special concerns about issues as far as the IRIS project that still 885 have not been taken up as far as that issue (Interjection) and I hope he will take it up, as his part as regulator, as far as Environment is concerned?

The Speaker: Minister.

890 The Minister: I hate to disappoint the Hon. Member for Onchan, but I did not say that what we are doing will guarantee Blue Flag status for Peel – quite the contrary. It is unlikely that what we will do will provide Blue Flag status.

______619 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

As far as the sewage treatment works are concerned, then a significant step towards meeting Blue Flag status will be achieved, but there are issues, as I have said, in terms of the pollution in 895 the river from the likes of the mining operation in Foxdale, for example, natural run-off from agricultural land, which will make it difficult to meet that Blue Flag status without significant further investment.

INFRASTRUCTURE

1.7. Area Plans – Revision

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

At what intervals he intends to revise all or part adopted Area Plans; and what would trigger a revision?

900 The Speaker: We turn to Question 7. Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

905 The Speaker: Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Cretney to reply.

The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Cretney): Thank you. Hon. Members will be aware that at the 28th January 2014 sitting of the House of Keys, in my response to a Question from the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk, I stated:

‘As agreed with the Environment and Infrastructure Committee, the aim is to publish a draft Area Plan for the East by 2016 and a public inquiry in 2017.’

910 I would now like to expand on that Answer. Members will be aware that the Department has recently concluded consultation on the preliminary publicity for the Strategic Plan Review. The Department is now analysing all the representations and will then determine how best to proceed. In terms of timeframe for the production of the Strategic and Area Plans, Members will recall that this has been set by the 915 Environment and Infrastructure Committee and endorsed by Tynwald in May last year. The Department is working towards achieving these targets which are: completion of the review of the Island Strategic Plan by the end of 2015 – preliminary publicity was issued in 2013; delivery of a draft Area Plan for the East by 2016 – the aim is that the Area Plan for the East will go to public enquiry in 2017; and detailed preparatory work on the Area Plans for the North and 920 West by 2016 – these Plans will likely go to inquiry in 2018-19. Future reviews of both the Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the South will take place within the context outlined within the respective documents. However, there are no specific triggers set out within the Area Plan which would automatically instigate a review. It will be up to the Department to determine if and when to undertake any reviews, which will take place in 925 accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas, supplementary.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker and to the Minister for that comprehensive reply.

______620 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

930 In the light of the striking out of what is called LP21 from the Southern Area Plan by the court recently, because of flawed process in the preparation of that Plan, can the Minister advise whether the Department would consider that sufficient to trigger the revision of the small part of the Southern Area Plan, part of Langness?

935 The Speaker: Now, Hon. Member, I think you must be very careful with supplementaries like that. There are aspects of the Southern Area Plan, I understand, still under judicial consideration.

Mr Quirk: Point of order, Mr Speaker. 940 The Speaker: Mr Quirk, point of order.

Mr Quirk: If I can be helpful, the judgment was last week and it has already been filed.

945 Mr Watterson: Not within the appeal time, though. (Interjections)

The Speaker: Notwithstanding that, it is still within the time for appeal, (A Member: Hear, hear.) so my comments do stand, and I must, I think in fairness to the Minister, disallow that supplementary question. 950 Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister advise whether a resolution of Tynwald to the effect that a small part of the Southern Area Plan should be reviewed be sufficient to trigger a revision? 955 The Speaker: Minister.

The Minister: Well, we have to cross that bridge when we come to it. I understand there may well be such resolution already down. 960 The Speaker: Question 8.

Mr Quirk: Mr Speaker.

965 The Speaker: Mr Quirk, supplementary question.

Mr Quirk: It was to the Minister… Can I ask the Minister, he mentioned the Strategic Plan and the review that is being done: when will the information be ready for examination?

970 The Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Cannell: In 2017.

The Minister: At the moment, officials are going through the responses which we have 975 received from all the parties who have been good enough to respond to the consultation. Following that, the Department will consider it and as soon as possible thereafter, I will get back to Hon. Members and the general public.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas, supplementary. No? 980

______621 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1.8. Douglas Harbour traffic statistics – Collection and publication

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:

What Douglas Harbour traffic statistics are collected; and what the publication policy and practice are in respect of these statistics?

The Speaker: Question 8, Mr Thomas.

985 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.

The Speaker: Minister to reply.

990 The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Cretney): Thank you. Traffic statistics are collected for both leisure and commercial operations. Up until towards the end of 2013, the Douglas Harbour statistics were produced on a monthly basis and put out as a news release. The figures given out were the total passenger and vehicle statistics for the month and year to date, with a comparison to the previous year. The passenger figures were 995 broken down into destination: Heysham, Liverpool, Belfast and Dublin. The figures are also published on the DOI Harbours website. Currently, the figures and style of reporting are under review by the Director of Ports. The reason for this is that the statistics for both sea and air may be produced into one document in the future, rather than two separate documents. The review will be completed by the end of 1000 March 2014, and I am happy to assure the Hon. Member that we will inform everyone of the future method of publication.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas, supplementary.

1005 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker and to the Minister for that information. I not e the confirmation that there has been a policy change; it has not just been oversight. Why was that policy change – for instance, the airport statistics…? Could the Minister advise why the airport statistics are still published but the port statistics are not still published?

1010 The Speaker: Reply, sir.

The Minister: The principal thing here is that the two Divisions of the Department – the Harbour Division and the Airport Division – have been merged into one, which is now the Ports Division, and in order to provide consistent and easily understood advice to the general public, it 1015 has been determined that both may well be better situated together.

The Speaker: A further supplementary.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1020 Can the Minister confirm then that he will be publishing monthly statistics for 2013, in response to my Written Question in today’s sitting.

The Speaker: Reply, sir.

1025 The Minister: Yes, I am happy to confirm that.

______622 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Suspension of Standing Order 3.5.1(2) to continue Question Time – Motion lost

The Speaker: Now, Hon. Members, we have completed one hour of Question Time. I call Mr Thomas. 1030 Mr Thomas: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Standing Order 3.5.1(2) be suspended to enable the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at this sitting.

The Speaker: Mr Quirk. 1035 Mr Quirk: I beg to second, sir, and reserve…

The Speaker: I put the question that Standing Orders be suspended to allow further questions to be taken. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Crookall Mr Hall Mr Anderson Mr Karran Mr Robertshaw Mr Ronan Mr Shimmin Mr Singer Mr Watterson Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannel Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Gawne The Speaker

1040 The Speaker: With 14 votes for, 5 votes against, the motion therefore fails to carry. Item 2 on our Order Paper, Questions for Written Answer: five of those and the replies will be distributed.

Procedural – Question 10 deferred to next sitting

Mr Thomas: Mr Speaker, may I, with your leave, withdraw Question 10 till a subsequent sitting, please, rather than having it replied to in writing? 1045 The Speaker: Could you repeat that? Do I understand that would like it…?

Mr Thomas: Question 10, I would like withdrawn until the subsequent of the House of Keys.

1050 The Speaker: To a subsequent sitting – indeed, you may. And Question 9?

Mr Thomas: Question 9 is fine.

The Speaker: Thank you.

______623 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

2. Questions for Written Answer

INFRASTRUCTURE

1.9. Licensing scheme for airline routes – Estimated cost of drafting

The Hon. Member for West Douglas (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister of Infrastructure:

Pursuant to his statement in the House of Keys on 28th January 2014, what the estimated cost is of drafting a licensing scheme which could be introduced for airline routes operating between the Island and key British destinations?

1055 Answer: The alternative to ‘Open Skies’ is to put in place an Air Service Licensing Regime – regulatory machinery whereby each airline would have to apply for a licence to fly on a route. The Department has examined this carefully and also obtained expert aviation legal advice as to what would be needed to set up and operate an air service licensing regime. My Department has been advised that the introduction of a licensing scheme would entail 1060 the drafting and passing of appropriate primary and secondary legislation, with its attendant regulations (including procedures for appeals); the establishment of a decision making person or body (representing the interests of the Isle of Man); and consideration, drafting and publishing of a licensing policy. It is unlikely that any licensing scheme could be introduced without engaging first in negotiations with the UK Government. 1065 To return to the Hon. Member’s Question, given the above breakdown of what we have been advised would be required, whilst we have not put a specific cost figure forward, given average legal costs starting at approximately £250 per hour, we would estimate that the final bill could be several tens of thousands of pounds. The backdrop to requesting assistance with funding for this piece of work is that for the three 1070 year period between 2013-14 and 2015-16 the Airport Section of the Ports Division must find cumulative savings of £2.2 million. There is no ‘spare’ funding currently for this piece of work. That said, I can give assurance to Hon. Members that the Department is committed to the work involved in preparing a contingency plan involving a drafted licensing scheme.

CHIEF MINISTER

2.1. Manx Electricity Authority – Performance related pay and bonus policy

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Chief Minister:

What the performance related pay and bonus policy is for employees of the Manx Electricity Authority; whether there have been any material changes to terms and conditions of employment of any personnel of the Authority in the last 12 months in respect of performance related pay and bonuses; how much bonuses and performance related pay was paid to employees of the Authority in each of the past 10 years, broken down by employee grade; and if he will make a statement?

Answer: The MEA’s response to the Question is as follows:

______624 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1075 (a) What the performance related pay and bonus policy is for employees of the Manx Electricity Authority: The MEA has never paid bonuses but did have a performance related pay (PRP) scheme. PRP was a non-pensionable contractual performance related element of a Personal Contract (PC) holder’s salary, whereby a proportion of manager’s normal 1080 salary had to be earned against specific/agreed Department and personal targets/objectives. PC holders are generally managers, (but there are also some engineers and supervisors who are PC holders due to the key roles/responsibilities performed). (b) Whether there have been any material changes to terms and conditions of 1085 employment of any personnel of the Authority in the last 12 months in respect of performance related pay and bonuses: The number of personal contracts peaked in 2009-10, and no personal contracts have been issued since 2010; the number subsequently reducing as PC holders left the MEA. 1090 PRP was then removed in 2013 by the Board following its review and consultation with PC holders. (c) How much bonuses and performance related pay was paid to employees of the Authority in each of the past ten years, broken down by employee grade:

PRP year No. of Total paid Engineer/ Senior payments Manager Manager

2013-14 - - - - 2012-13 54 £226,562 £144,337 £82,225 2011-12 59 £236,045 £157,045 £79,000 2010-11 65 £251,168 £162,068 £89,100 2009-10 66 £291,288 £169,088 £122,200 2008-09 65 £272,788 £163,563 £109,225 2007-08 61 £240,167 £145,167 £95,000 2006-07 58 £201,050 £124,050 £77,000 2005-06 63 £173,875 £121,875 £52,000 2004-05 55 £240,900 £107,150 £133,750

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

2.2. ICE 2014 Gaming event – Cost of attending; tangible benefits

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Minister for Economic Development:

What the total travel and accommodation costs were of attending the ICE 2014 Gaming event in London; and (a) how many enquiries to the stand have been officially recorded; (b) how many Isle of Man Government representatives attended broken down by Ministers, Political Members, and Officers; (c) what other costs to the public purse resulted from attending the event; and what tangible benefits (i) there have been to date, and (ii) are expected as a result; and if he will make a statement?

______625 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1095 Answer: The Department organises a stand each year at ICE, which is one of the leading events in e-gaming worldwide. Representatives from both Government and the private sector jointly promote the Isle of Man on the stand. The private sector partners contribute to the cost of the stand, reducing the cost to the taxpayer significantly. The total travel and accommodation costs for Government representatives attending ICE 1100 2014 were £8,400. (a) The Department has already recorded 105 leads from the show. Another 15 to 20 leads are expected to be received and recorded shortly. In addition, there were a substantial number of additional enquiries from lawyers, accountants and consultants to the industry from off the Island. 1105 (b) The Government was represented at ICE by the Department’s Political Member for e- gaming, three officers from the Department, plus four officers from the Gaming Supervision Commission and their Chair. Only two GSC officers were involved in the stand and related promotional activities; the other three GSC representatives were involved in the wider conference which was examining the future of the industry and its regulation. 1110 (c) The other costs to the public purse, including stand space, build costs and marketing materials were approximately £54,300. This amount was off-set by income received from the 14 private sector partners totalling £42,000 leaving the net cost of £12,300. (i) To date, one lead has already turned into a site visit with others being planned. (ii) The private sector partners are indicating that the quality of the leads was at a very high 1115 standard and that they expect to be appointed to act for a number of clients on company set-up, corporate structuring and applications for gaming licences shortly. The e-gaming sector now provides over 800 jobs and millions of pounds in Government income. Many of these e-gaming businesses were directly attracted as a result of the Department’s promotional activities. 1120 E-gaming continues to offer very good potential for further growth from new and existing businesses. Experience shows participation in ICE plays a very valuable role in generating and progressing leads which turn into businesses on the Island. This year’s ICE was particularly successful such that the Department now has one of the highest ever level of leads. 1125 Each new e-gaming business typically generates annual income to Government which equates to several times the one-off cost of £20,700 to Government of ICE. The Department expects several new businesses to be attracted to the Island as a direct result of the leads generated at ICE. As a result, the Department believes expenditure on ICE delivers an excellent return to the taxpayer.

INFRASTRUCTURE

2.3. Douglas Harbour – Monthly traffic figures, 2013

The Hon. Member for West Douglas (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister of Infrastructure:

What the Douglas Harbour traffic figures were in each month in 2013?

1130 Answer: The Douglas Harbour traffic figures for each month in 2013 are listed in Table 2.3A, showing total passengers and vehicles, following the same format as the previously published statistics:

______626 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Table 2.3A

Passengers Vehicles Jan 15,170 5,396

Feb 18,102 6,595

Mar 29,419 8,701

Apr 45,152 11,619

May 70,322 23,134

June 84,757 29,290

July 76,243 17,889

Aug 102,261 26,342

Sep 57,199 16,710

Oct 35,496 10,240

Nov 20,413 7,044

Dec 21,511 7,352

COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND LEISURE

2.4. New bus ticketing system – Procurement, delivery, installation schedule

The Hon. Member for Douglas West (Mr Thomas) to ask the Minister for Community, Culture and Leisure:

What the procurement, delivery and installation schedule is of the new bus ticketing system; and which organisations (i) expressed interest and (ii) were short-listed during the procurement process?

Answer: The Department has worked with Treasury procurement to identify a potential 1135 supplier. The procurement process is yet to be finalised, as a contract cannot be awarded to the successful tender until Treasury grants its approval. This requirement was included as a caveat by Tynwald in granting initial approval to the scheme. However, Treasury approval is anticipated within the next month or so. There were 14 expressions of interest and details will be published on the Treasury website 1140 once the procurement process has been completed and the companies appropriately notified. At this stage, it is inappropriate to provide further detail. The Department acknowledges that the process has taken longer than anticipated but has engaged and taken advice from Treasury procurement services. Whilst this can be time consuming, it is regarded as public service ‘best practice’ in public service procurement practice. 1145 To date, significant progress has been made to identify the most appropriate supplier and ensure the product will fully satisfy the detailed tender requirements, minimise business risk and improve service and performance. The complexity of identifying the most suitable product has been acknowledged, as it has not only had to meet the requirements for the bus operation, but

______627 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

has considered broader Government corporate initiatives and compatibility and integration with 1150 other Government systems. Therefore, while public transport urgently requires the adoption of the new system to assist with a further enhancement of its financial performance, it has fully acknowledged the requirement to adhere to best practice principles. The outcome is now provisionally agreed and I expect that the implementation process will commence within a few weeks of the procurement process being completed.

WATER AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

2.5. Waste water – Statement

The Hon. Member for Onchan (Mr Hall) to ask the Chairman of the Water and Sewerage Authority :

What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of the total volume of waste water to be treated which is attributed to; (a) domestic sewage and (b) trade effluent; and if he will make a statement?

1155 Answer: It is not possible to reliably estimate the proportion of domestic sewage and trade effluent arriving at Meary Veg as it arrives there ‘en bloc’. The only way to accurately measure trade effluent would be to sample the flow at each business. The average biological load (BOD) arriving at Meary Veg over a 12 month period is 4.34 tonnes per day. 1160 The theoretical calculated domestic sewage biological load, using the 2011 census figures arriving at Meary Veg is 3.35 tonnes per day. However, this estimate cannot take account of the daily movement of people coming into and out of Meary Veg’s catchment area to work, nor can it take into account the weather, movement of people during TT and GP fortnights and the mode of operation of the pumping 1165 stations feeding Meary Veg, all of which will affect the amount of biological load arriving at Meary Veg.

______628 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Order of the Day

3. CONSIDERATION OF CLAUSES

3.1. Control of Employment Bill 2013 – Consideration of clauses commenced

Mr Shimmin to move.

The Speaker: We turn to Item 3, consideration of clauses, Control of Employment Bill 2013. I 1170 call on the mover, Hon. Member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the long title of the Bill states, the purpose of the Bill is to re-enact with amendments the Control of Employment Act 1975. 1175 The Department's main purposes in bringing forward the Bill were discussed at length at Second Reading, so I will confine my introductory remarks to a few key points that I would like Members to bear in mind, as we deal with each clause. Firstly, the Department made a strategic decision to retain the Work Permit system, because in our view, it is only right that Isle of Man Workers should be the principal beneficiaries of the 1180 Island’s economic success and that they should be considered for work that is available on the Island, provided that they can undertake that work to the required standard. Furthermore, abandonment of Work Permit controls could result in much increased demands for Government services and, in the worst scenario, lead to some social tensions. So we have done all that is reasonable to assist Isle of Man Workers. 1185 At the same time, however, we have had to recognise that the Island’s diverse economy has needs and a huge range of skills, and that if we are to retain and expand our employer base, we have to listen to employers’ concerns and to those aspects of the system that cause them concern, and to recognise that there is a legitimate need to import some labour. So we have also made some changes that we hope employers will welcome. 1190 Finally, we should never lose sight of the stark fact that even if all of our unemployed were to obtain employment, there would still be a shortfall of some several thousands of workers that the Island needs if we are to remain open for business. For this reason, it is important to make the Island an attractive proposition for the prospective workers we need, which in turn means not placing obstacles in the way of their spouses, civil partners and children also working here. 1195 So the Bill, we believe, carefully balances the needs of Isle of Man Workers, of employers and of prospective workers and their families. We have attempted to produce a Bill that has strategic focus and which is concerned with the big picture. This is accomplished by making a few key changes, as well as numerous small changes, which are intended to improve the way the whole system operates. 1200 Very careful thought has been given over a long period of time to matters such as, for example: Isle of Man Worker status; the way criminality should be dealt with; the powers needed to exchange relevant information between my Department and other Departments; an exemption policy; and a wide range of other matters. The end result is, in the Department's view, a much more coherent system of controls which is more appropriate to the Island’s needs. 1205 Furthermore, the Department plans to improve the way the system is administered, and to review internal policies. As Members will be aware from the Order Paper, a number of amendments to the Bill have been tabled, including three which my Department is sponsoring, but we have tried to approach

______629 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

all the amendments with an open mind and will be supporting some, but not all of the 1210 amendments. With that, Mr Speaker, moving to the clauses: clause 1, short title – this gives the Act its short title. I beg to move it stand part of the Bill.

1215 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

1220 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, please.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1225 Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Act. Subsection (1) provides that the Act, other than section 1 which provides for its title and this section, are to come into force on an appointed day or days. Subsection (2) provides that such an order may contain incidental and transitional provisions. I beg to move it stands part of the Bill. 1230 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second.

1235 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 2 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: This clause provides for the interpretation of the Bill. 1240 The most significant difference between the section on interpretation in the Control of Employment Act 1975, which in future I shall refer to as the 1975 Act, and this clause is that the definition of ‘employment’ in the Bill is wider and captures more working relationships than the definition in the 1975 Act. I beg to move clause 3 stands part of the Bill. 1245 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second.

1250 The Speaker: I call Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, this, as far as I am aware, is a technical issue that has not been put in the original draft and so, to help the Attorney Generals’ department and the Government, I am happy to move the amendment as part of my proposals. 1255 I do so move:

Amendment to clause 3 Page 8, after line 7, insert — ‘“information” includes evidence;’.

______630 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1260 I beg to second.

The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1265 Having sought legal advice as regards the effect of the amendment, the Department is supportive. The effect of the amendment is to remove any possible uncertainty as to whether the term ‘information’ which is used in the Bill includes evidence. Therefore we are supportive.

The Speaker: I put the question. First of all, the amendment in the name of Mr Karran: those 1270 in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3 as amended: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4, please.

1275 Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause sets out who is an Isle of Man Worker for the purposes of the Bill. There are eight main categories. Subsection (1) is introductory. Subsection (2) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she was born in the 1280 Island. Subsection (3) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she has at any time lived in the Island for an unbroken period of at least five years. Subsection (4) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she is the spouse or civil partner of an Isle of Man Worker and is entitled to remain in the Island under immigration 1285 law. Subsection (5) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she had been married to or the civil partner of an Isle of Man Worker, was living in the Island immediately before the death of the former partner and has lived in the Island ever since. Subsection (6) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she had been the 1290 spouse or civil partner of an Isle of Man Worker, had lived in the Isle of Man for an unbroken period of at least three years immediately before becoming divorced and has lived on the Island ever since. Subsection (7) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if his or her parent is, or was immediately before death, an Isle of Man Worker and at the time of the child’s birth the parent 1295 or the parent’s spouse or civil partner was serving in the armed forces. Subsection (8) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she is the child of a person who is both born in the Island and lived in the Island for their first five years. Subsection (9) provides that a person is an Isle of Man Worker if he or she (a) was for an unbroken period of at least a year under 23 years old and ordinarily resident in the Island and in 1300 full-time education; (b) has since the end of that period remained resident; and (c) is the child of a person who during that period was an Isle of Man Worker or an exempt person in regular full- time employment or the holder of a Work Permit. Subsection (10) excludes certain temporary exemptions in schedule 1 from counting as regular full-time employment for the purposes of subsection (9)(c)(ii). 1305 I beg to move clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

______631 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 1310 The Speaker: Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just ask the Minister regarding when he says a resident in the Island’s ‘unbroken period 1315 of at least five years’? Then there is a further one where he indicated there ‘unbroken for a year’. It there any latitude in that for absences from the Island regarding sickness confirmed within the UK or just going on a holiday?

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. 1320 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, could the Shirveishagh just clarify: so if a child is born on the Island with no Isle of Man Worker status as far as his parents are concerned, he has got to be here five years to have status, as far as becoming an Isle of Man Worker? I would just be interested in that, and maybe the Shirveishagh could explain to this House 1325 how he has tightened up the loophole there was as far as full-time employment is concerned. I believe that has been done by secondary legislation, but if he can confirm that there is no loophole, as far as somebody coming here, going into full-time education, and then being able to become an Isle of Man Worker within a matter of months of doing that. If that loophole has been sorted out too? 1330 The Speaker: Mr Shimmin to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do my best to understand. It does identify… The Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk is raising 1335 one of the complexities of this whole process: when do you prove that somebody actually was on a holiday or relocated away from the Island? The onus is on the individual to identify and prove that they have been resident on the Isle of Man for a period of five years continuously. Therefore, I would argue that were that person to be known to have spent a period of time on holiday or away from the Isle of Man, then if they 1340 did not disclose that at the time of application, they would be fraudulent in their application and the powers later in the Bill allow us to take that Work Permit away from somebody. So certainly, it is a five-day continuous period. In answer to the… My apologies, Mr Speaker, if somebody is genuinely sick and is receiving hospital treatment in the UK, then I am sure, under human rights, that is something that would 1345 be taken into account. (Interjections) The Hon. Member for East Douglas talks about a holiday: when is a holiday? Is that two weeks, is that two months, is that a year? There are many types of different holiday which is where there would be a requirement to actually evidence. We are not saying that a standard two-week holiday would refuse that person the right, but if somebody goes away for six months, 1350 as is quite possible, then that would invalidate it. The other issue then is in subsection (2), it provides that it is an Isle of Man Worker, if he or she was born in the Isle of Man. Therefore, if a person were in that position, from the question from Mr Karran, my thought is that they are an Isle of Man Worker by the nature of their birth – they have been born on the Isle of Man – even though the parents may not have actually been 1355 fully here for the five-year period, and are on Work Permits. The education loophole is closed, which is in clause 4(9), and if the Hon. Member refers to that period, we have attempted to try and do that. It is quite a complex area, which I did read out, but we are quite happy to go through that again. We do believe we have closed that loophole, which gives people educated in the Isle of Man certain rights which were never 1360 intended in the original Bill, so we believe we have successfully closed that.

______632 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

I hope I have answered sufficient questions. If not, I will try and address them at Third Reading, but I beg to move clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put the question that clause 4 do stand part of the Bill. Those 1365 in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We turn to clause 5.

Mr Shimmin: This clause sets out supplementary information as to Isle of Man Workers. Subsection (1) provides that where a person has been in prison for over six months, that 1370 person is not to be treated as living in the Island for the purposes of clause 4 after the six months has expired. Subsection (2) provides that where a person has lived in the Island for an unbroken period of at least three years before serving in the armed forces, he or she is to be treated for the purpose of clause 4(3) as living in the Island during that period of service. 1375 Subsection (3) defines references to relationships in clause 4 as including adoptive and step relationships. Subsection (4) provides that the rules in clause 4 are subject to the transitional provisions in schedule 3. I beg to move that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. 1380 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 1385 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: I am a little bit confused as far as the clause 5 is concerned, as far as the custody. I thought we had sorted this out years ago, under previous legislation, where the issue was that 1390 you could not accrue residency if you ended up going into jail. You could not accrue residency if you went in for five or ten years – go in as a non-Isle of Man Worker and come out as an Isle of Man Worker. If the Minister would just clarify, is he saying that it would break the residency accrued to them by the six months of sentence?

1395 The Speaker: Mr Shimmin to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to try and give that clarification. The Department looked at this and actually tried to look at natural justice on it. We have determined that, should a person be sent to prison for a 1400 period of less than six months, that would not invalidate their residency period. Therefore, if somebody has been resident for three years on the Island and serves four months in prison, on his release, he or she then continues to live in the Island for two years, they would be classed as having lived in the Isle of Man for a continuous period of five years and four months. However, when anybody goes beyond the sentence of six months, that is deemed to be a 1405 break in their residency and on their release from prison, they would go back to zero and have to accrue the full five years. This is try and ensure that persons cannot accrue residency status while having committed offences significantly serious to have warranted a more-than-six-month custodial sentence. Therefore, these are rare occasions, and they are ones which we believe that those persons who 1410 have been incarcerated for a significant offence are not the type of people that we would want to be classed as Isle of Man Workers, unless they have served a further five-year period of residency to evidence their good nature. (Several Members: Hear, hear.)

______633 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

So I beg to move with that clarification, sir.

1415 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 5 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 6, please.

Mr Shimmin: Clause 6 provides that except in accordance with the Bill, a person must not 1420 undertake any employment in the Island unless he or she is an Isle of Man Worker, and that an employer must not employ a person unless he or she is an Isle of Man Worker. I beg to move clause 6 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle. 1425 Mr Quayle: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks.

Mr Karran: Would the Shirveishagh want to clarify the issue of employment: does that involve somebody who does subcontract work, where they come and an individual employs 1430 them to do work as far as a jobbing builder is concerned? Does the Minister want to just clarify that point, in order to try and make sure that it helps us to discourage the bad workmen that are coming to the Island on a regular basis, spending time here, ripping people off, so individuals who take them on to re-tarmac their runway or do some job – where is the liability? They are not directly employing them, but they are employing them 1435 to do a job of work, as far as them not being Isle of Man Workers is concerned.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Just a small point – thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I ask the Minister, many 1440 charities nowadays employ people… they volunteer their services in a shop, etc, and that shop covers those people with their insurance. So does that make them an employee or not? Or is there a specific exemption for people who volunteer to work in charities and charity shops?

