Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

REPORT 2012-2013

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

Resolved in the Council on 25th October 2011 –

(i) That the Council desires to refer the constitutional principles raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 to a Joint Committee under Standing Order 4.7 of Tynwald Court;

(ii) that a message shall be sent to the House of Keys informing it of the Council’s desire for a Joint Committee and requesting its concurrence;

(iii) that the Council shall appoint three members to the proposed Joint Committee; and

(iv) that if the concurrence of the House of Keys is given, the Joint Committee shall be given powers to take evidence and to summon the attendance of witnesses pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876.

Resolved in the Keys on 22nd November 2011 –

That the Keys concurs with the proposal of the Council that a Committee of three Members be appointed to consider the constitutional principles raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 (in the Council); that the Committee be empowered to join with a Committee of the Council under Standing Order 4.7 of Tynwald Court; and that the Committee be given powers to take evidence and to summon the attendance of witnesses pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876.

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald, the House of Keys or the Legislative Council are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Committee Membership

Mrs Brenda Cannell MHK (Douglas East) (Caairliagh) Hon. P A Gawne MHK (Rushen) Mr L I Singer MHK (Ramsey) Mr R P Braidwood MLC Mr D A Callister MLC Mr A F Downie MLC

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW.

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION: THE BILL AND THE COMMITTEE ...... 8

II. THE HOUSE OF KEYS: AN EIGHT-CONSTITUENCY MODEL ...... 2

CONTEXT: THE BOUNDARY REVIEW PROCEDURE UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION 3

EIGHT THREES: CONTRASTING VIEWS SUBMITTED IN EVIDENCE 4

THE VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE 5

III. POPULAR ELECTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE BRANCHES OF TYNWALD ...... 5

CONTEXT: A LONG-RUNNING DEBATE 5

BALANCE OF POWER: THE EXISTING POSITION 6

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF THE BILL ON THE BALANCE OF POWER: EVIDENCE RECEIVED 7

THE COMMITTEE’S VIEW 9

IV. POPULAR ELECTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE ELECTORAL CYCLE...... 9

THE ELECTORAL CYCLE UNDER CURRENT LEGISLATION 9

THE ELECTORAL CYCLE PROPOSED BY THE BILL 10

EVIDENCE RECEIVED 11

THE COMMITTEE’S VIEW 12

V. OTHER ISSUES PUT TO THE COMMITTEE ...... 12

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 13

ORAL EVIDENCE 15

WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS 69

Cain, H J and E N 71

Cornwell-Kelly, Malachy, Clerk of Tynwald 2001 to 2008 73

Cringle, Noel, President of Tynwald 2000 to 2011 (letter 77 dated 17th January 2012 and typescript submitted subsequently)

Grimson, John 89

Jones, R G 95

Kermode, David 97

Motley, John 99

Quayle, Robert, Clerk of Tynwald 1976 to 1987 and 2001 101

Thomas, Chris 105

Tomlinson, Roger, Chairman, Positive Action Group 111

WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES 115

Andreas 117

Ballaugh 119

Braddan 121

Castletown 123

Douglas (published meeting minutes only: no direct response received) 125 Jurby 127

Lezayre 129

Marown 131

Maughold (letter and follow-up e-mails) 133

Onchan 143

Patrick 145

Peel 147

Port Erin 149

Rushen 151

Santon 153

ANNEX 1: The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 155

ANNEX 2: Summary timeline of boundary reviews and 169 Constitution Bills since 2003

ANNEX 3: Composition of the Legislative Council: 173 historical note

ANNEX 4: Timeline since 1982 of legislative proposals 177 relating to electoral reform and of Tynwald proceedings relating to boundary reviews

To: the Hon. Clare M Christian, President of Tynwald and the Hon. Members of the Legislative Council; and the Hon. S C Rodan SHK, Speaker of the House of Keys and the Hon. Members of the Keys.

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

I. INTRODUCTION: THE BILL AND THE COMMITTEE

1. The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 (Annex 1), a private Member’s Bill in the name of Mr David Callister MLC, puts forward two main propositions. First, that the Isle of Man should be divided into eight constituencies for the purposes of both the House of Keys and the Legislative Council; and second, that each constituency should return three MHKs and one MLC by means of direct popular election under the Representation of the People Act 1995.

2. The Bill passed its First Reading in the Legislative Council on 14th June 2011. On 25th October 2011 Mr Callister moved that the Bill be read a second time. The debate on the Second Reading was not concluded. Rather, the Council decided that the constitutional principles raised by the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee under Standing Order 4.7 of Tynwald Court. On 22nd November 2011 the House of Keys agreed to form a Joint Committee.

3. This Report and its adoption do not form part of the legislative process of the Bill. Rather, the Report is a separate exercise.

4. The Members elected by the Council to the Joint Committee were Mr Braidwood, Mr Callister and Mr Downie. The Council delegation elected

Mr Downie as its chair. The Members elected by the Keys to the Joint Committee were Mrs Cannell, Mr Gawne and Mr Singer. The Keys delegation elected Mrs Cannell as its Caairliagh. At the first meeting of the Joint Committee, on 7th December 2011, Mrs Cannell was elected Caairliagh of the Joint Committee. We have met on five occasions in total.

5. We put out a call for evidence in December 2011 and we are grateful to those members of the public who have responded.1 We also requested submissions from local authorities, the former President of Tynwald, former Chief Ministers, former Clerks of Tynwald, and Professor David Kermode and we are grateful to those from within these categories who responded. All the written evidence we have received is reproduced within this Report.

6. We heard oral evidence in public on two occasions:

 on 19th March 2012, from Mr Noel Cringle OBE and Mr Robert Quayle; and  on 20th April 2012, from Mr Eddie Lowey MLC and Mr Roger Tomlinson The oral evidence is reproduced in full within this Report.

7. The issues raised by the Bill are not unique to the Isle of Man but are faced by many jurisdictions. A paper by the Tynwald Information Service on Jersey, New Zealand and Norway is reproduced within this Report. One Member of the Committee, Mr Downie, also participated in hosting a visit to the Isle of Man in August 2012 by an Electoral Commission reviewing the composition of the States of Jersey.

II. THE HOUSE OF KEYS: AN EIGHT-CONSTITUENCY MODEL

8. The first of the Bill’s two main propositions is that the Island should be divided into eight constituencies for the purposes of elections to both the House of Keys and the Legislative Council. In the Keys, the Bill would abolish one- and two-seat constituencies and would require that the 24 members be

1 The six responses we received as a result of the general call for evidence were from: Mr and Mrs Cain; Mr Grimson; Mr Jones; Mr Motley; Mr Thomas; and Mr Tomlinson, Chairman, Positive Action Group. 2

drawn from eight three-seat constituencies. The Bill would therefore represent a significant reform of the Keys constituencies laid out in current legislation.

Context: the boundary review procedure under existing legislation

9. Under section 11 of the Representation of the People Act 1995 there are currently 15 constituencies returning variously one, two or three members as follows:

Single-seat constituencies Ayre, Castletown, Garff, Glenfaba, Malew and Santon, Michael, Middle, Peel Two-seat constituencies Douglas North, Douglas South, Douglas East, Douglas West, Ramsey Three-seat constituencies Onchan, Rushen

10. The boundaries of the constituencies for House of Keys elections were last fixed for the 1986 Keys General Election in response to recommendations made by the “Butler Report” in 1980. Further changes were recommended in the “Callow Report” in 1994 and by a committee chaired by Mr Robert Quayle, former Clerk of Tynwald, which reported in 2006. The 1994 and 2006 recommendations have not been implemented.2

11. Section 11(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1995 provides that:

If Tynwald so resolves, the Governor in Council shall appoint a committee of such persons as he thinks appropriate, to review the number and boundaries of the said constituencies and to report thereon to Tynwald.

Since 2004, Boundary Review Committees appointed under this provision have co-existed with a series of Constitution Bills, different views having been taken at different times as to the appropriateness of these two procedures running at the same time (see Annex 2).

12. For our own part we are aware that a Boundary Review Committee is currently in existence, having most recently been established in July 2010. In December 2011 the recommendations of its first interim report were approved

2 See the Interim Report to Tynwald on the Boundaries of the Constituencies for Elections to the House of Keys, January 2006 (GR 0002/06). The members of this Committee were Robert Quayle, John Gallacher, Walter Gilbey and John Wright. 3

by Tynwald and it was asked to complete its work by December 2012. In October 2012 the recommendations of its second interim report were approved by Tynwald and it was asked to complete its work by June 2013.

These recommendations would see the 24 seats of the House of Keys divided into 12 constituencies of two members each. We have maintained a separation between our work and the work of the Boundary Review Committee. We have corresponded with it about the procedures being followed but we have not taken substantive evidence from it and we have not, as a committee, contributed to the consultation exercise which it has been running.

Eight threes: contrasting views submitted in evidence

13. In his written submission, Mr Robert Quayle commented as follows on the Bill’s proposal to divide the Island into eight constituencies, each returning three MHKs:3

6. Turning to the proposed division of the Island into eight constituencies, I am aware from my experience as a former Chair of the Boundary Commission, that such a division is possible – indeed it does form one of the easier and more obvious divisions as it overcomes objections based on the exact boundaries of smaller constituencies which often bedevil a Boundary Commission’s recommendations. I have no problem with three member constituencies – I do have a rooted concern over the present assortment of differently sized constituencies returning anything from one to three members which seems inherently undemocratic. Any legislation which determines that problem would be an advance. One of the strongest arguments for larger constituencies, is a move away, even if it is largely symbolic, from the current highly parochial approach of much of the political process based on very small and local constituencies.

14. Mr Noel Cringle took a different view. In his oral evidence he said:4

I think we have got to be careful that, if you go down this particular road, what you are doing is not only changing the balance between Keys and Council, you

3 Letter dated 3rd February 2012 at point 6; see also Mr Quayle’s oral evidence at QQ 34 to 35 and 64. 4 QQ 17, 32 4

are changing the balance between rural and town dweller and you are changing the whole tradition and structure of our Tynwald Court... So on balance, I would think that two-seat constituencies, 12 twos are probably my favourite at the present time, but you must be careful when you are doing that, that, in fact, what we are not getting out of kilter is the balance between urban and rural.

15. Written evidence from local authorities shows a mixed reaction to the proposal. Jurby, Maughold, Rushen and Santon favour the retention of the existing constituency layout. Andreas, Ballaugh and Onchan favour 24 single- seat constituencies. Marown and Peel advocate waiting for the outcome of the latest Boundary Review Committee.

The view of the Committee

16. Within the Joint Committee, a majority of Members support the Bill’s proposition that the Island be divided into eight constituencies for the purpose of elections to the Legislature. We have not, however, reached a consensus view as a Committee.

III. POPULAR ELECTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE BRANCHES OF TYNWALD

17. The Bill’s second main proposition is that each constituency should return three MHKs and one MLC by means of direct popular election under the Representation of the People Act 1995. As far as the Legislative Council is concerned this would represent a significant change in the method of election.

Context: a long-running debate

18. The Legislative Council was for many centuries a fully appointed body under the Kings and Lords of Mann. Its composition changed radically in 1919 with the introduction of members elected by the House of Keys. Incremental adjustments were made throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, with the most recent change being the creation of the office of President of Tynwald in 1990 (see Annex 3). Today the Legislative Council has nine voting members, eight of them elected by the House of Keys acting as an electoral college.

19. The idea that the Legislative Council should be composed of members elected not by the House of Keys, but by the public, has been the subject of more or less constant debate for at least as long as the Council has had its current form. Since the early 1980s the following alternatives have been considered:

 a single General Election to a Tynwald of 32 or 33 members, with legislative duties being assigned after the election – put forward by Mr Quine in 1983, 1988 and 1990, Mr Cannell in 2000, Mr Rodan in 2004 and Mr Cannan in 2007  an eight- or nine-constituency model for direct elections to the Legislative Council – put forward by Mr Kneale in 1982, by the Legislative Council in 2005 and by Mr Quayle in 2007  a five-constituency model for direct elections to the Legislative Council – put forward by Mr Lowey in 1999 and Mr Quine in 2003  a single all-Island constituency model for direct elections to the Legislative Council – put forward by Mr Karran in 2007

Balance of power: the existing position

20. By 1969 a majority of voting Members of the Council were not appointed but were indirectly elected to the Council by the Keys. Today eight of the nine voting Members of the Legislative Council are so elected. Apart from this power to “hire and fire”, the predominance of the Keys is reflected in the current arrangements for:

 primary legislation, where under the Constitution Act 2006 the Council cannot veto a Bill but can only delay it (provided that 17 Members of the Keys support it); and  motions in Tynwald, where under the Isle of Man Constitution Act 1961 and Tynwald Standing Order 3.19, if a motion is carried in the Keys and defeated in the Council, the Keys can over-ride the Council in a combined vote at a subsequent sitting (provided that 17 voting Members of Tynwald support the motion).

Both Mr Cringle and Mr Quayle in their oral evidence said that they thought the current arrangements were not widely understood by the public.5 Mr Tomlinson disagreed.6

Potential effect of the Bill on the balance of power: evidence received

21. The Bill does not propose any alteration to the existing legislation restricting the powers of the Legislative Council. On the face of it, therefore, the Bill would leave the balance of power unchanged, the House of Keys retaining the dominant position. During the First Reading debate on 14th June 2011, Mr Callister MLC said of his Bill:

It would not change the role taken by the Council Members. They would continue to be primarily a revising body in matters of legislation – in other words, the work that they now do would continue ... this would not change the responsibilities or the other powers of the Legislative Council in relation to the House of Keys and I do not see how it would.

22. Contrary views have also been put forward during the passage of the Bill thus far, and in evidence to us. In the First Reading debate on 14th June 2011 Mrs Christian MLC (in one of her last contributions to debate before being elected President of Tynwald on 12th July 2011) said:

If, in future, Council Members and Keys Members are to be elected on the same franchise in the same constituencies, believe me, it will not be long before they will seek to have the same powers as Keys Members. Why would you stand for a lesser power? So that is an issue that is a consequence, I believe, of the proposal... The Hon. Member has also highlighted the fact that changing the system of voting will probably come about in Tynwald because if Members have an equal franchise, there may well be a move to say, “We want an equal way of voting in Tynwald... So, if the public truly want an elected Council, they have, in my view, to be prepared that the whole framework within Tynwald Court will eventually change... [Iceland] are a unicameral chamber now and I believe we, too, will become unicameral.

5 QQ 13, 46, 72 to 74 6 Q 159 7

23. In oral evidence to us Mr Noel Cringle OBE (who had served as President of Tynwald from 2000 until Mrs Christian’s election in July 2011) put forward a similar point of view, saying:7

If the Members of the Legislative Council are publicly elected, without doubt, in my book, it will lead to the Isle of Man becoming unicameral, because if the Members of the Legislative Council [are] elected publicly on the same mandate as the House of Keys, why should they, as a body, say, “We will take notice of what the House of Keys say and accept their decision”? They would not do so – no need for them.

24. Mr Eddie Lowey MLC, who proposed the establishment of this Committee, said:8

25. Mr Robert Quayle, Clerk of Tynwald from 1987 to 2001, identified a similar risk, writing:

2. ... if LegCo becomes directly elected by the people as opposed to an electoral college, its mandate changes dramatically. Not only can its members claim to represent the voters directly and they will have a mandate to prove it ... they can claim to have an enhanced mandate over their House of Keys colleagues. Even if that principle is not readily accepted, it is undisputable that the vote of a LegCo member, being one of eight rather than one of twenty-four, carries greater influence over any outcome so long as each Chamber sits and votes separately.

3. Thus any proposal to have LegCo members elected directly, unless appropriately constrained, would have the effect of reducing the legislative supremacy of the House of Keys.

26. Mr Quayle’s successor as Clerk, Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly, wrote:

7 Q 6 8 Q 81 8

4. ... it seems likely that [under the Bill] each Council Member could claim to be elected by a greater number of electors than could each MHK, or to have in some sense a superior or different democratic mandate.

5. A possible consequence would be conflicts between the two chambers, and a demand for the traditional supremacy of the Keys to be foregone or diminished. Such an outcome would not only lead to slower decision making by the legislature, but could also have an undesirable effect on the perception of a stable political system in the Island.

27. Professor David Kermode brought a historical perspective to the issue of the balance of power between the branches, writing:

If the Legislative Council becomes an elected chamber, there is a strong case for restoring parity of power with the Keys and resolving conflict between the branches over legislation and other matters by a joint vote in Tynwald.

The Committee’s view

28. Within the Committee, four Members believe that the proposals in the Bill need not necessarily affect the relationship between the branches. Two Members considered that the Bill would affect that relationship although the Keys would still have the greater numerical strength.

IV. POPULAR ELECTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE ELECTORAL CYCLE

The electoral cycle under current legislation

29. Currently under the Representation of the People Act 1995, the House of Keys is dissolved every five years with the General Election following immediately after the dissolution. The last General Election was in September 2011. The next will be in 2016.

30. Under the Isle of Man Constitution Amendment Act 1919, each elected member of the Legislative Council serves a term of just under five years, running until the last day of February in the relevant year. The House of Keys

procedure for filling the resultant vacancies begins one month before the vacancies arise.9 Four members went out of office in 2008 and four in 2010. Therefore four vacancies will arise at the end of February 2013 and four at the end of February 2015.

31. The result of these arrangements is that elections are set to occur three times in every five years, as illustrated by the following table:

House of Keys Legislative Council

2011

2013 (four members)

2015 (four members)

2016

2018 (four members)

2020 (four members)

The electoral cycle proposed by the Bill

32. The Bill does not propose any change to the electoral cycle as described above. For the elections to the Legislative Council it abolishes the procedure for election by the House of Keys and substitutes popular election under the Representation of the People Act 1995.

33. The years of elections to the Legislative Council would remain as they are at present, but the expiry date of the Members’ terms of office would be moved from the last day of February to the Thursday following the third Tuesday in August, and the elections to the last Thursday of September.

34. The Legislative Council would still be divided into two groups of four. Once the eight new constituencies have been determined, the President of Tynwald

9 Isle of Man Constitution (Elections to Council) Act 1971, section 2(1B)(a). 10

would have to designate four of them to “go first”, with their elections two years after the Keys General Election. The other four constituencies would then have their Council elections four years after the Keys General Election.

35. According to the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum, it is anticipated that the costs arising from the Bill in respect of the elections to the Council will be £170,000 in each five year term of the Keys.

Evidence received

36. Mr Robert Quayle commented in his written submission as follows:

4. I struggle to understand the purpose of having LegCo members elected at different times than House of Keys members. It certainly would not reduce their authority or diminish their mandate – indeed I could see candidates defeated at a House of Keys election having a “second bite” at a subsequent LegCo election and claiming an equal or even superior mandate notwithstanding their defeat at the earlier contest. I also think that the electorate would struggle to appreciate why elections were staggered, and would not generate as much enthusiasm for LegCo elections; it would also be difficult to express a collective view on a Government’s record if elections were not held contemporaneously.

5. The cost of holding a series of elections would obviously be higher than one election in each constituency every five years (more frequently in the event of by-elections).

37. Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly in his submission advocated simultaneous elections for similar reasons.

38. Professor David Kermode favoured separate Keys and Council elections with the latter occurring once every five years. He wrote:

The proposed staging of elections to the Legislative Council would result in the Island having elections in 3 out of every 5 years, a sure recipe for instability of membership of both executive and legislature. A single election 2 or 3 years after that for the Keys would be less disruptive and would have the advantage of allowing the whole Island to vote in a mid-term election.

39. We have noted that in Jersey moves are underway to bring together on a single day, once every four years, the elections for the different types of States members (senators, constables and deputies).

The Committee’s view

40. Within the Committee one Member favours the proposal in the Bill while five consider that it would be preferable to have one election to the whole of the Legislative Council every five years.

41. The Secretary of the House of Keys, Mr Roger Phillips, has advised that the idea of “dissolving” the whole of the Legislative Council would have implications for the legislative process and could in itself be considered a constitutional innovation. Currently at a General Election it is only the House of Keys which is dissolved while the Legislative Council and Tynwald Court continue in existence. A Bill which is before the Legislative Council can continue its passage irrespective of the Dissolution (although under Keys Standing Order 4.26(4) a Bill which had started in the Keys would need to go through its Keys stages again after the General Election). These arrangements enable a Bill to be “kept alive” despite a Dissolution. If in future the Legislative Council, and therefore the whole of Tynwald Court, were to be dissolved at the same time, this possibility would no longer exist. All business before Tynwald Court would also lapse.

V. OTHER ISSUES PUT TO THE COMMITTEE

42. Within the written and oral evidence we have received, a number of other issues have been put to us. A number of witnesses have described to us alternative models for the reform of the composition of the Legislature. Mr Robert Quayle argued for the introduction of regular boundary reviews. Both he and Mr Noel Cringle made the point that the Bill is hard to read and advocated some form of consolidating legislation.

43. While we are grateful to all the witnesses for their wide-ranging and thought- provoking contributions, we have determined that these matters fall outside our remit.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

44. In moving for the establishment of this Committee in the Legislative Council on 25th October 2011, Mr Eddie Lowey MLC said:

It [the Bill] is a bit premature: but I think we could actually say we wish to get this show on the road and have both Branches having an input into the principles that are enunciated in Mr Callister’s Bill. I think it is a positive move, not a negative move, and I would urge Hon. Members to give it consideration... I believe both Branches should be involved in the constitutional development of the Isle of Man, and this is a vehicle which would allow that to take place.

45. Our remit is to consider the constitutional principles raised by the Bill. The written submission which we have received from the Positive Action Group queries whether the Bill has raised any constitutional principles at all. It states by way of conclusion:

Despite having members present at both readings of the Bill, PAG readily admits it is not able to identify constitutional principles raised by the Bill.

46. In his oral evidence, Mr Roger Tomlinson, Chair of the Positive Action Group, expanded on this concern as follows:10

I do not think you are affecting the constitution in the Isle of Man. Will you have a Legislative Council? Yes. Will you have a House of Keys? Yes. Will you have a Tynwald? Yes. It is not being affected at all.

47. We recognise that there is scope for argument as to whether all the issues raised by the Bill should properly be designated “constitutional principles”. The question of dissolving the Legislative Council is certainly of constitutional significance; however, this question does not arise on the face of the Bill but has arisen in our discussion of the evidence presented to us. We have decided to report in any case on the main issues raised by the Bill in order to fulfil the remit given us by the Branches.

48. We have given careful consideration to the issues raised by the Bill and to the evidence we have received from Members and former Members, expert

10 Q 134 13

observers and the public. We have discussed at length the information we have collected and the views we have heard. We have not reached a consensus on the desirability or otherwise of any element of the Bill’s proposals.

49. In these circumstances we have concluded that the only thing we can do is make our report to the Branches and allow the legislative process to take its course. The Bill is currently before the Legislative Council, where the Second Reading has been moved but has not been voted on.

50. We therefore make the following recommendation:

That the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 should be returned to the Legislative Council for the continuation of the legislative process.

B Cannell

P A Gawne

L I Singer

R P Braidwood

D A Callister

A F Downie

ORAL EVIDENCE 16 TYNWALD COURT OFFICIAL REPORT

RECORTYS OIKOIL QUAIYL TINVAAL PROCEEDINGS

DAALTYN

HANSARD

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

CO—VING TINVAAL MYCHIONE PRINSABYLYN BUNRAGHTOIL TA GIRREE ASS BILLEY LHIASAGHEY REIHYSSAGH 2011

Douglas, Monday, 19th March 2012

PP62/12 JCERB, No. 1

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website www.tynwald.org.imlOfficial 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.imlOfficial Papers/Hansards/Hansard Appendix

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IMI 3PW. 0 Court of Tynwald, 2012

17 JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Members Present:

Chairman: Mrs B J Cannell, MHK Mr L I Singer, MHK Mr D A Canister, MLC Mr A F Downie, MLC

Clerks: Mr RIS Phillips Mr J King

Apologies: Mr R P Braidwood, MLC Hon. P A Gawne, MHK

Business Transacted Page

Procedural 3

Evidence of Mr N Cringle OBE 3

Mr Quayle was called at 10.50 a.m.

Procedural 13

Evidence of Mr R Quayle 13

The Committee sat in private at 11.46 a.m.

2 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles raised by the Electoral Reform B ill 2011

The Committee sat in public at 10.00 a.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MRS CANNELL in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mrs Cannell): Good morning and welcome to this sitting of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Principles raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011. I am Mrs Brenda Cannell MHK, and I chair this Committee. The other members of the Committee are, from the Keys, Mr Gawne, Mr Singer and from the Council, Mr Downie, Mr Braidwood and Mr 5 Callister. Mr Braidwood has submitted his apologies this morning and Mr Gawne is indisposed. For the benefit of Hansard, could I ask anybody, members of the public here if they would please switch off their mobile phones? It is no good just keeping it on silent, because it does in fact interfere with the recording equipment. Also for the benefit of Hansard I shall be making sure that we do not have two people speaking at once. 10 The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 is a Private Member's Bill in the name of Mr David Callister MLC. It makes two main proposals; first that the Island should be divided into eight constituencies and second; that each constituency should return three MHKs and one MLC. The Bill passed its First Reading in the Legislative Council on 14th June 2011. On 25th October 2011 the Legislative Council decided that the constitutional principles raised by the Bill should be referred to a joint 15 committee under Standing Order 4.7 of Tynwald Court. On 22nd November 2011, the House of Keys agreed to form a Joint Committee. Today, we welcome two very distinguished witnesses. We first of all have Mr Noel Cringle, who is a former President of Tynwald Court and Speaker of the House of Keys, and no doubt has a length of both experience and knowledge in respect of the workings of both the House of Keys and 20 the Legislative Council, and of course Tynwald Court. Our second witness today is Mr Robert Quayle, who is a former Clerk of Tynwald Court, and of course he has stepped into the fray on numerous occasions and acted as Counsel to the Speaker and of course acted as the Clerk in Tynwald Court. If I could, first of all, welcome Mr Noel Cringle and ask him to come forward, please. I 25 apologise: there is no tea for you this morning, Mr Cringle, (Mr Cringle: Okay.) but feel free to pour yourself a glass of water.

EVIDENCE OF MR N CRINGLE OBE

Ql. The Chairman: First of all, can I thank you for your letter of 17th January 2012, and also for your additional information, which was very interesting. If I could, first of all, start by asking you whether or not you think this is a good piece of legislation that is before the Legislative 30 Council at the present time; and if not, why not?

Mr Cringle: Good morning Committee and an interesting question to start off — 'is it a good piece of legislation?' As a piece of written work, I imagine, as I tell you in my letter that, in fact, mechanically it would work. Whether it is good or not, will ultimately be before the Keys and the 35 Council to decide. In my view, it is definitively flawed.

3 JCERB 19

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Q2. The Chairman: In what way?

Mr Cringle: It is flawed in a number of ways, but I equally tell you that, in my correspondence 40 and there is no need, I do not think at this particular stage, to go through each individual item, Chair, because if in fact, as a Committee, you are considering the electoral reform procedure of the Isle of Man, are we definitively looking at this particular piece of legislation alone, or in fact, are you looking at the principles of election to the Keys and the Council in the Isle of Man as it currently is? Are you looking at the whole of the package, or just looking at this particular Bill? 45 If you are looking at just this particular Bill, I could very easily start off on clause 2(2) where it says:

`(ca) he is not a member of the Council;'

50 Well, I sometimes wonder why that is in, in effect and how can a Member of Council become a Member, if he cannot stand? If in fact, you turn over the page and you look at 10B, what happens when a Council Member, for example, decides to resign, to stand for the House of Keys? In fact, can he do so? If there is a by-election which crops up through death or whatever in the House of Keys and a Member of the 55 Legislative Council, under this particular legislation, wishes to stand down to become a Member of the House of Keys, stand for that by-election seat, the procedure, or the ability of that person to stand down is not clearly spelt out in this particular legislation; and similarly it goes on, upon the death of a Legislative Council Member, vice versa, could a Member for the Keys stand for that Council seat? It is unclear and it needs to be spelt out in the Bill if, in fact, you are going to alter 60 the law.

Q3. The Chairman: May I, Mr Cringle, say that what you are advocating therefore is, although you say that it could mechanically work as piece of legislation, it would require amendment in order for it to become satisfactory, in your opinion? 65 Mr Cringle: Unquestionably.

Q4. The Chairman: Can I just say that what we are formed to consider is the constitutional principles raised within the legislation, and that being that there should be eight constituencies and 70 that Members of the Legislative Council should be elected by public vote. Do you have any objection to those two principles?

Mr Cringle: Both of them. 75 Q5. The Chairman: You have objections to both?

Mr Cringle: Both of them, and I think, Madam Chair, I have spelt it out again in my letter. I think it is quite straightforward and plain. Certainly, as far as the election to the Legislative Council by the public goes, I think it will be a mistake. I say that quite openly and quite 80 straightforwardly to the Committee. As I said in my letter to you, I think ultimately that that would lead, without question, to the Isle of Man going down a unicameral system of parliament. If they are publicly elected to the Legislative Council, there is no way in which, in the future, Members of the Legislative Council elected in that manner would bow down to, the Members of the Legislative Council... I think what a lot of people do not realise is that, in fact, the Legislative 85 Council can always be over-ridden by the House of Keys, the elected assembly, if the House of Keys so wish.

Q6. The Chairman: Mr Cringle, in your letter, you do not actually oppose the idea of unicameralism, do you? 90 Mr Cringle: Not of unicameralism and I thought I was quite plain, Madam Chairman, that in fact in the Bill, in my letter, I thought I was quite plain in telling you that in fact, if that is the way... and I am not against change, if Members of the House of Keys ultimately change, so be it. I am not against change. That will happen and always has happened and will happen again. 95 The point I was making in my letter to you was that, if the Members of the Legislative Council are publicly elected, without doubt, in my book, it will lead to the Isle of Man becoming unicameral, because if the Members of the Legislative Council elected publicly on the same

4 JCERB

20 JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

mandate as the House of Keys, why should they, as a body, say, 'We will take notice of what the House of Keys say and accept their decision'? They would not do so — no need for them. 100 The Chairman: I might just invite Members of my Committee now to question. Mr Callister.

Q7. Mr Callister: Thank you very much. 105 I will try to avoid calling you 'Mr President', Mr Cringle. You were in Tynwald a long time — a long time in the Keys, of course, as well. Particularly in the Keys, there were several attempts during those years to have a publicly elected Legislative Council, from Victor Kneale and other Members and so on, even in recent times with Mr Quayle's Bill. Did you ever vote in favour of any of those Bills in the past? 110 Mr Cringle: I am sure you have checked the record, Mr Callister: I have not, but I can equally tell you that, as time goes by — and you will also realise, as you even get older, Mr Callister — sometimes your recollection and your ability to decide at the time will change. I can tell you, for example, in relation to electoral reform in my very first manifesto of 1971, 115 Mr Callister, I was proposing single-seat constituencies. I would not today.

Q8. Mr Callister: Yes, thank you for that. Now, do you agree that this Bill does not promote a unicameral system? 120 Mr Cringle: It doesn't, but it will.

Q9. Mr Callister: It might be a precursor of that, but the Bill that is before us really only provides for two things, that is eight three-seat constituencies, which would allow for Members of the Council to be elected into those same constituencies, have the same mandate and so on. As for 125 being overridden by the Keys, this Bill does not change that, in fact, because it still leaves the House of Keys... Provided they can find the 17 votes, they can pass anything.

Mr Cringle: Yes, I accept what you are saying in that regard, Mr Callister. My view is that, as I say in my letter to you, it will lead to unintended consequences, and the 130 unintended consequences will be that the Members of the Legislative Council will not, in future, accept what they are accepting easily today.

Q10. Mr Callister: That again is purely a matter of opinion. The Bill does not say that. Currently there are five Members of the Legislative Council who have no public mandate — 135 and they are, of course, Mr Butt, Mr Turner, the new Member Mr Wild, the Lord Bishop and myself — so that is a majority of the Council: 9 out of 33 in Tynwald. Over 27% of the representatives of the people have no public mandate. Is that something that should be a matter of concern?

140 Mr Cringle: Not particularly, because in fact the Legislative Council are a revising Chamber and have specific duties. As I have already pointed out — and you accept, Mr Callister — the Legislative Council will always and can always be overridden by the House of Keys, should the elected House so desire. I accept that five of you have no public mandate at the present time. That was at the wish of the House of Keys, the representatives sent to the House of Keys by the public 145 of the Isle of Man. They have that duty. The House of Keys have a duty to elect the Members to the Legislative Council. Nobody else can do that; only the House of Keys. If I go back to my early days in Tynwald Court, and even before being in Tynwald Court, it was the custom that senior Members of the House of Keys were moved on to the Legislative Council. That was the then wish of the House of Keys because the House of Keys felt, in fact, that 150 those with knowledge of the law which had been passed and some knowledge of procedure would serve better in the revising Chamber. In more recent times, it has been the desire of the House of Keys — nobody else; the desire of the Members of the House of Keys — to elect people who they thought, from outside, would be satisfactory. I think, in fact, memory serves me right, or maybe it doesn't, but I think the first to be elected 155 from outside was probably Deemster Luft.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Callister.

5 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Mr Callister: Can I just go on from that — 160 The Chairman: Can I come back to you?

Mr Callister: — because my question is not finished?

165 The Chairman: Can I just come... Oh, okay.

Q11. Mr Callister: If, then, at sometime in the future, all nine representatives — all nine Members of the Legislative Council — had no public mandate, then would that concern you? 170 Mr Cringle: No, not if the House of Keys are responsible for electing them. I have already said, Mr Callister, the House of Keys has a duty to elect the revising Chamber, the Legislative Council. It is their duty and it is what the House of Keys do that is predominant. If the general public get cross with that, the general public will vote out the Members of the House of Keys. 175 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Callister. Mr Singer.

Mr Singer: Good morning.

Mr Cringle: Good morning. 180 Q12. Mr Singer: You mention the words 'specific duties' of the Legislative Council, but `specific duties'... There are 'specific duties' that are relevant to LegCo Members and they are clearly defined, so surely LegCo Members cannot demand more, if these duties remain the same, however large their electorate are going to be? 185 Mr Cringle: I see exactly where you are coming from, Mr Singer, I understand the angle which you are taking, but in fact, I would suggest to you that that is not the way it would happen. I am quite satisfied that there would be contention, there would be disagreement, there would be a continual pull and I think the public of the Island would realise quite easily what is going to 190 happen and what would happen and if the public then realise, the pressure would come on, even greater, to go down the road of a unicameral system. That it is my view, Mr Singer.

Q13. Mr Singer: But surely the public would be quite well aware, when they were voting for a Member of the Legislative Council, what their duties were. I would think, rather than support the 195 Legislative Council demanding more powers, surely they would say, `No, we voted you in with these powers — carry on with those and don't demand any more.'

Mr Cringle: I would think, Mr Singer, that that is a premise which is flawed simply by the fact that you would imagine today that the general public of the Isle of Man would know what the 200 duties of the Legislative Council are today, and you would admit that you are not going to change them particularly by this Bill. I am satisfied, sitting here, absolutely satisfied, that the biggest percentage of the public of the Isle of Man do not realise the difference between a Member of the House of Keys and their duties and a Member of the Legislative Council and their duties, and a lot of the public of the Isle of Man 205 do not realise that the Legislative Council can always be overridden by the House of Keys. That message does not get firmly across to the general public of the Isle of Man. My intent is that it will do.

Q14. Mr Singer: There would probably be four to five years before an election and surely, it is 210 the responsibility of the House of Keys and Legislative Council in those five years to get it over to the public, what in fact they are voting for and if they do not do that, then they have failed.

Mr Cringle: Which is quite common —

215 Mr Singer: If it happens, it happens.

Mr Cringle: — and happens on regular occurrences, and that is why, in fact, since the change of the nominated Members to the Legislative Council, it has taken probably, nearly enough a century

6 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

now for the public to understand that the Keys has the duty to elect the Members to the Legislative 220 Council. I know it is strange, but I can assure you that it is true.

Q15. Mr Singer: I am sure you would be a leader in making sure that the public got to know what the position was. 225 Mr Cringle: Well, I am trying, that is exactly part of the reason that I decided that I would give evidence to this Committee, Mr Singer, otherwise I would just be a normal person in the community, as I am. I decided that, in this instance, it was necessary maybe to come and give evidence to the Committee. 230 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Singer. Mr Downie, do you have any questions?

Q16. Mr Downie: Yes. Good morning, Mr Cringle. I do not know whether you have had... yes, you obviously have had an opportunity to peruse 235 the Bill, but I would just like to get your views on section 11, and I will read section 11. It says:

'Section 11 is substituted to make new provision about constituencies. In particular, a "Boundary Committee" appointed by the Governor in Council has to draw up 8 constituencies, subject to the approval of Tynwald and each of these constituencies is to return 3 members of the Keys and 1 member of the Council.' 240 As we both know, we have both been involved in politics in the Isle of Man for a long time, I would like to have your views on how you see this causing an upheaval within the various areas in the Isle of Man and the loss of all the traditional sheadings and some of the problems that that particular section will bring, if this Bill is advanced. 245 Mr Cringle: Sorry, Mr Downie, could I just go back to... Could you just go over your question again? I was finding it a little bit difficult to find section 11 in relation to what you... I think you were reading from the notes at the start of the page, were you? (Mr Downie: Yes.) Right, so you were not actually reading from the Bill itself; you were simply reading from the explanatory 250 memorandum in paragraph 5. Is that right?

Mr Downie: Yes, and I would also say to you that the Bill is quite complicated and it is not easy for people to understand, so —

255 The Chairman: Can I just interject, please? We are here to actually ask questions and seek the opinion of our witness.

Q17. Mr Downie: I am asking Mr Cringle to give me an opinion on section 11, which is on the front page of the explanatory memorandum, and how that would work, how he sees it would 260 work.

Mr Cringle: I think I also say, in my letter to you, in relation to that particular matter, that in fact this particular Bill, as you say, is difficult, and if you look at the repeal provisions you will see that in fact it ought to be read with many other pieces of legislation as well, in order for it to fit. 265 But your premise here, on section 11:

... is substituted to make new provision about constituencies. In particular, a "Boundary Committee" appointed by the Governor in Council has to draw up 8 constituencies, subject to the approval of Tynwald and each of these constituencies is to return 3 members of the Keys and 1 member of the Council.' 270 As I have said already, when you read that particular piece, if you wish to divide the Isle of Man up into eight constituencies, that is practical and can be done mechanically. Mr Callister has made the point, in his notes to this Bill, that in fact he refers to the Butler Commission coming up and saying that there should be eight constituencies — I think is what Mr Callister said — and I say 275 to you in my letter, Madam Chair, that in fact my recollection of the Butler Commission is the fact they had numerous suggestions, not just the one suggestion which Mr Callister refers to as being the practical one. Yes, I can understand that it can and could work. Anything could work. I mean to say, I remember very well when STV was introduced into the Isle of Man, there was even talk that that 280 would be the be-all and the end-all and in fact, all we needed is to vote for 24 Members of the

7 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

House of Keys in one constituency for the Isle of Man. You could just have all 24 elected on a long list. People would vote from 1,2,3,4, all the way down to 24. All those things are practical. I think we have got to be careful that, if you go down this particular road, what you are doing is not only changing the balance between Keys and Council, you are changing the balance between 285 rural and town dweller and you are changing the whole tradition and structure of our Tynwald Court. As I said, Madam Chair, I am not against change and I am happy if, in fact, the change will work and be practical. I am unhappy that I honestly believe that setting it out in this way, it will lead to further disagreements between the branches. It will lead to the branches, effectively, being at arm's 290 length, instead of working cohesively under guidelines which have been accepted for a century.

Q18. The Chairman: Can I just come in there, Mr Cringle. If the Bill were to go forward — and possibly amended, who knows — and it did lead... or it was decided that it would go forward where there were elections across eight constituencies seeking the election of three Members of 295 the House of Keys plus one Member of the Legislative Council, that seat being distinguished from the House of Keys — in other words, you are electing three Members of the House of Keys to undertake what they do now, but their primary role is studying primary legislation etc, and the Legislative Council Member who would also be elected in that particular constituency will be elected to do what the Legislative Council do at present — would you agree with me that, in fact, if 300 that were to go forward, the only difference would be that the Legislative Council would have a constituency base to look after, akin to the House of Keys Members, and that, in fact, would be the only difference? Bearing in mind that Members of the Legislative Council get the same pay as a Member of the House of Keys and all the privileges that go with that office are shared equally right across the 305 board between both Chambers, the only difference which would result is that Members of the Legislative Council had a constituency base to look after, which currently they do not. How, in the face of that, which is the reality of the inevitability of a Bill like this going through, would that not be a good thing?

310 Mr Cringle: You can argue that it would be a good thing, but I would argue backwards, Mrs Cannell, that, in fact if there was a general election called in these constituencies and you had three seats being elected to the House of Keys and one to the Legislative Council and as you point out, all being equal in all regards, other than that, can I suggest to you that if I was a politician in the Isle of Man standing for election, I would wish to stand for the House of Keys and not the 315 Legislative Council. Why would anybody want to stand in the same election at the same time, to be elected to the Legislative Council, when the opportunity is there for them in the same constituency to fight for a seat in the House of Keys, which is the predominant body? I mean to say, it is a nonsense, absolute nonsense.

320 Q19. The Chairman: Well, you say it is a nonsense and I accept the fact that you yourself were elected as a Keys Member (Mr Cringle: Absolutely.) and were a Member of the Keys, so obviously you are going to have that fighting spirit and I am pleased to see it is still there. What I would suggest to you is that, if the constituents, the people were asked to elect three Members of the House of Keys and a Member of the Legislative Council, whose role would be to 325 study legislation, to check that the legislation that comes forward from the House of Keys is in fact fit and good and proper and very much exercise a very important and essential scrutiny role, that role would, in fact, attract, possibly, candidates who were interested in that aspect of the work?

Mr Cringle: Well, you say they would. In my view — 330 The Chairman: I am suggesting that it might be possible that you would attract that sort of learned person into that role.

Mr Cringle: All things are possible, Mrs Cannell, I do not disagree with that. All things are 335 possible, but in reality, if you are telling me that all these Members are equal in all respects, pay and equal in all respects, other than the strict duty which you are going to spell out to them even clearer, I assume, why would anybody — why would anybody — wish to put themselves forward to be a Member of the Legislative Council, when the opportunity is there for them, in that same constituency, to be a Member of the House of Keys, where they could become a Minister, Chief 340 Minister, or whatever? Politically, I find it very difficult to say that anybody would wish to stand for the Legislative Council, deliberately putting themselves out of the battle.

8 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Q20. The Chairman: Could I suggest to you that possibly the reason... I believe it has been a personal choice of each Chief Minister as to whether or not the selection for ministerial positions has come mostly from the Keys or a combination of both the Legislative Council and the Keys, 345 and you would agree that there is nothing laid down that differentiates between the two branches, but surely, given the scenario — and I am just painting it as a possible scenario that might flow... Is it not a case that, when the two branches meet in Tynwald Court every month, the Members of the Legislative Council, elected under the situation that I am suggesting might flow, have the power of the voice, they also have the power of the vote, and they invariably disagree with the House of 350 Keys and are able to block votes, to block motions, to block initiatives coming forward, or to block any opposition that might flow from the House of Keys? So what I am suggesting to you is that, despite the fact that the only difference is that they would have a public mandate, they would have to have due regard to public opinion. That is the only practical difference, is it not? All of their powers would remain, and it is quite a useful power, 355 is it not, to have a Legislative Council with a small number of Members who, if they are in disagreement with the majority vote in the House of Keys, can actually stop a matter from going forward? That is a useful tool is it not?