The Speaker: Mr Shimmin to reply. 1445 Mr Shimmin: Yes, Mr Speaker, the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, raises an issue which is close to all of our hearts inasmuch that we are aware of a range of ways people attempt to get around and break the rules. We have a penalty for those who do employ people without Work Permits. That has now moved to… In clause 15, we will come to it, but it is a term of three 1450 months in prison or a fine up to £5,000 or both. We genuinely want to try and discourage those persons who are employed on the Isle of Man in a way which undermines the whole principle of the control of employment. We are keen to get the thing which the Hon. Member for Onchan is always keen on, which is whistleblowing. We investigate all of those that are brought to our attention. Unfortunately, we have limited resource, therefore we cannot be constantly out 1455 checking, but when we do find, we will prosecute. In the past, there has been a difficulty with prosecutions of those persons, because when we have gone to the authorities to see if they will take a case, they have found that it is a relatively low level. So we are now adopting an ability for my own Department to actually introduce the fines, if that is supported by the House. 1460 With regard to those workers who are doing it for charitable purposes, if they are employed, if they are paid, then I am afraid they would be subject to Work Permits. If they are not paid, as volunteers, that is not an issue from this type of work, because this is employment. If they were, however, found to be displacing somebody, then we would have to look at our regulations to see whether that was legitimate. We are not trying to discourage the importance

______634 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1465 of work of volunteers, but those people who are doing that could come and talk to us for advice as to how they can regularise their position. I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 6 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say 1470 aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 7, please.

Mr Shimmin: Clause 7 provides for a number of exemptions to the restrictions imposed by clause 6 and introduces schedule 1. 1475 Subsection (1) disapplies the Act to the list of exempted employments contained at schedule 1. Some points of note as regards schedule 1 are as follows. The new schedule consolidates the exemptions in the schedule of 1975 Act, as well as those made under four Orders, these being: the Control of Employment (Non-Resident Directors) Exemption Order 1988; the Control of Employment (Court Officers) Exemption Order 1989; the 1480 Control of Employment (Exemptions) Order 2009; and the Control of Employment (Secondary School Teachers) Order 2013. The exemption in the 1975 Act for employment in the Police is restricted to employment of the Chief Constable only. ‘Employment as an acting Deemster’ in the 1989 Order is widened to ‘Employment as a 1485 Deemster or Judicial Officer’, in order to permit the appointment of an additional Deemster or additional Judicial Officer to deal with the particular case over a temporary period. ‘Judicial Officer’ is a term to a second-tier judge, namely a High Bailiff or Deputy High Bailiff, under the Administration of Justice Act 2008. A new provision is made for the exemption of a person conducting an inspection or 1490 investigation by the Financial Supervision Commission, Insurance and Pensions Authority or prescribed body. The existing 30-day exemption for performers, etc in connection with any theatrical or musical performance in the Island is extended to 48 days. Under the 2009 Order, a company in an international group can bring in workers for up to 48 days a year. The group must consist of at least one company incorporated in the Island, and at 1495 least one company incorporated in a country or territory outside the Island. The corresponding provision has been tightened up in a number of respects, so that firstly, a company which is a member of an international group must now be incorporated in the Island. Secondly, the company can now only bring in workers who are employed by a member of their group for up to 48 days a year. 1500 In addition, the definition of ‘international group’ has now been tightened up so that must now consist of at least one company incorporated in the Island, and at least one company incorporated and bona fide carrying on business in a country or territory outside the Island. The exemption in the 1975 Act for ‘employment of a temporary nature for a period not exceeding three days or such other period as may be prescribed’ is omitted as this was 1505 superseded by a longer 10-day exemption, subject to three exceptions, which was included in the Control of Employment (Exemptions) Order 2009. The 10-day exemption is now consolidated within schedule 1. Subsection (2) of this clause provides that where a condition applies to an exemption in part 1 of schedule 1, the exemption does not apply unless the condition is complied with. 1510 Subsection (3) provides that part 2 of schedule 2 applies for the interpretation of certain terms used in part 1 of the schedule. Subsection (4) exempts a person who is the holder of an immigration employment document which permits him or her to undertake employment from the Act in order to prevent a double requirement. The term ‘immigration employment document’ will be defined in regulations by 1515 reference to the immigration rules in force from time to time.

______635 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Subsection (5) authorises the Department to exempt, subject to any conditions, (a) a person working in a specified capacity, if it considers the employment for that person to be in the national interest; or (b) a specified employment of a temporary or intermittent nature. Subsection (6) authorises the Department to amend the schedule by order, which must be 1520 approved by Tynwald. Please note that under the 1975 Act, while additional exemptions can be made by Order, the exemptions in the schedule to the Act can only be altered by an Act of Tynwald. For example, the Department could not have removed the existing exemption of the Police by order, which is why we dealing with it in this way. Subsection (7) provides that an order to amend schedule 1 may have effect indefinitely or for 1525 a period specified in the order. Subsection (8) provides for the continued exemption of a person currently employed who would otherwise cease to be exempt, because of an order under subsection (6). Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 7 stand part of the Bill.

1530 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

1535 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. When the Bill was with the Council of Ministers, there was some disquiet expressed, most notably by my fine colleagues from Rushen here, Ministers Gawne and Watterson, who had 1540 expressed concern about the Department's proposed new power to be able to make exemptions in the national interest. In order to address these concerns, the Department agreed to amend the Bill to include an obligation to report annually to Tynwald as regards the number of national interest authorisations and the reasons for them. There is no requirement to report where no such 1545 exemptions have been made. To reduce bureaucracy, the report will form part of the annual report under section 6(1) of the Enterprise Act 2008, which the Department lays before Tynwald each year. I now beg to move the amendment standing in my name:

Amendment to clause 7 After subsection (8) add — ‘(9) If in any year ending on 31 March the Department gives an authorisation under subsection (5)(a), it shall include in the annual report under section 6(1) of the Enterprise Act 2008 relating to that year a statement specifying — (a) the number of such authorisations in that year; and (b) the reasons for them.”

1550 The Speaker: Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When this Bill was coming through the Council of Ministers, myself and Minister Gawne thought it was important for Tynwald to know how these ministerial powers were to be 1555 exercised – whether they were being used as a floodgate or as an exception. We think that the amendment brings greater transparency to how frequently and why these powers are used and I would like to put on record my thanks and appreciation to the Department for taking this on board. I beg to second the amendment standing in the name of Mr Skelly.

______636 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1560 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Yes, I would certainly echo the comments made by my two colleagues for Rushen. I do think this is an important amendment. Again, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to 1565 consider this and work with us on this amendment. I think there is always a concern that giving the Minister powers to do certain things without too much ‘rick’ – can I use the word ‘rick’ in the House of Keys? –

Mr Anderson: Brains. 1570 A Member: Richard.

Mr Watterson: Check and balance.

1575 Mr Gawne: It is always a concern, and yet the Minister needs to have a certain amount of flexibility to be able to do his job properly. So I am very grateful to the Minister for coming forward with this compromise, which I think meets our concerns.

1580 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, whilst the amendment is a stumble in the right direction as far as this is concerned, I think it is interesting to know that yes, maybe the new Work Permit legislation will be actually more worth than the previous one as far as many people were 1585 concerned outside this House. The thing is that the question that needs to be asked by the Shirveishagh is how do you actually police this? Who actually knows when you have got up to 48 days? Will it all be left to chance? How do we find out? How do other workers find out that these people have been here only 48 days, if it is all clouded in secrecy, as far as that is concerned? 1590 We are going into difficult times in the near future. We are not going to have the fantastic times we have had, where our young people could just pick and choose, there is going to be the same amount of job opportunities. That is why I just feel that whilst the clause is well-meaning, and it might clarify the points about it having to be part of a group that has an Isle of Man company and a company outside the Isle of Man, registered, I just think that the issue is 1595 enforceability. I just do not think it is going to happen. I would just like to know what sort of criteria the mover of the Bill, the Minister, is going to give this House, as far as how he is going to actually enforce, when you have got these large companies, saying that they are only allowed to bring them in for 48 days, instead of 30 days, and how you are going to police that. I would be interested. 1600 The Speaker: Mr Skelly, you have the right of reply if you wish.

Mr Skelly: No, thank you.

1605 The Speaker: In that case, I call on the mover, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is not a stumble; it is a clear direction of an improvement. As much as the Hon. Member for Onchan talks about difficult times and questions job opportunities, there is an enormous 1610 amount of opportunities for people on our Island.

______637 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Have we got it perfect? We believe that we have done the best job to represent both the needs of employers who create the job opportunities he refers to, as well as the protection of Isle of Man Workers. With regard to the international companies, they have to provide a return to the 1615 Department, which is in schedule 1, part 6(2). However, there will always be a difficulty and we can always look at that negative side of ‘how do you do it?’ We are attempting in good faith to actually provide... I will accept the Hon. Member's comments, his recognition that it is a complex area. We do believe that our relationship with businesses has given us a strong indication that the vast majority of employers want to comply with this legislation and therefore, although it 1620 will never be a perfect system, we believe we have moved it significantly forward to benefit not just the rights of Isle of Man Workers. I would say this is always about a balance, and we do need to be fair to international companies who have the choice of living and working and operating their businesses from anywhere, and therefore we have to make it sufficiently attractive that they want to keep those jobs on the Isle of Man. 1625 This is to support local employment, not to actually undermine it, and so with those comments, I hope the Hon. Member will accept that it is a genuine attempt to try and protect jobs rather than to try and be a disincentive. I beg to move.

1630 The Speaker: I put the question in the name of Mr Skelly – the amendment to clause 7. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 7 as amended, together with schedule 1: those in favour The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8, Mr Shimmin, please. 1635 Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause provides for the Department to operate a system of Work Permits. Subsection (1) disapplies the prohibition on employing non-Isle of Man Workers at clause 6, where persons are working in accordance with a permit issued by the Department. 1640 Subsection (2) provides for a Work Permit to authorise the employment of a named person in a specified capacity. The permit may also be limited to employment by a specified employer or at a specified place or both, and may be issued subject to specify conditions. Subsection (3) deals with the special case of a Work Permit holder who is suspended from work on maternity grounds. In that case, the person may be employed by the same employer in 1645 suitable alternative work, without the need to apply for a new permit. Subsection (4) deals with the special case of a Work Permit holder whose employment is terminated by the employer, but who before the termination agreed to transfer over to a successor or associated employer. In that case, the successor or associated employer may continue to employ the holder in the same capacity without the need to apply for a new permit. 1650 Subsection (5) provides that subject to exceptions, a Work Permit remains in force for the period which the Department considers appropriate and as specified in the permit. Subsection (6) provides that a Work Permit is to be in such form as the Department considers appropriate. I beg to move clause 8 stand part of the Bill. 1655 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks.

1660 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

______638 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think it is important that, like the previous one, well- meaning, the difficulty is in trying to bring enforcement. I have to say that the previous one actually is consolidating in the right direction. 1665 The reason why I believe that the Department should maintain a register of Work Permits, and the names and addresses of those that are issued, and it should be open to public inspection at any reasonable time, is that it is again about enforceability. Often we used to find that you could be telling them the truth, but because you could not get the evidence, and there was a cloud of secrecy around the evidence, people who were wanting to complain and had 1670 legitimate reasons of abuse – and this is not in Work Permits, Vainstyr Loayreyder, but in the way that Government worked many years ago – could even be destroyed by telling the truth. I think that if we are going to have a situation, with talking by Minister Robertshaw, that you have got to have a public register of flat owners to be registered, and that is to be open, I do not see why this should not be open as well. I know that is quite perverse, maybe, that I am looking 1675 from the lower end instead of from the top end, as far as this is concerned, but I think it is about transparency. I think the issue is that we are in difficult times. We do not want to talk the economy down, but we need to recognise that we are not going to have the abundance that we have had in the past, and I think the general public needs to have that register, so they can go along – if they 1680 have not got a job, they can go along – and then justify their concerns, as far as why they were not offered that opportunity to go for that job. Now, this House will have to make that decision. Do you want your Work Permits actually to be more enforceable, or do you want to have them all clouded in secrecy, so legitimate, hard- working individuals who are Isle of Man Workers, who could do the job, cannot get the 1685 information, in order to object to the Work Permit? I personally feel, if you want Work Permits to be meaningful, then I think you have got to support this proposal. I think it is important on transparency, if we are talking about the property owners having to be transparent, then it should be transparent right through the whole lot. I think the Minister… It would be interesting, and I hope he uses the opportunity to speak to the amendment without 1690 waiting till the reply, so that I could actually have the right of reply to why his views are so much against these proposals, to actually speak why his Department is so much against this proposal. If we want it to be enforceable in difficult times, we need to be able to allow the general public, where people have been taken on on Work Permits, if there are suitable people who can do the job, then surely that is what we want. 1695 I will be interested to hear the Hon. Member’s views from his Department. I move:

Amendment to clause 8 Page 13, after line 10 insert — ‘(7) The Department shall maintain a register of work permits and the name and addresses of those to whom they are issued. (8) The register shall be open to public inspection at any reasonable hour.’.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

1700 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to second the amendment, because I cannot think of any legitimate reason why it should not be in the public domain, and because I think it would help not only employees know how many permits are issued in which areas as well, but employers, because employers can be left in very difficult situations, without knowing the current situation. 1705 So I am more than happy to second the amendment.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Quirk.

______639 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to quiz the Minister a little bit regarding accountability. The panel itself, the Work Permit 1710 Committee, the members who come in to be that panel, be it representatives from the workers and the employers and a person usually legally trained will act as Chairman – that would give them accountability where permits were coming forward for examination. Obviously, it would not be in the public domain as such – what Mr Karran was on about – but there would be an element there where the public, both sides of the employers and employees, would have an 1715 interface.

The Speaker: Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1720 I do not like the inference from the Hon. Member for Onchan when he says we are so much against it. I can understand what the Hon. Member is doing, that he is presuming things which are not actually the case. We will be opposing it and I will give him the good grace to actually answer the reason so that he can come back to us. He does talk about this as being an element of legitimate hard-working people have their 1725 entitlements, and certainly from our point of view, those very people he is talking about do, on a semi-regular basis, contact the Department to investigate, which is why employers do not like the Work Permit system, because it is bureaucratic. What the Hon. Member is talking about here is again putting in a whole level of bureaucracy for those people who actually… the information they require does not need to be done in that format. 1730 We actually have attempted in our consideration to see whether or not this would be appropriate, and the main reasons we are against: the names and addresses of the persons to whom those permits are issued - what benefit do those names and addresses do? What is the use going to be made of it? Within the Landlord and Tenant Bill, there will be certain restrictions on the access to the list 1735 of the named landlords, to try and actually stop people just going ferreting around for the skeet factor of these types of things. He does start talking about not in Work Permits, we are talking about enforceability. We actually, my Department, deal with Work Permits on a daily basis and the number of complaints is far fewer than the Hon. Members of this House would probably guess, because employers 1740 over the years have become accustomed to it. They work with the officers from my Department who, despite working in an area that has a degree of concern expressed politically, are actually praised so regularly by members of the employers’ area, because of the guidance and advice. There is a lesson there for the Hon. Member and his new-found leader (Laughter) that we actually had a presentation on this. We had this opportunity where Mr Thomas came in to the 1745 Department and discussed things; Minister Gawne and Minister Watterson came in to discuss things; other Members have stopped myself or talked to my staff to try and actually understand how and what we are trying to do. From my point of view, if this had been written and drafted in a way which was better, we may have been able to support it, but the Hon. Member chose not to come and talk to us. The 1750 drafting of the amendment is in need of refinement, so we cannot support it in its current form. But we do, under clause 23(1)(h) of the Bill, already have an enabling power for the Department to make regulations which may provide, and I quote:

‘for the keeping and inspection of registers of work permits’.

So DED could in any case establish a register in the future, if it considers it would be beneficial. We put that in as enabling legislation. We had considered keeping the register in 1755 some form of electronic format, which again we could have discussed about whether that would have been a better improvement in the amendment, and that would have made it easier for inspection of the details and information to be available at a reasonable hour, instead of having ______640 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

people going in during office hours to trawl through in order to find out who the names and addresses were. And we have looked at providing additional information which is generally 1760 covered what the Hon. Member is after. So the date of the expiry of the permit, the nature of the employment: these are issues that we are dealing with on a regular basis. We do not believe that this amendment in its form at the moment is right. And I would reassure the Hon. House that there is an opportunity later on in a clause which will allow us to have enabling powers that, should the move be better and be 1765 supported by the House, we could introduce in a form which would be appropriate rather than what is in front of you today. So I would urge you to please oppose this amendment, although I have far more sympathy for the Member than he believes.

1770 The Speaker: Mr Karran to reply.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, firstly to my hon. colleague, he said that the Committee has workers’ representatives and employers’ representatives. They will not know the issues of individual companies, as far as whether the opportunity is there that there are Isle of Man 1775 Workers to take up that job. I am glad that the Minister did take up the courtesy of actually replying whilst I have the right of replying. I think that is good, and it is good to see that parliamentary procedure and I hope it is encouraged by other Ministers in the future. The situation is that too often it is too late, by the time that anyone knows that a permit has 1780 been issued months down the line, as far as the issue is concerned. I am aware of the issue that you have the enabling power, as far as that is concerned. That might be a reasonable compromise, as we are not in the position of having high unemployment on this Island at the present time. I put this down, because to be honest with you, Vainstyr Loayreyder, I am very impressed to see the amount of amendments. It must be 10 years since 1785 we have had an Order Paper like this, with the amount of amendments and activity as far as that is concerned. The issue is that the Minister, whilst he is well-meaning, the fact is that there are few who are outside in the general public who find out who is on a Work Permit and who is not. Whether the issue of my proposal is premature, that could be a reasonable… and putting it into statute 1790 law instead of putting it into secondary law, that is a reasonable opportunity that we can actually put a declaratory resolution down in another place, to bring in the public register at a later date to do that. So that is up to Hon. Members. I have to say that it does rather concern me that the fact is that the Attorney General’s… whilst I have moaned about the Attorney General’s way that we backbenchers are treated, I 1795 have to say that we are supposed to be treated on the same basis as Departments are treated, as far as the same level of service is concerned. So there should not be any dispute as far as the legal drafting of this amendment is concerned, because this is an amendment that had to have been written in a way that it was within Standing Orders and within the context of the long title of the Bill. 1800 Hon. Members, it is up to you whether you want to make the registration of Work Permits open and transparent. It is up to this House. You have got enabling legislation later on that can bring it in at a later date, and it can be flexible, as far as that is concerned. My concern is that I think too often there is more of a concern as far as business is concerned, than there is of the individuals, being well aware that you need business in order to 1805 create the employment opportunities. I just feel that what we want to see is fairness. So unless there is an issue of it being defective, as far as the amendment is concerned, there should be no problem as far as the Attorney General’s staff drafting this Bill. Hon. Members, the clear choice is do you want to put it in statute law that we should have to have a register and the general public have a right to look at that register, particularly if you are

______641 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

1810 in a position where you feel that you should be offered a job? We heard this morning from the Member for Ramsey about a disabled person who has put so many applications in and has not got a job, I wonder how many of those applications have gone to people on Work Permits, where he could have maybe done that job. I am just trying to make this legislation more effective. I am also trying to do what this House 1815 needs to do, and that is become proper parliamentary assembly, and actually put alternatives down to executive government. That is what a parliament does. It is up to this House to decide: does it want the flexibility of leaving it later, or does it want to put it in statute now? I think the time has come that we should be putting it in statute law.

1820 The Speaker: Minister to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Picking up the question from the Member for Onchan, Mr Quirk, about the Work Permit Committee, and it actually comes in with what the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran has just 1825 said: that the Work Permit Committee would not know. Of course they would! The Work Permit Committee would have all the information about the companies, the number of Work Permits they had previously been in receipt of or applied for, because the officers who deal with this on a daily basis advise the Work Permit Committee. Therefore, Mr Karran's comment that the Work Permit Committee would not know is fundamentally misguided and gives the wrong impression. 1830 He did use the expression ‘too often too late’. So let’s just think about this. You have got a register that records those who have got Work Permits. Therefore, they have already got the Work Permits. What he seems to be talking about is more of an appeals mechanism, which is something different, because by the time they were on that register, they had already been in receipt of a legally empowered Work Permit. Therefore, it would not be any good, just seeing it, 1835 because actually the deal would already have been done, so it is too late if it is at the register stage there. It is actually the appeals mechanism, which he does not seem to pay any attention to, but actually that is where the current situation and the future situation is that if a person believes they are qualified, suitable for a job, then they appeal against it. The Hon. Member is shaking his head and he talks about fairness. This fairness has got to work for all parties, not just 1840 those who come to his door to complain that they are being unfairly treated. The concern I have is that he patronises me talking about how well-meaning I am, and I will patronise him equally: I think he is well-meaning for a very small part of this equation. But in reality, you have a system whereby the officers deal with the complexity of this on a daily basis, and those who come across it find the advice that they are given is actually first-class. The 1845 biggest problem is when those people fail to take advice when it is offered, and I do again say that to the Hon. Member for Onchan: if he had come to us we could have worked with him on an amendment. He went to the Attorney General’s Chambers and of course, it can work, but it is not the person who drafted the original Bill and therefore was not put into the same context that we are trying to achieve, after so much consultation and the responses are all available to 1850 Members. So, without trying to be too awkward, there is a mechanism already there to try and make it fairer for Isle of Man Workers to have a fair crack of the whip. But this register would not actually benefit that situation. So I would urge you to vote against the amendment on this occasion. 1855 Thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put clause 8 – first of all, the amendment in the name of Mr Karran. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. (Mr Karran: Divide.) The noes have it. The noes have it. (Mr Karran: Divide.) 1860 Clause 8 –

______642 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Watterson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon. Member did shout for a divide.

1865 Mr Cretney: Twice.

Mr Karran: Absolutely.

The Speaker: Sorry, I did not hear him. I am willing to accept that, if you in fact heard that. 1870 Please say it a bit louder. Please vote, Hon. Members.

Electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Hall Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker 1875 The Speaker: With 2 votes for, 21 against, the amendment therefore fails. Clause 8: those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 9, Mr Shimmin.

1880 Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause re-enacts with amendments the right of a spouse or civil partner of a Work Permit holder or exempt person to be entitled to a Work Permit. Subsection (1) provides that, subject to any exceptions prescribed by regulations and refusal in certain cases of criminality, where a Work Permit holder or exempt person is engaged in 1885 regular full-time employment – which I shall refer to as the primary employment – his or her spouse or civil partner is entitled to a Work Permit. Subsection (2) provides that a Work Permit granted or renewed under subsection (1) remains in force for (a) a year, beginning with the date on which it is granted or renewed; or (b) for six months, beginning with the date on which the primary employment ceases, whichever is the 1890 sooner. Subsection (3) provides that such a permit authorises the employment of the person named in it generally in any capacity, subject to any conditions specified in the permit. Subsection (4) applies the rule in clause 4(10) so as to exclude entitlement to permit in the case where the person in primary employment is working by virtue of a temporary exemption, 1895 which is limited to a maximum of days.

______643 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Subsection (5) enables the Department to make regulations treating a man and a woman are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife, or two men or two women who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as civil partners, as though they were spouses or civil partners for the purpose of this clause. 1900 Subsection (6) empowers the Department to make any consequential or transitional provisions as are necessary or expedient in any regulations made under subsection (5). I beg to move clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle. 1905 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell. 1910 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to ask the Minister: under this particular clause, you have a couple – whether they are married or it is a civil partnership or a common law arrangement – where one is gainfully employed full time, possibly on a Work Permit – or not. They might be on a Work 1915 Permit; they might not. If they are not on a Work Permit, and they are gainfully employed at the time that the spouse applies for the Work Permit, which there is an automatic granting of it, if I read this legislation right. And then say subsequently after that, a month or two after that, the full-time employment… the primary holder of the job loses job. What then happens to the spouse’s position? 1920 Equally, if the person holding the primary employment is also on a Work Permit, and then they lose the job, subsequently they lose the Work Permit too, don't they, because it is the employer, is it not, who applies for a Work Permit for the person that they wish to engage? I just wonder whether or not he could explain what the scenario would be in that type of circumstance. 1925 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I just wondered if under the regulations of subclause (5), the issue of a man and a woman who are not married but are living together as man and wife… I do 1930 understand the problem that the Department has – young people coming back to the Island, have done their degree, got themselves a girlfriend or a boyfriend, want to remain on the Island, want them to come to the Island, and I understand that difficulty. I have had representations on that point myself, and I am sure other Member have, as far as that issue is concerned. But what sort of criteria… Are there any criteria? Do they just have to bunk up together from 1935 straightaway? Have there got to be some sort of criteria?

Mr Anderson: Explain that one!

Mr Karran: How do you police them so you do not allow it to be…? How do you police it so it 1940 is not really just used as a way to circumvent the Work Permit legislation? The point is, what the Department is trying to do is actually something that I think we all sympathise with. We have got our young people who go away at great expense to university, they come back, they have found their love of their life, they want to come to the Island, and they cannot get… They do not want to marry them, they do not want to be tied down – are 1945 there any criteria as far as this is concerned? Purely that they are living under the same roof? I just think that we need to know that.

______644 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Obviously I do not know how you would legislate, as far as that issue is concerned, to get around it, but what criteria are there, as far as that issue is concerned?

1950 The Speaker: I call the mover to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Taking the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran’s point first: this provision is new. It contains enabling powers for regulations to give the same rights to partners as to spouses or civil 1955 partners. It was included following consultation because some consultees had strong views that Government should have a level playing field for spouses, civil partners and what we would call long-term partners, and that we should not discriminate on the ground of marital status. Any extension of such a right would complicate the enforcement and would need very careful thought and we have no immediate plans to bring it in, because of the very point he has made 1960 on this and previous points about enforcement. One of the few real contentious issues that I have had to deal with in Work Permits in the last two and a half years is when you are attempting to evidence that a civil partner was residing on the Isle of Man throughout that period of time to gain the entitlement for a Work Permit. So the potential for abuse in this area is there. However, it is far more normal within lifestyle choices 1965 for people not to be either formally married or in civil partnerships. Therefore there is a disincentive. So it is a problem. These are enabling powers. There would be a lot more discussion before we were actually to try come forward with that legislation. With regard to the Hon. Member for East Douglas, we are attempting to be reasonable on 1970 the grounds that if the primary employment person were to lose their job, there is a period of time when they would need to try and find alternatives to keep them and their families maybe together on the Island. So it would depend on the circumstances, but if their spouse or civil partner had a Work Permit, and they would then be able to continue that Work Permit until its completion of the one-year period. So if, for example they had taken it out in January for a 1975 period of 12 months, then if the primary employment person lost the job in March, they would be entitled to continue for a further nine months as the breadwinner for the family, whilst the spouse tried to find the alternative employment. If they were within the last five months – so it was now into July/August – of that 12-month exemption, then we would give them a six-month period, again to allow the family the opportunity to put their house in order and either find 1980 alternative employment or have an income whilst they look at their future. So we have attempted to get the balance right. We do believe that it is a fairer system than the 1975, and indeed my good friend from Ramsey, Mr Singer raised this very point at the Second Reading, to try and make sure that we were not disadvantaging families who got the burden of having lost the employer and then having a difficulty with the legislation as well. 1985 I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 9 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 10. 1990 Mr Shimmin: This clause disapplies clauses 7 and 9 in any case where a person has been convicted of an offence and sentenced anywhere in the world to a term of custody, where the conviction is not spent or is otherwise required to have disclosed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001. 1995 Mr Speaker, this is a new clause and we believe appropriate, and I look to the House for support. (Mr Cretney: Hear, hear.) I beg to move it stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

______645 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2000 I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 10 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 11, please. 2005 Mr Shimmin: This clause empowers the Department to revoke a Work Permit in certain circumstances. Subsection (1) provides the Department may revoke a Work Permit, if it considers that the circumstances that justified the grant or renewal of the permit have changed. 2010 The circumstances for revocation are to be subject of regulations which we will come to in clause 23. Subsection (2) provides the Department may revoke a Work Permit held by a person referred to in clause 10, on the grounds of criminal records, where the sentence in question was passed since the permit was granted or was last renewed or the Department was unaware of the 2015 sentence when the permit was granted or last renewed. I beg to move clause 11 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

2020 Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Can the Shirveishagh just explain, if say there has been a deception as far as the 2025 previous clause is concerned, as far as the revocation of a Work Permit: once he is given the Isle of Man status, is there any way of taking away that Isle of Man Worker status, once he is given it, if there has been a deliberate fraud as far as criminal records are concerned? I am very keen on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill and the fact that our own people were at a total disadvantage and it took us years to get them actually to do something about it. 2030 But I would be interested to know where it talks about the withdrawing of the Work Permit. If they have been given the Isle of Man status and it comes to light that they have been fraudulent, five years later down the road whether there is any action within this legislation, in order to nullify the deception of a fraud as far as his Department is concerned?

2035 The Speaker: Mover to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deception is a ground for revocation. With the Member’s permission, I will clarify this in Third Reading, (Interjection by Mr Karran) because I understand the point that he is making, that if we 2040 were not to discover until some time after they had got their five years’ residency and become therefore a bona fide Isle of Man Worker, and that was born by a level of fraud in the application, I cannot give a categorical assurance at this stage. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will look into that for Third Reading and come back to the Hon. Member separately, to make sure that I have understood the question correctly. 2045 So with that rider, I would like to move the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 11 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 12. 2050

______646 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Shimmin: Clause 12 provides for the Department to have regard to certain criteria when making a decision to grant or renew a Work Permit. Subsection (1) provides the Department may refuse to grant or renew a Work Permit held by a person referred to in clause 10, which deals with criminality. 2055 Subsection (2) provides that when considering whether to grant, renew or revoke a Work Permit or impose a condition in a permit, the Department must have regard to certain matters and may have regard to certain other matters which will be prescribed by regulations. Subsection (3) contains a wide list of matters which may be prescribed by regulations for the purposes of subsection (2). The powers are wider than in the 1975 Act, and in particular, 2060 explicitly include some matters which are concerned with the wider social considerations of the decision as to whether or not a permit should be granted – for example, the ability of the person concerned and any relevant person to speak English – and which might be considered as not directly relevant to employment issues. There are also explicit powers to take into account any ‘relevant person’, which is defined in 2065 subsection (4). That definition in subsection (4) says that ‘relevant person’ is a term used in subsection (3):

‘any person living with, or likely to live with, the person concerned as a member of his or her family or household.’

I beg to move clause 12 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle. 2070 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call Mr Karran. 2075 Can I just draw the House’s attention, just for one moment, to a misprint that the drafter has brought to our attention. Under amendment number 8 on page 7, it should read ‘subsection (3A)’ and not ‘subsection (2A)’ – simply a misprint, if the House will take that into account. Mr Karran.

2080 Mr Karran: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Talking to the clause to start off with first, the issue is, again, when we are doing renewals, my concern is that as again – and I am not being patronising, it is well meaning – how do you enforce an objection, as far as a Work Permit is concerned, for its renewal, by a legitimate Isle of Man Worker, if they do not know the person is on a Work Permit? This is where the underbelly 2085 as far as the problem is, without that sort of register is concerned, and the general public known. We were in new times… There is only me and David Cretney, the Hon. Member for South Douglas, and Allan Bell that were here when employment opportunities were a major problem. I do think that the issue needs to be looked at as far as the public register is concerned, 2090 because I personally feel… And I am sorry, the Work Permit Committee may know lots of things, but they will not know everything as far as the application of a renewal of a Work Permit is concerned. Mr Quirk, the Hon. Member for Onchan might be happy enough with that, but there are a lot of people who are not just coming to me – surely people have made representation to other Members about the issue of a Work Permit, where they felt that they were an Isle of Man 2095 Worker and could have done the job. I just feel the reason that there is not the problem there at the present time, is the lack of transparency as far as objecting to renewals and Work Permits is concerned. I totally disagree with the Minister: whether I live on a planet to him, I do not know, or whether he lives on a different planet to me and the people who talk to me – 2100 ______647 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Watterson: Is that not the same thing?

Mr Karran: – outside this Hon. House, is an issue where obviously we are going to be at our… I just think that this is why the issue of a public register on clause 12 is so important. 2105 I put this amendment down… I would hate to see anybody not getting medical intervention that they need on our Island. It is one of the greatest achievements that have been made for humanity is a National Health Service. But what I believe is that this amendment to clause 12 will add to discourage employers wanting to take on persons who need Work Permits. 2110 We have heard today from the Shirveishagh son Slaynt, the Minister for Health, about his limited finances. We cannot have parity with the UK on cancer drugs, we cannot have… There is a dispute, whether he is right or whether the Hon. Members for Ramsey and North Douglas are right, as far as A and E is concerned, over the issue of the speed and the acceptable levels, as far as that is concerned. 2115 We are in pressing times. This primarily in my opinion should be seen as a way of discouraging employers wanting to take on people on Work Permits, in order to maximise the Work Permits issue to be to a minimum. I think that it is not unreasonable for us to put this into the provision that they have to have appropriate medical cover as far as that is concerned – medical insurance. Yes, I want this Island 2120 to be as buoyant as the mover, as far as that issue is concerned. We want to get as many employment opportunities here. But I think this would be one way of… Two things: one way of bringing in extra income for the Department of Health; the second thing it would do is bring in… it would discourage employers willy-nilly, always looking to bringing in people in from across, if they can get away with it, 2125 because this would be a fiscal liability. The second point is, it might be rather ironic that I am moving it, I want some sort of standards as far as the English language is concerned, (Laughter) with my record as far as when Manx was persona non grata and totally unacceptable in this Chamber and in another place, where what we have done fiscally to try and promote the language over the last couple of 2130 decades… The situation is I want an inclusive society, and one of the reasons why we were so keen on the issue, if you could not do anything for the 60% that were facing pre-school education that were going to get nothing, the issue was that what we wanted to do, and the specific areas, where we have a big immigrant community, or whatever you want to call them, where English is their second language, we had no pre-school provision. Not a vote-winner in 2135 Onchan –

Mrs Cannell: We haven’t got any now.

Mr Karran: – but the point is I believe that English… If we do not address that issue of forcing 2140 people to be able to communicate in English, the divides will happen. I have not spoken to this Chief Constable, but the previous Chief Constable has expressed concerns about certain areas in Douglas where English is not the majority language, and what we have got to realise is that one of the sacred things, not just like the health service, but law and order, this is actually important, that we need to force people to make sure that we do not 2145 end up with ghettoisation. Snobbism is a bad thing, Vainstyr Loayreyder but inverse snobbism is actually more corrosive and dangerous, especially if people feel that they are not part of society. So I believe that it is not unreasonable that we put a priority, that where we have got people coming to this Island, that we need to make sure that English has to be encouraged, and there has to be some sort of commitment to actually learning the language that basically the majority 2150 of people – all people – can understand in this country, and the few of us who can speak the native tongue to a limited or a fluent basis would recognise that.

______648 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

So I hope Hon. Members will support these two important facets: one to create the issue of discouraging wherever possible, employers to take on people by having to find health insurance; it is a way of creating an income for the health services; and the English part of it, whilst my 2155 credentials as far as the Manx language is second to none in Tynwald, the fact is that I do believe this emphasis, because I think it is absolutely absurd in the UK, where you can have people there 30 or 40 years resident in the UK and cannot speak English, because all that is is a declaration of abuse, misinformation and mistrust. I think that this amendment should be supported:

Amendments to clause 12 Page 15, after line 39, insert the following paragraph — ‘(oa) the provision by the employer, in the case of an employee who is not resident in the Island, of appropriate medical insurance for the employee and any dependant accompanying the employee;’.

Page 16, after line 2, insert — ‘(2A) For the purposes of any requirement imposed under subsection (3)(p)1 the Department may — (a) prescribe the information that the applicant must provide in order to satisfy the requirement; (b) make arrangements for the person concerned and any relevant person to be examined as to that person’s ability to speak English; and (c) prescribe a fee to be paid by a person examined under arrangements made by virtue of paragraph (b). Nothing in this subsection limits the Department’s powers under section 23(1).’.

1 This is a reference to the existing paragraph (3)(p) (which will be renumbered as (3)(q) if the preceding amendment is passed). 2160 The Speaker: Mrs Cannell.

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will happily rise to my feet to actually second this particular amendment, because I think 2165 there is a lot of common sense in it. Now, I hope the Minister is not going to say that he is not happy with the wording of it, because I think the wording is quite simply put and –

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell, sorry to interrupt. Can you just clarify for the House, which of the two amendments to clause 12 you are seconding and speaking to? 2170 Mr Karran: Both.

Mrs Cannell: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am seconding both of them, quite frankly, because it is all in relation to the one clause which we are presently considering. So there are two parts to it. 2175 There is the part after line 39 and there is also the second part of it. Now, the first part of it requires an employer who is wanting to engage somebody who requires a Work Permit to also give a guarantee that that person so to be engaged and get the Work Permit is going to be covered by medical insurance. I think that is a good thing. There might be cries of, ‘Well, that’s unfair because we haven't applied that kind of rule before.’ Well 2180 no, we haven't, but this is new law that we are considering here, and it will save the Department of Health an awful lot of money in going forward. So I think that is a good thing that they have medical insurance, and I think any good employer worth their salt, if they want to bring somebody in because we have not got the person here so required and so qualified, that they would in fact have some kind of provision or

______649 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

2185 the individual themselves might have some kind of provision. Nevertheless, I think it is a sensible way to go. When you look at clause 12, and you look down to subsection (3)(n), there is a requirement in the Bill, and it says:

‘the state of health of the person concerned and any relevant person…’

So that then brings me on to the second part of the amendment, if you like, because the 2190 second part of the amendment does say that the Department prescribes the information the applicant must provide in order to satisfy the requirements, and makes arrangements for the person concerned and any relevant person to be examined as to that person's ability to speak English. So in moving onto that, but before moving away from the health, the Bill says ‘the state of the health of the person concerned and any relevant person’. Now, how can you judge that 2195 without first of all putting them through a health screening test? The cost of that, I would imagine, is going to fall on Government, if we are going to have to health screen individuals, but then not being a nation on our own, and being part of the United Kingdom in terms of these matters, I would have thought anybody comes through the United Kingdom… I am talking about a foreign national, for example, coming through from another country into the United Kingdom, 2200 provided they have been screened there, we will automatically accept them here, which is not always a wise thing to do. Recent history will confirm that in fact, when we have done that, we have come a cropper once or twice or three times over the last decade. So there is a requirement in the Bill that the person has to prove that they are in good health. I would have thought as a caveat to that, and to strengthen that provision, that they need to 2205 have medical insurance in place. They could be harbouring all sorts of things that they are not aware yet, for instance diabetes. You can harbour diabetes for about eight or ten years before it actually becomes a health issue and you are diagnosed with it. There are lots of other conditions. So I think that that is a good thing to do. Looking down a bit further on (p), still on page 15, the requirement in the Bill is that:

‘the ability of the person concerned and any relevant person speak English…’

2210 But there is no requirement for them to be able to satisfy that they can speak appropriate English. If you have a foreign national coming to the Isle of Man, who wants to go for nationalisation, for example, in the Isle of Man, they have to sit and take examinations to prove that they understand reading of English, the interpretation of English and the good speaking English, 2215 before their nationalisation is accepted – (A Member: Naturalisation.) naturalisation is accepted as a person in this country or the United Kingdom. So I think that the second amendment, in part (b) of the amendment, it says:

‘make arrangements for the person concerned and any relevant person to be examined as to that person's ability to speak English…’

I do not see why we should not do that, if we are talking about bringing foreign nationals in. You turn over the page and part (c) of the amendment says:

‘prescribe a fee to be paid by a person examined under arrangements made by virtue of paragraph (b).’

2220 So Mr Karran, the Hon. Member for Onchan is actually putting the provision there to be able to make a charge to cover costs. It is all very sensible, what he is actually suggesting, and I really do consider that the House should support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2225 The Speaker: Mr Gawne.

______650 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Just in relation to this, particularly the item in relation to speaking English, I think what I would absolutely agree with the Hon. Member for Onchan on is that it is essential for people 2230 who are living and working in the Isle of Man, if they are here for some considerable time to be able to speak English; but equally I would not want us to become or for us to appear to be being xenophobic on this, and I am sure that was not the Hon. Member’s intention. (Mr Karran: No.) I think there is a really positive aspect to a multi-lingual society, and I think multi-cultural society, as well, provided that we do make sure that people can communicate in the majority language 2235 of the country, which obviously in this case is English. The one point, though, I would raise, is that there are international businesses operating on the Isle of Man. There may well be a case for someone who is a fluent Russian and Chinese speaker to be employed in the Isle of Man doing a particular piece of translation, who perhaps does not actually need to speak any English at all. Perhaps it is a short-term Work Permit and it 2240 may not be necessary for that person to be completely fluent in English. It is an unlikely scenario, but it is a possibility (Interjection) and I do hope that if we are looking at this, that there is enough flexibility that would allow for companies that needed to employ people like that to be able to do so.

2245 The Speaker: Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Sorry, is this winding up?

The Speaker: Do you wish to – 2250 Mr Shimmin: No, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: – speak to the amendment? (Mr Shimmin: No.) Does any other Member wish to speak, either on the motion or on the amendment? In that 2255 case, I call the mover to reply – (Mr Karran: Ah – !) the mover of the amendment to reply.

Mr Karran: Yes, absolutely. I would have liked to have the rationale and to have heard the points so that we could have had a balanced debate in this House, as we have seen 2 to 22, but the Minister has taken the 2260 liberty not to talk about the amendment and what his concerns are, which would have made it a far more balanced input, as far as that is concerned. I think the point is that I find myself embarrassed having to say this, because the situation is that, as the Member for East Douglas says, it horrifies me to even be talking about idea as far as the health service is concerned. But I do feel that the whole idea of this amendment is to try and 2265 discourage employers, to do that extra vigilance to try and find an Isle of Man Worker, and I think if they had to have another liability, the likes of health care, it would make them think. You have only got to be in this office late at night, after hours when the office is shut, to see the number of people who have difficulty in communicating in English who obviously have come from somewhere else. I think it is great that young people travel about. 2270 My concern is that, whilst I might be living in a different world to the mover, the issue of little pockets of areas where English is not the first language is growing. I have not had anybody recently onto me who – somehow, I am the only one that gets it in here – where we have had horrendous problems of people having difficulty with their minimum wage, with their accommodation being tied up with their work, and I am sure there must be 2275 other Members than me that have had that experience. If they have the issue of the language and the communication problem, the exploitation actually grows. (Mrs Cannell: Absolutely.) Now, the points to the Shirveishagh, Minister Gawne, to be honest with you, he is right. There are cases in the gaming industry where Cantonese… the likes of people wanting

______651 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Cantonese, Russian, the Far East gaming industry is phenomenal and more likely the long-term 2280 sustainability of the gaming industry on this Island, allowing for what the UK does with its initiatives. The situation would be that obviously, short term – people who are only here for the short-term – hopefully this would not affect, but it would affect people long term. The fact is that it is not acceptable that we have people who are working in our employ, in this Island who cannot understand English. What happens to health and safety? What happens 2285 to employment legislation? We are creating an underclass. The inverted snobbism of ending up being an exclusive society, where the individuals… So I personally feel that on the English side alone, that is so important. It is so important for law and order, because if we end up with streets where English is not the first language, you end up with the cultures of these places that are not on the same lines of going through the law 2290 enforcement agencies, as far as that is concerned. Maybe that is an issue that is premature at the moment, but it is an issue that we are going to have to address. I feel that this House should be addressing the issue because how can these people be safe if they cannot speak a reasonable level of English? How do we protect them from being exploited? There must be more than one. I have not actually asked my colleague, the 2295 leader of the Liberal Party, but the fact is I have had a number of occasions over the years where people have been tied into horrific accommodation with their Work Permits, and they have had large chunks of their money off them for substandard accommodation. So I think Hon. Members need to think about that. The issue over the health side, I believe that we are in a different environment. We are going into a different environment, and whilst I 2300 have had great situation, very polite, very nice people when we have been clearing, where the cleaners have been cleaning our offices at night, the reality is there is something bad about the situation where we cannot have Isle of Man Workers that are supposed to be on the dole doing those jobs. I believe that it would encourage employers if they had to pay the health care costs of that, it would make them think – because they are not really aiming at the top end, what Mr 2305 Gawne is aiming at, the translators on big bucks, on big money. What I am talking about is the underclass – the underclass of people on minimum wage, who really cannot live here on the wages or Isle of Man Workers will not put up with the wages, will not put up with the conditions, and I think this needs to be put into the legislation. I so move. 2310 The Speaker: Mover to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is unfortunate, some of the language the Hon. Member for Onchan uses. I would 2315 prefer to encourage employers, rather than the party line, which seems to refer on four occasions that his intent is to discourage employers. These are the people who we build our economy and jobs around. Therefore, this legislation is to try and encourage lawyers. He then goes on to a term which I find offensive, but I understand what he means when he refers to an ‘underclass’. At a level where we are trying to drive what he talks of as an inclusive 2320 society, there are many people in our community of a whole range of qualifications and qualities and skills, but I think the fundamental of what he is talking about, for those people who are coming in to do some of those lower paid jobs, he has part of the answer himself: people approach him and they say they felt they could have done that job. Well, why aren't they? The reality is that employers do not always want to ‘get away with it’. What they want is a fair day’s 2325 work for a fair day's pay. Unfortunately, the very people that Mr Karran refers to complain to him that they felt they could have done the job have got to step up. It has been said previously about the differentiation between those who cannot work and those who will not work. Those who cannot work, I think everybody in this House has enormous sympathy and empathy for and we have to do more. But for those who will not work or consider 2330 it to be below them to take some of these jobs, which does force employers to advertise, to find

______652 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

nobody suitable on the Isle of Man, therefore they do bring in these people, normally from Eastern Europe, who come into our community. But I want to look at the two amendments in particular. The first one, I would urge all Hon. Member to read it, because the way it has been drafted – and I am not blaming the drafter, 2335 because they only go on the information given by the Member – it says:

‘the provision by the employer, in the case of an employee who is not resident in the Island…

of medical insurance etc and dependants. It is only applying to employees who are not resident on the Island. Therefore, temporary workers who are likely to be non-resident are already exempt under the Work Permit legislation. But if they are not resident, they are not likely to be on the Island very long and if they are having health issues, then they are going to be wanting to 2340 go back to where their normal place of residence is. So we could work with the Hon. Member on some of this, but we have already included the health element, and if anybody breaches the instructions or the forms when they fill them in, if they are dishonest on those forms, then we can revoke the permit. The idea of health screening being bureaucratic with the free movement of people, it would be a massive disincentive, and 2345 rather than saving – as the Hon. Member for East Douglas talks about, an awful lot of money saved – the reality is that people would be moving into our Island, we would have a whole process that we would have to put in place, which would interfere with the waiting lists, the cost to Health and everybody else. If you are then going to try and talk about insurance, then, what else are we going to do when somebody comes to the Isle of Man? Is it just when they are 2350 working and how do we enforce that? Again, most of the people the Hon. Member for Onchan is talking about are those who are on the dark side, the grey side where they do not actually want to conform to our rules and regulations, either as an employer or as an employee. If people are going through the process, the process is there, that people can come in and contribute to our Island. That is what we 2355 require: we require thousands of people to build our economy whilst being over here, and that is by the employers getting people who can do the job. I am sorry, but the Hon. Member for Onchan forces me to do this. What we have attempted to put in this legislation is a balance between those who will say, from an unemployment point of view, possibly do away with the Work Permits, and the Hon. Member for Onchan who seems 2360 to think Manx workers should and can do all these jobs. We have attempted to get it in the middle. But I am really frustrated about the number of people who will not work on our Island or will not work of a quality and level that is acceptable to employers, and they need those workers to actually be working at a capacity to make the business successful. 2365 The Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne talks about the international business – absolutely. But it is fairly obvious that those persons who can learn Russian, Chinese or other languages will not be the problem with picking up the language. Like some of you in this House, my son currently works in Spain. Which type of culture and persons are the worst in the world for trying to learn foreign languages? They are probably the 2370 British, and therefore when you look at that, he is attempting to learn Catalan and Spanish, whilst he is out there. For many of the people coming over to the Isle of Man, the main purpose of wanting to live and work in the Isle of Man is actually to learn the language. And I agree entirely with Mrs Cannell, Mr Karran and everybody else, that the multi-cultural community we have, they do have to engage and build in, and language is a fundamental part of 2375 that – which is why we put in those parts of the legislation. So I will be opposing the first part of Mr Karran’s or the first amendment of Mr Karran because I think it is totally misleading to say ‘an employee who is not resident in the Island’. I think he has missed the mark of who he should be actually referring to, and the bureaucracy is a nightmare. 2380 But the second one, and I will quote, it says: ______653 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

‘For the purposes of any requirement imposed under subsection (3)(p), the Department may…’

We will support that. It is saying the Department may take into account and prescribe these things. We have already said in our legislation that English language is something that will be a consideration. What Mr Karran is doing is a benefit, that it gives us an express power to 2385 prescribe a fee, if we were to make arrangements for examining the English language ability, and we would then have to decide how we are going to do it. We could actually just put it on part of the form. Therefore, if they mislead or misrepresent on the form, that would be liable to revocation. So initially, the Department will choose a least bureaucratic option. We are supportive of the 2390 second part, but not please the first. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put the motion on clause 12, to which there are two amendments in the name of Mr Karran. 2395 I put the first amendment – that is amendment number 7 on page 7 of the Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan Mrs Cannell Mr Crookall Mr Thomas Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker 2400 The Speaker: With 4 votes for, 18 against, that amendment therefore fails to carry. The amendment number 8 on page 7 of Mr Karran: Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

2405 A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Henderson Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen

______654 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: With 21 votes for, 1 vote against, the amendment therefore carries. Voting now on clause 12. Clause 12 as amended: Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. 2410 The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We turn now to clause 13.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause deals with the constitution of the Work Permit Appeal Tribunal. 2415 Subsection (1) provides for the continuation of the Tribunal. Subsection (2) specifies the constitution of the Tribunal. It is to consist of a chairman and two other members, one of whom is to be drawn from a panel of persons representing employers and self-employed persons, and the other from a panel representing employees. The appointments are to be made by the Appointments Commission in accordance with the 2420 Tribunals Act 2006. New provision is also made for a panel of deputy chairpersons. Subsection (3) specifies that where the chairperson is absent or unable to act, his or her place is to be taken by a deputy drawn from the panel of deputies in accordance with the regulations made under the Tribunals Act 2006. 2425 Subsection (4) specifies that one member is to be drawn from each of the panels referred to in subsection (2) in accordance with regulations made under the Tribunals Act 2006. I beg to move clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle. 2430 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 13 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say 2435 aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 14.

Mr Shimmin: This clause provides for appeals against decisions to the Work Permit Appeal Tribunal and the High Court. 2440 Subsection (1) specifies the decisions against which an appeal may be brought under this clause. They are a decision to grant, refuse or revoke a Work Permit or to include a condition in a Work Permit. Subsection (2) provides a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a decision specified in subsection (1) by a person specified in subsection (3). The appeal is to be in accordance with 2445 rules made under the Tribunals Act 2006. Subsection (3) defines the persons that have a right of appeal. They are: (a) where a permit is granted, any person who applied for the employment, subject to one exception at subsection (4); (b) where a permit is refused or revoked, or is granted subject to a condition, the applicant or holder and their employer or prospective employer.

______655 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

2450 Subsection (4) deals with the case of a person who did not apply for employment because it was insufficiently advertised. Where the Tribunal considers that a person would have had a reasonable expectation of obtaining the employment, it may treat that person as having applied for the employment and thus able to make an appeal. Subsection (5) provides that where an appeal is made, the Tribunal must either allow or 2455 dismiss the appeal. It must allow the appeal where it considers that the Department, in reaching the decision, made a mistake in law or based its decision on any incorrect material fact or exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner. Subsection (6) provides that where the Tribunal allows an appeal, it is to remit the application to the Department with its reasons for the decision and the Department must 2460 reconsider the application. Subsection (7) provides that, except as provided in subsection (8), the decision of the Tribunal on an appeal is final. Subsection (8) allows an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal on a point of law only. 2465 Subsection (9) provides that rules made under the Tribunals Act 2006 may require an appellant to pay a fee to make an appeal and provide for some or all of the fee to be refunded in specified circumstances. I beg to move clause 14 stand part of the Bill.

2470 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir.

The Speaker: Mr Thomas. 2475 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just three points which I was able to discuss with the Department already. The first one is about the Article 13 under the Convention on Human Rights. I wanted the Minister to comment on whether this clause actually provides for the right for an effective 2480 remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. Can the Minister confirm that the person should have and would have an adequate redress in the new legislation and there is not actually circularity of the Work Permit Committee acting on the authority of the Minister, having its decision reviewed by a Work Permit Tribunal who can only send back their findings to the Minister who may or may not agree with the initial decision. 2485 The second point is about the Tribunal rules. Would the Minister agree with me – and this is particularly relevant in the light of the discussion we have had today about disclosure and registers – that the Tribunal rules, regulations and procedures should be considered to make sure that there is actually adequate protection for a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Tribunal, that the process whereby the applicant has selected the person concerned is not 2490 actually a fair process. So would he agree with me that we perhaps need to investigate the action of distance in application of rules? The third point is that, in the light of the court case, Thomas v Department of Education and others, 9th January 2009, would the Minister confirm that all decisions of his Department means actually final decisions and not interim decisions of the Tribunal? 2495 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: On a point of order, can I just say there might be a conflict of interest with the previous speaker in his comments on this. 2500 The Speaker: I shall take advice, Hon. Member.

______656 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker consulted the Secretary of the House.

The Speaker: In relation to any court case that may have been referred to, I would advise you 2505 to make reference to any conflict of interest that there might be – whether there is or whether there is not.

Mr Thomas: There is not any conflict of interest, Mr Speaker.

2510 The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Member. Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a small point regarding there ‘may be required to pay an application fee’: there is just 2515 some ambiguity there, whether, if an appeal takes place, that somebody will make an adjudication on what basis. I just wonder whether the Minister could flush that out a little bit. And then the second bit on (b) there, is where it may be refunded – I just wonder what the criteria… to win the case or if it does have merits, or something like that. I am not quite sure, or is it just to stop frivolous appeals? 2520 The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you and I am very grateful to my colleague in West Douglas for the interest he has shown in this, and the time he has spent in the Department. 2525 In regards to the first point he raised about Article 13, I can only say to the House that the Attorney General's Chambers have confirmed that the Act complies with the Convention. The ultimate area open to an individual is a petition of doleance would be possible, were they to be aggrieved. The second part with regard to the Tribunal rules, that is a matter where the Tribunal rules 2530 are set outside of my Department. Effectively they are monitoring what we do. My Department will work with the Chief Secretary’s Office in order to make sure that when they are publicised, they have adequate protection. With regard to the final point, the Hon. Member for West Douglas talked about, I can confirm the High Court gave very good reasons why interim decisions should not be appealed. That is in 2535 the judgment available for anybody who wishes to see it. With regards to Mr Quirk, Member for Onchan, it is all about the opportunity of having the flexibility in primary legislation and the regulations that go underneath it. We are concerned not just about vexatious opportunities, but also fairness. Therefore it would appear to be a reasonable attempt to avoid vexatious applications that you may charge a fee. However, if that 2540 person has evidenced that they were right, then certainly that would be refunded. But we will look at those cases as we move forward, once we have got primary legislation in place. I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 14 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please 2545 say aye; against, no., say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 15, please.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause sets out various offences and the penalties for commission of such offences. 2550 Subsection (1) makes it an offence to be employed or to employ a person in breach of clause 6, which places restrictions on the employment of non-Isle of Man Workers. The offence carries a maximum of three months’ custody or a fine of £5,000 or both. The maximum fine in the 1975 Act is £2,500.

______657 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Subsection (2) provides an exception to subsection (1) in the case where the accused 2555 believed that the person concerned – that is, the person employed – was an Isle of Man Worker and took all reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of that belief. Subsection (3) makes an offence to fail to comply with conditions attached to an exemption or to a Work Permit. The offence carries a maximum fine of £1,000. Subsection (4) provides it is an offence to lie or deceive a person in the circumstances 2560 specified in subsection (5), or to pretend to be the person named in a Work Permit or to tell an employer falsely that a Work Permit is in force or unnecessary for the employment concerned. The offence carries a maximum of six months’ custody or a fine of £7,500 or both. The present maximum fine under the 1975 Act for these aggravated offences is £5,000. Subsection (5) specifies the two circumstances referred to in subsection (4)(a). They are for 2565 the purpose of obtaining a Work Permit or in response to a question as to a one's Work Permit status. Subsection (6) makes an offence to intensely delay or obstruct an inspector in the course of his or her duties or to withhold information when required to provide it. The offence carries a maximum fine of £7,500, compared with the present maximum fine of £5,000. 2570 Subsection (7)(a) enables regulations which impose an obligation to make contravention of the obligation of an offence, with a maximum fine of £1,000. Provision is also made for a fixed penalty to be imposed for any such contravention. I beg to move clause 15 stand part of the Bill.