Mr Cringle: Madam Chairman, I am sitting here absolutely amazed that you can tell me across 360 this floor that you think the Members of the Legislative Council can block the House of Keys. I have been in the House of Keys and the Legislative Council. I refused to be nominated to the Legislative Council, by virtue of the fact that I was aware that the House of Keys are predominant and the Legislative Council can delay in Tynwald Court, but they have no power to defeat the House of Keys and it is entirely at the wish of the House of Keys, whether or not they accept the 365 delay or the defeat of the Legislative... or the wish of the Legislative Council. The House of Keys, Mrs Cannell, are predominant and the House of Keys will remain predominant, even under Mr Collis ter' s Bill.

Q21. The Chairman: Mr Cringle, if I could just come back and say to you, after 161/2 years in 370 the House of Keys, I fully appreciate the power and the process that we have. Nevertheless, you can get a situation — and it has arisen from time to time — where, because the branches have been in disagreement, at that particular moment in time, that particular initiative or motion has fallen and it comes back to the case of whether counting all of the votes that were in favour, both in the Legislative Council and in the House of Keys is sufficient to come back at a subsequent sitting of 375 Tynwald Court to go for a combined vote of both branches. I am aware of the processes that are available, but I am not stressing this as my opinion or what I am thinking, I merely put it to you to try and expand upon your thinking this morning.

Mr Cringle: [ am still rather surprised at your words there, Mrs Cannell, because in fact if the 380 House of Keys and the Legislative Council votes are called separately in Tynwald Court and the branches are in disagreement, the ruling from the Chair is, with the branches in disagreement, that motion fails to carry. You know and I know, Mrs Cannell, that should the House of Keys wish, at that stage, for that vote to be taken collectively the next month, the House of Keys can so do. The Legislative Council can not so do, if it happens in reverse. 385 The point I make all the time to you, Mrs Cannell, is that the House of Keys, should they wish, are predominant. It is the wish of the elected assembly that makes the vote count, and sometimes the House of Keys Members, I can tell you, Mrs Connell, not only as being a House of Keys Member for some time, but sitting as President of Tynwald Court... I am very well aware that sometimes the Members of the House of Keys have, not even reluctantly, been glad to bow to the 390 wishes of the Legislative Council. They have not always fought the battle which they thought they wished to fight in the first place.

Q22. The Chairman: Mr Cringle, you raise a very important point at the beginning of your comments there, where you talked about the process, which I referred to, where a Member of the 395 House of Keys can bring the matter back for a combined vote of both branches and you state that the Legislative Council Members do not have that opportunity, but would you agree with me that, in fact, that provision is provided for in Standing Orders and so if Standing Orders were amended, Council might in the future have and share that provision to bring a vote back? 400 Mr Cringle: I would object strongly if that was to be the case.

The Clerk (Mr Phillips): You would have to have primary legislation.

9 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

The Chairman: Okay. If I could move on. Mr Callister, you have more questions? 405 Mr Callister: Yes, please.

Mr Cringle: Sorry, Mr Callister, but I take it, Mrs Cannell, that you heard my comment, that, if that was to be the case that you would alter Standing Orders, I would object strongly, because the 410 House of Keys, the elected assembly, should always be predominant.

Mr Callister: Mr Cringle, the Butler Commission... You are quite right, they made a number of possibilities, but their preferred option was eight three seats.

415 Mr Cringle: And which did the Keys take, Mr Callister?

Q23. Mr Callister: That never got to legislation, or their report didn't, anyway. It was not picked up because the Member who was very keenly interested in it was more interested in the single transferable vote at that time, I think. 420 Anyway, if we go to the duties of the Members of the House of Keys, how do the duties of the Members of the Legislative Council differ from the House of Keys now, apart from sitting in the Legislative Council? How do they differ now?

Mr Cringle: The Members of the Legislative Council act purely, as you know, Mr Callister, in 425 this assembly, dealing with legislation effectively as a revising Chamber. That has also changed and there are changes happening all the time. You and I both know that, certainly in the 1970s and 1980s, it was common practice enough for the Legislative Council to start legislation. Today, they can still start legislation, but it does not happen as much as it did previously, so in fact it becomes more of a revising Chamber. I accept the Chair's view before that it is the wish of the Chief 430 Minister to decide whether or not Members of the Legislative Council should be Ministers — absolutely correct, I accept that 100% — and if the Chief Minister decides a Minister should be in the Legislative Council, that is his wish. I would rather suggest that it is more unlikely to happen as years slip by. So the duties of the Legislative Council and the Members of the House of Keys are very similar, except, as again the Chair tried to point out earlier, that Members of the House of 435 Keys have a direct link to a constituency.

Q24. Mr Callister: Yes, the point about Ministers is an interesting one, because at the present time, certainly the past and seemingly the present Chief Minister regard that Council Members should not be Ministers, certainly at this point anyway. If they were publicly elected, of course, 440 any one of them then could be appointed as a Minister, which would be another benefit. However, the duties of —

Mr Cringle: Could I say in answer to that, Mr Callister, if they were publicly elected, they possibly could be open to both, but if you remember also that, Tynwald Court and the House of 445 Keys, in effect, when Mr Corkill ceased to be Chief Minister, instead of picking a Chief Minister from the House of Keys at that particular stage, the then House of Keys decided, in fact, to pick a Chief Minister from the Legislative Council.

Q25. Mr Callister: They picked a former Chief Minister, yes. 450 Mr Cringle: He was a Member of the Legislative Council.

Q26. Mr Callister: Yes, but that has now apparently changed. That is what I am coming to. If it now proceeds almost as the practice that the Members of Legislative Council cannot be 455 Ministers, it lets the electorate down because there could be very capable people who are sitting on Legislative Council, perfectly capable of taking over ministerial roles —

Mr Cringle: Then they should stand for election and the public should elect them. 460 Q27. Mr Callister: That is the whole point of this Bill, because when or if it ever got through, then it would not matter whether they were elected to the Council or the Keys. It would not matter.

Mr Cringle: It is the same argument again, Mr Callister —

10 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Mr CaUlster: The question is — 465 The Chairman: No, just one at a time, please, gentlemen!

Q28. Mr Callister: The question I did ask, was how the duties differ now and they do not differ, apart from the fact that the Council sits in this Chamber, because they take on duties and 470 responsibilities in Departments, in Boards, on Tynwald Committees, they have a voting power in Tynwald, they have a voice in Tynwald. Apart from the legislative side of things, they are in no way different now and they would be no way different if this Bill were to be passed.

Mr Cringle: I accept what you are saying and that is why I say it, in fact, in my 475 correspondence and my letter back to you, that if you go down this road, you will have to consider the numerical strength of the House of Keys, because I am convinced that the two branches, when they do act separately, will not accept that the House of Keys are predominant, because the Legislative Council will have the same mandate. So there is no reason for them, when they are acting as separate branches, one to bow to the other. 480 So I suggest to you again that it will ultimately lead to being a unicameral system and at that stage, as I pointed out to you in my correspondence, you will need to look at the numbers game because, currently, why the Members of the Legislative Council and the Members of the House of Keys have the same duties when they are Members of Tynwald Court, is for the numerical strength to be able to fill the positions of Ministers and Departmental Members and even 485 Committee Members. I accept entirely, we may only be 80,000/85,000 population of the Isle of Man, but if we are as a nation to govern ourselves, it cannot be done without a sensible number, and to restrict the numbers down to just 24 Members of the House of Keys would be impractical in my book. So, as I say, if you go on a unicameral system, you may very well have to look at the numbers 490 game of how many are elected to Tynwald Court.

Q29. Mr Callister: Well, we really are not here to talk about the unicameral system. Can I just ask one more question, Chairman? (The Chairman: Yes.) That is, the question was put, 'Why should anyone want to stand for the Legislative Council, rather than the House of 495 Keys?' In 1993 there were nine people seeking seats on the Legislative Council — among them was a gentleman in this room to whom we will be speaking to later. If there were nine people looking at that stage, and this was a public election, I rather suspect there might well be similar numbers. Even if there weren't, there will be people who will be interested in the legal and legislative side, probably a bit more senior than young people coming in in their 30s and 40s, who would be 500 attracted to serve on a Legislative Council. That is my view.

Mr Cringle: I accept that that is your view and I have put my view this morning, Mr Callister, which is apparently in total disagreement. The fact that there were nine members, nine people prepared to put themselves up for election 505 in 1993 to become a Member of the Legislative Council has got nothing to do with this Bill because, in fact, that was not under this proposed system at all. Those people were being elected knowing what the position was. They were not standing for the House of Keys. It was not for the similar constituency or anything else; it was for a separate job in a separate branch of our Tynwald Court. We must remember that currently we have two branches of our Tynwald Court. 510 The Chairman: Mr Callister, thank you.

Mr Callister: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

515 The Chairman: Mr Downie, do you have anything further to add because I would rather like us to wind up now.

Mr Downie: Not at this point, but I do not want to be accused of rambling on, so I will just keep my counsel at the moment. 520 The Chairman: Right. Can I invite either of the Clerks, possibly, to raise any questions that they feel have not been covered by the Committee this morning to please feel free to do so now?

11 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Q30. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): This is a very, very political Committee so I am a bit shy about 525 asking a question as I am not in politics, but the primacy of the Keys at the moment seems to be very established. Do you think its justification for remaining the primary branch would continue if both branches were equally elected — elected in the same way, I mean to say?

Mr Cringle: Definitively, no. I think it would automatically change, whether you tried to keep 530 it in law or not, and I think it is wrong in premise. I think the elected assembly of the House of Keys should always be predominant. I have long held that belief and as I told you before, as a Member of the House of Keys, I refused to accept nomination to the Legislative Council — on every seat, incidentally.

535 Q31. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): I know we are looking at the Bill as it is, but it might be interesting to think about the possibility of whether it would be possible to stand for both the Council and the Keys. Do you think that would be a solution to the difficulty which you identified about why people would want to stand for the Council?

540 Mr Cringle: But effectively then, we are getting even closer to being unicameral, aren't we? That is where I come from, in reality. As I say in my letter, whist I can accept change, I am not convinced that this is the right change. I am convinced of the primacy of the House of Keys. If the House of Keys want to do something, it is my belief that the House of Keys should be able to do it. They are the elected representatives and I am worried that if we go down this route, ultimately the 545 proper change would be to go to a full unicameral situation. I will not be around to see it, but there we are. That is the way it is. I can only give, Madam Chairman, my view as I see it now.

Q32. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): I have got one final question. You were an MHK for Rushen, and obviously with three representatives you are used to people working together for one 550 constituency. Do you think there would be any problems, or indeed benefits, in having every constituency with four elected representatives, one being in the Council and three being in the Keys? Do you think that would affect the way constituency work was done?

Mr Cringle: It would not affect it to a great extent and certainly, I have been a Member serving 555 with three in Rushen. So four in Rushen would not make that much more of a difference, if you were looking at in that way. I am just not convinced it is the right way to do it and as I said, in 1971, when I first stood for election to the House of Keys, young, bright, anxious, democracy much to the fore, single-seat constituencies; I was standing in a three-seat constituency, demanding that we had single-seat constituencies. I have changed my view. I would not now wish 560 the Isle of Man to go down to single-seat constituencies. I think it would probably bring party politics in quicker, and I am not satisfied that party politics in a small nation such as ours, would be the way forward, but that is another line. So on balance, I would think that two-seat constituencies, 12 twos are probably my favourite at the present time, but you must be careful when you are doing that, that, in fact, what we are not 565 getting out of kilter is the balance between urban and rural.

Q33. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): I was about to ask you about that. Do you think, whether you thought that one size fits all actually is — 570 Mr Cringle: I did try to put it in my letter. I did try to keep my letter brief!

The Clerk: — whether you think the one size fits all actually is appropriate as a model?

Mr Cringle: One thing does not suit everybody, does it? 575 The Chairman: Thank you. Mr King, do you have anything further that you would like to ask?

Q34. The Clerk (Mr King): One question, please, Mrs Cannell. 580 Mr Cringle, one of the aspects of the supremacy of the Keys at the moment is that, in the Council a majority of the voting Members are Members elected by the Keys so there are nine voting Members here, eight of whom were put here by the Keys. It was not ever thus and I was looking at the dates and although the Council began to be reformed in 1919, it was not until 1969 that a majority up here was placed here by the Keys. That is over 100 years since the last big

12 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

585 electoral reform of 1866. So having reformed the Keys in 1866 it was over 100 years before the Keys fully asserted its supremacy. The question is, if you make a reform in the Council, like the 1866 reform and make it directly elected, how long would it take for the reformed Council to assert its supremacy?

590 Mr Cringle: You are living in a different century. We are living in different times altogether. Things change and they can change very quickly today. Whilst I accept entirely that, in the days when not everybody could read and write, change happened slowly, today change happens too quickly, and I think that there are times when in fact you make a change and you wish that maybe a little bit more reflection had taken place. That is 595 why I am convinced that the reflection of a second Chamber is of benefit to Tynwald Court, and as long as the House of Keys are predominant, I am satisfied with the current position. Change the current position so that you lose the predominance of the elected assembly in the Isle of Man and I begin to have a worry. Yes, I understand the change of the Legislative Council, and certainly in my political time, in 600 my political life, I remember full well trying to politically change the Legislative Council to take the judiciary out of the Legislative Council. That is in my time. We were successful in doing it.

The Chairman: Mr Cringle, thank you every so much for coming in this morning.

605 Mr Cringle: Pleasure.

The Chairman: You always give a robust view and we fully appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr Cringle: Thank you.

Mr Quayle was called at 10.50 a.m.

Procedural 610 The Chairman: Now, if I can call our second witness, please: Mr Robert Quayle. Welcome, and please feel free to help yourself to a glass of water if you feel the need. Thank you for agreeing to come and give us evidence this morning and also for submitting your letter to us.

EVIDENCE OF MR R QUAYLE

Q35. The Chairman: If I can just start off by saying you have a slightly different view from our previous witness in that in your letter — bearing in mind that you both acted as Clerk of 615 Tynwald on numerous occasions and also sat on the Boundary Review Committee; you have seen things from both sides, as it were — you are actually saying that eight three-seat constituencies for the House of Keys is in fact a practical and workable solution. You seem to favour eight three- seat-constituency sections as opposed to perhaps 12 two-seat constituencies. Is that correct?

620 Mr Quayle: Madam Chairman, I do not think it is correct. I think what I have said is that eight three-seat constituencies is perfectly possible from a range of options. You can have 24 ones, you can have 12 twos, you can have eight threes, you can have one of 24. If you are going to have a directly elected Legislative Council of eight Members, assuming you stick with the eight, the eight constituencies makes a logical division to use for the House of Keys as well. 625 What I have an inherent objection to is the current multiplicity of constituencies — some with three, some with two, some with one — which I think is inherently undemocratic, and the Butler Commission recommended that should cease, but that is 35 years ago.

Q36. The Chairman: Sticking with your eight three-seat constituencies, you went further in 630 your letter, because you said from a Boundary Review Commission point of view, it would have less negative impact on towns and villages and communities and parishes, did you not?

13 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Mr Quayle: When I sat as Chair of the Boundary Commission, one of the things we struggled with was to try and marry the obvious loyalty to the old sheadings, the local parish boundaries and 635 the division between town and country, and it was very difficult to do, virtually impossible. There were compromises that had to be made the whole time, not least because the population has shifted and that sort of thing. Some people do not even remember what sheadings are, let alone where they are. As you got down to the small number of Members returned and the larger number of 640 constituencies, it actually got more difficult to respect those old boundaries. It was probably easier to do it on the eight threes, or the eight constituencies, rather than on the 24 ones and it was merely that, that there were difficult balances to draw.

The Chairman: Can I invite any of my members now, talking I think, specifically, if we could 645 stick to the boundary review aspect, possibly to start off with, before we then tackle the thorny issue of the actual election of the Members of the Legislative Council —

Mr Downie: I would like to start please. 650 The Chairman: Mr Downie.

Q37. Mr Downie: Mr Quayle, you have obviously got a lot of experience: a former Clerk of Tynwald, you chaired the Boundary Commission. You heard Mr Cringle give his evidence and explain how he felt that there would perhaps be some dichotomy between town and country. If we 655 were to go down the specific route that is outlined in the Bill here, the eight three-seats plus one, how do you feel that would work, when 65% of the Island's population live in Douglas, Braddan and Onchan? What effect will it have on the rural community?

Mr Quayle: I think that one of the things that changed over the last 35 years is that there is a 660 less clear distinction between urban and rural constituencies. I think the old differences of interests have changed over the years and there is a less obvious distinction. The Boundary Commission, I think, felt that it was less pressing to maintain the distinction and sometimes it is very difficult to say where should the distinction be drawn? Where does the town end and the country begin? We are getting a much more homogeneous society and it is somewhat more difficult to draw that clear 665 distinction between rural interests and urban interests. I readily accept that the majority of the population in the Isle of Man now live in what we would describe as urban settlements. It creates practical difficulties, for instance, in the area in which I live. I live on the edge of Peel. I suppose you could say, traditionally it was in the country, but Peel seems to be coming out to join us. It was actually difficult matching the population in the 670 traditional Glenfaba constituency with the increasing population in Peel and saying Glenfaba should have one and Peel should have one as well. Peel, with a far greater population, was effectively disenfranchised in favour of the rural area, which was being enfranchised unevenly, compared to urban constituencies. It is a practical difficulty of drawing the distinction in the same way as it had been in the past and I think my Commission — and others may have reached a 675 different conclusion — felt that maybe it was no longer a distinction which was as relevant as it had been.

The Chairman: Mr Downie, do you have anything further? 680 Mr Downie: I would just to ask for your comments, really, on what has been proposed in the Bill with the 24 —

The Chairman: Mr Downie, if we could just focus on the boundary aspect of it. 685 Mr Downie: I will be talking on the boundaries.

The Chairman: Yes, but other Members would like the opportunity to also ask questions on the boundary aspect, I believe.

690 Q38. Mr Downie: I am talking about the boundaries, if you would let me continue. (The Chairman: Yes.)

14 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

The Bill refers to the three seats plus one. Would you not agree that it is going to be extremely difficult to break that down, bearing in mind that we have, as you say, conurbations now which have been established? Let me try and clarify that. 695 I have always agreed with the present system where it has been based on population so you have three in Rushen, three in Onchan, you have got Douglas North, South, East and West, and so on, but there has always, would you agree, been give and take in Tynwald because people have been prepared to sit and listen to the other person's argument? If we go down the route where we have three-seat constituencies plus one, it is going to change the whole thing and it will be much 700 more difficult to get the same perspective down in debates in Tynwald.

Mr Quayle: I think if you go to the three plus one, where every Member of Tynwald is elected in some form or another from the electorate, it would be less easy for some to feel that they have a stronger mandate for particular things than others do, because they will all be representing roughly 705 an equal number of constituents and with a direct relationship to those constituents. I was particularly intrigued with — and this may be transgressing on the next part of your questions, Madam Chairman... that Mr Cringle gave about how the duties of the Legislative Council and the House of Keys differ. I would say they do differ because House of Keys Members represent their constituents. They represent those who have elected them, whereas Legislative 710 Council Members do not.

Q39. Mr Downie: Final question, then: how do you think the system would work when a Member of the Legislative Council would have a mandate from somewhere between 10,000 and 11,000 constituents, if we went down this route? 715 Mr Quayle: I am wondering whether I should reserve my answer until we get to that principle, because I do have concerns about that and I am very happy to expand on those if...

The Chairman: Members, do you have any questions in respect of the boundary aspect of it? 720 Mr Canister: Not on boundaries, no.

Q40. The Chairman: Well, it looks as though we are going to move on to the other components of your contribution. 725 If I can just refer to your letter dated 3rd February 2012, on the second page, under (3), you suggest there, and it is written, that any proposal to have Legislative Council Members elected directly, unless appropriately constrained, would have the effect of reducing the legislative supremacy of the House of Keys. What would you consider to be appropriate constraint to prevent that situation from happening? 730 Mr Quayle: Madam Chairman, perhaps I could preface my remarks by saying that I am aware that the whole question of whether the Legislative Council should be directly elected or not directly elected has been a matter of debate for many years, not just here but in other places as well. I remember going to Denmark in 1978 with a delegation from Tynwald and we were shown 735 round the parliament there and we were shown the redundant upper house chamber. It was a very fine chamber, but totally redundant, sadly, and we were told that a delegation from an Eastern European country had visited the previous week and asked what had happened to the former members: had they been shot? (Laughter) I am conscious that solutions are slightly less emotive now, but I think there is a fundamental 740 problem that I see in all the debates on the future of the Legislative Council, that there has got to be some decision reached as to what actually the purpose of the Legislative Council is. Is it there to be a revising Chamber, to bring the wisdom of years of experience to the legislative process? Or is it there to be part of the legislative process with an equal claim to represent the views of the people of the Isle of Man? I think at the present time there is no clear answer on that, and until 745 there is an answer on that it is very difficult to come up with an appropriate solution. I am attracted personally by the model that is used in other Scandinavian countries, if my information is still current — and don't forget it is some years since I have been involved — whereby they do actually elect the whole of the parliament, as I understand it, at one go, and they then effectively divide up the responsibilities, once they are elected. So all the members are 750 directly elected, but, once elected, they perform different functions and that upper houses tend to be more revising, but at the same time they are equally elected and they do this using the priority

15 JCERB 31

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

system — that those who perhaps came fourth out of four sit in the revising chamber, as their mandate is possibly less pressing than those who were elected the first three positions. My thought was that if you were to go down that route — and I am not suggesting you should 755 necessarily recommend that route, but if you were to go down that route —, one way of actually emphasising the fact that the two Chambers have different roles would be to predetermine the priority in which Members were allocated to those respective Chambers.

Q41. The Chairman: Thank you for that. 760 You will be aware, no doubt, that several years ago there was a yet another Select Committee established to look at, in particular, this aspect of the Nordic proposition of having unicameral system, and that did not find majority favour — in fact, it fell. At that time the basis of argument from those who were opposed to such a change was that how would you and how could you divide, having had a membership of 32 elected by public franchise? They come in, they are all 765 expecting to exercise the democratic right and voice for the people: how can you then suddenly just tithe a section off and say, 'Right, well, there are your duties. You are going to do that'? How would you consider would be the best way of overcoming that particular hurdle because it was one of the main hurdles for argument at the time?

770 Mr Quayle: Madam Chairman, I did not follow that debate. I tend not to follow too many debates in Tynwald, since I stepped out of active involvement. I think the only way you could do it is actually by... as I suggested, the allocation of the relevant Chamber would depend on the position you came in the poll. If you come in as one of the first three seats, perhaps you can claim to have a stronger mandate than the person who came in 775 the fourth position, or if you wanted the upper House to be the more important Chamber, as it is in the States, you could say the first past and elected goes into the upper Chamber and the next three... I think Ireland has lists and multi-seat constituencies. I am not totally familiar with the system, but I think there are precedents elsewhere for ways in which you can allocate responsibility. 780 I think it is a lot easier to do it, if you have people all being elected by the same constituencies. I think, if you were to say that the Legislative Council is elected by eight constituencies but a House of Keys is elected by 12 constituencies, you would have problems then in deciding who was the more important.

785 Q42. The Chairman: Sorry, if I can just pursue this and then I will call you, Mr Singer. Would you not consider, though, that the solution that you have offered up that might be the answer to that particular criticism, which was levied at the time, would in fact, in itself cause conflict, in that why should, on the ballot paper, the person with the highest number of votes polled be regarded as a prospective candidate for the Legislative Council? Is that not demeaning to 790 the others that come up beneath him? Would it also surprise you to know that another former Clerk of Tynwald's view was the opposite, that the last Member to be elected to the election ought to take a seat in the Legislative Council? Would you agree with me that either mechanism would, in fact, cause conflict and disharmony between those Members who were elected and that possibly, a way around all of this is to merely 795 assemble as an assembly of 32 elected Members and for motions to be made to elect en bloc a number of Members from that elected Chamber to sit in a Legislative Council setting and that it would go to the vote and would be carried by a majority? It might be a fairer way of doing it.

Mr Quayle: Can I approach those questions in reverse order, in the order in which I can 800 remember them? I think the first one is that the problem then is that you might get the Legislative Council made up of the Members from two or three constituencies, unless you were specifically to say that it had to be one from each constituency. The second problem is that if you go to the Legislative Council... As Mr Cringle has pointed out, if you are in the Legislative Council, you are one of eight, or one of nine if you count the Bishop, whereas in the House of Keys you are one 805 in 24. Your vote inherently is more valuable if you are one of eight rather than one of nine.

Q43. The Chairman: That is assuming that the numbers would remain the same.

Mr Quayle: Yes, assuming that the numbers remain the same. 810 Now, the other questions you raise... I think no system is perfect. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said democracy is a terrible system but nobody has thought of anything better? Unfortunately, there is conflict in elections. Inevitably, with a first-past-the-post system you get somebody who

16 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

comes in head of the poll, and if they are fortunate enough to be in a multi-member constituency, the second and maybe the third or even the fourth person gets elected. In the one time I stood in 815 the House of Keys election, I came second, but because I was in a one-Member constituency, I did not get elected. So there is conflict and disappointment. I am not quite sure how you decide if you do not go in the order of favour amongst the constituents, really. It has to be one solution, anyway.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you. 820 Mr Singer.

Q44. Mr Singer: Coming back, and accepting eight constituencies electing four Members, in your personal opinion should the Keys remain the powerhouse or not? Under the Nordic system, if the first person was put into the Legislative Council, that would clearly change the responsibility 825 of Legislative Council to become that much more important, and yet, considering if you put the fourth person in, isn't that like you go to Legislation Council as a consolation prize? So how do you balance that to the public to explain what is happening and actually to the Keys and spreading the power between the Keys and the Legislation Council? It appears as though what you are advocating, particularly if you put the first person in, gives a complete change to the 830 complexion of Government.

Mr Quayle: I totally agree, Mr Singer, and I think that if you were to advocate that the first person on the list of the four elected in each constituency was to go to the Legislative Council, you have basically made the Legislative Council the powerhouse of Tynwald, and it would be 835 impossible to resist claims by the Legislative Council to have the constraints on their power — the delaying function and, under the Constitution Acts, the ability just basically to have a Constitution Bill pushed through, irrespective of the Legislative Council's views at a second attempt... I think those constraints would be unsustainable if the Legislative Council was to become the powerhouse. I think Tynwald itself has to make a decision as to whether it wants the House of 840 Keys to remain the prime Chamber or whether it is —

Q45. Mr Singer: Therefore, would you prefer that the fourth person went to the Legislation Council (Mr Quayle: Yes.) and that is the consolation prize?

845 Mr Quayle: I think if I was going to be in your position and voting, that would probably be the way I would go, but I am not, fortunately, in that position and I am merely giving you the option of a number of... I am well trained as a Clerk, you see. I tend to give options rather than actually nailing my colours to the mast!

850 The Chairman: Mr Singer? Okay. Mr Callister?

Q46. Mr Callister: Thank you. Yes, Mr Quayle, on the role of the Legislative Council from a public point of view, have you 855 any assessment of how you think the public regard the Legislative Council? Whether they understand what it does? Whether they care, indeed, what it does? Have you any thoughts on that?

Mr Quayle: I think the general member of the public actually is largely ill informed about the more arcane functions of the legislature. I think most people seem to think that the term 'the 860 legislature' and 'the Legislative Council' are synonymous and they get very muddled up about it. I suppose that I am unusual in that I do have some knowledge of the workings of it, even though I may not be terribly up to date, but I think there is a lot of confusion. I do not think the wider public understand generally that the Legislative Council only have, effectively, a delaying and revising function at the moment. I think there is a high degree of confusion about the exact roles of the two 865 Chambers.

Q47. Mr Callister: There was much more public interest two years ago in March 2010, when, in the attempt to fill the fourth position on the Legislative Council, it took 29 ballots over a period that ran from 15th March to 21st June. That must have been damaging to the whole way the 870 political system and the voting system works, certainly from the public point of view. It was regarded as farcical.

17 JCERB 33

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Mr Quayle: It is not the first time, Mr Callister, that there have been quite a lot of ballots. As you rightly pointed out earlier this morning, I am not quite sure whether I had the good fortune, or 875 the honour to be a candidate, at a Legislative Council — in fact I think I was a candidate at several — I responded to people asking if they could put my name forward, feeling that I had something to contribute and I think the level of support I received varied from eight to one, depending on how the votes went, but I remember there were several votes on each of the occasions that my name was before the House and I subsequently decided that maybe it would be more appropriate for me 880 not to allow my name to go forward in future years. But I do think there was a degree of public concern that it was taking the House of Keys such a long time to make up its mind. I do not think that was a reflection on the Legislative Council; I think there was a great deal of regret that the House of Keys could not actually make a decision as to who they wanted to put up there.

885 Q48. Mr Callister: I suppose I should remind you that in 1993, it was the year you got your eight votes for Legislative Council —

Mr Quayle: Thank you!

890 Mr Callister: — when eventually, I think, Mrs Christian, Mr Lowey, Brian Barton, oh, and Arthur Luft, I think —

Mr Quayle: I lost to very distinguished company!

895 Mr Callister: Yes, but right. You also, as you said, stood for the House of Keys: do you think that you are more likely with hindsight to be elected by people in the public, rather than the Members of the Keys? If you stood in either again?

Mr Quayle: I do not think it is likely I will be elected by either, Mr Callister (Laughter) to be 900 brutally honest, and I am not entirely sure I would want to!

Q49. Mr Canister: What are your chances? Would you say, 'I've got more chance of being elected by the public than I have in the House of Keys'?

905 Mr Quayle: I think it all depends. I think the sort of people who get elected in the House of Keys elections and who are successful in the House of Keys elections are people who get very involved in their local communities, are well known and liked amongst those who they are seeking their support of. In my case, I thought that maybe my particular experience in education, my knowledge and 910 qualifications might be of benefit to Tynwald, which is why I put my name forward, but I am not entirely sure that the majority of the electorate in Glenfaba were as convinced that they knew me well enough to give me their support and they were not really terribly interested in what the qualifications I had were. It was basically whether they thought I was a good chap really, and they obviously decided I wasn't. 915 I remember at that... was it the 1991 General Election I think I stood against Mr Gilbey? I remember there were a vast number of graduates of distinguished universities who put their names forward and only one got elected. So it was nothing to do with qualifications or suitability; it was a question of whether the electorate had confidence in you, knew you well enough to feel that you could represent their views and I do not know whether I have ever studiously courted their support 920 in that way.

Q50. Mr Callister: Members of the Legislative Council at the present time are making the same decisions in the House of Keys when they vote and they have departmental duties. They have departmental policies to follow. They are in fact making important matters that affect the 925 public in every way, particularly with financial matters. There are two Members of the Legislative Council at the present time who are Members of the Treasury and they have an enormous influence on what happens financially and the way it affects the public. Is that the way that we should continue in what is supposed to be a sort of modern democracy? 930 Mr Quayle: I think you are possibly muddling the two functions up of being in parliament and being in Government, which of course is very easy to muddle in the Isle of Man because everybody theoretically who is elected to parliament, to Tynwald, is eligible to be part of the Government. There have been patches during the last 10-20 years when certain Members have

18 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

resolutely declined or not been given the opportunity of participating in Government, but in 935 general you do both. I think the general public think they are electing you to Government, rather than to parliament, but there is a distinction. I accept the fact that if you are a Member of a Government Department, you do have a significant influence and it is irrelevant whether you are in Legislative Council or Keys Member. The current practice of having your Ministers drawn from House of Keys is only a convention — it 940 is not something that has happened forever. I can remember when I became Clerk of Tynwald in the long distant past that the most important role in the whole of the Government at that stage was held by a Member of the Legislative Council who had actually failed to be elected in the House of Keys and had been appointed by the Governor to the Legislative Council originally. So there was not that distinction 945 in those days between the role of LegCo and House of Keys; but it is again one of the quirks of the Manx system that if you are elected to parliament, you are also elected, effectively, to Government. I think it is harder to draw a distinction between LegCo Member and House of Keys Members in their Government roles than it is actually in their parliamentary roles.

950 Q51. Mr Callister: Do you regard the Isle of Man as being 100% democratic?

Mr Quayle: I do not think anywhere is 100% democratic. I think it is an almost unattainable objective. I think there are problems with the Isle of Man's democracy and one of them is the fact that the House of Keys constituencies are of multiple sizes. That, in a way, I find more galling than 955 maybe the LegCo being appointed, because I could see a role for the Legislative Council, as long as Tynwald agreed that was the role they wanted to do, LegCo being full of people who are appointed for their particular gifts, but I think it would have to be understood that, if they were appointed rather than elected, that their role would be maybe even more constrained than it is and they would not have, ultimately, the power to withstand the public wish, as articulated through the 960 House of Keys.

Mr Callister: Or have a power of vote, in that case.

Mr Quayle: Well, maybe. It would be constrained in some way. 965 Q52. Mr Callister: So you can be elected to the Legislative Council with 13 votes, but if you are going into the House of Keys, you will certainly need long hundreds and thousands in most cases. There is something wrong with that, isn't there?

970 Mr Quayle: It certainly means that if you are in the Legislative Council, you do not get the telephone calls at night from all your enraged constituents.

Mr Callister: Oh yes, you do! (Laughter)

975 Mr Quayle: In theory Legislative Council Members only have 24 constituents because they are dependent on 24 Members to re-elect them!

Q53. The Chairman: Can I just come in with just a couple of questions flowing on from that little exchange of views. Do think it is fair, in view of all of this that the Members of the 980 Legislative Council should be paid the same and be on the same terms and conditions as Members of House of Keys?

Mr Downie: Madam Chairman, I do not think that is in the —

985 Mr Quayle: I do not think that is in the Bill at all.

The Chairman: Can I just set the record straight?

Mr Quayle: Members were not paid at all, when I arrived. 990 Q54. The Chairman: Times have changed. May I just set the record straight in terms of the discussion before, about the delay some years ago in electing Members of the Legislative Council by the House of Keys — just to set the record straight that that is provided for within Standing Orders. Each Member had their own view as to

19 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

995 why or not they would support a candidate or not and in fact, that is all covered by our Standing Orders. In fact, a Member can choose not to mark their ballot paper and put in a blank paper if they are not happy with the selection of those candidates put before them and so rather than, at the time, I think, the press and certain individuals called the House and said that the House was bringing itself into disrepute, in fact, it was not bringing itself into disrepute; it was exercising its 1000 democratic right that it had at that time and still has now with the current system that is in place, where Members of the House of Keys elect the Members of the Legislative Council.

Mr Singer: Could I ask — 1005 Mr Quayle: I was not disagreeing that the ability to do it is there, Madam Chairman; what I was saying was, I do not think a lot of people outside felt it reflected particularly well on the House of Keys, that they took so long to reach the decision. I do not disagree that they were perfectly entitled to do so. 1010 The Chairman: That's right. It is provided for.

Q55. Mr Singer: But in taking so long to reach the decisions, it was not just once, do you think that possibly contributed to more pressure from the people for reform; that if the House of Keys had, in a relatively short time, elected Members to the upper Chamber, there would not have 1015 been this pressure from the public to say, 'What's going on? We need a change.'?

Mr Quayle: I think there has always been a degree of pressure to change, because people have felt that, for various reasons, the current system is unsatisfactory and gives rise to possible problems. I do not know whether it increased as a result of those prolonged elections or not. I do 1020 not really feel I am in a position to give a view on that.

Mr Downie: Another question, please.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Downie. 1025 Q56. Mr Downie: Mr Quayle, you are obviously very well skilled in parliamentary procedure. I would like to ask you how you think the current situation in the UK with the House of Lords, who are not democratically elected and yet can still fulfil ministerial positions and senior positions in the UK government, actually compares with the Isle of Man? 1030 Mr Quayle: I believe, Mr Downie, that there are not any current members of the Cabinet from the House of Lords, other —

The Clerk (Mr Phillips): There are. There must be, in fact, the Leader of the House of Lords 1035 for a start.

Mr Quayle: The Leader of the House of Lords, that was the one Cabinet position — and that is presumably the Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is called now?

1040 The Clerk (Mr Phillips): No, he is not.

Mr Quayle: Well, it shows I am not very up to date with such matters, but I think the one distinction, of course, in the past in the UK, though not recently, the government has taken the opportunity of ennobling people who they wanted to bring into government, who perhaps were not 1045 in the House of Commons already, or in political life, making them members of the House of Lords, so they were eligible to serve in government in some capacity or another. I think there are quite a few — as I would say — departmental ministers in the House of Lords, but not necessarily so many Cabinet ministers, but Mr Phillips is much more of an expert on that than me, so — 1050 Q57. Mr Downie: But would you not agree that the system that we have, where the electoral college is indeed the House of Keys, who have a mandate from the people, is much more acceptable, in modern terms, than the system that exists in the United Kingdom?

Mr Quayle: Well, I suppose you could say the government of the day claim they have a 1055 mandate from the people. It may not be a very large one, but after all, the elected government

20 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

appoints the ministers and they have a mandate in the same way as the House of Keys has a mandate, I suppose.

Q58. Mr Downie: Would you not agree it is not the elected Government that appoints people 1060 into the Legislative Council, it is the 24 Members of the House of Keys, and some people would argue that it is more difficult to get a majority in the House of Keys than it actually would be to get a mandate out on the doorsteps?

Mr Quayle: I am not sure I want to be drawn on that one, Madam Chairman. Discretion may 1065 be the better form of...

Q59. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Downie. Can I just revisit your letter that you sent to us. You mentioned in there... You talked about the fact that the Boundary Review Commissions do not meet and do not review the boundaries often 1070 enough — not often enough as you would like. Are you aware that it is now Tynwald policy that there shall be a boundary review and it shall be held regularly, and that was fairly recently adopted?

Mr Quayle: I think it has been adopted as a result of a recommendation from the most recent 1075 boundary committee, I was the chairman of the previous one, whose recommendations were not accepted. Obviously, we were appointed very close to a General Election and we sought the guidance of Tynwald on a number of issues of principle. It was too late to make any changes for that particular election, and I think we managed to come forward with recommendations that did not tie in with 1080 the aspirations of the particular Member who had moved for our original appointment. But we were, I think, the third Boundary Commission in my time of being involved in Tynwald, or on the edges of Tynwald, that have made recommendations that have not been accepted. Some have been totally rejected. I think some of ours were accepted but most were rejected. There has not been a very strong record in Tynwald of accepting the recommendations of 1085 boundary commissions and I think that with the change of population, which we referred to earlier, and the change in dynamics between urban and rural and all that sort of thing, it is appropriate to review the constituencies from time to time. You will always upset some Members who may feel threatened by those decisions, but at the end of the day, I think a more democratic division of the constituencies is an imperative. 1090 Q60. The Chairman: Is it not also better for the constituents, in that with a two-seat or three- seat constituency they have a choice of Members to go to with their area of concern, whereas if they only have one Member and they do not get any co-operation, or feel that they are not getting co-operation from that Member, then they are invariably stuck and have nowhere else to go to? 1095 Mr Quayle: The answer to that, Chairman, is that if you get one Member in a two-seat constituency who is strongly in favour of something and the other Member who is strongly against it, their votes cancel out, so there are strengths and weaknesses.

1100 Q61. The Chairman: Nevertheless, it gives the constituent a choice, does it not?

Mr Quayle: It does.

Q62. The Chairman: Can I just again refer back to your letter. You again criticise the way in 1105 which the legislation is being drafted, but you would accept, would you not, that this has been put together by the Attorney General's Chambers (Mr Quayle: Oh, yes.) and that, in fact, to get a Bill before the branches in this way, which contains a schedule for the repeal of provisions within legislation, has become quite common practice in recent times? 1110 Mr Quayle: Oh, yes, Madam, I accept that it is common practice, and it is probably good practice, as far as legislative draftsmen are concerned. I was expressing the view that important constitutional changes of great moment to the Isle of Man, I think, are much better in a Bill that stands on its own so that you do not have to fuel the fees of lawyers who then pour over 65 different bits of legislation to find out actually what is relevant. It is just — 1115

21 JCERB

37 JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Q63. The Chairman: Are you therefore optimistic, then, that we will in fact come forward with a standalone piece of legislation in order to complement its status?

Mr Quayle: I would love to feel that is the appropriate way forward for change at this moment. 1120 The Chairman: Thank you. Can I call upon the Clerks to see if there is anything further — sorry, Mr Callister.

Q64. Mr Callister: Can I just be sure about your views on the number of constituencies, 1125 whether they are twos, threes, or whatever? I share very much your view that the multi-seat constituency method now needs to go, but if you had to denote a preference, would it be eight threes, or 12 twos, or 24 ones?

Mr Quayle: I am in favour of doing anything in the Isle of Man which leads to Tynwald taking 1130 a more national view of its responsibilities. I think that the difficulty with small constituencies, perhaps returning one or even two Members is that there is a tendency to think very much more in terms of local issues. I would love to feel that Tynwald is going to shift its horizon to the more national issues and if having larger constituencies, but returning a greater number of Members was a way of achieving that, I personally feel that would be a desirable objective. 1135 I am also in favour of local government taking much more of a role for looking after local issues and maybe having smaller constituencies for local government, but I think in terms of national government, it is desirable to lift the aspirations of our legislators out of potholes and things like that, which so often get so much constituency time absorbed in it. So my personal view is that, in a community like the Isle of Man, a smaller number of 1140 constituencies with larger numbers of Members is probably the best way forward. Certainly, if you are going to go for a directly elected Legislative Council of eight on that assumption, eight constituencies makes sense. If you were going to have a Legislative Council of 12, then you would have 12 constituencies instead. I think generally, eight is a pragmatic way forward. 1145 Q65. Mr Callister: If you were going to go for election of eight Members into those constituencies, what precisely is your view of that? In other words, election by the public of the Legislative Council Members.

Mr Quayle: This may surprise you, but actually I think the Legislative Council has a function, 1150 and that, as a revising Chamber, with those elected from various walks of life who have got something to contribute other than having had experience as elected Members, it is a perfectly valid option, but if Tynwald decides that it wants the whole of itself to be elected, I think you have got to break away from this idea that you can have some people elected in some way and some people elected in another way, because I think it just confuses the situation. Is that sufficiently 1155 clear? (Mr Callister: Yes.) What I do think, Mr Callister, is the one thing I found in the Bill uneasy was the concept that would have the Legislative Council directly elected but at a different time than the House of Keys. I found that very confusing and I think that would cause immense further confusion to have the Legislative Council elected at intervening periods in the House of Keys but representing the same 1160 sort of people. I think that would throw up enormous anomalies.

Q66. Mr Callister: The reason that is there, is to leave the system and the work that they do in exactly the same way as it operates now and also for continuity on the Legislative Council, because it is much more important for continuity on a membership of eight than it is on 24. 1165 Mr Quayle: Again, I think it enshrines the confusion in roles, because if the Legislative Council is going to be directly elected, I have to say that there is going to be undeniable pressure for the Legislative Council to have the constraints on its power removed, because they would have been directly elected. If they are not going to be directly elected, yes, the constraints are 1170 appropriate, because those who are not directly elected should not have the power to frustrate the wishes, ultimately, of those who are directly elected.

The Chairman: Thank you. Clerk. 1175 Q67. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): Just picking up on something that Mr Downie was going to ask you at the beginning and I wondered if you have any remarks about the difficulty in

22 JCERB 38

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

constituency representation between three elected Members of the House of Keys and one Member of the Council with perhaps a larger number of votes to his or her name and whether you think that might create any difficulties or even bring any benefits? 1180 Mr Quayle: I think that there has got to be one clear method of doing it. If you are going to have four Members elected by eight constituencies, there has got to be some clearly defined way in which those who are elected are allocated to either the Legislative Council or the House of Keys. I think to have anything other than a statutory provision, which says, for instance, maybe the 1185 first past the post becomes a LegCo Member and the next three become House of Keys Members or vice versa is essential. If you were to leave it for them to sort of toss up between themselves or maybe even have elections once they are elected into Tynwald and Tynwald decides which one is going to serve in which place, I think that would be confusing. I think it has got to be clearly set out — 1190 Q68. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): The Bill actually talks about people, I think it rather assumes people would stand for the Legislative Council, wouldn't they? They would be self- selecting in terms of their candidacy.