2575 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell. 2580 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a small query really. The legislation as worded seems very geared towards employer/employee but what happens in the circumstances of an individual applying for a self- employed Work Permit, which I understand still happens – and it did happen. In fact, when I first 2585 came to the Isle of Man in 1977, I applied for a self-employed Work Permit, and it would last for 12 months and then I would have to reapply again. Will these same offences be applicable in that type of situation or are they merely geared towards employer vis-à-vis employee?

2590 The Speaker: Mover to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you. With all of these issues, I am grateful for the Hon. Member’s interest. See ‘Interpretation’ in clause 3, where ‘employed’ includes self-employed. So all of these offences would be exactly the 2595 same, were it to be in that category, as outlined by Mrs Cannell. I beg to move.

The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 15 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2600 Clause 16.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause contains further provisions concerning offences.

______658 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Subsection (1) provides that where an offence has been committed by a body corporate, a 2605 director, manager, secretary or other officer who is responsible for it shall be treated as having committed that offence and liable to be punished. Subsection (2) provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act – see clause 15 – may only be brought by or with the consent of the Attorney General. Subsection (3) provides that criminal proceedings may be brought within three months of the 2610 date on which the Attorney General had sufficient evidence to warrant proceedings, but subject to an overall limit of 12 months after the offence was committed. May I actually say, Mr Speaker, that was something the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, when he raised that issue before, I will have to look at that with regard to any offence in this section and how it applies to the example that he used. So I will revert back to that, if necessary, 2615 in Third Reading. I beg to move clause 16 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

2620 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 16 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2625 Clause 17.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause enables a fixed penalties to be imposed for an offence of working or employing a person without a Work Permit or failing to comply with the condition of a Work Permit or 2630 exemption, as an alternative to prosecution. Subsection (1) enables an inspector to serve a fixed penalty notice on a person believed to have committed or be committing an offence under clause 15(1) or (3) or, where applicable, regulations. Subsection (2) provides that a person who pays the fixed penalty within 14 days of being 2635 given the notice cannot then be prosecuted for the offence. Subsection (3) prevents any charge being brought for the offence during that period of 14 days where a fixed penalty has been imposed. Subsection (4) provides for the amount of a fixed penalty to be specified in regulations. This is included in clause 23(1), subject to a maximum of £1,000 for an offence under clause 15(1) or 2640 £200 for an offence under clause 15(3) or regulations. Subsection (5) provides for a fixed penalty to be paid to the Chief Registrar, who is to deal with it in the same way as a fine. That is to pay to the Treasury for general revenue. Subsection (6) enables the fixed penalty to be paid by post. Subsection (7) defines properly addressed for this purpose. 2645 I beg to move clause 17 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2650 The Speaker: Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: I do not object to this clause, if it is a case of a one-off, maybe a mistake or whatever. What does worry me is that this becomes, for maybe a large employer who does not 2655 get a necessary Work Permit, easier for them to say, ’Oh well, I will pay the fine.’ At what stage

______659 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

does the inspector say, ‘Enough is enough and we are going to prosecute’? Because on the other side of the coin, we have had many occasions in the past – and I remember this one, when I was in the Department – where the Department has gone to the Attorney General on a matter, and the Attorney General has said it is not in the public interest that people get away with it. 2660 So could I ask the Minister, where is the balance when you have finished with a fixed fine and you go for prosecution?

The Speaker: Mr Karran.

2665 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I just find that I am deeply concerned about this, that we are going to end up with a situation where the law is going to be different if you have got deep enough pockets to be able to afford the on-the-spot fines. I think this is a concern that I think we have. I understand – we all understand – the importance that we have got to get that economy 2670 bouncing again. There is no doubt about that, but there are certain fundamental principles in a parliamentary democracy that you have to have, and I am afraid that the idea that you can have spot fines and… You just bring it onto yourselves, hon. mover, as far as what people outside think! What will happen will be that people will just pay the on-the-spot fine, and it will undermine 2675 the whole principle of the legislation. I have said, Vainstyr Loayreyder, I have no problems in losing in this House arguments when you are right; but I think the problem is when you win the vote and still lose the argument. I think you are going to have to do an awful lot of reassuring outside this House, that this will not mean that the big boys… a little ‘Oops, we’ve been caught out, we put our hands up, we’ll pay 2680 the fine.’ I think that is going to be the problem. The difficulty, as I appreciate, about employment opportunities and everything else, I do think that you need to reassure this House that we are not bringing in a situation where… And I have had representations about this issue. I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Ramsey has as well, but I have had representations about this being of deep concern in any channels, as 2685 far as our community is concerned.

The Speaker: Mr Shimmin to reply.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2690 Deep enough concern never to have raised the issue with myself. However, I would ask the Hon. Member to really rethink what he has just said. This is exactly attempting to achieve the very thing he is concerned about, because the Hon. Member for Ramsey was quite right: the Attorney General's Chambers in the past have determined not to prosecute, and therefore this is a clear direct attempt by my Department to have the control to make sure that when we find a 2695 breach in the Work Permit legislation, we will be able to do those fines, and if a business or employer then does it for a second time, we have the evidence that this is not a one-off that can be warned, this is a case that we can then get the Attorney General's to prosecute. My Department are desperately keen to prosecute those who abuse the rules and regulations that everybody else complies with. I would urge the Hon. Member for Onchan to do 2700 us all a favour, but rather than encouraging people to be negative about this, this is one of the most important steps forward, to allow prosecution of those abusing the system. Yet somehow he sees it as the polar opposite of that. This will actually allow my Department the ability to prosecute offenders and that will only be for the best interests of Isle of Man Workers and the people that we all represent. I am 2705 astonished that he chooses not to understand that.

______660 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Please support this and be clear that this is giving us what we often need, which is the teeth to actually do something, rather than be in the hands of the Attorney General's, who may have far more pressing areas that they consider important. I beg to move. 2710 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 17 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Ronan Mrs Beecroft Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: Twenty votes for, two votes against, Hon. Members. 2715 It is now the appropriate time for the lunchtime adjournment. When we return at 2.30, we shall resume at clause 18. In the meantime, can I remind Hon. Members that the Department of Health has a presentation in the Barrool Suite on waiting lists at 1.30. Thank you, Hon. Members.

The House adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

3.1. Control of Employment Bill 2013 – Consideration of clauses concluded

2720 The Speaker: On the adjournment, Hon. Members, we completed clause 17 of the Control of Employment Bill. We turn to clause 18 and I call on the mover, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2725 This clause deals with evidence in relation to offences. Subsection (1) gives the Department power to serve a written notice on a person suspected of working in contravention of clause 6, requiring him or her within 14 days to satisfy the

______661 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Department that he or she is an Isle of Man Worker. The corresponding period in the 1975 Act is 40 days. 2730 Subsection (2) provides that where a person who has been served a notice under subsection (1) fails to satisfy the Department within 14 days that he or she is an Isle of Man Worker, the Department may issue a certificate which is to be taken as evidence that the person is not an Isle of Man Worker until the contrary is proved. Subsection (3) provides that where a person or his or her employer is prosecuted for an 2735 offence under clause 15(1), evidence of payment of social security contributions, or of conviction for non-payment, in respect of any employment is admissible to show that that person was engaged in that employment. Subsection (4) provides that, for the purpose of clause 16(3), which deals with time limits for bringing proceedings, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor and stating the date 2740 on which the relevant evidence came to his or her knowledge is to be taken as conclusive. Subsection (5) provides that a certificate of the Chief Registrar as to payment or non- payment of a fixed penalty is evidence of whether or not it was paid. Subsection (6) provides that the signature of a certificate under subsections (2), (4) or (5) does not have to be specifically proved. 2745 I beg to move clause 18 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2750 I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put that clause 18 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 19. 2755 Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause sets out the powers of inspectors to enforce the Bill. ‘Inspectors’ are defined by clause 2 as persons authorised by the Department to exercise those powers. Subsection (1) provides for the powers in this clause to be exercised for the purpose of 2760 ascertaining whether there has been a contravention of the provisions listed. Subsection (2) gives an inspector power of entry, and power to require the production of documents, including those kept on computer, and to ask questions. Subsection (3) places an obligation on a person who is required by an inspector to produce documents or to answer questions to provide the information and to produce the documents. 2765 Subsection (4) provides that a person cannot be required to incriminate himself or herself or his or her spouse or civil partner. Subsection (5) requires an inspector exercising any power to produce evidence of his or her authority to do so if required. I beg to move clause 19 become part of the Bill. 2770 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

2775 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 19 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 20.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

______662 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

2780 This clause applies the provisions in the Bill to the Government. Subsection (1) applies the Bill to the Government as if they were private persons. Subsection (2) provides that the Government cannot be guilty of an offence under the Act. I beg to move clause 20 stand part of the Bill.

2785 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I put the question that clause 20 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, say 2790 aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 21.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause enables the Bill to be applied to employment in territorial waters. 2795 Subsection (1) enables the Council of Ministers to make an order applying the Bill, for specified purpose and with or without modifications, to employment in territorial waters – for example, such as on oil rigs. Such an order requires Tynwald approval. Subsection (2) enables such an order to deal with the jurisdiction of courts or the tribunal in relation to employment in such waters. 2800 I beg to move.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2805 The Speaker: I put the motion that clause 21 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 22.

2810 Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause allows the sharing of information relating to employment between various bodies for specified purposes. Subsection (1) limits the coverage of the clause to information relating to persons undertaking or engaged in, or intending to undertake or be engaged in employment in the 2815 Island. Subsection (2) as drafted, which was prior to the recent Transfer of Functions (Health and Social Care) Order 2014, enables (a) the Governor, insofar as he has functions under the Immigration Acts; (b) the Chief Constable; (c) the Treasury; (d) the Assessor of Income Tax; and (e) the Department of Social Care, to share with the Department information which is likely to 2820 be of use for control of employment purposes. Subsection (3) provides that the Department may share with an authority mentioned in subsection (2) information relating to control of employment purposes if it is likely to be of use to the particular authority to carry out its particular functions. Subsection (4) provides that the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading may supply to the 2825 Department information concerning complaints received by that Office as to commercial activities in the Island which relate to the supply of goods and services to consumers in the Island if the information is likely to be of use for control of employment purposes. Subsection (5) defines various terms used in this clause. Subsection (6) provides for the interpretation of expressions used in subsection (4). 2830 Subsection (7) overrides any restriction there may be on the purposes for which information may be disclosed or used.

______663 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

I beg that clause 22 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Quayle. 2835 Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mr Skelly. 2840 Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. The amendment is necessary, due to a Transfer of Functions (Health and Social Care) Order 2014 which has resulted in the merging of the Department of Social Care and the Department of Health. The particular function of the former Department of Social Care which is relevant to 2845 clause 22, that is benefits, has been taken over by Treasury, which is already covered in clause 22. I now beg to move the amendments standing in my name:

Amendment to clause 22 In clause 22(2) for paragraphs (c) to (e) substitute — ‘(c) the Treasury; and (d) the Assessor of Income Tax,’.

In clause 22(3) for ‘in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e)’ substitute ‘in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) or (d)’

2850 The Speaker: Mr Ronan.

Mr Ronan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

2855 The Speaker: Mr Shimmin? I put first of all the amendments to clause 22 in the name of Mr Skelly. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 22, as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 2860 Clause 23.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause deals with regulations and orders under the Bill. Subsection (1) provides the Department with power to make regulations prescribing anything 2865 which may be prescribed under the Bill, and in relation to the procedural and other matters listed. Subsection (2) defines the term ‘application’ used in subsection (1). Subsection (3) enables the Department by order to amend any provision of the Bill concerned with immigration which may be necessary as a result of changes to UK nationality or 2870 immigration legislation which are extended to the Island. Subsection (4) provides that orders made under clauses 7(6) exemptions and 21(1) territorial waters and under subsection (3) of this clause require Tynwald approval. Subsection (5) provides that regulations are subject to the annulment procedure, that is they must be laid before Tynwald as soon as possible after they are made, and if Tynwald, at the 2875 sitting at which they are laid or the next following sitting, decides that the Regulations should be annulled, they will cease to have effect.

______664 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Subsection (6)(a) provides that regulations or an order made under clause 7(6) may confer a discretion on the Department so that it can consider the particular circumstances of a case, rather than being limited to making black and white rules 2880 Subsection (6)(b) gives the Department power to provide a right of appeal to the Tribunal under clause 14 in any such cases. Subsection (6)(c) prohibits the Department from discriminating on the ground of sex when making orders and regulations. I beg that clause 23 do stand part of the Bill. 2885 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. 2890 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 23 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. New clause in the name of Mr Thomas.

2895 Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are two parts to my contribution: moving this new clause to establish and empower a new different Work Permit Committee; and secondly, providing a context – some observations about the existing Work Permit Committee whose creation would be effected if this clause was adopted. 2900 The first point about the existing Work Permit Committee is that it is not established in statute now, although originally it was as the statutory Employment Committee of the former Board of Social Security. Instead, the Minister for Economic Development has delegated power to make decisions on Work Permits to the existing non-statutory Work Permit Committee, although most decisions are then delegated back to the Work Permit Committee Secretary 2905 under delegated authority. Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, why have a committee set up administratively? There are potential issues with all these delegations, as has been suggested, in respect of a similarly constituted committee, the Planning Committee, and I suggest it would be better for the Minister, the Department and staff to make decisions themselves directly without the actual 2910 cost and potential trouble of delegating to a non-statutory part-time committee, which sub- delegates back to officers, the Minister and the Department. As we form new legislation, surely we should aim to minimise the potential for challenge in difficulty and cost. Another alternative would be to empower a statutory Work Permit Committee to determine policy, to make regulations and to carry out the work, and the drafter has provided me with a 2915 draft of such a clause, which would be available to others. This is similar to the Legal Aid Committee, in terms of its powers; but there are issues with this. For instance, surely it is best to leave actual power and management with the Department. So I propose a statutory advisory Work Permit Committee to monitor and review the implementation of policy, to develop and propose regulations for the granting of Work Permits 2920 to the Department, to oversee the Department's Work Permit processes and procedures and to deal with any complaints made about these processes and procedures. Forming this statutory advisory Work Permit Committee would allow the existing arrangements to be made more efficient – i.e. officers would carry out the work according to the Department's policy, with policy and implementation overseen by this statutory advisory 2925 committee. There would be no more potentially sham delegations with quasi arm-length… [Inaudible] This type of Work Permit Committee is a committee which already has a parallel in the Department of Economic Development, the existing Minimum Wage Committee, which

______665 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

‘shall from time to time make recommendations as to the rate of the minimum wage to be prescribed’. 2930 I beg to move and hope Hon. Members will support forming this Committee, which could meet from time to time to consider which Work Permit regulations should be brought forward, which Work Permit procedures are being used… sorry, how they are being used and how their use could be enhanced. In fact, to monitor, in respect of many of the issues raised this morning during the debate, as this Bill passes through us. 2935 The Department would be left to manage and deliver the Work Permit regime with independent oversight from this committee, alongside that from Hon. Members within Government and in Tynwald. I beg to move:

New clause Page 24, after line 14 insert the following clause — ‘23A Work Permit Committee (1) There is to be a Work Permit Committee consisting of 5 members appointed by the Appointments Commission. (2) Of the 5 members — (a) one is to be a member of Tynwald, who is to be the chairperson of the Committee; (b) one is to be a person representative of the interests of employers in the Island; (c) one is to be a person representative of the interests of employees in the Island; and (d) two are to be persons who do not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs. (3) The members are to be appointed for a term not exceeding 3 years and no member may serve more than 2 consecutive terms. (4) The Appointments Commission must appoint one of the members to serve as vice- chairperson. (5) At any sitting of the Committee — (a) the chairperson or vice-chairperson is to preside; and (b) at least two other members must be present. (6) The functions of the Committee are — (a) to monitor and review the implementation of policy with respect to the granting of work permits making recommendations to the Department when necessary; (b) to develop and propose regulations for the granting of work permits to the Department; and (c) to oversee the Department's work permit processes and procedures and deal with any complaints made about those processes and procedures.’ 2940 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, if I can do on a new clause.

2945 The Speaker: Hon. Members, we are in a debate in principle, the debate being that the new clause forms part of the Bill. Does anyone wish to speak? Mr Quirk.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2950 I do welcome the insertion of the new clause here. It gives, as the mover of this new clause has indicated, the committee probably a more wide-ranging view and supportive role to the Department. I am actually interested and mindful to support this particular insertion of this new clause, but, as I always do, will wait for the Minister to respond on that to see if there are any concerns in there.

______666 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

2955 But I do hope maybe Members can voice their views on this because the only bit I did have a concern was having a Member of Tynwald in there, maybe as the chairperson, a little bit, but, hey-ho, the other members are in there (Laughter) and they are from different organisations. The only other one from Mr Thomas would be that the two persons do not fall into the category of both, because normally it has been an employed person and employee. I do not 2960 know where you would seek those from and I would be interested.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Just to say to the House that the Department will be opposing the introduction 2965 of this and therefore, if we are at the principles stage, that is just putting on record that we will be opposing the introduction of this new clause. I have some grounds that I will be putting forward, should it be getting to that stage of being formally moved.

The Speaker: Mr Karran. 2970 Mr Karran: It is very disappointing that – speaking to the principles – the Minister, the mover, did not give the courtesy of the reasons why he is objecting to this. In fact, I think the time has come for us to –

2975 Mr Shimmin: A point of clarification, please, Mr Speaker. My apologies if I have been out of order. My thought was that we were only voting on the principle and therefore we were going to be going to the debate on the actual clause shortly.

The Speaker: If the vote on the principle falls, then, of course, there will be no vote on the 2980 detail. (Mr Karran: Absolutely.) So that was the opportunity –

Mr Karran: Well, taking the point that the Minister did not realise that, then I am happy as far as it was done by a genuine misunderstanding. But it is important that if we are going to 2985 object from executive Government, as a parliamentary assembly we need to know the rationale for not supporting the principle for leave to introduce for the new clause (Interjection) being taken and that is why I think it is important. People complain and people say about us in this House… just nodding whatever the Government says, and it is important that we know the reasons why for that. It was like the 2990 previous amendment that I put forward, where the situation is it would have been better to have been able to have him reply to that clause in the right way, as far as that issue is concerned. We are now blinded to the rationale of why we should not support the Hon. Member for West Douglas’s new clause to give the principle, for it to be debated in principle. I think, Hon. 2995 Members, we need to vote for the principle of giving them the right, so that at least it gives the Minister the rationale of why we should not support the Hon. Member for West Douglas having this put into primary law.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, with the leave of the House, I will give the Hon. Member, Mr 3000 Shimmin, the right to speak in the debate. I am satisfied it was a genuine misunderstanding that this was the opportunity to make the Department's case. So, if the House is agreeable, (Several Members: Hear, hear.) I waive the Standing Order and allow the Minister to speak.

______667 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

3005 Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, whilst we are waiving the Standing Order, would it therefore be acceptable for the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran, to again come in to respond after I have done? It seems fairer if that were the case.

Mr Watterson: We have all afternoon. 3010 The Speaker: If he wishes. Again, with the leave of the House, I will allow that. Leave has been given. Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Okay. Thank you. 3015 Yes, certainly some of the original part of what the Hon. Member was talking about, I do have a great deal of sympathy about, and although he chooses the words to say ‘the sham delegation’, it is certainly true that the delegation that we give could be done as an administrative role far better, quicker, easier and in most cases that is really how it operates. I do not think citing the Minimum Wage Committee does any strength to the argument because 3020 that is another one of these quangos that does not really fulfil a purpose in a meaningful way and it gives, almost implies, a level of creditability that does not really exist because of the difficulties that those committees operate under. But certainly, as the Hon. Member has drafted this amendment, it gives the committee more powers than he seems to have indicated at the moment and that is one of the concerns the 3025 Department has, which is effectively delegating away from ourselves certain control over something so fundamental as the legislation on Work Permits. So the Work Permit policy is an essential lever of economic policy and should remain with the Department. There is no good reason to move that responsibility for policy elsewhere and so, if the Department loses this control, we cannot manage the system effectively; whereas at the moment, the Minister, 3030 whoever it is, can – and in my case does – give directions of a general nature to that Work Permit Committee, and that is based on information about the current labour market and the conditions and policies. We live with this daily in the Department of Economic Development. In a recent High Court case, the Department v the Work Permit Appeal Tribunal and Simons 2011, the court described the Work Permit regime as an administrative process heavily 3035 influenced by public policy considerations. So it is right that those decisions should remain the responsibility of the Department, as opposed to a temporary quango brought together to consider and discuss those issues. This committee would strip the Department of the powers that rightly remain with the Minister in the Department, because my responsibility goes to the Chief Minister, the Council of 3040 Ministers and ultimately Tynwald, and actually that is for economic policy of the Isle of Man. I think most people can see that on occasions there have been concerns about the actions of committees that actually have not done any favours or benefit to the economy of the Isle of Man, yet they are a body established that we have no control over. So further, whilst the idea may sound attractive, it is unlikely it is going to work as well in 3045 practice as the theory and the portrayal. It is quite often to find suitable persons… for the Appointments Commission to find members willing to serve on some of these bodies, but even if they do, how do we judge their calibre and expertise? Some members may well know nothing about Work Permits, whilst others may have their own agenda. I think we can all understand and have probably got experience of people on committees who have their own agenda, which 3050 is quite a dangerous process to be going down for something as fundamental as this. The other part is the practical difficulties of getting five people into a room at the same time. Quite often in these cases people will have employment; if not, they may not be the best persons to consider and be adjudicating on the Work Permit. If they are in a working environment, can you get the five people together out of full-time jobs to serve for three years? 3055 There is no mechanism in this draft as to how you would remove those persons if they were failing to perform, and indeed, who would judge their failure to perform?

______668 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

So we are very concerned that this could seriously damage the Department’s efforts to continue to develop the Work Permit system. This is something that the Hon. Member has discussed with us. We understand that he wants to have a set-up that is perceived as being at 3060 arm’s distance from the Department, and I can understand that. However, the reality is we have spent some years working with large consultations, responses to consultations, trying to get a balance between the two sides and therefore, for numerous reasons, please, I would urge the Court not to support this. It is something whereby I will work with the Hon. Member to try and see whether the existing Work Permit Committee can be improved, but certainly this delegation 3065 of this power away from my Department is really quite a dangerous proposition and I would urge you not to support it.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell.

3070 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think perhaps the mover of the Bill is getting a little bit unduly concerned about the intention of this new clause. (Interjection) I support the new clause, and I know a little bit about Work Permit legislation – the rules and the operation. But when you read the actual new clause that the Member is putting in principle, he talks 3075 about the functions of the committee to monitor and review the implementation of policy. Policy, of course, is determined by the Department. It says:

‘With respect to the granting of work permits making recommendations…’

It also goes on to say: 3080 ‘to develop and propose regulations for the […] Department.’

It is not taking the Department’s job away from it at all. If anything, it is giving this aspect, this area a little bit more flexibility and credibility, I would suggest, because the Department is always there as the head office, if you like, the one that has to bring in the policy, has to bring in 3085 legislation and enforce the legislation. Part (c) says:

‘… to oversee the Department's work permit processes and procedures…’

It is to oversee it. I cannot see and I do not know what the mover is frightened of here. 3090 There is a public perception, of course, of bias in this area. Of course we have got to be very aware, have we not, of public perception, because, rightly or wrongly, if the perception out there is one way and we go and undermine that further by not acknowledging a degree of independent scrutiny, then we are not helping the situation are we. The Minister said there is no mechanism within this new clause on removal of the members 3095 of this Work Permit Committee. Well, what I would suggest is that regulations could bring in the detail about that, but it is saying that they should not exceed a term of three years. In answer to one of the queries, I am disappointed when Members get up in this place, Mr Speaker, and they say, ‘I am minded to support it, but I will wait and see what the Minister says’. It suggests to me that Members do not have an independent mind (Interjections) and an 3100 independent view, (Interjection) which they ought to have in here. In answer to one such Member, who said the same, he said he is a bit worried about a Member of Tynwald being a chairperson. Well, a true chairperson is impartial. A true chairperson chairs and keeps order.

3105 A Member: And a casting vote.

______669 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mrs Cannell: He may not have a casting vote, it all depends, but a proper chairperson is there to restore balance and ensure that the right informed decisions are taken. So I will give the Hon. Member some support, because I think is a good route to be going 3110 down. I cannot understand really the Minister’s vehement reluctance to even consider this. So I would ask the House to support it in principle so that we can get down to the meat of the issue.

A Member: Vote!

3115 The Speaker: I call on the mover of the new clause to reply, Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and to the Hon. Members for East Douglas and Onchan, who spoke in support, and to the Minister for making such a full response. To pick up on a few points that the Minister made, the first one was that this committee 3120 could not match the Department's ability to monitor the market. I think that is likely false because the Minimum Wage Committee, for instance, commissions evidence and there is no reason why this committee could not also commission the same sort of evidence. The second point I wanted to make is I have stressed throughout, as the Hon. Member for Douglas East has picked up, that this is an advisory committee making proposals to the 3125 Department, and so I do not accept that it is taking away from the Department or from Government’s capacity to carry out a good job. The third point is you dealt with some very specific issues about the composition and you made some observations which I wanted to deal with. The first is that you said it would be very hard to get five people together; of course, as 3130 currently drafted, it is only three people that need to come together for a quorum. The second point is that I think the removal is perfectly covered by the law of the regulations under which the Appointments Commission acts already. And thirdly, at the moment the Work Permit Committee, as it currently is constituted, can get paid easily under section 11 of the 1975 Control of Employment Act, but there are equal 3135 difficulties going forward, given that that clause, that section in the current law does not have a matching clause in this Order, and so I think there are issues to do with the administration of this current situation continuing which would need to be dealt with. My final point in closing is that I really do hope that Members give agreement in principle for this clause to be considered and I think it is the perception that Mrs Cannell picked up on the 3140 end that I wanted to close with. One third of the employment in the Island is by Government and this would deal with the perception that from time to time, I think, there have been quite a few cases in the Work Permit Committee where there has been controversy to do with Government selection and Government appointment, and having an arm’s length independent advisory committee reviewing the implementation would be helpful to manage that perception. 3145 The Speaker: I put the motion that the new clause as set out in the Order Paper in the name of Mr Thomas, form part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cannan Mr Anderson Mrs Beecroft Mr Bell Mrs Cannell Mr Singer Mr Thomas Mr Quayle Mr Teare

______670 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: With 6 votes for, 16 against, the motion therefore fails to carry. 3150 We have dealt with clause 23. We now deal with clause 24 and schedules 2, 3 and 4. Mr Shimmin.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause introduces schedules 2, 3 and 4. 3155 Subsection (1) introduces schedule 2, which makes various amendments of enactments. These are all consequential on the replacement of the 1975 Act by this Bill, with one exception, as follows. Section 21 of the Employment Act 2006 is amended to makes it unlawful for an employer to receive from a worker, or deduct from his or her wages, a fee for a Work Permit under this Bill. 3160 Subsection (2) introduces schedule 3 which makes transitional provisions, mainly to protect the position of persons who have rights under the 1975 Act at commencement. Subsection (3) introduces schedule 4, which repeals provisions replaced or superseded by this Bill.

3165 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

3170 The Speaker: Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. This is a consequential amendment on the replacement of the 1975 Act by this Bill. A reference to the 1975 Act in the uncommenced Residence Act 2001 needs to be replaced by 3175 reference to the new Act. The reference to the 1975 Act in the Residence Act has been previously overlooked. I now beg to move the amendment standing in my name:

In Schedule 2, after paragraph 3 insert — 3A Residence Act 2001 For the Schedule substitute — ‘Schedule AMENDMENTS Control of Employment Act 2014 In section 7, after subsection (4) insert— “(4A) Section 6 does not apply to the employment of a person who is — (a) registered or qualified to be registered under section 2 of the Residence Act 2001; (b) registered under section 3 of that Act; (c) exempted from that Act; or (d) exempted from registration under that Act.”.’