1195 Mr Quayle: I think the danger is that, as drafted, those who are going to stand for the Legislative Council would have to understand that, even though they were seeking direct election from the people, they were being elected to a body that, as it currently stands, has actually less power because it only has delaying functions, effectively. The problem is that, once elected, they might argue that they should no longer be subject to those delaying powers because they have 1200 been directly elected.

Q69. The Clerk (Mr Phillips): What I am really driving at is whether you think any particular difficulties would arise, connected with what you have just said, because the Members of the Legislative Council would individually have greater mandates, just on numbers of people voting 1205 for them, than any Member of the House of Keys?

Mr Quayle: Yes, I think that is one of the problems, and that is where the pressure would come from. If I was a Legislative Council Member elected directly by the electorate, I would be saying to my House of Keys colleagues, 'Well, actually, why do you think you are more important than I 1210 am?'

Q70. Mr Singer: Because that is how the duties are defined in the first place when they are standing for the upper Chamber. The duties are there: 'this is what you do'. So why should they be able to claim any more? 1215 Mr Quayle: Because the same people are electing them. They have got a stronger mandate. I think that is the problem, even though it may be constrained in some way because of convention or statute. What I am saying — and I rather agree with Mr Cringle on this — is that the pressure would be 1220 to change the system. I do not have such an aggravation about a unicameral system because, if that is how you describe Tynwald if all directly elected, you could say Tynwald is a unicameral system that divides into two distinct Chambers for the purpose of legislative activity. But you have to remember in Tynwald itself, when votes are still taken by branches, a Legislative Council vote is effectively one in eight, whereas a House of Keys vote is one in 24. If you are looking at the 1225 relative value of the votes, a Legislative Council Member has effectively a more valuable vote. I accept the fact that the House of Keys can turn around and say, 'Well, we want that to be voted on as one body at a subsequent sitting,' but still, at the initial vote, the Legislative Council vote is one in eight and the House of Keys vote is one in 24. 1230 Q71. Mr Singer: Whatever the pressure put on by those eight for more power, there are 24 to say no.

Mr Quayle: But, of course, those can divide. There are all sorts of unusual divisions that take place in votes in Tynwald, Mr Singer, as I am sure you are aware; most unusual things can 1235 happen!

23 JCERB 39

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

The Chairman: Can I just say, all of the things that you have discussed over the last couple of minutes have all been raised before, by way of argument for no change. We have not actually touched upon or identified anything new. 1240 Mr King, can I just call on you? Is there anything you would like to add?

Q72. The Clerk (Mr King): Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a question, which is something that has come up only briefly so far. The Committee has been convened to look at constitutional principles, and if we said that a 1245 constitutional principle is the principle of legitimacy and part of legitimacy is about people understanding the way they are being governed, it has come through in the discussion that, possibly, members of the public do not all appreciate the role of the Legislative Council as it stands at the moment, and it has also been touched on that members of the public maybe do not all appreciate the distinction between the parliamentary function and the executive function. 1250 I have learned within the last five years that there is an industry in these islands called Parliamentary Outreach and there is a whole lot of people who work in parliaments, whose job it is to try to explain these things to the residents, and we do a bit of that here. My question is simply, was that the case when you were Clerk of Tynwald, or is it a recent development? 1255 Mr Quayle: What? The lack of understanding?

The Clerk (Mr King): No, the industry of Parliamentary Outreach,

1260 Mr Quayle: The industry of Parliament... I do not know. I was not aware of it, so presumably it was not there when I was there. We did make attempts from time to time to explain the distinctions, but I think a large number of people were not terribly interested, to be honest. As long as they were getting the decisions they agreed with, they were not terribly worried about how they were reached. When they were getting 1265 decisions that they did not agree with, they complained about Tynwald, and Members of Tynwald in particular.

Q73. The Clerk (Mr King): Do you think it would make any difference to this kind of debate, if there was a wider understanding of the existing system? 1270 Mr Quayle: It probably would, but I question whether there is an enormous amount of interest. As I say, most people have a rough idea. They want to exercise their right to vote — at least most of them do — but I am not entirely sure that they are that interested in the arcane differences between Legislative Council duties and House of Keys duties, the average man in the street. 1275 Q74. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr King. Can I just add, is it not our responsibility as Members of the parliamentary assembly, to actually inform, advise the public out there? Would you also not agree with me that you hit the nail on the head when you said that when 1280 members of the public are happy with the decisions that are reached, there is very little to be said in the public arena, but when decisions are being taken that affect their lives and perceptions are reached, then in fact they become very angry and it is at that point, when it is realised the level of ignorance out there with our general public that indicates our failure in fact to communicate to them, and that we should be doing it more and more to encourage participation in elections, 1285 greater participation in local elections and pride in our community, and that we should be focusing on that anyway?

Mr Quayle: Yes. 1290 The Chairman: Yes. Mr Callister has one final question.

Q75. Mr Callister: I just have to come back to the point made by the Clerk of Tynwald in respect of the voting power, if this Bill went forward, in the Council in relation to the Keys' voting 1295 power. The Members of the Legislative Council, under this system, may very well have a larger vote and a greater majority than certain Members in their constituency for the Keys. Nevertheless, the collective vote of the three Members of the Keys will always exceed —

24 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

Mr Singer: That is what he said. 1300 Mr Callister: — yes, I think you did say that, but I want to make it clear — will always exceed the vote of the one Member of the Legislative Council.

The Chairman: Is that a question, Mr Callister? What is he agreeing? 1305 Mr Callister: I am asking if Mr Quayle agrees with that.

Mr Quayle: I think if you have eight constituencies, three Members in the House of Keys all vote together from the same constituency, if the Member of the Legislative Council who represents the same constituency votes the other way, effectively they cancel each other out, 1310 because three eights are 24, if my maths serves me right! So three Members voting one way in the House of Keys is the equivalent of one out of eight voting in the Legislative Council. So they would cancel each other out; they would not necessarily override the votes of the Legislative Council. Is that not correct mathematically? 1315 Q76. The Chairman: Apart from the mathematics, is that not democracy in action, because as a constituency MHK or Member of the Legislative Council representing a constituency, you will get a wide divergence of views from your electorate, some in support of a particular proposal and some very much against it? 1320 Mr Quayle: But the difference is, Madam Chairman, if you have the branches voting separately, three out of 24 cannot carry anything and one out of eight cannot carry anything either, but the one in eight has a greater weight than three out of 24, I think and it requires all three to vote together. 1325 Q77. Mr Singer: But practically speaking, even if they went against each other and the vote did not carry, the Keys could still bring it back.

Mr Quayle: If the two branches were in disagreement, yes, but the House of Keys has got to have voted in favour before it can be brought back. In the House of Keys, you cannot have it 1330 failing by 11 votes to 12, say.

Q78. Mr Singer: So the eight may vote for, but they have no power if the Keys vote against them.

1335 Mr Quayle: Yes, I accept that.

The Chairman: Now, Hon. Members, I am now getting a lot more interest from my Committee members and I will allow one more question, Mr Downie, and this will be the last.

1340 Q79. Mr Downie: Does this not just make the point the point that Mr Cringle was making? What is the point in having two groups of representatives in Tynwald where everybody is democratically elected? Surely, to save time and money and expense and to improve procedure, you just have a unicameral system, where there was a majority vote. You only need the separation when they are dealing with the legislation. When they come together, they act is one body, surely. 1345 Mr Quayle: That is certainly a possible solution, yes. I am not quite sure what the practice is in the Scandinavian countries where they do divide into two for legislative functions. I suspect they vote together when they meet together, but I am a bit out of such with such matters, so I cannot clarify. 1350 Q80. Mr Downie: The point I was making is most of the things we talk about in Tynwald deal with policy and deal with finance, and if everything is taken collectively, it would speed the system up.

1355 Mr Quayle: They could all have... They could combine it together, but as you rightly say, there would seem to be a question mark over whether it would be appropriate to vote as branches in Tynwald, if everyone was directly elected.

25 JCERB

41 JOINT COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 19th MARCH 2012

The Chairman: It would be a very interesting outcome, would it not, if that were the case, 1360 (Laughter) bearing in mind that we now vote electronically? We might get some surprising decisions taken. Can I thank you on behalf of the Committee for agreeing to come and giving us some very interesting cause for thought. Thank you. Thank you to everybody else, and thank you to Mr Cringle. I have been admiring his photograph there to my right, which is now hanging in the 1365 Chamber very proudly (Mr Singer: Still smiling!) still smiling today. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, members of the public. We will now sit in private. Thank you very much.

The Committee sat in private at 11.46 a.m.

26 JCERB

42 TYNWALD COURT OFFICIAL REPORT

RECORTYS OIKOIL QUAIYL TINVAAL PROCEEDINGS

DAALTYN

HANSARD

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

CO—VING TINVAAL MYCHIONE PRINSABYLYN BUNRAGHTOIL TA GIRREE ASS BILLEY LHIASAGHEY REIHYSSAGH 2011

Douglas, Friday, 20th April 2012

PP63/12 JCERB, No. 2

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website www.tynwald.org.imlOfficial 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, vvww.tynwald.org.imlOfficial PaperslHansardslHansard Appendix

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, !MI 3PW. 0 Court of Tynwald, 2012

43 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Members Present:

Chairman: Mrs B J Cannel], MHK Hon. P A Gawne, MHK Mr L 1 Singer, MHK Mr R P Braidwood, MLC Mr D A Callister, MLC Mr A P Downie, MLC

Clerks: Mr R I S Phillips Mr J King

Business Transacted Page

Procedural 29

Evidence of Mr E Lowey MLC 29

Mr Roger Tomlinson was called at 3.27 p.m.

Evidence of Mr R Tomlinson, Chairman of the Positive Action Group 41

The Committee adjourned at 4.08 p.m.

28 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Joint Committee on Constitutional Principles raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

The Committee sat in public at 2.30 p.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MRS CANNELL in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to those who are here. This is a sitting of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011. I am Mrs Brenda Cannell MHK and I chair this Committee. The other members of the Committee are, from the Keys, Mr Gawne, Mr Singer, and from Council, Mr Downie, Mr 5 Braidwood and Mr Callister. We also have the Clerk of Tynwald assisting us and also the Clerk of the Legislative Council. For the benefit of Hansard, could I ask those present to please switch off their mobile phones and do not just put it on silent, because it does, in fact, interfere with the Hansard equipment. Also, for the benefit of Hansard, I shall be making sure that we do not have two people speaking 10 at once. Again, this is difficult for Hansard to pick up and decipher who is saying what, when two people are speaking at the same time. So I hope that matters do not get too heated this afternoon, and tilat one will give way to the other, when they are speaking. The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 is a Private Member's Bill in the name of Mr David Callister MLC. It makes two main proposals: first, that the Island should be divided into eight 15 constituencies; and, second, that each constituency should return three MHKs and one MLC. The Bill passed its First Reading in the Legislative Council on 14th June 2011 and, on 25th October 2011, the Council decided that the constitutional principles raised by the Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee under Standing Order 4.7 of Tynwald Court. On 22nd November 2011, the House of Keys agreed to form this Joint Committee. 20 Today, we welcome two distinguished guests to give us some evidence, and our first, of course, is the Hon. Member, Mr Lowey, who is a Member of the Legislative Council, and also the MLC who moved in Council that this Committee be struck to consider the constitutional principles. Welcome, Mr Lowey. 25 Mr Lowey: Thank you, Chair.

EVIDENCE OF MR E LOWEY

Q81. The Chairman: May I first ask you, in your own mind — and we have read through all of the evidence and also looked through a previous Bill which you ran with yourself, some years ago — what precisely are the constitutional principles contained within this Bill that you find concerning? 30 Mr Lowey: Well, anything that wants to change the constitution, I think deserves careful scrutiny — the direct elections and the repercussion that will follow. If it was directly elected, I, like other members who I know expressed an opinion on this to your Committee, believe that it will fundamentally alter the balances and checks that are in place now, sooner rather than later — 35 i.e. if we are all elected, then I believe that there will be pressures for the supremacy of the Lower House, as I call it.

29 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Keys, which we now recognise as the legitimate and primary voice, will not be primary any more. In fact, if you look around the world, you will see that upper houses that are voted on larger electorates tend to be the dominant partner in their constitution and I believe that would 40 happen here. I do not think that is required. I do not think it is what the people would expect, but I think that is what would happen, almost as sure as night follows day. So that gives me concern. The second thing I am concerned about is — and people do not give it enough weight — the historical links of parish and constituencies and what I would call local loyalties. I understand, with the demographics of people emigrating and moving around from place to place, there has to 45 be a balance from time to time, but I think sometimes, in looking at simply weighing out the electorate into absolute equal numbers, that in itself destroys what I would call localities and history, and I think that is well worth keeping. I am a Manxman, I am proud of our history and our heritage, and I believe that equally gives me concern.

50 Q82. The Chairman: I have two questions following that. You say that any change to the constitution requires scrutiny, and I am sure we would all agree with you, and also the loss of the supremacy of the House of Keys and the boundary issue, but then, surely, the same arguments could apply, or the same concerns could apply, to the actual Bill you took through yourself several years ago, where it suggested that there should be a senate, that 55 MLCs should be elected as senators, as a senate, and that the Island should be split into eight constituencies.

Mr Lowey: Five.

60 The Chairman: Sorry, yes, it was five constituencies. Surely the same arguments could apply, that because it was changing the constitution of the Legislative Council and dividing the Island up into five, each returning a senator — with probably a greater majority than any Keys Member could muster in the House of Keys — would, in fact, shift the supremacy aspect from the House of Keys to the Legislative Council. As a consequence of that, of course, when the Bill reached the Keys, it 65 fell. I am just curious as to your reasons for concern raised on this Bill, when you actually ran with a Bill yourself which also, one could argue, raised similar concerns.

Mr Lowey: I am sure, Mrs Cannel, you will remember, I introduced the Bill on behalf of the 70 Legislative Council. It was not my Bill; it was the Legislative Council's Bill. I was the spokesman on behalf of the Legislative Council and that was nearly... it started its debate in the Legislative Council in 1998. It was introduced in 1999 so the Council gave very serious thought. My concerns were equally expressed then, what I have expressed today, to the Council. The Council agreed that, at that particular time, it would be... 14 years have gone by: 14 years where 75 we have had many attempts by the House of Keys to rectify the system and every one have fallen at some stage in the House of Keys — if not, they have never been progressed. Can I also say, in this particular Bill, it actually wants in my own — to use your phrase, 'my Bill' — my Bill actually said it would keep the old constituencies that were in existence and group them together, so there was no changing. This Bill wants to change. They want a Boundary 80 Commission and to redraw boundaries, where three members and the Legislative Council are elected from the same area. So, therefore, the point I am making about historical boundaries being changed, in this Bill, which was not the same as in — if you will pardon the expression — 'my' Bill in 1999. 85 Q83. The Chairman: But then your Bill in 1999, it was in your name. I am just looking at it now:

'To make new provision for the name and constitution of the Legislative Council and for connected purposes.' 90 I am just trying to whittle down, Mr Lowey, what specifically about Mr Canister's Bill you find most concerning, to the point where you felt that you had to move a motion in the Legislative Council to strike this Joint Committee. What precisely is it that gives you concern?

Mr Lowey: Let me come back to what I have just said. Since 2000, when it went to the House 95 of Keys, my Bill, if you like, was rejected by the House of Keys, although it encompassed, that Bill, the primary objective of the Keys at that particular time, which was an elected upper House. Forget the title. That was dressing on the set, but the principle was agreed, but was rejected

30 JCERB

46 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

because of the way in which it was going to be voted upon, elected upon, but it was voted out by the Keys. 100 This particular Bill, I believe, is going up a blind alley, where you are going to get all the same arguments, and it will come to grief when it gets into another place. I do not believe it will stand too much scrutiny in the Legislative Council. That is an arrogance on my part to say that, but that is my belief. You asked for my belief. I will not be supporting the Bill, but I do believe that, when it gets to the Keys, all the same local arguments will apply. 105 Q84. The Chairman: Just to confirm, it is, is it not, Tynwald policy now — as approved in December last year, if my memory serves me right — that the Isle of Man should have equal representation across the constituencies and, of course, we do have a Boundary Committee at the moment looking at that? 110 Mr Lowey: Yes.

Q85. The Chairman: That is Tynwald policy and, of course, we do not have that situation in the House of Keys at the moment, do we? 115 Mr Lowey: No, there are variations. There will always be variations, Madam Chairman, because I do not believe, because of — the way I have said it — demographics. People move around. Let me take Peel, for example, in the last five years — Ballawattleworth and the extension and the expansion and there is a drift of people to 120 that particular area. Conurbations such as the capital will always attract people. The area in which I live, Ballasalla, with it being near an airport... Historically, where do progress and development take place? Show me a country where it does not evolve around an airport. There are the growth areas there which, from time to time, need to be balanced. I do not think you will ever get it equal in the sense of absolutely, and I believe that there should be a plus or a minus of some description, 125 which I am sure the Boundary Committee, which is now sitting, will have to take into account. It will never be exact.

Q86. The Chairman: Nevertheless, if we moved to a position where the Boundary Committee are regularly reviewing boundaries — say, once every 10 years — then we may get closer to equal 130 representation than we currently have, would you agree?

Mr Lowey: You might. I am not saying you will, but I am not able to say that you will not.

The Chairman: Thank you. 135 Mr Singer, do you have any questions for Mr Lowey?

Q87. Mr Singer: I have got one, Mr Lowey, and I have mentioned many times, particularly to the two previous witnesses, and I have never, in my view, received a straightforward answer. It is all to do with the checks and balances that you spoke about, and the primacy of the Keys, and it 140 seems to be the view of witnesses that Legislative Council Members will consider that they have more power, because there would be more people voting for them. My question to them has always been that, if it is quite clearly in a Bill that the powers of the Legislative Council are defined, they have to live within those powers, however many people have voted for them, so the checks and balances are in position. The only answer I seem to have got is 145 'Well, yes, it may be like that now, but we do not know what it is going to be like in the future.' To me, that is not an answer, because they would have their powers clearly defined. Have you got a better answer for me?

Mr Lowey: No, I have not, and I would suggest that, if you look around the world, the answers 150 are already there. They may have started off with closely defined remits, but then they have expanded and then the same arguments would be used that are being used today about equality and the value and worth of a vote.

Q88. Mr Singer: But is it not the fact that, whatever happens, you are going to have 24 155 Members in the Keys and you are going to have eight Members in the Legislative Council, so if ever the Legislative Council feel at any time that they deserve more power, they are most likely to be defeated by the Keys if the Keys wish to keep that primacy?

31 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Mr Lowey: Yes. My view is quite clear. It is not to give the Legislative Council more powers — 160 I think they have got adequate powers, as they are, to hold back things maybe for a month or three months, nine months at the most, and they are seldom used — but I think the mere fact they are there makes people think twice and I think it is a useful check and balance.

Q89. Mr Singer: So you do not think, in fact, that the fact that they would be elected by a 165 greater majority or a greater number of voters in the Legislative Council than in the Keys would make a difference, that things should change?

Mr Lowey: I do believe that if you — as I said in my opening remarks — I do believe there will come a time when those who are there, if you like, with a bigger mandate from a bigger electorate 170 will say then 'We demand a bigger say.' That will happen. As sure as night follows day, that will happen.

Q90. Mr Singer: But surely, they can demand as much as they like. If they have not got the voting power, then they will not get it. 175 Mr Lowey: Change comes with the power of persuasion —

Mr Singer: So, really, you have given it —

180 Mr Lowey: — and the people will be persuaded that those with the biggest vote... It does not happen now, of course, because in the Keys you can be elected on 800, 900 votes — I know there are constituencies which are bigger, of course — but bear in mind that when you have a bigger constituency and have a multi-number of candidates, when you break it down, roughly they are equal weight of numbers. So if there are 4,000 or there are 5,000, there are two Members, or if 185 there are 2,200 then there is one Member. So, by and large, it works out on equality of numbers. Not exact — I accept that it is not exact — but, in the broad-brush approach, I think it can be justified.

Q91. Mr Singer: Would you agree with me, then, that the answer you have given me is 190 exactly the same as other people have given (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.) and is without logic?

Mr Lowey: It is the same. I do not dodge that one, but I do think it is... worth the answer that has been given to you before and recited by me again today. History will prove he was right. 195 Mr Singer: I shall move on to the next witness, then.

The Chairman: Mr Callister.

Mr Callister: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have got a number of questions. 200 Good afternoon, Mr Lowey.

Mr Lowey: Good afternoon, Mr Callister,

Q92. Mr Callister: Do you believe the present system which elects Members to Tynwald is 205 100% democratic? Fully democratic?

Mr Lowey: I believe it is democratic, yes.

Mr Callister: Is it fully 100% democratic? 210 Mr Lowey: It is democratic, yes.

Mr Callister: It is democratic, but not 100% democratic.

215 Mr Lowey: It is democratic; it is how you define 'democratic'. The constitution —

Q93. Mr Callister: Well, if you have 25% of the Members who are representing the public who have no public mandate, is it democratic, then?

32 JCERB 48

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

220 Mr Lowey: Let me put it this way: to go back to Mr Singer's point, if it is clearly defined in the constitution, that is the way it works. That is the way it works, to quote Mr Singer, and our constitution now says that the House of Keys will elect at various times, every five years, four Members of the Legislative Council. To get elected, you have to have 50% plus one of the House. 225 Mr Callister: Thirteen votes.

Mr Lowey: Thirteen votes — well, it does not matter; it is of the electorate that is there. That is the constitution. If you wish to change the constitution — and your Bill does wish to change the constitution — 230 then so be it. That is the legitimate way to go about it. But at the moment, the constitution says that. Now, do not say it is not democratic, because I do believe it is democratic. It is what is in place.