______671 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

3180 The Speaker: Mr Ronan.

Mr Ronan: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: First I put the amendment in the name of Mr Skelly to schedule 2. Those in 3185 favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 24 as amended. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That brings us to the end of the Control of Employment Bill.

3.2. Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2013 – Clauses considered

Mr Anderson to move.

The Speaker: We turn now to the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill. 3190 Mr Watterson: Agreed. (Interjections and laughter)

The Speaker: I will carefully explain how this is to be dealt with and give further explanation as we go along to deal with each clause and the order in which they will be taken etc. 3195 First of all, Hon. Members, please listen carefully.

A Member: I shall say this only once!

The Speaker: There are three proposed amendments to the long title and I propose to take 3200 those first as they will influence which amendments fall because they are consequential. They are effectively separate debates and what I shall do is call each Member in turn to move his amendment to the long title and that shall be debated as a separate item. Once we have those three debates settled, we shall proceed with the Bill and what remains of the amendments. The following amendments depend upon the long title amendments being passed by this 3205 House. Firstly, Mr Watterson’s amendment to clause 3, which are numbered 1 and 2, and they are to be found on page 10 of the Order Paper. Those amendments relate to the registration of political parties. Then we have Mr Karran’s amendments, relating to STV. They are on page 34 of the Order 3210 Paper and it is amendment 5 to clause 3 and the heading change, which is his amendment 1 to clause 3. Those two are also consequential on this long title being successful. Then we have Mr Gawne’s amendment to clause 3 on page 32 of the Order Paper, to which amendment 1 also relates to STV. All those amendments, as I say, are dependent on the long title being successful. 3215 What I shall do is call Mr Watterson first to move his amendment, which will be seconded and debated, and the House can then vote on. Then I shall call Mr Gawne to move his amendment to the long title, and then finally, Mr Karran. If the House votes to amend the long title, I shall call the mover to move the relevant dependent amendments, which I have just mentioned to you, formally at the appropriate place. 3220 Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Mr Speaker, just a bit of a clarification really. How can somebody move an amendment when the title has not been moved?

______672 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: The answer to that is that clause 1 moves the short title. That requires to be 3225 moved, but the long title to the Bill is taken as read. When the Bill has been tabled, it is accompanied by the long title. The long title is not voted on separately. The short title is, but not the long title. I hope that deals with that. So we commence debate on the long title and I call on the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson. 3230 Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, in moving my amendment for the long title, I would like to dispel the myth that I am seeking to delay this Bill. (Laughter) I have no doubt that we will be able to debate on four clauses and 15 amendments in the course of a day’s sitting and still have time to move on to the other Bills that we have on the Order Paper today. 3235 The long title is simple in its effect. It seeks to ensure that the Bill can encompass the regulation of political parties and I want to bring openness and transparency into political parties and political donations. I, for one, have never accepted a financial donation to assist my election campaign and I know many others in a similar position. (A Member: Hear, hear.) However, in other jurisdictions 3240 around the world the spotlight has quite rightly been pointed at those who do accept donations, asking where the money has come from so that people can see whether there was any perceived influence behind the scenes. This applies to individuals and parties alike. We saw a prime case in point where Bernie Ecclestone made a donation to the Labour Party, who so happened to have policy of not banning tobacco legislation in Formula One at that time. 3245 If ever there is a case for why this needs to be moved and moved urgently, instead of waiting for further down the line, it is the Douglas East by-election. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) We should send out a message now, loud and clear and early, that what we witnessed on that occasion will not be accepted in Manx politics. More and more civilised countries are enacting legislation to ensure that the funding of 3250 political parties and politics generally is in the public arena. The general absence of party politics for many of us should not mean that we are exempt from that scrutiny. Whether funds are donated to an individual or via a party, there should be a requirement that they are disclosed, and I am keen to see that happen. These amendments are not new. They have been consulted upon and they were drawn up 3255 for the 2011 Bill, which never actually reached clauses stage. I would like to think that all Members could rally behind this principle to ensure that this measure is brought in at the first opportunity and not shoved into the long grass. Mr Speaker, I beg to move:

Amendment to long title Page 2, lines 1 and 2, after ‘with respect to’ insert ‘the registration of political parties, the funding of elections and’.

Mr Cretney: Mr Speaker, I beg to second. 3260 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Can I speak to the –

3265 The Speaker: Yes, indeed. We are in a debate now –

Mr Karran: Separately?

A Member: Yes. 3270

______673 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: – on the long title as moved by Mr Watterson.

Mr Karran: I have no problem with supporting the principle, but I do think it is very worrying that the likes of, on page 15, subclause (3)(1), that the danger you might find is you are going to 3275 make Mec Vannin an illegal organisation for not putting up a candidate for the last 10 years. I think the point is that what this is actually highlighting, Vainstyr Loayreyder, and it has come back to vindicate us who have been here on all of this issues, is the ridiculous situation that we cannot move amendments to sort that out without the support of executive Government’s block vote because we cannot suspend Standing Orders – 3280 Mr Watterson: You do not need to.

Mr Karran: – to do that. I think the principle is that it should be debated. I think Members need to realise there are 3285 implications in some of these things where I do not think the mover has realised what he has done and I think in some cases that will just give credibility to people who refuse to get involved with the political system.

Mr Watterson: Can I just make a point of order, Mr Speaker? 3290 Standing Order 4.8, subparagraph (5) of Standing Orders states that:

‘If approved by the House in principle, a motion that the new clause stand part of the Bill may be made at the same sitting; but if any Member indicates to the Speaker immediately after approval in principle that that Member wishes to propose an amendment to the new clause’

– as you have identified in clause 15 –

‘such a motion shall not be moved before the next but one sitting. Notice of an amendment to the new clause shall then be given in accordance with Standing Order 2.2.’

So the ability is there.

The Speaker: I thank you Hon. Member for debating that, but we are not debating the new 3295 clause. (A Member: No.) It is a debate on the long title (Mr Watterson: Correct.) and therefore that Standing Order does not apply.

Mr Karran: So, I think, Vainstyr Loayreyder, it is important that the Hon. Member gets the opportunity to go through the detail of his proposals, because I think it is important. The danger 3300 will be that people will be saying that it is just filibustering and trying as a fellow three-seat constituency Member who has supported the issue of two-seat constituencies, even if it is very reluctantly, because of the fact of the basic core issue of equality that it is wrong that there should be three, two and one-seat constituencies in this day and age that we do not have STV. But I do feel that it is important that the Member needs to reassure Members that what he is 3305 actually proposing in his proposals will stack up. I think everybody in this House would like to see openness and transparency as far as that is concerned. We would like other organisations, like Masonry and the like, to also be open and transparent as far as their support, which was more likely the biggest political organisation in this House when I actually became a Member of this House, with the concern that the farming lobby was maybe more productive. (Two Members: 3310 Hear, hear.) But, Masonry… More productive, as far as looking after their interests. (Interjections) (A Member: Hear, hear.) So I do agree with him and I do think that the issue of transparency, I think that is very good that individual Members… but I am concerned about some of the contents of some of the proposals that he is proposing for this Bill. 3315

______674 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Anderson.

3320 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like this opportunity to strongly caution Members that by agreeing to any of the three alternative long titles put forward, they will be undermining all the work that has been taking place to this critical point in time. Those seeking to introduce new issues into this Bill, by way of amendments to the long title, 3325 are doing so without prior process. These changes should be properly pursued through the other vehicles that are available and their inclusion into this Bill can only serve to muddy the waters and jeopardise the main purpose of the legislation, which is to achieve equality in voting and representation. The hon. mover of this amendment, Mr Watterson, is well aware from his position as Chair of 3330 the Governance Committee, the Council of Ministers, and also from his position in the Council, that a second detailed Election Bill, which deals amongst all other things with registration of political parties and the funding of election, is being finalised and will be very shortly published for consultation.

3335 Mr Watterson: I did not know it was that…

Mr Anderson: First, the public and other key stakeholders will be provided with the opportunity to put forward their views on these matters ahead of the publication of a draft Bill. I have been pleased to write to Hon. Members on this matter explaining the position and that this 3340 second Bill will deal with a number of key election matters. I would be very surprised if Hon. Members consider it appropriate to seek to force into this Bill matters that have not been subject to an appropriate consultation process, when in contrast the review of the boundaries has been laid by an independent committee and been subject to three years of public consultation and three reports to Tynwald. 3345 A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell.

3350 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to say ‘Hear, hear’ to the previous speaker. (Interjection) All of these amendments, looking through them, some of them are very interesting, but they are just inappropriately placed with this particular Bill, which is not yet before us. The actual Bill, which is going… hopefully we will get to the position where it can be moved, is to redefine the 3355 boundaries, redefine representation across the Island, and that is all that it does. That is all that it does. This business about wanting to get into acknowledge, recognise and regulate political parties is a very dangerous move, unless you want to go towards party politics; but that debate is yet to be had, especially with the public. If they want to go to party politics, then we ought to perhaps 3360 be thinking about paving the way for it, but that question remains unanswered because the people have never been asked. I would reject everything that, unfortunately, all three Members of the House are going to be putting to you today in terms of amendments, and particularly in trying to change the long title of the Bill. I would resist it. 3365 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

______675 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. It is good to know that we are not wasting our time in this debating Chamber then and that 3370 everything is to be rejected without actually having heard the arguments; but that is for the Hon. Member for Douglas East to justify as we go through. We have heard about appropriate consultation taking place. We have also heard about the Governance Committee considering various Bills in relation to elections. I also sit on the Governance Committee, along with my colleague for Rushen and the Hon. Member for Michael, 3375 and the way, or the impression that we have been given is that this Bill apparently is being rushed through because this is very important and we must get this done, and the other one is taking a lot longer and it may be that we do not have enough legislative time to actually get it through before the next election. (A Member: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) That is how it was explained to us in the Governance Committee. Now, whether that is correct or not is perhaps for 3380 others to explain to us, but that is what we were told. So I think the ‘jam tomorrow’ promises from the Hon. Member for Glenfaba are very much not promises that I recognise in relation to my role on that Committee. So I think it really is important that we consider these at this stage. They have been drafted now. They are reasonable. I would say some of them anyway are reasonable amendments, probably most of 3385 them, and please listen to what the movers of the various amendments have to say, because we are all about trying to make this a more effective piece of legislation that works in the interests of fairness and democracy.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. 3390 Mr Singer: I will be brief, Mr Speaker, but the fact is, as was said by Mrs Cannell, it is quite clear I think in most people’s minds, before any of these amendments came forward, that it was important… The due process has gone through as far as the Boundary Commission had come to their conclusions, having fully consulted, and this is coming to us now to approve. 3395 From what was said by the last speaker about it might be any day, any day that… it might be a long time before the second Bill comes forward, Mr Anderson’s letter says quite clearly here, and I take him at his word:

‘I am pleased to say that No. 2 Bill is substantially complete and due to go out for public consultation after Easter…’

I am assuming he means this Easter (Mr Anderson: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) and therefore we are talking about two months’ time, and then I do not really believe that the people who 3400 believe in democracy are prepared to push something through today without the public being able to be consulted. It is only on this one occasion, I think, when they would say that; otherwise, if anybody else in here was trying to do the same thing, they would up on their feet.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. 3405 The Chief Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Members for Rushen on an excellent approach and excellent strategy to destroy the Bill in the first place. (Mr Watterson: Rubbish!) We appreciate how important three seats are to Rushen and we acknowledge the work that they are putting in to protect the status 3410 quo in Rushen. What I would like to do though, Mr Speaker, is just very briefly remind Hon. Members of a couple of facts. First of all, this is not a Council of Ministers’ Bill. This is a Tynwald initiated Bill. The review of the boundaries, when the Commission was set up, was at the behest of Tynwald; it was not at the behest of Council of Ministers. 3415 The Committee has worked over about three years, I think, from start to finish. They brought three reports to Tynwald. They consulted with the public on three occasions and on each of the three occasions the recommendations of that Committee were approved by a substantial ______676 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

majority of Tynwald, and so let us get that straight to begin with. This is not the Council of Ministers railroading business through; it is your Bill. It originated in Tynwald and this is what we 3420 are discussing today. I can confirm everything that Mr Anderson has said in relation to the progress of the other Bills. The Members for Rushen, who are on the Governance Committee, know full well what the programme is.

3425 A Member: They do.

The Chief Minister: If there is any delay in these Bills coming forward, it is in the Governance Committee not moving it fast enough.

3430 Two Members: Rubbish! (Interjection)

The Chief Minister: Council will – (Interjection) The Bill is getting very close to agreement and the Bill will be going out for public consultation in April. As Chief Minister, I can give you that assurance that that work is nearly done now (Interjection) and that Bill will go out for public 3435 consultation. The Members, who are moving the amendments to the long title, are saying, ‘This is not going to delay the Bill. This is only a few minutes discussion and then it will be done.’ If these go through, at the very least it will have to go out to public consultation again to make up for the deficiencies in the preparation of this element of the legislation in the first place. This will delay 3440 the whole progress by months by the time it has finished, and it is no good shaking your head, Mr Watterson. You know perfectly well what the procedures would be. If there were three separate amendments to the long title accepted, there would be extensive consultation necessary, but that is not to say for a moment that we would not support the structure of the Bill in registration of political parties. I think we have probably all got an agreement on that, but 3445 it needs to be done in the proper way. It needs to be out consulting with the people who are directly going to be affected by it. We have been told on the one hand that we have got to promote democracy. This is democracy. (A Member: Yes.) If we bounce something through now without consultation and the political parties or other affected people are not involved in it, how is that improving the 3450 democratic process? Mr Speaker, the individual elements of the amendment which we are talking about are all worthy of discussion, but in their own place and not as part of this Bill. The Bill is absolutely crystal clear: it is to amend the boundaries at the request of Tynwald in time for the next election. It is a very narrowly based Bill. It is a Bill which had the majority in Tynwald to take it to 3455 this stage today. I would urge Hon. Members not to be side-tracked by the smokescreen which has been generated around at present. If you lose sight of this, if you lose sight of the core reason why this Bill is coming through in the first place, you will lose the opportunity, if we are not careful, of having fairness introduced at the next General Election in the guise of equalisation of 3460 representation right across the Island. This is something many of us have argued for, for many, many years. Twelve two-seat constituencies was the decision of Tynwald. They wanted us to move in this direction and that is what the Bill contains. This will bring fairness in time for the next election and there will be a second Bill coming along, probably before the end of this legislative session, if not by the autumn at the latest after the consultation is finished, to cover 3465 all these other issues. I can give you, as Chief Minister, an assurance this Bill is in the pipeline and will be dealt with, but this is not the way to do it. This is a smokescreen. It is a red herring and it is designed to undermine and destroy in fact the two-seat constituency concept. (Interjection)

______677 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

3470 The Speaker: Mr Quirk, Hon. Member for Onchan.

Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just on the particular issue there, I am quite happy for the Members to bring forward these amendments here today and would support the majority of them. What I cannot support is the 3475 mover of this, and I have no animosity against Mr Anderson at all, but when I hear the Chairman of the Committee that did the boundary review that there was substantial consultation that was done over a period of time, it did not have a –

Mr Watterson: Eighteen people in a church hall in Ballabeg. 3480 Two Members: Yes.

Mr Gawne: And that is the best –

3485 Mr Quirk: The ones that were majorly affected, okay, there were certain particular areas, they never even… even when we requested them to have some consultation surrounding greater Douglas in the places where it was going to be affected, they did not listen. They never listened to the people who elected us into this Chamber. They never listened to the Members of this particular side of the bench either, and I was very disappointed on that. 3490 When they first – and I am going over old ground, but I have to repeat it – had a slice of Onchan, they took a massive slice from the whole centre of Onchan there. (Interjection Mr Gawne) (Laughter) They had a public meeting. We had to have that public meeting because they were on the wrong track totally to it, and then we had the second option and they came back in. They still 3495 would not have consultation with the people of Onchan, although certain people did write in, and I am grateful for that. Their views were considered, as far as I am concerned, by the Boundary Review Committee, despite what the Committee says, and the way I was treated when I met them too, you could not discuss any other issues because it was tight perimeters. Well, I am sorry, but here today those tight perimeters do not affect me now. I have an 3500 opportunity as an elected Member here today to exercise my vote. I want to exercise that vote today and support some of my colleagues.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Malew and Santon, Mr Cregeen.

3505 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is quite interesting to see three people on a Governance Committee with different stories coming. (Interjections) I would interested if –

Mr Watterson: No, you have had a consistent story from those who are on the Committee. 3510 Mr Cregeen: Yes, from the Rushen bench, compared to Minister Anderson.

Mr Watterson: He is not on the Committee. (Laughter)

3515 Mr Cregeen: So where is this coming from?

Mr Gawne: He is getting more information than the Committee gets.

Mr Cregeen: So how does Minister Anderson know that this is coming through quickly in the 3520 Governance Committee if he…? It would be very nice of him if he would circulate where he has

______678 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

got his advice from and why the Governance Committee has not got that advice. (A Member: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) We are going on about this burning issue. I do not know how many people have been contacted by members of the public saying that this is a burning issue. (Interjections) I, for one, 3525 have not been contacted by people in Malew and Santon saying, ‘We are underrepresented in this area’ –

Mr Ronan: We have had this argument.

3530 A Member: Some of us haven’t.

Mr Cregeen: – and I really that when we are looking at the registration of political parties, it is something that needs to be brought in because this cuts the [Inaudible] –

3535 Mrs Cannell: Not in this Bill. (Interjections)

Mr Cregeen: – on time. (Mrs Cannell: Dear, dear.) So later on this, like the Member for Rushen said, ‘It is jam tomorrow, but we do not know whether we are going to get it.’

3540 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think really we are losing sight of what the Hon. Chief Minister has said. We had a mandate from Tynwald to go on 12 times two, and I think we should stay on that. 3545 Further, the amendments that we are seeing here are laudable, but they are already on the horizon as it were, and the Chief Minister has given that undertaking. What I want to try and do is to give an equality of arms, if I could just illustrate that by something that happened to me about 12 months ago in another place. We were debating changes to the Financial Services Regulations and it just so happened that 3550 one of the agreed parties happened to live in a three-seat constituency, and so each Member from the three-seat constituency came and lobbied me. As it happened, I was not able to accede to their petitions anyway; but just imagine what would have happened if that person who was aggrieved had lived in the constituency of my two colleagues either side of me. There has to be fairness. There has to be equality of arms (Interjection) and what the Bill as printed is bringing in 3555 is exactly that. I would urge Hon. Members to go and take this first step and then we can move on to the other issues later. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We need to be very careful that we are not going to run into soft sand and then the election will come, the election will go and there will be nothing done. Let us do it and let us do it now, Mr Speaker. 3560 Several Members: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply.

3565 Mr Watterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I think I quite clearly made the point to the Hon. Member for Onchan about the ability in Standing Orders to amend an amendment, so that if this concept is passed in principle and we do get to the detail of it, there is the principle there to amend that. The Hon. Member also talked about Mec Vannin being made illegal by virtue of this. I think 3570 we probably need to work out the difference between what is now a political party and what is now a lobby group. I think that is as much a matter for their own members as it is for the wider populous, which brings me on to the points made by Mr Anderson, who is somewhat boxing at

______679 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

shadows in this. I do not see and recognise some of the comments he made about no prior process as these were consulted upon when they were prepared in 2011. They have been 3575 consulted upon. These were prepared in readiness for that Bill and not –

Mr Anderson: They were not consulted.

Mr Watterson: They were consulted on. 3580 Mr Anderson: They were not.

Mr Watterson: I can assure the Hon. Member that these were consulted upon because I had them drafted, Mr Anderson. (Interjections) 3585 Mr Speaker, the other points that were made by Mr Anderson were with regard to my role on the Governance Committee, and it is because of that role on the Governance Committee that I have seen the significant amount of work that has gone into the No. 2 Bill, which will be an omnibus Bill, which will have huge amounts of provisions in it. I will be amazed if that makes it back just by 2016 and that is why I have picked out, to me, one issue that I think is absolutely 3590 urgent and critical now and is the subject for the long title debate that we are having now (Interjection) and that to me is the critical point. I am not trying to move all of these things and throw lots of provisions into a Bill. I am picking the single provision that I think is most key and I have explained the reasons why and why I seek the support of Hon. Members for the long title change. 3595 Picking up on Mrs Cannell’s point, party politics is here, Mrs Cannell. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It now needs governing properly and that to me is critical (Interjection) and we saw the failings of that lack of governance in the East Douglas by-election; however, I am sorry if she does not appreciate my amendment. So I suppose if it has got to go, it has got to go. Well, I disagree. Mr Singer talked about the No. 2 Bill being out to consultation after Easter. That was news to 3600 me when I read it in Mr Anderson’s letter, which again is somewhat surprising when I am the Chairman of the Committee that is supposed to be assisting with the preparation of that Bill.

Mrs Cannell: Well, that says a lot.

3605 Mr Watterson: I reiterate the point that it has been consulted upon. The point that Mr Anderson raised, the fact that it will be out to consultation after Easter, has not come before the Council of Ministers, it has not come to the Governance Committee and no draft Bill has come to the Governance Committee. Which brings me on to the point from the other Member for Ramsey, and I would plead the 3610 case that for those standing at the next election, funding political parties and campaigns is going to be vital. We saw what happened in Douglas East with the by-election and I do not want to see that happen again. I think it sullies Manx politics. (Interjection) I am concerned that the Governance Committee considered the issues around a lot of the points here, months and months and months ago, and the points we were consulted upon, and 3615 suddenly it is going to appear in the legislative programme, without it even having, as far as I was last aware, been drafted. So I am now a bit concerned that as Chairman of the Committee things are being kept from me; but that is something I suppose I will pick up outside the Chamber. Bringing back to the principle, Mr Speaker, this is about the funding of elections for 3620 candidates and for political parties. I think it is a critical issue. I think it is something that absolutely needs addressing by 2016. It needs to be done at the earliest possible opportunity. The amendments I drafted were consulted upon and drafted in readiness for the 2011 Bill, which never actually reached clauses stage. It was done at that point, not subsequently. So it has

______680 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

not been consulted upon in the last two years... has not been consulted on again, should I say, 3625 but it has been out to public consultation. The issue, I believe, is important. It is critical. I want to send out a message that this is going to happen in time for the next election and that is why it needs to go into this Bill, rather than to an omnibus Representation of the People Act, which is going to have an awful lot of provisions and is possibly going to be a whole new Election Bill, rather than changes to the Representation 3630 of the People Bill – it was that big. So I want to make sure that these provisions have the opportunity of going in at the earliest possible opportunity, and effectively by voting down the long title, you will be kicking this particular issue into the long grass.

Two Members: Rubbish! 3635 Mrs Cannell: And you with it hopefully.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I am going to put to the vote the motion in the name of Mr Watterson, to amend the long title, as set out at the top of page 10 in respect of the registration 3640 of political parties’ funding of the elections. Those in favour of the amendment to the long title, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cregeen Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Singer Mr Cretney Mr Quayle Mr Watterson Mr Teare Mr Skelly Mr Cannan Mr Gawne Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas The Speaker

The Speaker: With 9 votes for, 13 votes against (Interjections and laughter) the motion therefore fails to carry. 3645 As indicated, I am now going to take the amendment to the long title in the name of the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Before dispersions are cast, if I fail to improve this Bill with my amendments, I will be 3650 supporting all the clauses of the Bill. (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) I will be supporting – it is 12 two- seats, isn’t it? – and so please stop questioning my motivations. If I could just refer Hon. Members to page 3, line 1:

‘The Electoral Commission must consider such matter relating to elections as a resolution of Tynwald directs.’

3655 And then line 6:

‘The Electoral Commission must issue such other reports to Tynwald as a resolution of Tynwald directs.’

______681 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Now that, to my mind, can include things which are not directly connected to the number of boundaries and constituencies for elections to the House of Keys and so my amendment merely 3660 asks for the insertion of ‘the functions of an Electoral Commission and’ to be added. That actually allows the Bill to do what it is currently drafted to do, so the amendment is there to assist the mover in actually delivering the purpose of his Bill. No doubt I will be accused of trying to undermine the delicate process by trying to assist him in making sure that the Bill actually does what it says it is supposed to do and if that is the case, well, so be it. 3665 But my amendment allows the Bill to actually do what it says it is going to do. My concern with the current long title is that it does not allow the Bill to do everything. The Electoral Commission that is referred to… certainly some aspects of the work of the Electoral Commission is in relation to boundaries, but not all of it. So my amendment basically alters the long title to read, ‘A Bill to amend further the Representation of the People Act 1995 with respect to the 3670 functions of an Electoral Commission and the number and boundaries of the constituencies for elections to the House of Keys and their review and for connected purposes.’ This is a helpful amendment, which clarifies what the Bill’s purpose is and I beg to move:

Amendment to long title Page 2, line 2, after ‘with respect to’ insert ‘the functions of an Electoral Commission and’.

A Member: Vote! 3675 The Speaker: A seconder?

Mr Karran: I will second and reserve my remarks.

3680 The Speaker: I put the question to the vote. All those in favour of the amendment to the long title in the name of Mr Gawne, on page 31, the Functions of the Electoral Commission, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cregeen Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Singer Mr Watterson Mr Quayle Mr Skelly Mr Teare Mr Gawne Mr Cannan The Speaker Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney

The Speaker: With 9 votes for, 13 votes against, the motion therefore fails to carry. 3685 We turn now to the third of the amendments to the long title, that of Mr Karran, Hon. Member.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the reason I bring this about is not to sabotage the Bill, but it is to give the opportunity as far as whether we should go back to the system that we had in the 3690 1986 election. This is directly taken from the original legislation.

______682 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Personally speaking, I do support STV. I believe that it is a far more effective democratic process. We have only got to look in this constituency, where I think it was one Member got elected with something like 70% or 67% of people voting against him, than voting for him, to get elected, and that cannot be democracy (Mr Gawne: Hear, hear.) as far as that is concerned. 3695 My only hope is that with the other amendments, as far as whether it is two, three or four- seat constituencies, that Hon. Members will support the principle that I do believe we should have STV reintroduced. I know it was not popular with a lot of people, but it is about what is right and what is wrong and just in this House, like I have been with the likes of Chief Minister when we were battling for Human Rights or all these other issues, sometimes you have got to 3700 say what needs to be said because it does undermine the whole democratic process when you can find that three-quarters of the people voted against the candidate who got elected. All this does is give you the opportunity if any of the other amendments… I really think it is important, Hon. Members, if we do go for two, three or four-seat constituencies, I actually believe that STV is a far better, far more democratic way of dealing with the voting procedures. 3705 It does not affect the principle of the Bill. It does not affect whether you have two seats, three seats, four seats or one seat of 24. In fact, if it is a seat of 24, it is vital that this type of election takes place. It is also in my opinion important, as far as a Member that was the original Member for the ancient sheading of Middle, the situation was that we went from Santon Gorge to Sulby 3710 Reservoir. Now, I know I first got elected on the green vote, the left vote and the anti-Onchan vote by the fact that I was the only candidate who bothered going to the extremities of the constituencies. So the issue was that for the likes of Santon, under a three-seat constituency, it had a polling area of 300 votes, South Braddan had a polling area of about 250 to 280 votes and I think Braddan itself had an area of somewhere in the region of something like 1,500 votes. The 3715 other 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 votes came from Onchan, in Onchan parish. So consequently, if we are going for multi-seat constituencies, the fact is that you could do in a week Santon parish, and in a week you could do 1,000 or 1,500 votes in the polling district of Ballachurry or Birch Hill or the likes. I think that it is important in multi-seat constituencies that there is a representation of the whole of the constituency and I believe, even in a two-seat 3720 constituency, particularly in the Michael/Ayre situation where who is going to go to South Patrick or North German or wherever, when you would just stay in Peel town because you get far more? This is why the issue of STV is much more fair and it does stop the situation where you end up with somebody having more votes cast against them to get elected to this House than cast for them and getting them elected on the basis of the fact that more people voted against 3725 them. At least the proportionality of the way that STV works would mean that the transfer value, if someone got 50 votes, then half the transfer value would go to the next candidates to make sure that they have got a legitimate mandate from the people. Hon. Members, I know, as I am in a three-seat constituency, that the principle is that 3730 obviously I do not want to lose Howstrake in Onchan. I totally do not want to lose that because it is a very important part of my constituency, but I have actually supported 12 two-seat constituencies because it is our party policy of equality as far as representation throughout the Island. The other issue that needs to be addressed is that if there was STV, then there would be 3735 more legitimacy for different multi-seat constituencies because then you would still have the same situation. Hon. Members, I hope that you do support the long title be amended because it will give you flexibility to discuss, especially the issues of Minister Watterson’s proposals, as far as his boundary changes and his 24-seat one-seat constituency, and Minister Gawne’s proposals. I 3740 must say that I was very pleased to see the points from the Member for Ramsey in the previous debate about fairness.