Q94. Mr Callister: In the past, of course, Members of the Legislative Council have almost 235 invariably, with a few notable exceptions, come from the Keys, where they have been experienced politicians. Some of them have done a number of years, all of them clearly have had a mandate, some of them several times over. But, recently, Legislative Council elections have changed very much from that policy, in that they have elected Members of this Council, who have no public mandate as such and, in fact, there are now five Members of the Council who have never faced a 240 public election, so that is a majority of the Members voting, and it is possible that, in the future, there might well be an entire Council which has no public mandate. Are you happy with that?

Mr Lowey: Mr Callister, the electorate could elect people with no political knowledge into the Keys, so... And it is the choice of the Keys who they elect. It is their choice to elect what I would 245 call — to use your phrase — politically inexperienced personnel into the positions. 'Election' means `choice' and the Keys have chosen who they want to represent them in the Legislative Council. I see nothing wrong with that.

Q95. Mr Callister: So you would be happy if all the Members of the Legislative Council were 250 sitting here, making decisions, without a public mandate?

Mr Lowey: No, I would be happy —

Mr Callister: No, that is the question: would you, or not? 255 Mr Lowey: I do not think that would ever happen, but I do believe it is left... Let me be specific. I believe it is the democratic right of the lower House... You cannot give people duties and rights and then tell them how and what to do. My view is that the House of Keys are charged to elect four people every five years to the Council. That is their duty, that is their job, 260 that is their choice.

Q96. Mr Callister: Can I move on to constituency matters? You have been elected to the House of Keys a number of times in the constituency of Rushen and, no doubt, if you went out tomorrow, they would probably elect you again! Nevertheless, do you think that model has 265 worked well for Rushen, three-seat constituency?

Mr Lowey: Yes, I do.

Q97. Mr Callister: Do you think it might work around the Island? 270 Mr Lowey: I think the system we have got works quite well round the Island, a variation... I cannot see the case for a one-cap-fits-all solution.

Q98. Mr Callister: Did you in Tynwald vote for the recent move to have equal constituencies 275 or not?

Mr Lowey: Yes, I did.

Q99. Mr Callister: Well, that is in conflict with — 280

33 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Mr Lowey: No, it is not in conflict at all, no. There are times, Mr Callister, in politics, where you have to try and get a consensus. Sometimes you give a bit and take a bit and see where the flow takes you, but if you ask me, should... I mean, the options were given, did you want 21 single seats? No, I do not. I believe you 285 would then become the Hon. Member for — and you can give me an estate in Onchan, for example, a big estate — Whitebridge, or whatever the estates are up in Onchan and I apologise to my friends in Onchan for not recognising — Birch Hill, alright, Birch Hill is —

Mr Callister: Parish pump, you mean? 290 Mr Lowey: Exactly, yes. I think we are a national Government and we should be looking at it in a wider field than that. All you would need to do is concentrate on a very small number of issues, or local issues, to be popularly elected all the time. I do not think it is about popularity. We are a national Government 295 and we are growing into an international... working more and more in an international field, and I think you have to do that. The one-size-fits-all scenario, in my view... I would not support that, or everybody being the same. I think what we have got is a choice, a variety, and the results have been pretty good. Any political setup that you have should be judged on the results it brings to its citizens, and I think the 300 system of government that we have had over the years has brought very good, positive results to its citizens.

Q100. Mr Callister: Well, that may be the case, but we do not know what the alternative would have been, had the system been different. However, I take it from what you have said that 305 you would not want to see either Rushen or Onchan change from their present constituency of three seats.

Mr Lowey: I have not seen a case made for it. 310 Q101. Mr Callister: Can I just come to your previous Bill, the Constitution Bill 1999 and ask... Well, I think you said why you brought it forward, because the other Members were insisting. It does not seem to read that way from the Hansards, but anyway... (Interjection by Mr Lowey) Were you disappointed when the Keys rejected it? 315 Mr Lowey: Yes. Shall I tell you why? I thought the principle that they were enunciating, loudly and almost unanimously, was they wanted an elected House. When Council having... and remember, we had people in there, Mr Delaney, who was at an ardent advocate of an elected Upper House. He always was; I still believe 320 he would be today, if he was here, telling us... He is still with us, I mean, but if he was in this room today, he would be saying 'Amen' ! My point is that the unanimous thought was that they wanted to have an elected House, so we said, 'Okay, here it is and, by the way, do not alter the boundaries, because that is where you are going to get into trouble' and all the rest of it. We thought we were being practical and assisting in 325 the Keys' wishes, the directly elected House. I have to say, my disappointment was that they threw it out for all the wrong reasons. The reason they threw it out, I believe, was because it emanated from the Legislative Council.

Q102. Mr Callister: If someone brought that Bill forward today, would you still support it? 330 Mr Lowey: No, I do not think I would.

Mr Callister: You would not? 335 Mr Lowey: No, I would not.

The Chairman: Mr Callister, could I ask you to pause there for a moment, please?

Mr Callister: Yes, indeed. 340 The Chairman: Thank you.

34 JCERB 50

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Mr Braidwood.

Q103. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Chair. 345 I do not want to dwell too much on the Constitution Bill 1999, which I voted against in the Second Reading in the Keys, but it was not because it was emanating from the Legislative Council... I did not think it was workable, although it was Senate-based without any change in constituencies — I think it was going to be two elected members from the whole Douglas area of East, West, South and North — one of the reasons was, it did not give a proper, proportional 350 representation to members in Douglas. I would like to go on a little bit about Mr Singer, about if we have an Electoral Reform Bill, change of boundaries. As you know, the Boundary Commission will be reporting to Tynwald in December this year and, as has already been mentioned by the Chair, that we are trying to get a proper, proportional representation for each seat, so there is not too much of a discrepancy 355 between them. One of the arguments all the time was this super-MHK would be elected for the Legislative Council and would have more of a mandate than the Members of the Keys. Would it not be better then, if we said, if it was a unicameral situation, parliament, with 16, say, times two seats, such as in Norway, where a proportion is put, if you wanted to have an upper chamber as such, or you could elect so many people, such as the eight to a legislative council, or would you 360 prefer a unicameral parliament, and then everybody sits as one, so we would get rid of Legislative Council, we would get rid of the Keys and we would sit as one chamber, as we do, as, really, we are tricameral, when Tynwald sits together?

Mr Lowey: Can I say, all those ideas were viewed and discussed by the Legislative Council in 365 1998-99 when we were dealing with this Bill. I have to say that, as I said in my opening remarks, I am a Manxman, I am proud of my history, I am proud of the fact that we are a tricameral situation. It is our differences that make the difference — I think I coined that when I was chairman of the Tourist Board for a short while: I can always remember the thing that makes us different, unique and stands out. If you are asking me 370 and putting me on a thing, the way it is going, I would have said that we are going to be drifting into a unicameral situation and I do not think the benefits of that — no-one has yet persuaded me that what we are replacing our existing formula, that actually works, and I say this to the Committee again, tell me why you want to change something that is obviously working and producing sound government, in which, what I would call business is allowed to thrive and 375 prosper? I can think of nowhere in the western world that has done better in the last 25 years than the Isle of Man under the system we have. To take Mr Callister's point that we do not know whether, if we had a different system, it would be better; no, I have to concede that to you, but what we can prove positively — not a negative, but a positive — is that the system we have got has allowed us to establish a reputation 380 internationally as a safe place to do business, international business and that is where our future lies, in international business. No longer are we a small nation just dealing internally, or within the British Isles, we are now an international centre, based on our record of sound government and that includes the system that we operate under. 385 The Chairman: Mr Lowey, sorry, if I can just interject there, I was just going to say that, whilst we would not disagree with you, I do not think that has any relevance to the actual issue that we are seeking evidence on at the moment, in terms of how we prosper and flourish, etc. I just ask Mr Braidwood, do you have another question or can I move on now to another 390 Member?

Mr Braidwood: Move on to another Member, Chair, and I can always come back.

The Chairman: Thank you. 395 Q104. Mr Gawne: I am interested in this 'proud of our history' thing, because I am, too. (Mr Lowey: Good lad!) It is fair to say, isn't it, that the Legislative Council governed the Isle of Man up until about 1960, with the Governor?

400 Mr Lowey: Yes, you are quite right.

35 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Q105. Mr Gawne: And the Legislative Council was basically appointed officials, up until about... was it 1958, or was it a bit later than that, when you first started getting — ? 405 Mr Lowey: Rid of the Deemsters and the Water Bailiff, yes.

Q106. Mr Gawne: So, effectively, if you are proud of your history, are you saying we should go back to a system where the chief executives of the Departments should run the Isle of Man?

410 Mr Lowey: I think you know me better than that, Mr Gawne. I know what you are trying to do and what you are trying to hit. I am proud of my history and the way in which it has evolved and I have been part of that evolvement, you know, by getting rid... I voted against it, you know, the Governor's powers, if you want this, Sir Charles Kerruish. I was a henchman of Sir Charles Kerruish. I did not need 415 much encouragement. I also led the charge of demolishing what I would call the Governor-appointed Members here, not the House of Keys, the Governor appointed four Members: he appointed all of them at one time, but he then appointed two Members and then the Keys appointed him, and we have evolved and we have all very rapidly over a short period of time... 420 So when I say I am proud of my history, I am proud of the history as it was that has led us to where we are now. You cannot wash your history out, but I am proud of it. I really am proud of my history, but you change —

Q107. Mr Gawne: I am, too, but I suppose this is because I am quite genuinely interested in 425 trying to understand what the right thing to do is here. We have, in a relatively recent period, if we are talking about history over a millennium, which we can reasonably do with our parliament, in a relatively short period, during the last 30 or 40 years, we have done a massive amount in terms of constitutional reform. The question, I suppose that we are here today to ask ourselves is whether we have reached the end of that journey or 430 whether we need to continue and I suppose that is a question I would put to you. Have we actually completed all the reforms that we need to complete, or do you believe that the Bill that you had originally promoted in 1999, and even Mr Callister's Bill, are adding something to that journey?

Mr Lowey: I would say, the pace of reform, we could not carry on like we did. You could 435 argue... I want to get away from a dilettante debate. This is the problem, I think, when we are dealing with this. It is a bit like Humpty Dumpty. I am afraid we can go one step too far too fast and, like Humpty Dumpty, once you break the egg, you try putting it back together again.

440 Mr Gawne: Absolutely.

Mr Lowey: It is very difficult. As I said, I have been part of the charge for reform, I think the pace of reform has got to slow down, somewhat. I think it is time to allow it to settle. It has settled for about five or six years, but I do think we need a little bit more time than that, before you move 445 on to the next phase. All I am saying is, when you do move on, we have got to be extremely careful that we are not perceived... I did mention, and the Chair said it was not relevant to what we were discussing, but I think it is relevant, with due respect to Madam Chair, that opposition is different now in how we operate in the world and, therefore, I do think it is very important. It is not a personal thing for me. 450 What I am wanting to protect is the monster that I have been partly responsible for creating — you know I am being Eddie now — but what I have helped to create, I want to make sure that that is a healthy baby that would be able to grow up and produce the rewards that we have been producing in the last 23 or 25 years.

455 Q108. Mr Gawne: Being Eddie has made reading through the Hansard all the more enjoyable, it must be said, (Laughter) because the quote about Nelson putting the telescope to the wrong eye and all that, it is good stuff! Is there, though, an argument to suggest that, because we have established Council of Ministers, you could almost say we have got four branches to our system? We have got a debate 460 that takes place in Council of Ministers and, yes, that is the executive, but it heavily influences what goes on in the parliament. You have then got the Keys and you have got LegCo and you have got Tynwald and there is all those four respective bits. Is there not a need now to perhaps

36 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

strengthen the parliament bit? Do we not — and I suppose there is the question I do not think you have answered yet, should the public elect Members of the Legislative Council? 465 Mr Lowey: I am enjoying this. First of all, can I say to Mr Gawne it should be clear what the branches are for: they are legislative branches. The Keys is a legislative body. The Legislative Council is a reviewing legislative body. It is a body. It is a legislative body. Tynwald is policy and finance. I am 470 simplifying the matter. The executive Government, i.e. the Council of Ministers... now, prior to the Council of Ministers it was the Executive Council and, prior to that, it was the Governor that was the chancellor of the exchequer and the chairman of certain Boards that he wanted in as his advisers. So that is nothing new. That is nothing new. It really isn't anything new. The system has always been there. 475 I think what people get mixed up in, the general public, you see, I do not believe have a grasp of what Government is about and what House of Keys... I think they are persuaded that it is Question Time on the radio and when the radio goes off, you finish. That is when you start! Your job is bringing legislation through. You know that. I know that. The man on the street, I would say, Joe Public, have got a job to get their minds around that, I 480 really do, and they cannot distinguish between Tynwald, the Keys and Legislative Council. That is an education job for us and that is why I welcome very much, and it has been produced now for a good number of years, of getting young people involved in the school sixth forms and all the rest. I think that is part of educating the next generation to what the realities of Government is about. 485 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. Mr Gawne, do you have any more questions?

Mr Gawne: Just one. 490 The Chairman: One more. Okay.

Q109. Mr Gawne: I have one for... and I think I ought not ask this question, but were you a Minister who is genuinely interested in getting proper scrutiny of his legislation, which branch would you prefer or would you believe, in the current setup, would deliver that scrutiny best? 495 Mr Lowey: I am very much into scrutiny. I have had the privilege of serving for the last five years, Madam Chairman, on the Scrutiny Committee. I enjoyed that work, along with Mr Braidwood and others. I enjoyed the work of scrutiny. I enjoyed the work in those — 500 Mr Gawne: Which branch, Legislative Council or Keys, is going to do the — ?

Mr Lowey: Oh, without a doubt, the Legislative Council. Primarily it is smaller, it is less adversarial, you can tease out arguments and get to the root which, in larger establishments, which 505 the Keys... and I loved being in the Keys. I often wonder, and scratch my head, why did I ever leave the Keys? We talk about elections: I know. I have fought six elections in the Legislative Council, 1982 and then on.

Q110. Mr Gawne: Having identified, then, that LegCo is the best place to scrutinise 510 legislation, go back to the unanswered question, should the public elect Members of the Legislative Council?

Mr Lowey: I have said that I disagree with that.

515 Q111. The Chairman: You disagree with that?

Mr Lowey: I disagree with that.

Q112. The Chairman: You disagree with that, despite the fact that you moved a Bill in 1998? 520 Mr Lowey: I moved it on behalf of Council. I moved the Bill, yes, certainly, and I have explained why I moved it.

37 JCERB

53 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Chairman: Okay, thank you. 525 Thank you, Mr Gawne. Mr Downie.

Q113. Mr Downie: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr Lowey, you are a politician of almost 40 years' standing in the Isle of Man. You have, no 530 doubt, seen plenty of examples where electoral colleges elect their upper house. In your experience thus far, would you agree that the system that we have in the Isle of Man, where the House of Keys elect Members of the Legislative Council, actually works?

Mr Lowey: Without a doubt. I can put my finger almost on the time... Yes, I have, and I thank 535 Mr Downie for saying it. You know I was on the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I was privileged, not once but twice, in the 1980s and the 1990s for four years each term, and I have seen lots of different types of evolving democracies. I always remember being very uptight about single, unicameral... Dr Banda... I cannot remember the country now that he was the president of, 540 and they were a single party, and I argued the case against them. Afterwards, I spoke to the MPs from that area. They had their democracy in a different way within the parties, but in the one part he said, 'We were not ready for that.' He said, 'We look to people like the Isle of Man, where they have had 1,000 years of continuous growth and development, and we look at it and see how balanced you are. Our aim is to get to a political 545 situation like you.' So there is a whole variety of various stages of development in the world and I have had the privilege of witnessing some of them. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way in which we are electing people to the Legislative Council. Where it went off the rails was when we had Dr Orme come in and he did not know many local people and, from that moment, you could put your finger on it — that is when the 550 Keys were finding difficulty in electing it, because in the old days they used to elect and they would stay in their seats almost like electing a pope. They were in enclave until they actually elected somebody. They only thing they did not do was send up some white smoke to say that they had elected somebody. Now, of course, you have to write manifestoes and... But that is a matter for the Keys. I do not wish to involve myself in the way in which they do it. But what I do know is 555 that, from that moment on, we seem to have got trouble and it just seems to me that it is a pity, because it should be a privilege to go to the Legislative Council and serve in a different way.

The Chairman: Mr Lowey, thank you. We appreciate that you — 560 Mr Lowey:I could go on all day!

The Chairman: You are opposed to any change and you think the present system works. We have heard that earlier on. Mr Downie, do you have any fresh questions? 565 Q114. Mr Downie: Yes, I can ask now, if you see, Mr Lowey, it seems to me that there is a certain group of people who want change, who are pushing for change, and I get the same feeling from the group of people pushing for change, that they would also like to see a Chief Minister democratically elected — 570 Mr Lowey: That is the next thing.

Mr Downie: — by the public. Would you not agree with me, our present system has brought political stability to the Isle of Man? We are not facing what they are facing in other jurisdictions 575 and other parliaments and I am sure you would advocate, we tinker with these things at our peril. As you said, if the egg is broken, it takes an awful lot to put it back together again — in fact, that never happens.

The Chairman: Mr Downie, thank you, but I think we already have Mr Lowey's agreement to 580 all of those issues which we covered earlier on in our evidence. Mr Callister.

Mr Callister: Yes, thank you, finally, Chairman. We are here, Mr Lowey, essentially because of your move to have this joint committee.

38 JCERB

54 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

585 Mr Lowey: Yes, indeed.

Q115. Mr Callister: What do you expect to gain from this process, apart from causing a delay, making it into a talking shop and pre-empting the due process of movement of this Bill through the branches? 590 Mr Lowey: Mr Callister, you will know that I spoke to you about this Bill. What worries me regarding the constitution is that we spend so much time talking about the constitution, both branches, over the past decade, and we do not seem to be advancing very fast or very far. I wanted — and I had plans, as you know, to move a resolution in Tynwald in November 595 to allow one of the standing select committees of the new House, dealing with constitution, to deal with this and my view was to move a resolution, which would have asked that committee to look into the constitution and report back within three to six months to deal with the problem once and for all. If it could not get agreement, then it should be forgotten for another 10 years. I could not do that, because your Bill was on the rolling stocks, because of this and you cannot introduce a 600 resolution into Tynwald while there is a Bill on the subject before the House, before the branches. That is the reason why I suggested it go to a select committee of both Houses and I was hoping, certainly not for delay, I was hoping that you would have been reporting by now, that we would not have gone through... I think the principles have been enunciated by so many people over the past decade, that we need not have gone over all those details, but I would have thought a 605 working machine. The last Bill that came up to the Legislative Council from the Keys was legally flawed. We were told by the Attorney General it was illegal, it would not receive Royal Assent and the Legislative Council was not prepared to pass a Bill that it had been advised was illegal and could not be... would not receive the Royal Assent. So I wanted to avoid that. I believe, if you are dealing with constitutional matters, it should be at the beginning of a House, of a parliamentary 610 session. Get it in, get it on the stocks, settled for the next time when you have the elections. My only other view on that is, that I was also in favour of a split election to have continuity. I do not believe that stands scrutiny now and certainly not on cost, because it would cost £170,000 to have the elections on a split basis. I believe they should be at the one time, if you are going to have 615 them at one time and we are not in favour of that, but if it was going to be, it should be all together at one given time. It was certainly not for delay, certainly not for delay.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. Mr Callister, have you received a reply from Mr Lowey? 620 Q116. Mr Callister: I have not had the answer to what Mr Lowey expects to gain from this process.

Mr Lowey: I hope that this Committee will make proposals that will meet with the approval of 625 both branches. I am ever the optimist, Mr Callister! (Laughter)

Mr Braidwood: Status quo!

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. 630 Mr Singer.

Q117. Mr Singer: Can I put two scenarios to you, in relation to many of the things that you have said. You said that you believe we have here very sound democratic government. (Mr Lowey: Yes.) 635 So do you believe that it is constitutionally acceptable that non-elected members should be making decisions, even though they are not elected, on behalf of the electors or would you think that, perhaps, the duty of Legislative Council Members should be purely to review legislation? If I can put the other side of the coin to you, if you go back to last Tuesday, in the Keys, when we had the vote on the education, in fact, with the non-elected members, the decision would have 640 gone the other way, if that had been acceptable as an overall vote.

Mr Lowey: You think it is democratic, then, just to have nodding dogs in the upper Chamber?

Mr Singer: No, I am saying — 645

39 JCERB

55 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Mr Lowey: That is the corollary.

Mr Singer: No, it is not.

Mr Lowey: But let me come —

Mr Singer: What I am trying to say —

The Chairman: Sorry, gentlemen, one at a time.

Q118. Mr Singer: What I said was: as they are non elected, would it not be more correct for them to be elected to review legislation and not to make decisions on finance etc, because they have not been elected by the electorate to do so?

Mr Lowey: You are now adding... `elected', you said. The Members of the Legislative Council are elected.

Mr Singer: By the public.

Mr Lowey: You added that at the very end, if I may say so, Mr Singer.

Mr Downie: Who elects the House of Lords?

Q119. The Chairman: If I may just interject, I think what Mr Singer is trying to say is that the people... the public's view is that there should be no taxation without representation.

Mr Lowey: Some people, Madam Chairman. If I say that, as far as I am concerned, I am elected. I am elected every five years — no longer, no less than a Member of the House of Keys, and —

The Chairman: We accept that, Mr Lowey. You are elected democratically under the existing system.

Mr Lowey: Constitution, yes, indeed.

The Chairman: Yes, but what we are looking at, of course, is a proposal to change that situation. Mr Gawne, do you have another question?

Q120. Mr Gawne: Yes, building on that very topic —

Mr Lowey: Right, I am conscious of it.

Mr Gawne: — 50% of the democratically elected representatives in the House of Keys, together with one other, have to vote for you, if you wish to become a Member of the Legislative Council, so there potentially could be an argument that says your position in the Legislative Council is more democratic, because more representatives of... (Mr Lowey: Yes, indeed!) I am not surprised to see that you agree with that.

Mr Lowey: I would agree with that. But then you would expect me to agree with that, wouldn't you?

Mr Gawne: I just thought it was important to put that point.

Mr Lowey: Yes, indeed, I appreciate that.