______683 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

I just hope that Hon. Members will support this proposal because it will actually give you flexibility when you discuss the other issues, if we are going to have a sensible debate in here about the numbers that should be in each constituency. 3745 I do hope someone will support me. I beg to move:

Amendment to long title Page 2, line 3 after ‘review’ insert ‘and to introduce a system of electing members of the Keys by means of voting system involving a single transferable vote’.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

3750 Mrs Beecroft: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. 3755 Well, I certainly will be supporting the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. The vast majority of us in here are in here without the majority support of our constituents – that is a fact. Under STV, none of us could be in here without the majority support of our constituents and I think that is really quite an important point. It is really a very important point in fact in terms of democracy. 3760 We know that we have a disillusioned electorate; this is not something new. It is not as though it has happened in the last few years, it has been happening for probably the last… I was going to say the last 10 years since I have been elected, but probably it has been going on for a lot longer than that and we need to find ways in which we can connect the public back to the political process, and I think that STV certainly will assist with that because people will only be 3765 elected into this House with the majority support from their constituents. That is a very positive move. This is the right Bill to insert this in. We have the people… ‘I have got my eyes covered. I have got my ears covered. I am not listening, not looking and not interested in what anyone has got to say’, and that is fine if that is their approach. I think we have already rejected an amendment which was intended to actually improve the Bill. 3770 I hope that we do not just stick with this rather unfortunate pattern which appears to have been emerging. But certainly, this is a very positive move. It means that we will have a more democratic system and perhaps we will encourage the public to take more interest in politics as a result.

3775 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very sympathetic to the argument the Hon. Member for Onchan has made, but I would re-emphasise that this is not the vehicle for his particular STV ambition. I would be very 3780 supportive of that if he brought it forward and it is good to hear the Member on the Governance Committee listening to that and supporting it. Maybe, then, it would be good if Mr Karran would refer this to the Governance Committee to include in the No. 2 Bill (Interjection) but by attempting to put it into here today, we are running the risk of not delivering any change at all and it is muddying the waters. I am sympathetic to 3785 STV voting, personally, but I caution Hon. Members of making any changes to the long title of this Bill because it will inevitably muddy the waters. There is another vehicle coming. We have a date. We have been given April. The Chief Minister has given his reassurance that that Bill will come forward and that is the vehicle to do it in. This is not the vehicle to do it in.

3790 A Member: A miracle worker.

______684 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker, Minister Anderson, that this is not the right vehicle, but 3795 there is another side to the first past the post or not vote, because when it is first past the post then someone puts a cross against somebody they want to see elected. If there are two seats, they can put one cross or two crosses against the people they want to see elected. This STV system means that you have to indicate a preference for somebody who there is no way you want to see elected, but it may well be that that number you put actually gets that person 3800 elected. So that is not fairness. That is not fairness, forcing somebody to put the numbers on, because if you do not put all the numbers on – one, two three, four, if there are four candidates – it means that your vote is invalid and that cannot be right. So in fact you are being disenfranchised because you do not wish to see somebody elected anyway at all. So, as I say, that is not fairness, having STV, and that could also be looked at as bringing 3805 forward a disillusioned electorate because you are making them do something that they do not wish to do.

The Speaker: Mrs Cannell.

3810 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would echo the comments made by the previous speaker, Mr Singer. Mr Karran, when moving the principle of this change in the long title, said, ‘I want to bring back in the 1986 system’. Well, in fact STV was still in place in 1991, because that was the very first time I stood for election to the House of Keys (Interjection) and it was an absolute 3815 nightmare – absolute nightmare. In Douglas East, you had the two sitting Members and you had, I think it was, four or five of us who challenged them. Most returning officers did not understand the mathematical equations which had to be made, it was – (Interjection) I can only speak of the one that I was involved in. The Members, who were representing their various candidates, had to keep 3820 correcting the mathematical equation and we were there for hours. The reason why it was thrown out… and I covered the debates. I was not a Member of the House of Keys. I was a member of the public in the gallery and I covered the debates in this place as to why we should get rid of the single transferable vote and go back to the first-past-the-post system, and it was primarily because the public did not like STV. They did not like it. Yes, they did not understand it, 3825 but neither did a majority of returning officers which did not help, but they did not like it. They did not trust it and, as Mr Singer has said, if they go out and cast their vote for one, two or three, and if it is a two-seat constituency they will put their cross against two names where they are prepared to give them a 100% vote. They do not want then what is left being distributed by what is left in the equation. They take exception to their vote or part of their vote being used to 3830 add to someone else’s possible success in getting in. They do not trust it and that is why we have removed it. At the moment there is no complaint by the public of the voting system. There is complaint about the selection of candidates and they would like and crave more choice, but we cannot really do an awful lot about that except try and encourage more people to come forward and 3835 perhaps make our working practices more amenable than in a modern society. (Interjection) But they did not like it and so we got out of it. What I would say to Hon. Members – and it is not a case of speaking to a closed mind or a predetermined position on this – is that yes, I have a predetermined position on this. I know what I support in electoral reform and I know what I do not, but it is not merely because I have 3840 made the judgment, it is through experience. What I would say, with the three Hon. Members, is why not come forward in a Private Member’s Bill? If you have no confidence in Bill No. 2 coming forward, which is going to provide

______685 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

all of the particulars and details going forward in time for 2016, why not come to the House then and ask for leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill if you have all of this stuff marshalled 3845 already? I am sure Hon. Members will give you the benefit of doubt and give you permission, which is customary, to introduce a Bill and then let us get into the meat of it, rather than wait and then ridicule those who are going to come forward with a second Bill, which is going to contain more of the detail which for is craved for today. Again, I would say stick with Bill. It is to deal with the boundaries and that is all it is and that is 3850 all we are here to do today on this Bill.

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3855 Of course, I will be supporting Mr Karran’s amendment because I believe that STV is fairer, and that is it in a nutshell. I actually think that if returning officers have a problem in understanding it, then they should be better trained; but that is no reason for not voting for something. If it is going to give you a fairer result, you make sure that you train the returning officers better so that they are appropriately equipped to deal with it correctly. I do not know 3860 that the public are against it. Maybe they were, but I am not so sure that they are now. I think the public are becoming very much more politically aware and I think the public would like a say in it. I am disappointed that the amendments that would have prevented something like Douglas East are not even going to be debated today, because I do worry about the second Bill and that 3865 it is not going to be through in time.

A Member: What rubbish!

Mrs Beecroft: I was a candidate in Douglas East, so I speak from first-hand experience about 3870 how horrible it was. I would hate to see a repetition of anything like that again and that would have cleared that up, and the same with the rules for political parties and/or other candidates. There is enough besmirching of Liberal Vannin and aspersions cast about our funding etc, etc, that I would have welcomed rules that everybody had to stick to so that everything was out in the open and there could not be any of this; but that has failed and so, as they say, we are 3875 where we are. I hope it is in Bill No. 2, but I do hope that it is time for the next General Election because I really would hate to see a repeat of that. (A Member: Hear, hear.) But, basically, I will be supporting Mr Karran with his amendment about STV because I think it is fair, and that is it in a nutshell.

3880 The Speaker: Mr Karran to reply.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, it is not about muddying the waters. I have to say in the particular mover’s this Bill, who is going to bother canvassing North German, South Patrick or wherever in the constituency of Peel and Glenfaba? That is the problem we are going to have, 3885 the fact that you are simply going to disenfranchise the more sparse areas under this proposal. That is what happened in the old Middle sheading and that was one of the reasons why it was right to bring about the boundary changes, even though effectively I think it was original seat with a majority of six that ended up being cut into about seven different areas with bits going to South Douglas and everywhere else, and North Douglas, West Douglas… Malew with Santon and 3890 whatever. I just feel that the issue of STV that it will make a… because you are going to find that you have got something like a quarter of the land mass to become the new Ayre and Michael constituencies –

______686 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

3895 A Member: A third.

Mr Anderson: It is shrinking. (Laughter)

Mr Gawne: It is shrinking on one side. 3900 Mr Karran: It may be the case, but the point is again, under this system where you have got multi-seat constituencies, it makes it even more important for STV. I do feel that if we are to give credence to the proposals for 24 one-seat constituencies, eight three-seat constituencies or four six-seat constituencies, this is an important issue. 3905 I agree with the Hon. Member and unfortunately you are right that they have gone for the 1986 arrangement with the legal draftsman and not the 1991. By the time 1991 had come in, the provision of plump voting had been resolved and that is an issue which is a complete red herring as far as this House is concerned, because that can be sorted out quite easily by the Members as far as that is to allow the plumping if Members want that to happen. 3910 But I do feel that it is alright in urban areas to have first past the post, but in the likes of the Hon. Member for Glenfaba’s area, basically he has disenfranchised his constituents from being represented because they will not bother and they will just go to Peel. (Interjection) It is alright the Hon. Member for Peel saying that, but the reality is as a Member who had a three-seat constituency and had Santon, I had the thing of old George Curphey, a resident of Port 3915 Grenaugh, asking me, ‘Are you a canvasser? I have not seen one since 1948’. (Laughter and interjection) He was not an isolated case and that is why I think the STV is an important thing and I hope Hon. Members will support it. The issue of the plump proposal is an issue that may be… as I say, that needs to be looked at. To be fair, the legal draftsman department is very busy and obviously maybe we need to make it 3920 so we get better priority for serving backbenchers as far as these issues are concerned. But I do feel, Hon. Members, that this is not about muddying the waters. This is about making sure that the people in South Patrick and in North German and the people in the sparse areas of Ayre will actually have input, because unfortunately if you do this and you end up with what you have got… even in your own constituency, Vainstyr Loayreyder, basically the power houses will 3925 be Howstrake polling area and Laxey will be the king maker for the new constituency of Garff and they will not need to go to South Lonan, North Lonan or anywhere else, or Onchan Parish, because there will be no point. You want to go where the votes are and where you can… So I do hope Hon. Members (Interjection) will consider supporting the issue of extending the long title of the Bill. 3930 The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that the long title be amended, as moved by Mr Karran. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Watterson Mr Anderson Mr Gawne Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell

______687 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Skelly The Speaker

The Speaker: With 5 votes for, 17 votes against, the motion therefore fails to carry. Now having dealt with the long title, we move to the Bill as printed with its original long title 3935 and the clauses stage. I call Mr Anderson to move clause 1.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 1 provides the short title of the Bill. 3940 I beg to move that clause 1 do stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: I am happy to second and reserve my remarks. 3945 The Speaker: I put the question that clause 1 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2: before I call Mr Anderson, there are two amendments to be moved to this clause, by Mr Gawne and Mr Watterson. If Mr Gawne’s amendment succeeds, Mr Watterson’s falls as it 3950 has been replaced by Mr Gawne’s. I shall put the question of Mr Gawne’s first at the end of the debate on the clause. I call Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3955 Clause 2 provides that the Act will come into force so as to apply to the General Election of the Keys in 2016 and every election thereafter. This gives effect to the recommendation of the Boundary Review Committee, which was approved by Tynwald in June 2013. It ensures that there is a target date for these changes to be implemented providing a certainty for the electorate, for Members and for potential candidates, which is so important. 3960 I beg to move that clause 2 do stand part of the Bill.

Mr Singer: I beg to second.

The Speaker: Mr Singer seconding. 3965 I call Mr Gawne.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. My amendment basically allows the public to know what is going on in relation to what we are about here. 3970 We have heard about the reports that have come back. We have had three reports, according to the Chief Minister and the Member for Ramsey on this topic. All three, I think we all had to acknowledge, were relatively lightweight reports. We have heard about the extensive consultation; indeed, I heard the Chairman of the Committee this morning saying that she had been to all four parts of the Island to have the consultation. Well, actually, there are more than 3975 four parts. We are already in this Bill dividing the Island into 12 parts. Then we look at the actual consultation that took place in the four parts of the Island. I think the best attended meeting was in Rushen, at which there was full support for continuing with what we have already got, (Laughter) I should say.

______688 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

3980 A Member: From all three of them. (Interjections)

Mr Gawne: So we have ignored the views of the people there. Again, if you actually look through the reports, there were very, very mixed views in all the reports on all occasions. What we have done in Tynwald is taken a political decision and so let us 3985 now get ourselves hung-up on this idea that in some way we have been fulsome and we have engaged with the public and everyone knows what is going on, because they do not. So what this would require – and I think it is the least we should be doing – is that we would let everybody know, who is affected, and that is every voter on the Isle of Man, what exactly it is that we are doing, and that is all this clause is really requiring. If, having let everybody know 3990 what we are doing, the response back from the populace is actually we do not really like what you are doing, then we have to come back with some form of response. The response can be similar to the response that I have had to my long title and my colleagues have had to theirs, which is that actually we do not really care what you say and we are going to do this anyway. That is all this clause requires, that we actually make sure that everybody affected knows 3995 what is going to happen, and they do not at the moment. Anyone sitting in this Hon. House who believes that their constituents know what is happening, I think would be deluding themselves. I beg to move:

Substitution of clause 2 Page 2, lines 7 to 9 for clause 2 substitute — ‘2 Commencement, application and amendment This Act, other than section 1 and this section, comes into operation on such day as the Governor in Council may by order appoint. But an order under subsection (1) may not provide for the application of this Act to an election to the Keys before the general election to that House in 2016. Before making an order under subsection (1) the Governor in Council must — (a) take such steps as appears to the Governor in Council to be appropriate — (i) to publish the order in draft, together with an explanation of its effect; (ii) to consult every person who would be affected by the commencement of the provisions proposed to be commenced by the order; (iii) to consider any representations made by those consulted; and (b) decide whether it is appropriate in the light of those representations to amend this Act. If the Governor in Council decides it is appropriate to amend this Act, the Governor in Council may by order amend it (including this section) so far as appears to the Governor in Council to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the representations made under subsection (3). An order under subsection (4) must not come into operation unless it is approved by Tynwald. If section 3(2) has not come into operation before the general election of the Keys in 2016 — (a) the reference in section 4(1)(b) to that general election is to be construed as a reference to the general election following the coming into operation of section 3(2); and (b) the reference in the substituted section 11(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1995 to the general election of 2021 is to be construed as a reference to the second general election following the coming into operation of that substituted section.’

The Speaker: Mr Skelly. 4000 Mr Skelly: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I now call on Mr Watterson.

4005 Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, we have heard in the Budget debate that we are undertaking a period of significant social change.

______689 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Our taxes are changing, our structure is changing and on top of all this our boundaries are changing and our electorates, with whom we have this contract, are also changing. It will be hard for those with increased areas to build the relationships when they need to be focused on 4010 the task at hand in this administration. This is less of an issue for continuing two-seat or shrinking three-seat constituencies where many of the electorates will already be known to us. I am therefore proposing that the effect of this legislation only commence on the 2021 Election, giving Members the opportunity of fighting the next Election on the same boundaries as those which were fought last time. 4015 I beg to move that my amendment to clause 2 stand part of the Bill:

Amendment to clause 2 Page 2, line 8, for ‘2016’, substitute ‘2021’.

The Speaker: Mr Quirk.

4020 Mr Quirk: Mr Speaker, I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: With clause and amendments having been moved, we will now open for debate. Mr Karran. 4025 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder. As much as it would be very nice to be of a pensionable age when these proposals come in in 2021, (Laughter) I think that it would be wrong for us to support that proposal. (A Member: Hear, hear.) 4030 I think that the Hon. Member for Rushen has got a point. I think that there are concerns about the issue as far as consultation is concerned and I am very sympathetic towards that and supporting that proposal; but on the other one, as far as 2021 is concerned, whilst it would be nice, I am afraid I think it would be wrong. We do need to address the issue of boundary changes. It is absurd that we have the situation 4035 where we can end up with a situation of Glenfaba, having 1,500 votes, having the same representation as –

Mr Anderson: Two thousand. (Interjection)

4040 Mr Gawne: As many as that? (Interjections) Is that including the cows?

Mr Karran: – and when you have Middle it has 1,000 or so more.

Mr Quayle: Double. More than double. 4045 A Member: More than double.

Mr Karran: The point is, Vainstyr Loayreyder, we had that situation in 1986 where we had Doolish Twoaie, Douglas North, with 1,000 more voters only having one seat and Ayre having 4050 two seats, with 1,000 less voters but two Members of this Hon. House. I do feel that Mr Gawne’s issue is worthy of investigation and I will be supporting it.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Bell.

4055 The Chief Minister: I should suggest, Mr Speaker, that Members ought to be very wary of supporting just minor little amendments, as suggested by Mr Gawne.

______690 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

In some respects, I would support the previous speaker in relation to the actual start date on this. It should be the next Election. It is ridiculous to knock it on to 2021. (Mr Anderson: Nice try.) 4060 The minor little amendment that intrigues me is subclause (3)(ii):

‘… the Governor in Council must – (ii)… consult every person who would be affected by the commencement of the provisions proposed to be commenced by the order;’

– and then –

‘(iii) to consider any representations made by those consulted;’. 4065 What he is asking for, in effect, is a referendum.

Mr Gawne: No, a letter. That is what I am asking for.

4070 Mrs Cannell: No. (Interjections)

The Chief Minister: Nonsense!

Mrs Cannell: It is a referendum in everything but name. 4075 Mr Gawne: If I wanted a referendum, I would have said ‘a referendum’.

The Chief Minister: Government, whatever form at the time, will have a responsibility to tell the electorate what the new boundary changes are. That is going to happen; it is a given. It does 4080 not need legislation for that. What you are saying here goes way beyond simply telling the electorate that the boundaries have changed. This is a further round of consultation with ‘every person who would be affected’. That is what the clause says. We have to then consider the feedback we get from that consultation. (Interjection by Mr 4085 Gawne) It is a referendum. There is no other way of looking at it. If we are going to consult with every person it might not be referendum in name but it is certainly going to be referendum in reality; and is this what we want? What we are asking for is equality in representation across the Island – 12 two-seat constituencies. What is being proposed here is immediately before the next Election we then 4090 sabotage our own agreement today by saying we are going to have a referendum on it and we will listen to the outcome of the people before we bring in the new arrangement. This, Hon. Members, is yet another example of a smokescreen trying to muddy the… well, not muddy the waters but to confuse the situation and I would urge Hon. Members to see this move for what it is. It is not a minor little amendment. It is a major attempt to sabotage the Bill. Please 4095 vote against it.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member, Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Yes, Mr Speaker. Just speaking to one of the amendments, if that is okay? (The 4100 Speaker: Indeed, yes.) Rather than replying. (The Speaker: Yes, indeed.) I am not going to speak to the amendment from Mr Watterson. I think it has been already put where it is deserved, from what Hon. Members have said. In relation to comments made by Mr Gawne… and I must put on record what a good job I think the Boundary Commission did. It was very extensive. It was not just public meetings 4105 around the Island; it was covered on the radio, media and the press throughout, and they did

______691 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

their job, I think, very diligently and they came back to us three times to make sure that the principles they were establishing were in tune with Tynwald’s wishes. There is always going to be a minority that has a different view, but I think they did their job with diligence. By the way, there was a political Member on that Commission as well and there was on the 4110 previous one. I think one of the amendments later on suggests that should be written into statute. So they had a political view as well from previous Members. Mr Gawne proposes an amendment that it should not apply to a general election to the House of Keys before the General Election in 2016. There has never been any intention for these provisions to apply before 2016 and this is already set out in the Bill, in this clause. 4115 I will just build on the point the Chief Minister made. Mr Gawne seeks to delay the coming into effect of the Act until the Governor in Council has taken appropriate steps ‘to consult every person’ – every person – affected by the provisions and are considered as representations and then decide whether to amend the Act, and any amendment, by order, must be approved by Tynwald. 4120 We have consulted to death on what is within this Bill –

Mr Gawne and Mr Quirk: No, you haven’t.

Mr Anderson: – and we have come back and Tynwald has made the decision. It is not what 4125 everybody wants but there is common ground here. It represents proportional representation for the first time in centuries and I beg that you just reject this amendment.

The Speaker: Mr Quirk.

4130 Mr Quirk: Mr Speaker, I am drawn to my feet again by my colleague from over the border, Mr Anderson, when he has indicated to the House there that representation was given and views were taken on board. I have to say to him once again that the first time around it may have done but then the Boundary Commission changed their mind. They changed their mind on a particular area, 4135 including the one for Onchan that we represent there – they did something wholly different; which gives validation to Mr Gawne’s thing – that those who are affected should be notified. If we do not get nothing out of today, I hope that the Member moving this will give me the definitive map of the area because even in The Butt, one particular house sits in the road but because it is at the end the line was drawn the wrong way. So that particular house finds itself 4140 not in Onchan anymore; it is in a new constituency. The rest of the neighbours are in Onchan. So where was that person consulted with? I think – to this particular house – why not give the opportunity to the Members there? Okay, Mr Watterson may be taking it into the long grass a little bit, (Laughter) (The Chief Minister: A little?) (Mr Anderson: Five years.) but I have to give all three of them the opportunity to say at least we debated the issue here today in this 4145 particular (Mr Watterson: Hear, hear.) parliament and give those people the opportunity, where I do not think the Boundary Review Commission actually did give that opportunity to the second slice they took out of Onchan when they got the first slice wrong.

The Speaker: Mr Watterson to reply to the debate. 4150 Mr Gawne to reply.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. Am I allowed to speak to Mr Watterson's amendment?

4155 The Speaker: You are indeed. I thought we had reached the stage where I was inviting the movers of the (Mr Gawne: Yes, well I – ) amendments to reply but if that is not the case you may speak to the debate.

______692 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Watterson: A two for one offer.

4160 Mr Gawne: It was only to say that I simply will not be supporting it because I do think we need to get the fairness in as soon as possible. (The Chief Minister: Hear, hear.) So if I now reply –

The Speaker: If you wish to speak to the amendment of Mr Watterson – 4165 Mr Gawne: I just have.

Mr Anderson: That is it. (Laughter)

4170 A Member: That was it.

The Speaker: Thank you. In that case, Mr Anderson to reply.

4175 Mr Gawne: Sorry, can I not reply to my own amendment?

The Speaker: I thought you had.

Mr Gawne: No. (Laughter) Mr Watterson’s amendment. 4180 The Speaker: Let’s get on with it, and if you would please reply to the debate, as mover of the amendment.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. 4185 I also believe that the Boundary Review Committee did an excellent job, but (A Member: But.) let's not have any doubt cast because the Hon. Member for Ramsey and the Hon. Member for Glenfaba have been fantastic in terms of the smoke screens that they have constructed during this debate. We have never gone out to the public with the provisions (A Member: Hear, hear.) that are in this Bill. We have not and yet we have defeated all the ‘We cannot possibly 4190 support this because we have not been out to the public with that.’ We have not been out to the public with this! The public do not know what is in this Bill and what I am suggesting is that we write a letter to the public and say, ‘This is what is in this Bill.’ That is all I am asking. People can then have a reply slip and (Interjections) if we find there is an overwhelming objection to this, then perhaps 4195 we can reconsider. That is all my clause suggests; (Mr Quirk: Democracy.) that we ask the public what they think and we inform them what we are doing to their election process. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to do and the Boundary Commission has not done that. The Boundary Commission has consulted on a wide range of options but it has not consulted on the final version. It has not explained to the public what we are about today (Mr 4200 Quirk: Why?) and I think… Democracy is really rather important to me and I think… well, I know it is to everybody else in here; and I really do think that we should allow the public the opportunity to know what we are about to do to our constitution.

Mr Singer: Filibustering. Aren’t we elected to make decisions? 4205 Mr Gawne: Allowing the public to know what is about to happen to the constitution is filibustering. Sending a letter out to every person in the Isle of Man explaining what is about to happen to the constitution is filibustering. Asking the public what they think is filibustering. Well, we have heard it all, haven’t we? (Interjections)

______693 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

4210 In relation to Mr Quirk’s little issue with The Butt, I think we probably have a similar issue in Arbory and Rushen. There is a house at the top of Beaton’s Lane, which is on the boundary between Arbory and Rushen: half the house is in Rushen, half the house is in Arbory. So presumably it depends on the day that the election roll is finalised as to whether they are in the kitchen or the living room… as to which constituency they are supposed to vote in. It would be 4215 interesting to know how that particular issue is being resolved. Thus far we do not know and it would be helpful to know. Nobody has been consulted on this; nobody knows what is happening. All I am asking is that we send a letter out to our constituents and let them know what we are doing to our constitution – the biggest change to the boundaries in centuries. (Mr Anderson: 1985.) Bizarrely, 4220 we heard from the Hon. Member for Glenfaba that this is ‘proportional representation for the first time in centuries’ and only a few moments ago he voted against proportional representation. This is not proportional representation; it is a more proportional way of dividing up constituencies. I am amazed if Members are honestly going to turn around and say, ‘We should not let the 4225 public know what we are about with this massive change to our constitution.’ I beg to move.

The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply, Mr Anderson.

4230 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I found it quite interesting, the way the hon. mover of the last amendment has phrased it – that we have not consulted enough – and yet here we have all these amendments from the Hon. Members for Rushen that have not been consulted on at all! What we have in front of us is something that has been out in the public domain – 4235 A Member: It has not!

Mr Anderson: – now for nearly two years. We have asked an independent group of people to look at it; they have come back; they have given us their recommendations, having consulted… 4240 and whether people go to a public meeting or not is up to them. It has been in the press. It has been widely reported. At the end of the day, we have been elected to make the decisions on the basis of the information we have been given. I honestly think that the Hon. Member for Rushen ‘protesteth too much’. (Laughter) We are here to make decisions and we have the information, based on 4245 widespread consultation. Let's get on with what is in the Bill and leave everything else to Bill No. 2. I have always said – and the Chief Minister has given his assurance – that we will have Bill No. 2 in this parliamentary –

4250 Mr Gawne: But what consultation on this?

Mr Anderson: – this parliamentary year. You have that reassurance and I think Hon. Members realise by now what is going on on the Rushen bench. (Interjection by Mr Gawne) I ask you to support clause 2. I beg to move. 4255 The Speaker: Hon. Members, in respect of clause 2, I put first the amendment of Mr Gawne. Those in favour of the amendment, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

______694 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cregeen Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Singer Mr Watterson Mr Quayle Mr Skelly Mr Teare Mr Gawne Mr Cannan Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 8 votes for, 14 against. The amendment therefore fails to carry. 4260 I put the amendment by Mr Watterson. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Karran Mr Henderson Mr Ronan Mr Watterson Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 3 votes for, 19 against. That amendment fails to carry. I put clause 2 as moved. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The 4265 ayes have it. Clause 3 requires some explanation. (Laughter) (Mr Watterson: Hear, hear!) How I propose to deal with this is, first of all, I have had representations from Mr Gawne that his amendment, at the bottom of page 32, to clause 3… he would like to suspend Standing Orders to enable him to move the amendment in a different form. I will not call him to do so just now. I will call him at 4270 the start of the debate on clause 3. So we will get that matter disposed of and Mr Gawne can explain his case for that. Mr Gawne’s amendment 2 on page 32 is a stand-alone amendment, and if he moves it, I wish to put that first, at the end of the debate on this clause. The same applies to Mr Karran, on page 34, there is a stand-alone amendment number 4. I 4275 will put that at the end of the debate on the clause, as a separate… There are a number of amendments from Mr Watterson, Mr Gawne and Mr Karran that are effectively alternative amendments in relation to the number of constituencies and how many

______695 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Members may represent them. I shall call each of the three Members to move all of their amendments to this clause, but allow debate and all the alternatives that are on the Order 4280 Paper. Then at the end of the debate, I shall put the question on each of the alternatives – which will, of course, have had to have been seconded as well – starting with Mr Watterson’s proposal to have one constituency of 24 Members, then his proposal to have two constituencies of 12 Members and so on, only interrupting his amendments to put Mr Gawne’s alternative – six 4285 constituencies of four Members – and then Mr Karran’s – also six constituencies of four Members – in the appropriate place before the alternative proposed by Mr Watterson. If the House agrees any of the choices, then all the other amendments fall. I shall take Mr Gawne's amendments 3 and 4, on page 32, which are linked together, at the end of the process if they are still relevant and have not been overtaken by the House agreeing 4290 to one of the previous alternatives.