Q121. Mr Gawne: Relatively minor and possibly would be deemed a trivial matter, but your Bill in 1999 specifically made reference to yn Shennad as well as the Senate. Was there any particular reason for that?

Mr Lowey: No...

40 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Mr Gawne: I am delighted it was in, but...

Mr Lowey: No, again, I said I am proud of my Manx history and I just thought that it would be 710 nice, rather than calling it the Senate, call it the Manx equivalent of the Senate and that was endorsed by all the Members of the Legislative Council at that particular time. But it was not about titles, it really wasn't, and I know that irritated a lot of people, that somehow we were aggrandising ourselves. The same argument was used, if I may say so, through the Chair, when we appointed Ministers 715 — remember, it was the chairman of boards. It was not for the use of grand titles, 'the Hon. Minister', it was for external purposes, to differentiate: we were not a County Council, we were a jurisdiction, a Government in our own right and that is the reason why. It was not for internal use, it was for external use and that is virtually the reason for that particular use at that particular time. 720 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. Mr Braidwood, I think you have one remaining question?

Q122. Mr Braidwood: One final question to Mr Lowey. Would you agree with me that it is only in this last decade that the problem of elections to the 725 Legislative Council has arisen, because of the change in the voting for Members to the Legislative Council? It used to be where a Member of the Keys had to vote for four people and it was only when it was changed to such as a plump vote or vote for one, two or three that this caused, then, the disrepute of the elections to Council?

730 Mr Lowey: Yes, I would agree. Actually, you can trace it to a specific time. I tried to illustrate it and perhaps it was wrong of me in this forum to use an individual, but I do genuinely believe that it was that particular individual that you could put the time to, but it is the last decade. I regularly, somehow, find the media's attention that somehow all the reforms are being thwarted by the Legislative Council when, in fact, the majority of the times, it never reaches the 735 Council. It is failing, if you like, the Lower House, for a variety of legitimate reasons that are expounded at that particular time by the Keys.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. I would ask the Clerks whether or not there is any remaining question you would like to raise? 740 The Clerks: No, thank you.

The Chairman: It just remains for me to thank you, Mr Lowey, for your attendance. 745 Mr Lowey: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, as always, and my colleagues round the table. Of course, I know every one of them and it has been an extreme journey for me to be nearly 40 years in both Houses and I genuinely do care about the constitution of the Isle of Man, that we hand it on to the next generation in a stronger position to deliver to the people of the Isle of Man. That is my sole and only aim; certainly not... [Inaudible] 750 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Lowey. We appreciate your attendance today, thank you.

Mr Lowey: A pleasure.

Mr Roger Tomlinson was called at 3.27 p.m.

EVIDENCE OF MR R TOMLINSON 755 Q123. The Chairman: If I might call our second witness today — and apologies, we are running over time, we are a little bit late. Thank you. Mr Roger Tomlinson. You are, as I understand it, the former chair of the Positive Action Group, but no doubt you are still quite involved with the Positive Action Group?

760 Mr Tomlinson: Yes.

41 JCERB

57 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Chairman: Yes, thank you. Your submission to us — for which we thank you, we received on 1st February this year — is quite an interesting one and, of course, your view is more or less the complete opposite of Mr Lowey, the witness we have just received at the present time. But I note in your... I think it is on 765 the second page and it is bullet point 7... I do not know if you have a copy of your submission with you, Mr Tomlinson?

Mr Tomlinson: Yes.

770 Q124. The Chairman: You say here that it does not appear to have an impact on any constitutional principle — talking about the fact that Members of the Legislative Council elected by the public you regard as a modern progression to democracy of our parliament, but you also cite that you do not think there are any constitutional problems with it. You have had the benefit of listening to our previous witness, and I would invite you to elaborate on that — why you do not 775 think there are any constitutional problems in terms of the Bill that is before us at the moment.

Mr Tomlinson: Well, that was the question that you asked Mr Lowey, and I listened very carefully to what he said in his first answer. It struck me that he was not talking about constitutional principles; he was talking about constituency principles, because he then went on to 780 elaborate on the size of constituencies, and how they should remain the same, effectively. He then went on to talk about the supremacy of the House of Keys, that he wants to maintain that. Well, I cannot see anything in this Bill that would really alter that fact.

Q125. The Chairman: Right, okay. Can I ask you, has Mr David Callister's Bill been 785 discussed with the Positive Action Group? So the paper that you have submitted, then, is a formulation of the Group's view,

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, it is, of course.

790 The Chairman: Yes, okay. Right, I would ask any of our Members whether or not they would like to raise some questions? Mr Gawne.

Q126. Mr Gawne: Are you, would you not agree, doing what Mr Lowey rather neatly 795 suggested was putting in the Nelson touch, sticking the telescope to the bad eye and not noting the fact that, by having two elected branches, what currently exists is inevitably going to come under increasing tension as one lot of elected people who are elected by the same number of people as the other lot of elected people are going to start asserting respective power bases and start —

800 Mr Tomlinson: Based on what premise, though?

Mr Gawne: If the Members of the Legislative Council are elected by the total population of the Isle of Man and Members of the House of Keys are elected by the same number of people, you have got two bodies elected by the same number of people. Currently, the House of Keys has the 805 upper hand —

Mr Tomlinson: But that premise —

Mr Gawne: — but it would be perfectly reasonable, in a democratic society, to say that, 810 actually, democracy should be equal in both branches.

Mr Tomlinson: But that premise of 'flawed' is simply because what you are talking about is a numbers game, isn't it? So if in Rushen, for example, you could say that you have been elected by 6,900 electors. In Glenfaba, David Anderson can say, 'I have been elected by 2,000.' Does that 815 give you a greater primacy and premacy over David Anderson in the legitimacy of what you do and what you say? I do not think it does.

Q127. Mr Gawne: I think, in relation, though, to the branches, if... I do not know... Is it about 40,000 or 50,000 voters on the Isle of Man? 820 Mr Tomlinson: Sixty thousand.

42 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Q128. Mr Gawne: Sixty thousand registered voters vote in the Members of one branch and the same number vote in the Members in another branch. Are we saying that their vote is not as important for the Legislative Council as it is for the House of Keys? We could, of course, be quite 825 specific and say, actually, you are voting people into this branch for this purpose and you are voting them into that branch for another purpose, and then the electorate has the opportunity to choose how they want to...

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, I think what you are doing is, you are saying the Member of the elected 830 Legislative Council would be representing 60,000 people. I do not think it necessarily would mean that in the eyes of the public.

Q129. Mr Gawne: I should say, at this point, I have ticked most of the comments you have made, because they happen to fit in with my prejudices, but I do think it is important that I 835 challenge them —

Mr Tomlinson: Absolutely, without question.

Q130. Mr Gawne: The other issue that we are talking about here and this is one that Mr 840 Lowey touched on, but I did not have time to question him on it: equal representation. I think, most people's view, from what I am hearing, seems to mean equal-sized constituencies. That does not necessarily have to be the case, though, does it?

Mr Tomlinson: No, I think the principle that Tynwald has voted to support is the equivalency 845 of the constituencies — which is what you are talking about — and the equality of representation. The Boundary Review Committee will come back on that, but I do not think they are going to come out with any definite size of the respective constituencies. I think what they will do is, within a percentage of say 15%. 850 Q131. Mr Gawne: Proportional representation would give that degree of equivalency without messing around with constituency sizes, wouldn't it?

Mr Tomlinson: I cannot see, from Mr Lowey's argument, why one cannot change constituencies, I think it is essential to change constituencies, the size of constituencies. It is 855 ridiculous that Glenfaba has only 2,000 with one Member, and where I live, in Maughold, there are over 3,000 voters. It is just not right.

Q132. Mr Gawne: I certainly would agree with you there but, in terms of the size of constituency, in terms of the number of seats elected, you could... Let us say it was 2,500 per 860 single seat. You could reasonably have 7,500, 5,000 or 2,500 electors voting three, two or one Members in, under the likes of STV or some form of proportional representation. Effectively, in a three-seat constituency, you still have only got one first preference vote. So you do not need necessarily to change or to equalise the size of constituency — 865 The Chairman: Sorry, Mr Gawne.

Mr Tomlinson: Isn't that a different argument, though?

The Chairman: Sorry, if I can just pause everybody there, but I think we are moving off the 870 point a little bit when we start talking about STV and the method of voting.

Mr Gawne: Well, I definitely do not, because I quite seriously think that we are looking at sizes of constituencies, if we are talking about equalising size, you can have that equal representation, without having constituencies of an equal size — that is the point that I am asking 875 and I think you are disagreeing with me, so I am happy to —

The Chairman: Okay. Mr Downie.

Mr Downie: Hello, Mr Tomlinson. 880 Mr Tomlinson: Hello, Mr Downie.

43 JCERB

59 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

Q133. Mr Downie: Nice to see you here, giving evidence. If I was to tell you that this Committee had received a total of 31 submissions — 14 of those 885 from local authorities — on such a big constitutional issue as this, would you be surprised?

Mr Tomlinson: No, I would not, not at all, because we are talking about parliamentary business as opposed to political topics.

890 Q134. Mr Downie: But would you agree with me what we are actually doing here is looking to change the constitutional make-up of the Isle of Man and if, for whatever reason, we do get it wrong, would you not agree if it is not put together properly into something that works and does not cause friction, it could undo the stability of the structure within the present parliament of the Island? 895 Mr Tomlinson: If I accept what you say, yes; but, I do not accept what you say. I do not think you are affecting the constitution in the Isle of Man. Will you have a Legislative Council? Yes. Will you have a House of Keys? Ye_s. Will you have a Tynwald? Yes. It is not being affected at all. 900 Q135. Mr Downie: But would you not agree also that if everybody is elected and everybody has a mandate from the people, which is what I think you aspire to, what is the point in having a tricameral system? Somebody will look at it and say, 'Well, wouldn't we not be better saving money and have a one size fits all and a couple of committees?' And then all our history, our 905 House of Keys, our Legislative Council, our Tynwald has just gone.

Mr Tomlinson: I do not accept that at all because I think that parliament, just as politicians have to reflect what goes on in society generally, the parliament should be reflected and the structure of the parliament should be reflected for the modern times in which we live, and the way 910 that those members of parliament are elected should reflect that.

Q136. Mr Downie: But, to make an analogy, you have obviously been watching what is going on in the UK at the moment, where there is a similar argument taking place about the House of Lords, none of whom are democratically elected. Theirs is what we term the mother of 915 parliaments, for want of a better word — I would be happy to say the Isle of Man is probably the grandmother of parliaments — but I think, like Mr Lowey, the secret of our success has been that we have actually put together a system that works, so perhaps that is probably why so many of us who have been around here for quite a while and, in fact, are looking to come to the end of our terms, do not really want to see too much major change. 920 Mr Tomlinson: All we are talking about is how do you hold your position within the Legislative Council? Are you elected by the college, as you are now, or are you elected by the public? You will still hold your position. The Legislative Council will still exist, they will still operate, they will still be the revising chamber The constitution is not being altered at all. 925 Mr Downie: No, but to come back —

Q137. The Chairman: If I can just interject there, I think what Mr Downie is hedging towards suggesting is that if one can imagine that the Bill does go through, it does get support, it is 930 enacted, and we do roll forward in terms of the public being allowed to vote a Member of the Legislative Council at the same time as they vote their Members of the House of Keys that, once they are elected and they are in, there may then be an argument at some point in the future from the Legislative Council to the effect of, 'Hey, we have got the public vote as well. Why we so restrained in terms of our activities?' 935 Mr Tomlinson: Isn't it about a job description?

The Chairman: Quite. Mr Callister. 940 Q138. Mr Callister: Thank you, Chairman. Mr Tomlinson, could you accept that, whatever the constitutional principles are in this Bill, all it actually does is change the voting system whereby the public will vote the Legislative Council,

44 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

other than 24 Members of the Keys, and that in order to give equality throughout the whole 945 system, if you have equal membership of the constituencies, so that all four people — that is three Keys and one Council — are elected to the same electorate, that is all that this is trying to do? You say that may not be changing the constitution; Mr Lowey says it is. That is the first point I would like to make. Can you agree with that? 950 Mr Tomlinson: Yes, I can, of course.

Q139. Mr Callister: In the document we received from you, the final sentence says:

'The Positive Action Group fully endorses the Bill.' 955 Have you heard anything since this was written, or since this afternoon's contribution from Mr Lowey, that changes that view?

Mr Tomlinson: No, I have not. 960 In fairness, I have not got the historical perspective that many Members here have got, or indeed Mr Lowey with his 40 years. Perhaps that historical perspective is hampering his thinking. Perhaps I am coming here as a non-politician, as a non-parliamentarian, and have less experience, certainly on the Isle of Man, and perhaps I am looking at it from the outside with a fresh view. The historical perspective is very important, but also it can be a hindrance. 965 I just feel that what is going on with democracies throughout the world, and also here in the Isle of Man... I am sure, as politicians, you have detected it in recent years, the involvement of the public in specific issues. Certainly in the last few weeks, since the Budget, that has been most prominent. It happened with the reciprocal health arrangement and it has happened with other things: the general public is more involved with politics. To take Mr Downie's point that they are 970 interested because that may have been reflected in the 31 replies that you have received, whether they are interested in the structure —

Mr Downie: Twenty-one.

975 Mr Tomlinson: Twenty-one, sorry. Whether they are interested in the structure and perhaps understand the structure, I do not know, but for Mr Lowey to say that the public do not understand that and have no interest in it, if that is what he did say, I do not believe that. I think that once people get involved with a specific issue in politics they will maintain that, and surely that is what we want to do, isn't it, as a body? We want to involve the public in politics. I think that this Bill 980 would create... Certainly in 2016, I think, at the next General Election, it would generate an interest in politics, which is what we all want.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Braidwood. 985 Q140. Mr Braidwood: Thank you. Following on, Mr Tomlinson, at the moment Government — even local authorities, because there is a local authority election, which is next Thursday, 26th, so we are trying to encourage people and they have... It looks like there are elections in most of the local authorities and the 990 areas, because we are trying to involve more people, but do you not think that, at the present time, people are getting more involved in situations, because you could say, 10 years ago, when everything that people asked for was basically coming through on budgets, the money was there, they were not too bothered; but now with money tight and in some instances, we have had to cut, budgets are cut, then people are more interested, because it is affecting them more. That is 995 initially, I think, where they are becoming more involved. Also, I know I have spoken to... I did not stand in the last general election. I have had four elections, with being on the Legislative Council, but I asked a lot of the candidates and the people who were elected, was it an issue on the doorstep, being elected to Legislative Council — the elections to Legislative Council. The majority said no. Do you think it is in the eyes of the public 1000 that the general election to Legislative Council is not a priority, there are other things which take the priority and it is only a certain vocal minority who are raising this?

Mr Tomlinson: I think I probably agree with you that the general public are not interested in this particular aspect now, but I think they are in interested in democratic principles, and that is

45 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

1005 what we should be tallcing about. We should be talking about the democratic principles with this Bill, rather than the constitutional principles. I mentioned the historical perspective, which is really valuable, that Mr Lowey and certain gentlemen around this table do bring to this debate, but it perhaps hinders their perspective on the whole democratic scene that is going on throughout the world, and why should we be divorced 1010 from that?

Q141. Mr Braidwood: Would you prefer, because we have talked about this and the Constitution Bill of 1999 and Electoral Reform Bill of 2011, which you agree with and we have got your paper to say that, with the eight constituencies and the election... would it, do you think, 1015 and I put that question to Mr Lowey, and Mr Downie has also raised it, about would it be better at a unicameral parliament where we have an election, and that is a straight election, than having eight and three?

Mr Tomlinson: With respect, Mr Braidwood, I am going to sidestep that because I do not think 1020 that is within the remit of this Committee. I think that may be a consequence that certain people here in this room fear, but that may be years in advance.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Tomlinson. Oh, I have got a lot of interest from Members here. 1025 Mr Gawne... Well, I will ask Mr Gawne and then Mr Singer.

Q142. Mr Gawne: Yes, a couple of things, really. We have heard a lot about historical perspective and how dangerous it might be to change from what we have got. Are you aware of any politically stable democratic systems elsewhere in the world which actually allow the 1030 electorate to elect all their representatives?

Mr Tomlinson: I am not, no.

Q143. Mr Gawne: Oh, right, well, the United States of America is one really good example, 1035 which is a politically stable democratic country, where the electorate do elect their... Are you sure...? Maybe you did not understand the question?

Mr Tomlinson: No, I did not, no. 1040 Q144. Mr Gawne: Right, I suppose I am putting the perhaps ironic point, the people who are suggesting that we have to maintain this system we have —

Mr Tomlinson: Oh, I see the point you are making, of course. 1045 Q145. Mr Gawne: There are, indeed, lots of systems around the world where the electorate are allowed to vote for their representatives. I suppose the other question that I would put to you is how much of a difference do you think it is actually, in reality, going to make, in terms of the decision-making processes that take place in the different branches, if the Legislative Council were elected by the public? 1050 Mr Tomlinson: I think it is absolutely fundamental. Can I explain why? As a voting member of the public, rather than a politician, I think the public, every five years, has the power and that power is the cross that they put on their voting paper. As soon as they have done that and they have posted it in the box, they can forget about it for the next five years, because what we do is we 1055 abrogate the power to the 24 MHKs. The power that those MHKs have then is then translated into electing, during the course of the parliament, the Legislative Council. So the power of the voter has been diluted. Also at the same time, at the beginning of a parliament, that power is invested in those MHKs to elect the Chief Minister — the most important person within the Government. So I feel that if 1060 this came in, it would give more power to the electorate and would be perceived as being extending the democratic process. In so doing, I think it would interest the public, particularly to take on what Mr Downie said in an earlier comment, about the election of the Chief Minister. Surely, to elect the Chief Minister by the public would interest the public and get them involved in politics — but that is an aside, and perhaps outside the remit of this Committee. 1065

46 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Chairman: Yes, it is, but fair point, Mr Tomlinson. It was referred to earlier, so I have given you a degree of latitude on that. Mr Singer. 1070 Q146. Mr Singer: I support many of the points, as does Mr Gawne, in your PAG document, but can I put this to you: Legislative Council at the moment is elected by the Keys. They either elect MHKs to the Legislative Council, who should have experience in legislation, or they elect people from outside the Keys, but they are chosen by the MHKs for the specific job and their general experience. Within your PAG charter, it says: 1075 the people to have the right to elect Members of the Legislative Council.'

So if you have this public vote, is it necessarily the best if you are having a separate election, because could one not question the reasons why people are seeking election? Those reasons may 1080 not be purely to undertake the defined duties of the Legislative Council. You do not know who you are voting for and whether actually that is their interest. They may be just seeking election for whatever reason. And secondly — 1085 Mr Tomlinson: I am sure —

The Chairman: I am sorry, Mr Singer. Could you rephrase that question because I am having difficulty in understanding it myself.

1090 Mr Singer: So am I. (Laughter) More simplistic. If you... people... you go out to public vote, okay? And people put their name down for the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council's duties are defined and are to look at legislation. Right? You or anybody can put their name down and they are not necessarily going to be... the 1095 people elected are not necessarily going to be those people who are looking to be... to scrutinise legislation, they are going to have many other reasons. Is that not a risk that anybody in the public being able to put their name forward? Whereas the MHKs are putting people forward, who will most probably, one would hope, be the... they would realise what their job is and could do that job? 1100 Mr Tomlinson: I do not want to point the finger at anybody who has recently been elected, but the most recent person elected to the Legislative Council I have never heard of politically and I take an interest in politics. I have never heard of a political involvement by the latest elected Member of the Legislative Council. 1105 Q147. Mr Singer: But that person may have experience in looking at... was, in fact... had experience in legislation, drawing up legislation and the MHKs knew that and therefore they elected him, whereas, fine, going out to public... anybody can come forward, you are not necessarily going to have people who are going to add to the Legislative Council and be able to do 1110 the job properly, which is proper scrutiny.

Mr Tomlinson: I think what you are saying is that you need qualifications to be a Legislative Council Member, are you?

1115 Mr Singer: Do you? Should you be able to show that?

Mr Tomlinson: Do you need qualifications to be an MHK?

Mr Singer: No, you do not. 1120 Mr Downie: You have still got to convince your electorate.

Mr Singer: Yes.

1125 Mr Tomlinson: Yes, quite. That is part of the process.

47 JCERB

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Chairman: I am sorry, Members, one voice at a time, please.

Q148. Mr Singer: I will come to one other point. As you talk about electing four people for a 1130 constituency and splitting one off to go to the Legislative Council, how do you decide who you split off? Is it the one who comes fourth and gets the consolation prize, or do you do the first one, who... All these people have put their names forward to sit in the Keys. Would it be right to split them off? 1135 Mr Tomlinson: My understanding — and perhaps I am wrong — is that the person who wants to be considered for the Legislative Council would declare that within the electoral process.

Q149. Mr Singer: And if they do not, if nobody wants to? 1140 Mr Tomlinson: I presume — I do not know — we would have to ask the mover of the Bill what would happen in that instance.

Mr Singer: So, again, we could end up with somebody in the Legislative Council who basically is not interested in the Legislative Council — 1145 Mr Braidwood: A second election.

Mr Singer: — but they have to go there, and therefore the function of the Legislative Council... their efficiency is reduced. 1150 The Chairman: Sorry, if I could just interject here, equally under the current system, a member of the public can stand as a Member of the House of Keys and be elected on a manifesto. So they are elected in terms of what policies they would support, what policies they would pursue. They may or may not be in the House of Keys, for possibly two or three years, before they then 1155 put their name forward to go up into the Legislative Council. Looking back historically, invariably those Members who only sat and had two years' or maybe three years' experience in the House of Keys were elected to the Legislative Council. So Mr Singer, I think your question is somewhat unfair, (Interjection by Mr Singer) because the same thing... I am finished, Mr Downie. The same thing could be said, in terms of the quality 1160 of the candidates coming forward for the Keys with very little experience being elevated to the Legislative Council, perhaps without any kind of legislative experience to talk of. I think —

Mr Singer: The Keys have the choice, though. 1165 The Chairman: Sorry, Mr Singer, I think it is an unfair question to actually put to Mr Tomlinson at this time. Mr Callister.