Mr Anderson: Pretty straightforward.

Mr Singer: Could you explain that again? (Laughter) 4295 The Speaker: I shall be happy to clarify as we move along, if there is any doubt as to the procedure. Mr Gawne.

4300 Mr Gawne: Yes, just in relation to my final amendment, there is a drafting error and actually what that amendment is meant to do is not to replace 11A, as it currently is drafted to do. My intention had always been that this was to be an addition to come after, so that effectively the 2021 Election would be for six four-seat constituencies. So it is probably not directly related to the consideration of looking at the 2016 Election anyway. 4305 Mr Anderson: We know what to do with it anyway. (Laughter)

The Speaker: If the House will bear with me one moment.

4310 The Speaker consulted the Secretary of the House.

The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Member. At the end of the day, it is an amendment in respect of the six-by-four option and we will certainly give you the opportunity to suspend Standing Orders to clarify that, but I think if we take them with the other alternatives at that time and I 4315 will make it clear when we come to yours just what is taking place, if that is acceptable?

Mr Gawne: I suppose the point I am making is that you could have a successful amendment to two 12-seat constituents, for example, and still have my amendment following on from that in the 2021 Election. 4320 Not that it is going to go anywhere, obviously. (Laughter and interjections)

The Speaker consulted the Secretary of the House.

The Speaker: I will say again, Hon. Member, if the House gives permission to suspend 4325 Standing Orders on the grounds that you wish to amend, when it comes to the vote, I think it will be clear to the House exactly what they are voting on; but to avoid any doubt I will make sure that, if it is successful, the House is aware. So if we could proceed on that basis.

______696 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Before I call Mr Anderson to deal with this matter now, I invite Mr Gawne to address the House in order to have a suspension of Standing Orders to deal with the particular clause 4330 [Inaudible] on page 32.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder, and I must apologise to Members for not spotting this before now. I had specifically asked when I was giving the instructions to the legislative drafters for this amendment to the clause to allow for a 12 two-seat constituency representation for the 4335 2016 Election and my intention then was, with this amendment, that when we moved to the 2021 Election, we would replace the 12 two-seats with six four-seats. Unfortunately, the way this is drafted, we would replace the 12 two-seats, which was absolutely not my intention. So my intention would be actually to move the amendment but without the ‘Page 3, lines 11 to 30, for subsections (1) and (2) of the clause 11A substitute’; it 4340 would be actually ‘insert this at the end of clause 11A’. That would be my preference. That was my intention. So I would ask – bearing in mind that this was a genuine drafting mistake – if Members would indulge with suspension of Standing Orders so I can move what I actually meant to move, as opposed to what, unfortunately, is drafted here. 4345 If I manage to get support, so that I can move what I wanted to, you can then vote against it – (Laughter) and I am sure you will – but please at least allow me to move what I had intended to move. So I beg to move:

That Standing Orders be suspended to permit an amendment to clause 3 to be re-worded.

4350 The Speaker: Could I invite you to clearly specify, by reading out the amendment in the way you would see that it ought to have been worded?

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. So, basically, what I would say it should read is: ‘Page 3, after line 37, “(3) Schedule 1 is 4355 repealed.” insert…’ and then the three elements that I have mentioned in my amendment at the bottom of page 32. And on page 33 would be some numbering issues relating to that too, I would imagine, which we would have to include. So you would presumably go from… You have got (1), (2), (3) on page 3. You could then move to (4), (5) and (6) and that would allow my amendment to actually do what it is supposed to do. 4360 Again I apologise to Members for the confusion.

The Speaker: Is it clear to the House? (Several Members: No.) (Several Members: Yes.) Thank you. Do I have a seconder to the move to suspend Standing Orders? 4365 Mr Watterson: You do, Mr Speaker. It is me.

The Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak on the debate over whether to suspend Standing Orders? 4370 Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder. I think instead of us being in the situation where I am generally taking Ministers to task and the Chief Minister is trying to defend the indefensible of them, I do feel that it is right to give him 4375 the opportunity to have the suspension of Standing Orders, so that the issue can be debated in detail. I think that is what we are here for. I have to say, Vainstyr Loayreyder, I am really pleased today to see us actually doing it the way legislation should be operated and I think it is really

______697 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

good to see there has obviously been a change of mind as far as the legislation being done on 4380 this basis. This is the right basis. We should be line by line… We all know the difference between ‘may’ and ‘shall’ and I just think we should give the Hon. Member, the Minister, the opportunity to have suspension of Standing Orders in order to do so.

The Speaker: Mr Anderson. 4385 Mr Anderson: Yes, I will agree with the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat: we can agree to suspension of Standing Orders and then vote against. (Laughter)

The Speaker: We move straight to the vote. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The 4390 ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Singer Mr Crookall Mr Quayle Mr Anderson Mr Teare Mr Bell Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mrs Cannell Mr Henderson Mr Thomas Mrs Beecroft Mr Cretney Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: With 14 votes for, 8 votes against –

4395 Mr Gawne: How can you move against that?

The Speaker: – the motion therefore fails to carry and the amendment remains on the Order Paper in its current form. (A Member: Farcical!) Clause 3. I call on the mover, Mr Anderson. 4400 Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 3 substitutes a new section 11 in the Representation of the People Act 1995 and introduces a new section 11A. The section 11 legislates for the recommendation of the Boundary Review Committee, 4405 approved by Tynwald, that there should be regular reviews of the number of boundaries of constituencies and provides for the establishment of an Electoral Commission. An Electoral Commission will be appointed by the Governor in Council within 12 months of the General Election in 2021, and every second General Election thereafter. However an Electoral Commission may also be appointed at any other time if the resolution of Tynwald so 4410 directs. The membership of an Electoral Commission will comprise a chair and a minimum of three other members. Mr Speaker, although the main function of the Electoral Commission will be to review the number and boundaries of constituencies there is provision for it to consider any such matters relating to elections, as a resolution of Tynwald may direct. The Electoral Commission will be 4415 required to submit a report on the number of boundaries of constituencies to Tynwald no later

______698 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

than 18 months after its appointment. Such a report can be an interim report and therefore the Electoral Commission must issue such other reports and in such a timeframe as a resolution of Tynwald directs. On submission of its final report to Tynwald, the Electoral Commission is taken to be dissolved. 4420 An Electoral Commission must be appointed within 12 months of the General Election of 2021 to review the number and boundaries of constituencies, or at any other time after this Act comes into effect if a resolution of Tynwald so directs. The new section 11 provides for the Island to be divided into 12 constituencies, each returning two Members. This is in accordance with the Tynwald resolution of 18th June 2013 4425 and was the outcome of the three-year ongoing process of public consultation and political engagement. This clause delivers voting equality for the people of the Isle of Man and, as I have stated earlier, equality of voting and representation is a fundamental principle of democracy, and its implementation in the Island is long overdue. 4430 Hon. Members, in making its recommendation to Tynwald, the Boundary Review Committee made it clear that, after so many years with no changes to constituency boundaries, every option would result in disruption to a greater or lesser degree. The Committee considered which option was the most practical and achieved the objectives of equality of representation and of equivalency that is the ratio of population to Member. 4435 After detailed consideration, the least disruptive model – taking into account the needs of the whole Island – was identified by the Committee to be 12 constituencies of two Members each. That is what was recommended to Tynwald and what is, after a lengthy debate, agreed. The boundaries of the new constituencies are in accordance with the maps presented to Tynwald in June 2013 and the names of the constituencies are as suggested in the Boundary 4440 Review Committee’s report. Three years of time and effort have been invested in reviewing and consulting upon equality of voting and representation, and I believe that failure to deliver on that investment would, as I have stated, damage public confidence in the integrity of the parliamentary process and undermine the reputation and credibility of this House. Members of the public would rightly 4445 view with dismay any failure of this House to reform itself and may then question our ability to lead reform in other areas. I urge, therefore, Members to support these changes as an important first step. I beg to move that clause 3 do stand part of the Bill.

4450 The Speaker: Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: I call first Mr Watterson to move his amendments to clause 3. 4455 Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, just following on from your guidance, which caught me by surprise, obviously I was expecting to move these amendments separately and you have indicated that you would like them to be moved together and in a completely different order from the way that I have set out in my speaking notes, so this could be a completely garbled 4460 attempt at trying to –

A Member: Nothing new there.

Mr Anderson: Mr Speaker, we will be able to unpick them. 4465 The Speaker: We will try to bear with you.

______699 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Watterson: It might be worth then, Mr Speaker, in order to try to save time and assist the House, if I am able to move them en bloc with a single speaking note, have them seconded en 4470 bloc and still vote on them separately. I think it would have the same effect as what you are indicating.

The Speaker: It would be my intention for each mover of the amendment to move all the amendments standing in his name en bloc. We can debate them together, but a vote taken on 4475 each separate proposition.

Mr Watterson: Yes, okay, and I also got the feeling that you were leading towards a certain order of me doing that and if I might deviate from that as well, that would also be helpful.

4480 The Speaker: Well, I have set out what I propose to do. (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) So I would invite you to carry on.

Mr Watterson: I will carry on. (Interjection and laughter) Mr Speaker, my next amendment is one of a series of options that Members can consider, 4485 having reflected on the process so far, as to what size constituencies are preferable. The arguments have been well articulated. The bigger the seat the more removed the individual can be from parish pump politics. They can focus on national issues and work as a team for their constituents, overriding the perception of a democratic deficit that some believe exists if there is both a Minister and backbencher representing the same seat. 4490 Larger constituencies require more legwork, more houses to get round and provide more of a challenge maintaining a relationship with all of your constituents. I would remind Members of just how few times we vote along geographical lines. I dread to say it but Members may also want to keep in mind their views for the future of local authorities and the extent to which these tie in with constituency boundaries. 4495 I do not intend to dwell on the pros and cons of each option in the hope that each Member has had the opportunity to reflect and discuss proposals with their constituents since the debate in Tynwald last year. The first of these amendments proposes eight constituencies of three Members. The advantages of this model need no explanation – certainly for Members of Rushen and Onchan 4500 who have seen this model work well for many years. There is a big enough team to take on issues, separate work and offer a diversity of experiences across Government. It also represents the optimal mix of urban and rural in all seats except those within Douglas. Almost all of the other town seats would have a rural element. (Interjection) The area is manageable from a canvassing point of view. 4505 In terms of the option of six four-seat constituencies, Mr Karran has helpfully proposed a similar amendment which gives one example as to how six constituencies of four seats could work. Mine is less prescriptive. This model has in the past been used as a springboard for reform of the Legislative Council, as many will appreciate. Moving further into the territories of national politics, four constituencies returning six 4510 Members would lead perhaps to a far more regional approach to politics. Three eight-seat constituencies would essentially mean a Douglas North and South option, allowing significant scope for national politics. This option on larger ones would assist in dealing with matters such as a directly elected Chief Minister and would also mirror the eight seats in Legislative Council. The two 12-seat constituencies is perhaps something of a wild card, Mr Speaker, in that it 4515 does not really ever seem to have been given consideration. I appreciate the psephological difficulty in defining two constituencies in terms of geographical terms but, in my eagerness to put all of the options before Members, I offer this for completeness. The final option, Mr Speaker, means true national politics for the Isle of Man. In the same way that Jersey elects its senators on an all-Island basis, there is no reason why all of our

______700 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

4520 politicians could not be national politicians, fighting issues on a national platform, seeking a mandate from all of the people, not just some of the people. This would completely take away the democratic deficit that some people believe exists around equality of votes and allows for a simpler method of popular election for the Chief Minister, should that be the will of Tynwald in future legislation. Ultimately, it sets everyone on 4525 a level playing field with an impossible task of canvassing every house, but the expectation is that constituencies’ narrow geographical boundaries are no more and that people could seek assistance from any national representative. This would be a bold concept in Manx politics, but to the purists must surely have an attraction. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the suite of amendments standing in my name. 4530 (Laughter) (Mr Cretney: Sweet and sour!)

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 11, for subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 8 constituencies each returning 3 members in accordance with subsection (4)’. Page 3, lines 26 to 29, in subsection (2) of the substituted clause 11A for ‘as recommended by the Third Report to Tynwald of the Boundary Review Committee dated May 2013 and approved by Tynwald in 28 June 2013’, substitute ‘as prescribed by an order made under subsection (4)’. Page 3, line 37, insert new subsection - ‘(4) The Council of Ministers must by order prescribe the names and boundaries of constituencies following public consultation and after considering any recommendation from an Electoral Commission or any Committee of the House of Keys convened for this purpose’

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 11, for subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 6 constituencies each returning 4 members in accordance with subsection (4)’. Page 3, lines 26 to 29, in subsection (2) of the substituted clause 11A for ‘as recommended by the Third Report to Tynwald of the Boundary Review Committee dated May 2013 and approved by Tynwald in 28 June 2013’, substitute ‘as prescribed by an order made under subsection (4)’. Page 3, line 37, insert new subsection – ‘(4) The Council of Ministers must by order prescribe the names and boundaries of constituencies following public consultation and after considering any recommendation from an Electoral Commission or any Committee of the House of Keys convened for this purpose.’

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 11, for subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 4 constituencies each returning 6 members in accordance with subsection (4)’. Page 3, lines 26 to 29, in subsection (2) of the substituted clause 11A for ‘as recommended by the Third Report to Tynwald of the Boundary Review Committee dated May 2013 and approved by Tynwald in 28 June 2013’, substitute ‘as prescribed by an order made under subsection (4)’. Page 3, line 37, insert new subsection – ‘(4) The Council of Ministers must by order prescribe the names and boundaries of constituencies following public consultation and after considering any recommendation from an Electoral Commission or any Committee of the House of Keys convened for this purpose.’

______701 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 11, for subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 3 constituencies each returning 8 members in accordance with subsection (4)’. Page 3, lines 26 to 29, in subsection (2) of the substituted clause 11A for ‘as recommended by the Third Report to Tynwald of the Boundary Review Committee dated May 2013 and approved by Tynwald in 28 June 2013’, substitute ‘as prescribed by an order made under subsection (4)’. Page 3, line 37, insert new subsection – ‘(4) The Council of Ministers must by order prescribe the names and boundaries of constituencies following public consultation and after considering any recommendation from an Electoral Commission or any Committee of the House of Keys convened for this purpose.’

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 11, for subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 2 constituencies each returning 12 members in accordance with subsection (4)’. Page 3, lines 26 to 29, in subsection (2) of the substituted clause 11A for ‘as recommended by the Third Report to Tynwald of the Boundary Review Committee dated May 2013 and approved by Tynwald in 28 June 2013’, substitute ‘as prescribed by an order made under subsection (4)’. Page 3, line 37, insert new subsection – ‘(4) The Council of Ministers must by order prescribe the names and boundaries of constituencies following public consultation and after considering any recommendation from an Electoral Commission or any Committee of the House of Keys convened for this purpose.’

Amendments to clause 3 Page 2, line 13, for subsection (2) substitute – ‘(2) For section 11 (including the cross-heading before it) and section 12 substitute - ‘11 Basis of elections (1) 24 members are elected on an Island-wide basis. (2) The Treasury, after consulting each local authority, may by order divide the Island into a number of polling districts specified in the order. (3) An order under subsection (2) shall not have effect unless it is approved by Tynwald.’ Page 3, line 37 after subsection (3) insert – ‘(4) The Schedule contains further amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1995 consequential upon subsection (2). After page 4 insert –

‘SCHEDULE [Section 3(2)] Amendments Consequential on Abolition of Constituencies

Provision of Act Amendment Section 1(1) Delete ‘for a constituency’ Section 5 Delete the words after ‘Governor’ to end of section Section 6(8) Delete ‘to any constituency’ Section 13(1) Delete ‘in respect of each constituency’ Section 13(2) Delete subsection Section 15(a) Delete paragraph

______702 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Section 21 Delete ‘to represent a constituency’ Section 24(1) Delete ‘for a constituency’ and ‘in that constituency’ Section 26(1) Delete ‘of the constituency’ Section 27(2) and (3) Delete ‘in any constituency’ Section 29(b) Delete paragraph Section 31(1) Delete ‘of the constituency for which he is a candidate’ Section 43(1)(d) Delete ‘in the same constituency’ Section 63(2)(c) Delete the words after ‘given’ to the end of the paragraph Section 66(3) Delete the words after ‘local authority’ to the end of the subsection Section 74(1)(a) Delete ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 5(2) Delete paragraph Schedule 2, rule 5(3)(b) Delete ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 7(4) Delete ‘within the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 7(8) Delete ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 9 Delete ‘for a constituency’ and ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 18 Delete ‘for the same constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 26(3)(a) Delete sub-paragraph Schedule 2, rule 28(1)(a) Delete ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 33(1)(a)(ii), and (b)(ii) Delete ‘for the constituency of’ Schedule 2, rule 33(2) Delete ‘in this constituency’ Schedule 2, rules 42(1A) and 47(3) Delete ‘in the constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 47(5) Delete paragraph Schedule 2, rule 48(1) Delete ‘for any constituency’ Schedule 2, rule 50(1) For ‘, the date of the election to which they relate and the name of the constituency for which the election was held’ substitute ‘and the date of the election to which they relate’ Schedule 3, paragraph 2(4) Delete ‘of the constituency to which the petition relates’ and ‘in that constituency’ Schedule 3, paragraphs 10(2), 16(3) and Delete ‘in the constituency to which the 17(1)(b) petition relates’

The Speaker: Mr Quirk. 4535 Mr Quirk: I beg to second.

The Speaker: I call upon Mr Gawne, to move your amendments to clause 3.

4540 Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. The first amendment that I am able to move is number 2, which basically states:

‘2. Page 3, line 6 after subsection (5) of the substituted clause 11 insert – “(5A) Before issuing a report under subsection (5) the Electoral Commission must ensure that consultation has taken place with every person affected by the proposals contained in its report.”’

______703 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

This would take place in 2021. By that time it will merely involve somebody pressing a button 4545 to all citizens of the Isle of Man and all citizens can then return their views. I know that we are not interested in actually finding out what the public think and we are not interested in letting them know what they think of massive changes to the – (A Member: Terrible.) Well, that is how you voted! However –

4550 Two Members: No, it is not.

Mr Gawne: However, this is what is going to happen in 2021. It will probably be 2022 or 2023 by the time this comes in and by that time the concern of issuing letters and envelopes will have disappeared. All you need to do is actually press a button on a computer and every person will 4555 be consulted. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing, particularly bearing in mind that this Bill – despite what the mover says – has not been out for consultation. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) Nobody has seen this Bill prior to it coming to the branches. However, I am obviously on a losing wicket so – (Interjections) 4560 A Member: Stick with it.

Mr Gawne: I will stick with it. I will but you may have detected (Interjection) that I am a little bit disappointed that my attempts to make this Bill fairer, more democratic and allow the public 4565 to know what is going on (Mr Cretney: Your view.) have failed so far. Maybe I will win you over. I think this one is one of the few where even the hardest and cold hearted (Laughter) of Members will have to acknowledge that alphabetically we have ‘Ayre and Michael’, we have ‘Douglas Central’, we have ‘Douglas East’, ‘Douglas North’, ‘Douglas West’, ‘Garff’, ‘Glenfaba and Peel’, ‘Middle’, ‘Onchan’, ‘Ramsey’, ‘Rushen’ and then we have ‘Malew, Arbory and Castletown’ 4570 – not alphabetical. So there is a drafting error as far as I am concerned and all my amendment attempts to do is correct that drafting error. I do not care if it is ‘Malew, Arbory and Castletown’ or ‘Arbory, Castletown and Malew’ but I do think it is right to have these things (Interjection) in at least the same order. So I would ask Members to think hard before they vote that one out. Even I am incapable of coming up with 4575 some Machiavellian sinister way in which that simple amendment can undermine the ability of the mover to get his Bill through. However, we will see where we go. As Members were not prepared to support me in moving what I actually wanted to move – (A Member: Some Members.) Yes, some Members. Okay, yes, maybe I should be a bit more charitable. Apologies. Eight Members chose not to allow me to move what I wanted to move. 4580 There was a drafting error. It was an error perhaps that I should have picked up sooner but eight Members chose not to allow me to move what I want to move; so I am not going to move this clause because if I did move it, it would mean that this is the final one of my amendments; if I did move that then we would not have 12 two-seat constituencies assuming that people supported my move. So I am not going to move it because I do support 12 two-seat 4585 constituencies at the next election. So I am moving my second amendment. I am moving the Arbory, Castletown and Malew change but I am not moving the other. I beg to move:

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, line 6 after subsection (5) of the substituted clause 11 insert – ‘(5A) Before issuing a report under subsection (5) the Electoral Commission must ensure that consultation has taken place with every person affected by the proposals contained in its report.’ Page 3, line 13, in subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A before the entry entitled ‘Ayre and Michael’ insert the following entry –

______704 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

‘Arbory, Castletown and Malew’. Page 3, line 20 in subsection (1) of the substituted clause 11A delete the entry entitled ‘Malew, Arbory and Castletown’.

The Speaker: Can I have a seconder? (Interjections and laughter) 4590 Mr Quirk: Mr Speaker, I am happy to second. (Two Members: You cannot.) I can second two.

The Speaker: Mr Karran, could you move your amendment to clause 3? (Interjections)

4595 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, you can second two amendments to the one clause?

Mr Watterson: He seconded six of mine!

The Speaker: Yes, in the case of Mr Quirk he reserved his remarks. 4600 Mr Quirk: Yes.

Mr Karran: Right. That is the point.

4605 The Speaker: He reserved his remarks and can second (Interjection by Mr Quirk) – in this particular debate.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, before speaking to my amendment I would just like to speak to the others. 4610 The only issue that I have with the Hon. Member for Rushen’s is the issue of part 3, line 37, about the issue of having to have the Council of Ministers having to prescribe an order of names and constituencies. I think this is where my amendment just… There is no way that can be politically delayed as far as the amendment that I have in front of us here today. I have gone out of my way to make sure that, when it comes down to the proposal by myself, I have put the 4615 different constituencies together in order to try and get a principle of trying to develop more national politics. I believe that six four-seat constituencies, on the basis of what I have proposed, would be a far more sensible way forward. My only concern is the issue of the lack of STV; but as the hon. mover of this Bill has said, that can be brought in with the new Bill that is supposed to be on its 4620 way very soon, as far as that issue is concerned; because I could see the problems of putting Ayre, Michael and Ramsey together on a first past the post… They would never know where Jurby was or Michael was, as far as canvassing for such a constituency. So I still think it is important that the issue is that we need to get more national politics (A Member: Hear, hear.) and I believe that by putting six four-seat constituencies… I think that is 4625 the right way forward. I think that would be a far more sensible way forward, as far as the issue is concerned. I know that people say, well, obviously, I am losing house numbers, I am losing the parish of Onchan; but the principle I believe in is the equality under the first-past-the-post system of representation and we more likely would have been inconsistent with that if we had been 24 4630 single-seat constituencies; because I do not think we need any more state representation, as far as national politics is concerned. I hope Hon. Members will see this as a genuine attempt, like the STV, to not delay the Bill but put an effective alternative as far as the proposal is concerned; that here we are – we can go tomorrow whether it is 12 two-seat constituencies or we can go tomorrow where there are six 4635 four-seats constituencies. I think this issue is important. I think we are in new territory and it is

______705 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

going to be harder for the likes of national Government to operate when we are not in a position where we have won the lottery and we do not really need to worry about how we spend money. I think that we need to go for bigger constituencies and I would hope that we would see the STV issue come up later and the issue that was resolved by 1991, as far as the plump vote is 4640 concerned. I hope, Hon. Members, because of the – I suppose – partisan lines, that we have all looked at these bands to a lesser or greater degree we are going to vote… that the other amendment that I have got for clause 3 to do with part 4:

‘4. Page 3, line 36, after subsection (3) of the inserted section 11A insert – “(4) To avoid any doubt, nothing in this section affects the boundary of any local authority.”.’

4645 – that is something separate and I hope Hon. Members will support that because I think it is important that we need to make the dividing line between national constituencies and local authority constituencies. I know that I do bring that in as my constituents will be affected. The people in Howstrake I do not fear will be taken over by the local authority of Lonan; but I do fear that the likes of my constituents in Larch Hill, Carrs Road and Tromode… there will be an 4650 argument then that it is now in the constituency of Doolish Twoaie, that it should become part of Douglas. (Mr Quirk: Super-Douglas.) This would make it quite clear that this Bill has no justification for any boundary changes as far as local government is concerned. They are two separate stand-alone things here and I do hope that that is just a piece of common sense and about dividing national boundaries for national 4655 Government and local boundaries for local government. So, Hon. Members, I do hope that this House will support my proposal because there is no ‘Get Out of Jail’ card as far as my proposal for six four-seats. There is no having to go to the Council of Ministers; there is no having to have a consultation with anybody. We are accepting the fact that the decision has been made as far as this… All this is trying to do is put them on a 4660 more national basis and I believe this is the right way forward and I hope Hon. Members will support it. I beg to move:

Amendments to clause 3 Page 3, lines 11 to 24, for subsection (1) of the inserted section 11A substitute – ‘(1) For an election the Island is divided into 6 constituencies each returning 4 members as follows — Ayre, Michael and Ramsey Douglas Central and Douglas North Douglas East and Douglas West Garff and Onchan Glenfaba, Peel and Middle Malew, Arbory, Castletown and Rushen.’ Page 3, line 29, in subsection (2) of the inserted section 11A after ‘June 2013’ insert ‘(save that that recommendation is modified so that the 12 constituencies there mentioned have each been combined with one other as described in subsection (1))’. Page 3, line 36, after subsection (3) of the inserted section 11A insert – ‘(4) To avoid any doubt, nothing in this section affects the boundary of any local authority.’

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft. 4665 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. 4670

______706 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Singer: Thank you. I can understand what the proposer of the amendment is saying but you have to look at it in the practicalities of having a four-seat constituency and the area that is covered. We have very little party politics on this Island so everybody is an individual. In party politics – and I have 4675 worked in party politics where you have people who are volunteers, people of the party who will do the work for you… Practically, here the candidate has to do… most people have to do most of the work by themselves. (Two Members: Yes.) So the candidate has to try – and it is very difficult even under the present system – to find time – particularly for somebody who is working and feels that they want to stand for the House of Keys. It is difficult for them to find 4680 time – to go round knocking on every door. It is difficult to put up – or have enough volunteers to put up – the posters. So I think it then creates the unfairness that we are talking about. I think we should make it possible for as many people as possible who feel they want to stand for the House of Keys to be able to do so. I think the practicalities of this proposal make that a lot more difficult and we may 4685 well not get the people in this House who should be in this House because they cannot find the time, if they are working, to be able to run a campaign as they would wish. Therefore, that is the main reason really that I think the 12 by twos is the best, fairest form of constituency. (Interjection)

4690 A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Malew and Santon.

Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4695 Just, first of all, one question for the Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne, who is talking about consultation. Did he consult on ‘Arbory, Castletown and Malew’? (Laughter) Furthermore, carrying on from the point from Mr Singer, I was at a conference regarding how to get people involved in elections and one of the problems that you see throughout the world is ‘too big’ constituencies. One of the things that we have been really proud about on the Isle of 4700 Man is how close we are to our constituents and I think by going into bigger constituencies we will lose that unique thing that we are close to our constituents – that we know how things are going – and I think it would be retrograde step to actually go either three or four… [Inaudible]

The Speaker: Mr Quirk. 4705 Mr Quirk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just supporting my colleague, Mr Karran, on the particular issue here regarding avoiding any doubt regarding the boundary areas for local authorities. I seek the assurance from Mr Anderson on that – 4710 Mr Anderson: This is not –

Mr Quirk: – that these will stay as is promised in the Bill and for the avoidance there of a particular area which is in the parish of Onchan – down at Tromode there – where we will be 4715 subject to, I presume, a lot of pressure in the future. Hopefully, Mr Anderson will put on record – as they did some years ago; I do not know if it was Mr Anderson himself at the time or maybe his father – regarding the parish of Onchan and the Onchan urban area, where Hansard did record – Mr Karran is in it – that protection was afforded until an amalgamation took place. So I wanted to see some… and I would ask Hon. Members in this particular House to afford 4720 Onchan – the two of us still left here tonight anyway – some support on this particular element of this motion. It is worthy of support and it would record for us in the future an obligation that has been given by this particular House.

______707 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Ayre, Mr Teare.

4725 Mr Teare: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think one of the best arguments against the big seat constituencies has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran. He said, ‘Who is going to canvas rural areas? Where do you go? Where the concentration of voters are. ’ I do remember talking to my hon. friend Mr Cretney just before the last Election and we were 4730 saying, ‘Well, how is the canvassing going?’ When we actually worked it out he could canvas – because of his more compacted area – at five times the rate that I could. If we are going to have areas bigger than the proposal in the original Bill I think – not unnaturally – candidates – especially the ones who have got a full-time job to hold down – who want to get into politics will find it virtually impossible to get the views of all the people that 4735 they are seeking to represent and without that I think it is a flawed concept.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member, Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. 4740 I will actually be supporting Mr Karran’s amendment. (A Member: Hear, hear.) This is about change. We heard about the Agenda for Change – a lot of arguments; whether we should go to 12 of two; whether we should go to eight of three. This one here means everyone changes. (A Member: Absolutely.) It also brings the point to bear about the bigger the constituency, the bigger the politics. I have said it before. 4745 The reason why, obviously, I talk about the three-seat is we have diversity within three seats, with the people we actually represent. Even bigger again – I do not have a problem with that. I am happy to support that but, take note here, Malew, Arbory, Castletown and Rushen would actually be four seats; there are five Members representing that but I am happy to take that because it is change. (Mr Gawne: Hear, hear.) Who else is prepared to accept change? 4750 Gura mie eu.

A Member: We are.

The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle. 4755 Mr Gawne: Well, Ramsey is not.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really feel these amendments are all long-grass wrecking (Several Members: Hear, hear.) 4760 (Mrs Cannell: Absolutely.) of the motions. Mr Gawne wants things put in alphabetical order and wants six constituencies of four seats. (Interjection by Mr Gawne) Mr Watterson wants six constituencies of four, four of six, three of eight, one of 24 –

4765 Two Members: Two of 12.

Mr Quayle: Two of 12. (A Member: House!) Yes, it is bingo. Mr Karran, who had previously supported a system that did not disenfranchise those people living in the rural areas – as my colleague from Ayre, Mr Teare, has pointed out – is now saying 4770 let’s have six fours and have an even bigger… and take away the vote from the rural areas even more. This is a total farce. I am ashamed by the antics of these Members.

Mr Anderson: Not surprised though.

______708 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

4775 Mr Quayle: The only saving grace is that at least the public is spared from having to listen to this rubbish (Interjections and laughter) and I feel sorry for the members of the press who are having to sit through this debate. (Interjections and laughter) I blame the Chief Minister (Laughter) for allowing two Ministers too much time to waste. (A Member: Yes!) (Laughter) (Mr Anderson: Reshuffle.) (Mrs Cannell: Hear, hear.) (Laughter) and when we have got the – 4780 The Chief Minister: This is a time of change, do not forget.

Mr Quayle: – we have got the full support of Tynwald, the majority of Keys and so much time to come up with waste and wrecking the motion. Give them something to do, Chief Minister – 4785 (Interjections and laughter) Health and Social Care. (Interjections and laughter)

The Speaker: Mrs Beecroft.

Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 4790 I actually was not going to say anything in this because everybody had been summing up my thoughts quite nicely – until the previous speaker. How dare he say it is ‘rubbish’ that we debate these things. This is what is called democracy. This is a debating Chamber. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) This is where legislation gets debated for goodness’ sake! (Interjection) I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I know I get shrill when I get angry but 4795 that really takes the biscuit! (Several Members: Hear, hear.) And to say it will disenfranchise rural areas if the constituencies get too big – no, it does not. (Mr Gawne: Absolutely.) It actually gives them an equal playing field because you would take away the personality. It would have to be about policy and everybody in the rural areas would know what the policy was anyway – the same as the people in the urban areas. So you would 4800 actually bring equality to the rural areas. Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I do get angry when people just rubbish democracy. I think it was totally uncalled for and I do wish he would retract that remark. (Interjection by Mr Quayle) I see it in a totally different perspective – as I am entitled to do –

4805 A Member: Have a biscuit.

Mrs Beecroft: – without being told that the debate is rubbish. So I will be supporting six-fours. I would actually like larger but I think we do have to take it a stage at a time. I think politics should not be just about personality; it should be about the 4810 policies that are presented to the people and they should be voting on the policies primarily as much as whether they actually like the person who is presenting those policies. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Thank you, Mr Speaker.

4815 The Speaker: I call on the mover to speak on one of the amendments.

Mr Anderson: Or maybe more than one of the amendments. (Laughter)

The Speaker: One or more amendment. 4820 Mr Anderson: Mr Speaker, I think this debate has become fairly predictable really and everybody is putting into the pot their own ideal solution to the conundrum. We have, on our Order Paper, the solution. We have had the Boundary Commission look at all the ideas and come forward. We are now getting individual Member’s ideas. We have heard 4825 the argument for smaller constituencies. We have heard the arguments for bigger constituencies. The compromise that the Boundary Commission put forward – that Tynwald has

______709 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

supported by a large majority – is what is on the Order Paper. I would ask Hon. Members not to stray from that. In relation to the amendment by the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gawne, I would support 4830 his amendment on the naming of Arbory, Castletown and Malew.

Mr Gawne: Hear, hear. (Laughter and interjections)

The Speaker: The Hon. Member, Mrs Cannell. 4835 Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be very brief. Whilst I have sympathy with the contribution from the Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft, she also has to remember: yes, it is a debating Chamber, but it is also a Chamber of freedom of speech and opinion; and each one of us will have an opinion and we use the force of 4840 argument in this place to make a point or to make a case or to try and make a change in legislation. We are entitled to have that view even if it is not the common view throughout the assembly. That is democracy. So I will condone any Member to get to his or her feet to speak their mind about what their ideas are, even though I may not have much regard for them, in terms of supporting them. 4845 The other thing is that it was the Boundary Commission that looked at all the equations. Do not forget that, Hon. Members. They looked at all the possible equations of redefinition of the Island to provide equal representation across the board. They looked at the four by six, they looked at the one by 24; they looked at all the various mathematical equations and they came up with what they came up with; and they said – and I do not know how many times the hon. 4850 mover of the Bill has mentioned it – that this appeared to be what they believed to be the fairest system. Going forward, if the Bill finally does get to its Third Reading – and I hope we finish it today (Several Members: Hear, hear.) and it gets to its Third Reading – and proceeds, it has still got to go through the Legislative Council. I just hope we do not have the same kind of shenanigans up 4855 there as we have had here today, because that may well delay the Bill – especially if they try and tinker with it and then it comes back and then we reject it. But anyway, I suppose I am being pessimistic, with experience of these sorts of things, when it comes to constitutional reform. The other thing that I just wanted to put on record is the hon. mover is saying Tynwald has supported this. We all know that Tynwald supported it but do not forget in Tynwald Court is the 4860 branch of the House of Keys and it was a majority of the House of Keys that also supported this voting in Tynwald. So do not forget that. I would say stick with the Bill as written.

The Speaker: Mr Ronan. 4865 Mr Ronan: Again – thank you, Mr Speaker – I was not going to get on to my feet as well. I just want to say something on record on this. I have been very supportive of the equalisation of boundaries. I think what is important is we have gone through the consultation; we have been around the houses and I think what is in 4870 front of us now is where we need to be right now – which is equalisation. We all have individual ideas of where we want to be. I know what I submitted is not what we have now but what matters is we get to where we need to be. It is pretty clear – I do not want to get involved in the slagging match here but when I picked this up I think it is the first time I have had a House of Keys Order Paper which basically 4875 resembles a Kays catalogue. It is so big (Interjection) and, to be honest with you, trying to understand it as well is like trying to play Japanese poker. (Laughter) It has been very complicated but what matters today is that we stick to where we are (A Member: Hear, hear.) and I think really, as well, we have clear guidance from the Chief Minister – again, clarified by Mr

______710 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Anderson, of the other concerns regarding the amendments being raised – that this is going to 4880 come back to us. Let’s just stick to where we are and let’s get to where we need to be today, hopefully today. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr Karran to reply to his amendment if he wishes. 4885 A Member: If you wish.

Mr Karran: Yes, (Laughter) to the amendment for local authority boundaries or to the whole lot? 4890 The Speaker: Yes, to the amendment that you moved.

Mr Karran: Okay. Well, I hope Hon Members will support the subclause (4). It is not about filibustering. It is about making a detailed declaration of the fact that this is not a legal precedent 4895 to justify the boundaries for the national parliament – Tynwald – to be assumed to be the same for local authorities. (A Member: Hear, hear.) This is nothing to do with this… and I do not want to just… ‘It is about an Onchan thing’; it is not about an Onchan thing. (A Member: No.) I do take exception (Mr Gawne: Hear, hear.) in this House about being told by people it is an Onchan thing. We have supported the principle of 4900 equal representation. (Mr Gawne: Hear, hear.) I am going to lose one of the most concentrated voting areas if I stay within Onchan at the next General Election, in this proposal. I believe in equalisation of representation and I think it is good to see the Hon. Member for Castletown being honest about the fact… This is how it used to be before we ended up more and more like the Council of Ministers, where everyone nodded everything through. This is how it 4905 used to be when I was first in here. We held primary legislation on a level where we did debate the ‘may and the shall’, and this is where I really respect the Hon. Member for his honesty about the Japanese poker! Because, to be perfectly honest with you, being in here 20-odd years, I have to say it was difficult to see how people could do certain things –

4910 Mr Ronan: Smoke and mirrors in here – not for real.

Mr Karran: – as far as that is concerned. But the fact is he is wrong on one point and that is, ‘We need clear guidance from the Chief Minister’. This is nothing to do with the Chief Minister and executive Government. 4915 But I can forgive that input because the fact is, it is the way it is done for years, Vainstyr Loayreyder, within this House… whatever the executive Government. The executive Government is supposed to be held to account here and this is a parliamentary issue; and, to be fair to the Chief Minister, he has made this clear in his input into this debate, that it is not an executive Government function, as far as this is concerned. Members need to realise that. 4920 We go to the issue, as far as Mrs Cannell is concerned. I think the point is that Mrs Cannell is misunderstanding the issue of free speech. The fact is that we are always attacking free speech. It is actually the other way. The Member for Middle is actually attacking Members for actually doing the job. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I wonder how many people actually do read these Bills at times, when I sit in this House and I 4925 hear the usual entourage of… I cannot even repeat what was said in the Members’ Room in the past about keeping Members here for hours on end and I remind them that is what they are paid for; that is what primary legislation… The first important part of when you get your writ as an MHK is to deal with primary legislation, not about getting up the slippery ladder or pole, as far as executive Government is concerned; that is something else; that is part of the role of a 4930 parliamentarian who is in executive Government.

______711 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

So when she says about, ‘Oh, they did not…’ we made the agenda as far as the 12 two-seat constituency (Interjection by Mrs Cannell) and to try and make out that the Commission has made that agenda… They did not make that agenda; the mover will tell you that. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It was made on the basis of a Tynwald resolution. So this is blatantly people not 4935 understanding what is actually being proposed as far as this and who has led that agenda… That agenda was led by Tynwald, not by the Commission. It was us who put in the thing about the 12 two-seat constituencies –

Mrs Cannell: We gave them the remit, yes. 4940 Mr Karran: – and she is wrong to try and make out that that is not the case. As far as the hon. mover, Mr Anderson, is concerned, all I would like him to do is to recognise that the point of subclause (4) is a standalone provision about national boundaries being national boundaries, and not national and local authority boundaries. We need to define that… 4945 and that is why I was keen – with the presiding officer and the Clerk – to make sure that that issue has nothing to do with two-seat, four-seat, 24-seat or whatever. That is to do with the principle that, if this Bill is brought into power, there is no legal guidance that Douglas will turn around and say, ‘Well, part of Onchan parish and Onchan district is part of Douglas; it should be part of Douglas because of that position.’ That is all that does. It is a declaration that says that 4950 principle… (Interjection) and the same with the likes of Hansard; and it is not just about the issue that it is parish pump Onchan; it is about the issue of the definition between national boundaries and local authority boundaries, and that should be an issue that we should be concerned about throughout this thing. I do take offence at Mr Quayle saying about ‘throwing it in the long grass’. My Bill has told 4955 you one thing. My Bill has taken your Bill and it has just said I have combined the constituencies together. There is none of this rhetoric of going back to report by the Council of Ministers, the independent Commission or whatever. It does not do anything and I am quite disappointed that somebody who is supposed to be the great businessman – the man who in this House, who has come in here – cannot understand that the simple amendment that I do will not change the 4960 process as far as this Bill, but simply combines two-seat constituencies together to form four- seat… I am disappointed he cannot understand that as far as that is concerned.

Mr Quayle: Put it on the next Bill.

4965 Mr Karran: The next thing –

Mrs Cannell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, as usual, it is becoming personable. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Every Member in this House (Interjections) has the right – 4970 The Speaker: Your point of order is taken.

Mrs Cannell: Yes, to make the point, Mr Speaker –

4975 The Speaker: The point is taken –

Mrs Cannell: – without being vilified.

The Speaker: – and the Hon. Member is sailing close in my opinion, with gratuitous remarks – 4980 Mr Karran: The point is I just would like people to read the Bill and see the amendments the way they are. (Interjection by Mrs Cannell)

______712 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The point is Mr Skelly says – even him, as Members for Rushen, says about the changes – that it will affect him – my amendment, which is a pure amendment to the Bill. There is no way of 4985 changing anything as far as throwing it off into the long grass. As he said: ‘The bigger the constituency, the bigger the politics.’ (Mrs Beecroft: Yes.) If ever there has been a time for ‘the bigger the politics’, we are going into it and some of us have been blessed in the fact that coming here in 1985 we have seen the boom that has come.

4990 The Speaker: Hon. Member you are in danger of becoming repetitive now (Laughter) (A Member: Hear, hear.) (Interjections) about your experience in this place. Would you please address your closing remarks in relation to the amendments that have been moved? That is what I ask.

4995 Mr Karran: I am and I am replying to the –

The Speaker: No, you have not but please continue.

Mr Karran: I know people want to get out of this place (Interjections) but the fact is we are 5000 paid to listen to this… [Inaudible]

The Speaker: Hon. Member, I think Members are well aware of their duties (A Member: Hear, hear.) as far as that is concerned. They do not need reminding. Can we please get on with the debate? 5005 Mr Karran: Mr Teare says about the fact that… the issue of making it worse. That was the reason why this Member wanted to bring in STV voting and that is the reason why I understand, more likely, better than the Hon. Member – being the former Member for the old sheading of Middle – about this issue. I think – 5010 The Speaker: Hon. Member, you have gone outside the bounds of this debate. We have covered STV. We are no longer considering STV. It is not relevant.

Mr Karran: But, Vainstyr Loayreyder, he brought this up in reply to my question and I am just 5015 telling him that the fact is he brought this up in argument against my amendment, as far as the issue of … There is an opportunity in a later Bill to actually sort that issue out if he is really sincere about worrying about minorities in this constituency. Hon. Members, I hope that you will support my proposals. There are no caveats, no long grass. You simply support this Bill. You have been given the proposals by me. The Bill carries on 5020 its ways except instead of 12 two-seat constituencies it is four seats. I hope the other issue of the parliamentary seats being separated from local authority seats is something that we should be doing, if only to stop ourselves from being demeaned.

A Member: Hear, hear. 5025 The Speaker: Mr Gawne. The right of reply.

Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I suppose we will have to start with the Hon. Member for Middle and his remarks. I have to 5030 say I find them quite amusing and I laughed along with everybody else, but I think it does show perhaps – I do not want to say this in a way that seems patronising, because it is certainly not meant to be but – a degree of naivety in terms of what our roles are in this House.

______713 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

I mean this is what we are here for. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) This is what we are about. We are supposed to debate legislation and, actually, despite what we have said, the principles in 5035 this Bill – a range of principles – were consulted upon. We then, as Tynwald, chose one of those principles, one option. (Interjections) We chose that and then the public have not seen anything in this since. This has not been out to consultation. So perhaps, being charitable to Hon. Members, the reason that we do not have such rigorous debates is because the Government machine is so good at consultation that we cover all the 5040 angles before we get into the debating Chamber. Maybe that is being overly charitable. But this has not been out so I believe that it is my absolute right to pick holes in a Bill which I believe has flaws; and I was recommending improvements to those flaws. I would remind Hon. Members that I supported the principle of equalisation. I actually voted in favour of 12 two-seat constituencies and I have not moved one of my amendments because I 5045 was not given the support to move the amendment in the way that I had intended it to be drafted because, had I moved it as it is written on the Order Paper, it would have gone against the wishes of Tynwald and we would not have had the 12 two-seats, we would have had the six four-seats. So please listen a little bit more carefully and give us the opportunity to attempt to improve 5050 the legislation when we have not been given an opportunity thus far to do so. I do not think that is unreasonable. I did enjoy, though, the humour and it was funny; but it is my absolute right to come forward with amendments to Bills which are, in my view, flawed. I do not believe that it is unreasonable, for example, to suggest that when the Boundary Commission is re-established in 2021 that we ask the Boundary Commission to actually let the 5055 people know what it has been recommended, rather than consult on what is going on and then tell Tynwald, but do not actually let anybody know what we have decided – which is what we have actually done with this Bill. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing. That is one of my amendments – one of my ‘silly amendments’, according to the Hon. Member for Middle. (Interjection by Mr Quayle) I do not believe that is silly. I think that it is quite reasonable to let 5060 the public know what we have actually decided upon. That is what I am asking for in the first of my amendments. I was delighted with the Hon. Member for Glenfaba in giving me his support, in relation to the amendment in relation to changing or actually putting in alphabetical order the constituencies. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing. Had we actually gone out to 5065 consultation on the Bill, that would have been spotted and it would have been corrected at that time. So I do think that… Well, I was tempted to say I give up, but I do not. I do not give up. I think it is very important that we have the opportunity to debate these things. I think it is important to correct flaws in legislation. Clearly, in relation to the alphabetical order of constituencies, there 5070 is a flaw in the legislation. Does it matter? Yes, of course it matters. Of course it matters. We should have the legislation right and I was pleased that the mover has acknowledged that that is the case and that he suggested that he will be supporting me. Again, the Hon. Member for Middle suggested that I was putting forward six four-seats – which, had he been listening, he would have heard that I have not been able to because he did 5075 not support me with the suspension of Standing Orders so I could not move it in the way I wanted to. So I have not moved that final clause (Interjections) and I want to make it absolutely clear that I have not because I support the equalisation of representation in the seats. I support 12 two-seats. I voted in favour of that when it came to the vote in Tynwald. So to all the unfortunate – maybe that is the best way I can put it – comments that have been 5080 made about my integrity during this debate – that in some way this was all an exercise to put it into the long grass – why would I have voted in favour in the first place for a 12 two-seats? All I am trying to do with my amendments is to improve the legislation. I believe that there is certainly one flaw that we have already not improved on, in terms of the long title – the final one here: the ‘Arbory, Castletown and Malew’ instead of ‘Malew, Castletown and Arbory’ or

______714 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

5085 whatever it is. Yes, it may be a picky thing, it may be a minor thing, but it is correcting the legislation. The legislation is currently flawed. It is not going to make a significant difference but let’s get it right –

The Speaker: Hon. Member, will you draw your remarks to a close now. 5090 Mr Gawne: – so that we have the opportunity to get it right.

The Speaker: I am inviting you to draw your remarks to a close.

5095 Mr Gawne: I am coming to –

The Speaker: Standing Orders state that business shall terminate by 5.30 p.m. and any later sitting of the House shall be determined by majority of the Members present and voting. I intend to take a vote to that effect. I was going to do so if you were about to finish and I shall do 5100 so when you are finished.

A Member: I think he has finished.

The Speaker: Have you finished, Hon. Member? 5105 Mr Gawne: Gura mie eu, Loayreyder. I was drawing to a close, certainly. I think I do, though, want to re-emphasise the point that I support 12 two-seat constituencies. I have done since Tynwald voted in favour and I voted in favour at that time. 5110 I think the unfortunate smoke screens that have been put up by some supporters of this Bill are disappointing. We are elected in my view to say it how it is, to say it how we see it. We all take an oath in Tynwald – a very clear oath that requires us to say what we believe and that is what I have done. That is why I have moved these amendments. I have done it because I think it is in the best 5115 interests of the people who I represent and, in fact, that we all represent. I believe that it is not unreasonable. It is not silly to say that we should ask the public what they think about significant changes to the constitution of the Isle of Man. I beg to move.

5120 The Speaker: Hon. Members, as I indicated in the Standing Orders, business shall terminate. Can I suggest a Member may wish to propose that we finish this Bill today? Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Yes, I would support your view on that. Vainstyr Loayreyder, I propose that 5125 we finish this Item today.

The Speaker: Thank you. Mr Watterson.

5130 Mr Watterson: I am happy to second that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is that agreed? Those in favour, say aye.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

______715 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

FOR AGAINST Mr Ronan Mr Quirk Mr Crookall Mr Karran Mr Anderson Mr Cretney Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

5135 The Speaker: There were 19 for, 3 against. It therefore carries. Mr Watterson, (Interjection) would you exercise your right of reply? (Interjections and laughter) Mr Watterson, you have the floor. (Laughter) You have the floor, sir.

5140 Mr Watterson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It was not my intention to detain the House long, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that my intention is to not delay this Bill week after week after week but to get a resolution this evening. I will resist the temptation to go around some of the comments that have been around the 5145 Chamber, but will instead align myself with much of what my hon. colleague, Mr Gawne, has said. I think a lot of Members have made up their mind about this Bill. They have made up their minds about the amendments. They are there but we will get through the vote on them and I think probably at this stage it would be best to leave it as that, Mr Speaker.

5150 The Speaker: Thank you, sir. Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: I do not want to detain Hon. Members any longer than I need to either, but I just need to make one or two short remarks. 5155 In relation to local authorities, I did not want this to muddy the waters. This legislation, as it states, just effects the House of Keys. Whether it specifies or not other elections, it is for the House of Keys. Do not let that muddy the waters. Hon. Members have got a good understanding of what this simple Bill is all round and Hon. Members have tried to re-write history. I just ask Hon. Members to stick to the text of the Bill. 5160 But I did put out the olive branch. The Hon. Member for Rushen did tend to rebound on me a little bit (Mr Gawne: No.) but I am still supportive of that amendment. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Members. The clause and the amendments, having been duly 5165 moved and seconded and debated, I now move to a vote. I take first the amendment to clause 3 on page 28, which is for one constituency of 24 Members… voting on that option in the name of Mr Watterson. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

______716 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan Mr Watterson Mr Crookall Mr Skelly Mr Anderson Mr Gawne Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

5170 The Speaker: There were 5 votes for, 17 against. The motion fails. We now turn to the amendment on page 27 by Mr Watterson: two constituencies each returning 12 Members. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. The noes have it. Still on page 27: the amendment for three constituencies of eight Members. Those in favour, 5175 please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan Mr Watterson Mr Crookall Mr Skelly Mr Anderson Mr Gawne Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 5 votes for, 17 against. The motion fails. On page 26, Mr Watterson's amendment: four constituencies of six Members. Those in 5180 favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it. The noes have it. I will turn now to the amendment of Mr Karran on page 34. His proposal was six constituencies, each of four Members, as set out on the Order Paper on page 34. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

______717 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mrs Beecroft Mr Anderson Mr Watterson Mr Bell Mr Skelly Mr Singer Mr Gawne Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker 5185 The Speaker: There were 6 votes for, 16 against. The motion fails. Then Mr Gawne’s amendment on page 32, as set out, for six constituencies of four Members.

The Clerk: No, he has not moved that. (Mrs Cannell: No.) He did not move that. 5190 Mr Gawne: I did not move that.

The Speaker: You did not move that? In that case we revert to Mr Watterson’s motion on page 26, of six constituencies of four. 5195 Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan Mr Watterson Mr Crookall Mr Skelly Mr Anderson Mr Gawne Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 5 votes for, 17 against. The motion fails to carry. We move now to Mr Watterson’s amendment on page 25, of eight constituencies of three 5200 Members. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mrs Beecroft Mr Ronan

______718 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Mr Watterson Mr Crookall Mr Skelly Mr Anderson Mr Gawne Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 5 votes for, 17 against. The amendment therefore fails to carry. We now move to the, what I describe as standalone amendments – the first of those. On 5205 page 32, number 2, in the name of Mr Gawne. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cannan Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Bell Mrs Beecroft Mr Singer Mr Watterson Mr Quayle Mr Skelly Mr Teare Mr Gawne Mr Cregeen Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 8 votes for, 14 against. It therefore fails to carry. 5210 Also on page 32, amendments number 3 and 4 by Mr Gawne, in relation to the naming of ‘Arbory, Castletown and Malew’. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mr Anderson Mr Ronan Mr Bell Mr Crookall Mr Teare Mr Singer Mrs Beecroft Mr Quayle Mrs Cannell Mr Cannan Mr Shimmin Mr Cregeen Mr Thomas Mr Henderson Mr Cretney Mr Robertshaw Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

______719 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

The Speaker: There were 13 votes for, 9 votes against. That amendment therefore carries. 5215 Finally, the amendment on page 34, number 4, in the name of Mr Karran. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The eyes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mrs Beecroft Mr Anderson Mr Watterson Mr Bell Mr Skelly Mr Singer Mr Gawne Mr Quayle The Speaker Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney

The Speaker: There were 7 votes for, 15 against. The amendment therefore fails to be carried. 5220 Having dealt with the amendments, I put the motion that clause 3 as amended stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:

FOR AGAINST Mr Karran Mr Quirk Mr Ronan Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Bell Mr Singer Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Henderson Mrs Beecroft Mrs Cannell Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmin Mr Thomas Mr Cretney Mr Watterson Mr Skelly Mr Gawne The Speaker

The Speaker: There were 21 votes for, 1 vote against. Clause 3 as amended therefore carries. 5225 I finally move to clause 4. Mr Anderson.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this will be the clause that takes the longest of the Bill. We will see.

______720 K131 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 25th FEBRUARY 2014

Clause 4 provides for the Act to cease to have effect on the day following promulgation or on 5230 the day following the General Election of the House of Keys, whichever is the earlier. This is a standard legislative drafting procedure. When an Act amends another Act, those amendments will be incorporated into the Act being amended. The provisions making these amendments become spent but the Act, in reality, now consisting only of the short title and the commencement provision, remains on the statutory book for no purpose. 5235 The provision in clause 4 prevents this from happening. Examples of recent Bills which include the now standard provision are the Limited Liability (Amendment) Bill 2013, the Post Office (Amendment) Bill 2013 and the Summary Jurisdiction and Miscellaneous Bill 2013. Those were examples of Bills with the same effects in them. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 do stand part of this Bill. 5240 The Speaker: Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: I beg to second.

5245 The Speaker: Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder. I would just like to ask the mover of the Bill what happens if there is a by-election between now and then, allowing for the fact of the constituencies being in position…? I just think it is 5250 important that we clarify that – that obviously the existing constituencies will have to be in force until 2016. That is all.

The Speaker: The mover to reply.

5255 Mr Anderson: Yes, the current arrangement stays in place and this does not come into effect until the 2016 General Election.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I put the question that clause 4 do stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 5260 Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of our consideration of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill clauses stage and concludes the business of the House today. The House will now stand adjourned until the next sitting which will take place at 10 o'clock on 4th March in this Chamber.

The House adjourned at 5.44 p.m.

______721 K131