Mr Singer: Well — 1170 The Chairman: Sorry, Mr Singer. Mr Callister.

Q150. Mr Callister: I just wanted to clarify that my Bill has separate elections for the 1175 Members to the Legislative Council and, for this very reason: that if you try to elect all four people at the same time, you will never get agreement on the method to put people into the Legislative Council. It simply will not work. It has been tried before. Victor Kneale tried it and failed. This Bill, quite frankly — and I am going to ask you to agree with this; I am sure you will — is probably the most sensible way and the least destructive way of moving forward. 1180 Mr Tomlinson: I think if you combine it. I think there is a window of opportunity, certainly, if you combine it with what has been agreed by Tynwald in regard to the principles forwarded by the Boundary Committee. There is no doubt that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to progress that in that manner. 1185 Mr Callister: Thank you.

48 JCERB

64 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Tomlinson. Mr Downie. 1190 Mr Downie: Yes, I am just going to change the subject slightly, Madam Chairman —

The Chairman: Yes, if it is in the remit of the Committee, Mr Downie.

1195 Q151. Mr Downie: — because part of the remit of the Committee is to look at the work carried out by the Boundary Review Committee, and you did mention something about one person, one vote, and the fairness of the boundaries and so on. I have some sympathy with your the view because, as a Member who has represented a Douglas constituency in the past — and I think this is where the problem arises — you have eight Members representing Douglas, three in Onchan, one in 1200 Marown if you want to stretch it out, but you have 65% of the Island's population living in that conurbation. Would you not agree with me that the representation and the boundaries have evolved because of the centres of population? To make Mr Gawne's point, you need three Members in Rushen because you have a huge area down there which takes in Port Erin, Port St Mary, Colby, and so on. You have a conurbation in Peel, a conurbation in the north and, in the 1205 east, you have a huge area. When I first came into Keys and we had the first boundary review, part of the Middle constituency went up to Snaefell and out as far as Santon, and that was a ridiculous situation to ask a person to cover all that area, so that is why I am just trying to explain to you how the Boundary Commission has worked over the years and they have always come up with a solution. You cannot 1210 divide the Isle of Man up into constituencies of 2,500 or 3000 people. It just doesn't work.

Mr Tomlinson: I do not think I am suggesting that.

Mr Downie: No, but you did make comment about the work of the Boundary Commission 1215 when you were discussing it with Mr Gawne.

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, but all the Boundary Review Committee has come up with is principles, which Tynwald have agreed. You have agreed them.

1220 Q152. Mr Downie: But the point I am making, Chair, is you cannot have one-person-one-vote, because the Isle of Man does not lend itself to that.

Mr Tomlinson: You can have one-person-three-votes in Rushen, one-person-three-votes in Onchan. 1225 Mr Downie: Because the areas that they represent are quite densely populated, but if you take the rural areas, like Mr Anderson's area, Glenfaba, you know there are just over 1,500 people there.

1230 Mr Tomlinson: Two thousand voters in Glenfaba.

Q153. Mr Downie: If you take it, what was STV and so on, there is a good argument that was mentioned about that, because people get elected now with 400 or 500 votes. Is that fair? So all this has got to come into this equation somewhere. 1235 Mr Tomlinson: I do not think it does. I think you have got to talk about principles, and why we are here this afternoon is to talk about constitutional principles which I do not think exist. What the Committee should be considering is the democratic principles and that is what I feel is the essential element in here. 1240 Q154. Mr Downie: All I was trying to do was explain to you the problems that the Boundary Committee have had to deal with over the years, because the Isle of Man does not lend itself to be broken up into squares with so many people in —

1245 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Downie. I think, really, we cannot talk about the boundaries. I mean, there is a Boundary Commission sitting, they are working on the principles that have been approved by Tynwald and we shall have

49 JCERB 65

JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

to wait and see what they come back with, but I can say that if they have said that they are... The thing that has always been very sensitive are the boundary issues and the parishes etc. 1250 Mr Downie: And the sheadings.

The Chairman: And the sheadings. So they are concentrating on trying to keep those as intact as possible. 1255 Mr Singer: One small question, please.

The Chairman: Mr Singer has asked for one very small question —

1260 Mr Downie: One small step for mankind!

The Chairman: — I shall ask him to be concise, please —

Q155. Mr Singer: I hope it is a question that you and the Members and Mr Tomlinson will 1265 approve of. (Laughter) Under your paper that you have put forward, under item 4, it says:

TAG therefore strongly supports the underlying principle of the Electoral Reform Bill 2011, that of popular election of most Members of the Legislative Council.' 1270 When you say 'most', do you mean because you are thinking about the Bishop? What are you trying to say there?

Mr Tomlinson: That is what the Bill is calling for — most Members. The Bishop is just 1275 `walked' in.

Q156. Mr Singer: So when you say 'most', that is because the Bishop is there. It is election of all the other Members, and then the Bishop.

1280 Mr Tomlinson: The important thing is there are nine voting Members of the Legislative Council. This Bill sidesteps the Bishop, so that is why we are talking about 'most Members'.

Mr Singer: That was the clarification.

1285 The Chairman: Okay, that is fine, thank you.

Mr Singer: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Now the Clerks: do they have anything that they would like to put to Mr 1290 Tomlinson?

The Clerk (Mr Phillips): No, thank you.

The Chairman: No? 1295 The Clerk (Mr King): May I ask a couple of questions of Mr Tomlinson?

The Chairman: Yes, please do, Mr King.

1300 Q157. The Clerk (Mr King): It is very good to have you here, and can I say thank you for the interest you have shown throughout my time in Tynwald. It is very good to know that there are people out there... When we put information out, we often have Mr Tomlinson on the phone, asking us about things, and that is great from our point of view. You say the Positive Action Group is a political lobby group, not a political party, the 1305 objectives being to promote an awareness and understanding of politics and citizenship. I would love to know, now that you are here, how many people are in the Positive Action Group?

Mr Tomlinson: How many paid-up members, are you asking?

50 JCERB 66 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

The Clerk (Mr King): Yes. 1310 Mr Tomlinson: Or how many people support us?

The Clerk (Mr King): Both — either.

1315 Mr Tomlinson: Okay. We have got about 80 paid-up members, and I think we have got in excess of about 250, what I would call, supporters.

Q158. The Clerk (Mr King): And is it your belief that 250 out of 250 support the statement in your charter: 'The people have the right to elect Members of the Legislative Council'? 1320 Mr Tomlinson: I cannot say that with certainty, no, but generally people agree with most points in our charter, and that is why they come and support our meetings.

The Clerk (Mr King): Do you think that the 80 people who have paid money to you support 1325 that statement?

Mr Tomlinson: Every item on that statement?

The Clerk (Mr King): The statement I have just quoted: 'The people have the right to elect 1330 Members of the Legislative Council.'

Mr Tomlinson: Yes, without question.

Q159. The Clerk (Mr King): In the course of this Committee, Mr Cringle, Mr Robert Quayle 1335 and Mr Lowey have all made the point that the public at large do not understand the difference between the Keys and the Council and the constraints on the power of the Council. Do you agree with them?

Mr Tomlinson: No, I do not. I do not. I think by being involved in politics people learn about 1340 how Tynwald works and how the various branches work. It happened this week with the education debate. I have been in contact with some of the people who are involved in that and gradually they are learning about how Tynwald works. It is wonderful.

Q160. The Clerk (Mr King): Can I just ask one last question, then: what bit, because you, if I 1345 might say it, are a kind of a train spotter in this — you are an expert if ever there was one on what it is like looking at Tynwald from the outside — which particular bit of the function of an MLC is the bit that really ought to be done by someone elected by the public?

Mr Tomlinson: I am not sure I understand what you are saying. 1350 The Clerk (Mr King): Well, you say the people have the right to elect Members of the Legislative Council. Why?

Mr Tomlinson: Because it is a democratic principle. 1355 The Clerk (Mr King): But they do not have the right to elect the Chief Executive of the Department of Health.

Mr Tomlinson: No, because that is a political appointment. 1360 Q161. The Clerk (Mr King): They do not have the right to elect the Bishop; they do not have the right to elect the Attorney General; they do not have the right to elect the Chief Legislative Draftsman. Which particular bit of the MLCs' function merits direct election?

1365 Mr Tomlinson: Because they are politicians. Because there is a confusion, or a fusion, of the roles of Members of the Legislative Council. As Mr Callister said earlier, they have a political job to do within Government, and I feel that, possibly, if this Bill does get through, it will open up Government to more talent. That is something that has not been discussed at all in the Committee that I have heard so far, inasmuch as there has been a convention with the previous Government —

51 JCERB

67 JOINT COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 20th APRIL 2012

1370 and it has been extended in this Government — that Members of the Legislative Council cannot become Ministers. I think that is a great pity. I think Members of the Legislative Council should be eligible to become Ministers, and if they were elected by the public, that would give it a legitimacy. If a Member of the Legislative Council is appointed now as a Minister, I think there would be somewhat of a mild public outcry at the fact 1375 that they were not democratically elected by the public.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Tomlinson. I would add further to that, I think, that the public keenness and the Members of the House of Keys' keenness to try and push change through in terms of the election of the Legislative Council, 1380 I think, was reunited, or re-ignited I should say, when Members of the Legislative Council, in fact, were appointed Ministers, going back to my early days as a Member of the House of Keys, Members often felt —

Mr Downie: And I was the last Minister. 1385 The Chairman: If I could finish, Mr Downie — (Further interjections by Mr Downie) Members of the Keys felt disenfranchised, particularly when the Health Minister was a Member of the Legislative Council, that they could only raise questions to the Health Minister once a month and that they could not test her on a weekly basis in the House of Keys. 1390 Mr Downie: So was the Chief Minister.

The Chairman: Yes, that is right, and the Chief Minister. I think it was during that time —

1395 Mr Braidwood: We are digressing, Chair.

Mr Downie: We are digressing, Madam Chairman.

Mr Braidwood: We are digressing. 1400 The Chairman: And, of course, we also had Mrs Crowe, as well, but anyway, enough said about that matter. Mr Tomlinson, thank you very much for giving of your time today, and also for your forever keen interest in what we do, as Members of the House of Keys and Members of the Legislative 1405 Council. It is much appreciated.

Mr Tomlinson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. 1410 Right, so we are now at an end, and we are now finishing, so thank you very much, members of the press and the public, for attending. Thank you to Hansard.

The Committee adjourned at 4.08 p.m.

52 JCERB

68 WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS 70 :lephone Greenmantle 11624) 674484 Troxnode Park Douglas Isle of Mann IM2 5LB

- o Ida,

efj:e44;ave ge4;.1-etvili 144-4 OW )1,4 (6\a,

i3c-a my _adko 4.414„z1

o tty-ftra. 7-4,2 e4ittrvvi d O If Ira? 4:-/kia 4.k.-0-611.4) eiyuyboe .4-cd 46 ei 9764, ,zoofati 0 )1,16. 6 1:060444,,,,th„ ti,„,) eat"' C°M-6:4(mier 'e Lext6d ket,ve flu /ii ez,yLd M h.c.

de:rat-OW),"

(11. ef.)/A)

f:j---- C-13-al. (it{s' , El-: • i\l• C 0 ) 0) u

71 72 95 Dartford Road Sevenoaks TN13 3TF Telephone 01732 456026 Email [email protected]

Dr Jonathan King Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas IM1 3PW Isle of Man

30'11 December 2011

D.,24)-1 j 614 i

Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Thank you for your letter of 215t December on behalf of the Joint Committee inviting my comments on the issues raised by this Bill.

I have read the debates to which you refer, and the Bill, and I see that the matter is as controversial as ever. I have therefore tried in the attached brief Note to avoid the politics and to offer the Committee an alternative model of how the system of the Bill might work.

it CS. •-4- r uAr

(k.k. c Co 2-C

Malachy Cornwell-Kelly

73 Note on the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Elections to the Council

1 I am assuming for the purpose of this Note a consensus that the Council should, as a matter of principle, be popularly elected.

2 The Isle of Man has benefitted greatly from the advantages of political stability, and that factor is acknowledged to be of major importance to the business community and thus to the Island's prosperity. Any reform of the electoral system should take account of the need to avoid damaging that feature of the present system and must therefore: (i) avoid destabilising government, (ii) avoid unproductive conflict between the chambers, (iii) provide full 'democratic legitimacy' to the Council, and (iv) encourage participation in the parliamentary system.

Combined constituencies for Keys and Council elections

3 The Bill provides for eight three-member constituencies for the Keys and for the use of the same constituencies for elections to the Council, though at different times.

4 Whether or not the argument is mathematically sound, it seems likely that the result of this difference of timing would be that each Council Member could claim to be elected by a greater number of electors than could each MHK, or to have in some sense a superior or different democratic mandate.

5 A possible consequence would be conflicts between the two chambers, and a demand for the traditional supremacy of the Keys to be foregone or diminished. Such an outcome would not only lead to slower decision making by the legislature, but could also have an undesirable effect on the perception of a stable political system in the Island.

6 A further consequence could be, if the supremacy of the Keys ceased to be a given as at present, that an intake of newly elected Council Members during the life of the House of Keys could alter the then current political consensus and weaken the assurance of political stability valued by the Island's business community.

7 Other disadvantages of a difference of timing would be that electors could well be confused about the significance of Keys and Council elections respectively, and that there would of course be additional expense involved in holding popular elections so frequently.

74 8 Simultaneous elections for the Keys and the Council returning four Members from each of the eight constituencies could, in contrast, have these advantages:

• The person coming fourth in each constituency would sit in. the Council, the first three sitting in the House of Keys. • The established right of the Keys to override the Council would continue without any debate as to 'democratic legitimacy', or any suggestion that the members of one chamber had been elected more recently than those of the other. • The whole of Tynwald would be elected at one time, focusing the public's interest, and increasing participation in elections. • It would maximise the prospect of stable government for the ensuing five years. • The benefit of a second chamber acting as a revising chamber, or a second thoughts chamber, would continue. • The historic identities and roles of the Keys and the Council would be preserved. • The expenses of the electoral system would be minimised. • The fourth member for a constituency would have the chance to improve his or her placing at the next election, and become a Member of the Keys. • The comparative placing of the four members returned by each constituency could reflect the policy preferences of the electorate, without importing the rigidities of a party system.

MCK 30.12.11

75 76 Telephone: (01624) 823325 The Friary Fax: (01624) 822525 Ballabeg email: [email protected] Arbory Isle of Man 1M9 4EZ

17th January 2012

Mr. J. King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Douglas, 1M1 3PW

Dear 1.1A

Re: Constitutional Principles/Electoral Reform bill 2011.

In response to your letter of 21st December 2011, I submit herewith some comments with regard to the Electoral Reform bill 2011.

I acknowledge that there are many people who believe that electoral reform is necessary to improve 'democracy' on the Island and taking that logically, all people forming 'Government' should therefore be popularly elected. I am a fundamental believer in democracy and also believe that the Isle of Man has as good a system of 'Parliamentary Democracy' as can be found throughout the world. Indeed, within my lifetime many politicians and leading political thinkers have been enraptured by our parliamentary system. This is not to say that change should not ever occur but we do need to ask what is the consequenCe of change.

It is pertinent to point out what the current position is. Tynwald Court consists of both legislative branches (House of Keys & Legislative Council) and deals with policy and financial matters. The two branches have legislative power in that they consider and either pass new or repeal unwanted law. Whilst formerly they had very similar roles, constitutional development has led to the elected House of Keys being dominant and should it so wish, can override the Legislative Council. Therefore I would, with due deference suggest that what is important for democracy is the power and the duties of the various Tynwald branches and not necessarily how they are elected. Should the people elect the Chief Minister and various Ministers? In the past at least Tynwald had to approve the appointments.

77 -2-

At the start of 2011, I was invited to and submitted a paper on 'Parliamentary History of the Isle of Man' to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which was subsequently published in its Centennial Book - The Evolution of Commonwealth Parliamentary Democracy (the article can be found commencing page 15). I could supply a copy should you wish.

In explanatory notes submitted by Mr. Callister, he lists seven objectives to achieve the purpose of the Bill which is to provide for the election by public franchise of the Legislative Council and at the same time create eight constituencies to return 32 Members of Tynwald. Whilst I do see some logic in keeping the membership of Tynwald 32 (The channel Islands are numerically larger), the current position of the Legislative Council membership, accepting that the House of Keys is predominant, will inevitably be lost. In theory, Mr. Callister's proposal is undoubtedly a method that mechanically could work. However, I would contend that the unintended consequences would lead to greater division within Tynwald and ultimately create a climate to go unicameral. If the Island is to lose its traditional boundaries and balance between town and the rural dweller, it may be better to consider a unicameral system now rather than later. Mr. Callister makes the comment that the Butler Commission (1980) recommended eight constituencies. My recollection is that there were a number of options and importantly it only dealt with the House of Keys.

In relation to the Bill itself, then I would suggest that some greater clarity is needed regarding casual vacancies. As the proposal is for House of Keys Members and a Legislative Council Member to be elected from the same constituency, then the position of a sitting member resigning to stand for the alternative branch if they so wish, should be made clear.(see 2 (2)).

Whilst I again can understand the desire to have a similar number of electorate in each constituency, it does not follow that each constituency returns the same percentage of votes. Without compulsory voting to achieve 'Democracy' we should at least concentrate on the registration of voters to get as near as possible 100%. There is equally a need to have regard to our historical boundaries and importantly the balance between rural and town dweller. Tradition is important if the Island is to maintain its unique position and protect our culture and differences. After all it is these very differences that keep the Island such a vibrant community making it a safe, structured and sought after place to live.

78 -3-

I believe that, where practical, legislation should be easily followed by the reader. If this proposed Bill proves anything, it is that there is a need for an updated consolidated Bill. Reference to the Schedule of Repealed Provisions points the reader to many amending Acts and changed Orders in the last 40 years which need to be checked and read along with this Bill.

I will be happy to give evidence should your Committee require me to do so.

Yours faithfully,

Noel Q. Cringle

79 80 goa. cgtigcrfLc RECEIVED PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF THE ISLE OF MA CE 1 4 MAR 2012 The Isle of Man is a small island in the middle of the British Isles, FIE rcely pifiVabipp6„ parliamentary history, it remains committed to democracy through is ucisnunimarrirowALD4_ of three chambers. An island of some 227 square miles with a population of approximately 82,000 people its parliament (Tynwald) celebrated its millennium in 1979. rotZ ere. rvk.i o 041 i(s@. The world's oldest parliament in continuous operation consists of three branches:-

1. The House of Keys is the popularly elected assembly comprising 24 members elected by voters aged 16 years and above for a 5 year fixed term of office. It is divided into 15 constituencies each of which return either 1, 2 or 3 Members, Uniquely, the Island has also used proportional representation for election to the House of Keys but reverted to 'first past the post' after two elections. 2. The Legislative council consists of 11 members. 8 are elected by the Members of the House of Keys acting as an electoral college. Once elected, they serve for a 5 year term. Elections to the Legislative Council are staggered, so ensuring an element of continuity is established. The remaining members are a) The Bishop of Sodor and Man (Church of England) who sits as right of office & holds the right to vote. b) The Attorney General who is a law officer with the right to speak but not to vote and c) The President of Tynwald who is elected by the Members of Tynwald Court for a 5 year period immediately prior to a General Election for the House of Keys and is Presiding Officer. 3. Tynwald Court, also presided over by The President, comprises the 2 previous chambers sitting together as one to deal with all financial matters, and with secondary legislation. Its two branches (House of Keys and Legislative Council) sit separately to deal with new law making on the first, second and fourth Tuesdays of each month carrying over any unfinished business to their next sittings. Tynwald Court meets on the third week of each month and continues to sit to complete the business on its Order Paper even should that last three full days — Standing Orders commit sitting from 10.30 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. when Members can still ask to suspend S.O.s and continue to sit.

Having established its current trilogy, it is pertinent to look from whence we came. Tynwald's parliamentary history can trace its roots back to administrative methods put in place by marauding Vikings. Indeed the Vikings who established our democratic roots, divided the Island into Sheadings (ship districts) some of which are still used for electoral purposes today. In Celtic times it was usual to gather on feast days, e.g. feast of the summer solstice, at a raised open plateau. It was on these occasions that our forebears would carry out their pagan customs and acknowledge the local chieftain as ruler and his heir (tanistry). Several of these customs were carried on by later rulers and even today on Tynwald Day (National Day) rushes are spread on the processional way and Members wear Bollan Bane (St. Johns Wort) to ward off evil.

81 2.

In the Viking times that followed, this form of gathering was adopted and adapted to the usual Norse 'Thing' (Assembly) on a raised hill. The Viking King would sit atop the mound, surrounded by his 'Barons' on the upper most part, with supporters and officials on lower tiers and from his position of power dispense justice and promulgate new laws. All the people of the Island had to attend if capable of doing so and the formalities would be followed by a Fair held on the adjacent plateau, thus allowing and showing acceptance of the new laws for the year. When the power and influence of the Norse Vikings declined the 'Kingship' of Mann regularly passed between our close neighbours but the Manx resident's spirit of independence remained unhindered with the comment "We've seen them come — we'll see them go" passing down the generations.

By the fourteenth century, the English Crown was predominate and ultimately the Island was held for the Crown by various members of the Stanley family and their heirs the Dukes of Athol!. With the influence of such as IIliam Dhone, (battling for independence) who was considered by many to be a true Manx martyr and shot by the Royalists for leading an uprising in 1663. Eventually this struggle for independence led to the Re-vestment Act of 1765, the English Crown became acknowledged as `Lord of Mann' a position that exists today with the result that the isle of Man acknowledges the sovereignty of her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11.

When the Island came under English rule after 1333, the Tynwald sitting continued with the feudal rights,( but not ownership) being granted by the Crown to various nobles as the King saw fit. Many nobles liked to refer to themselves as 'King of Man and the Isles' but the Isles (Western Isles of Scotland) had been lost in 1156 to Somerled of Argyll (founder Lord of the Isles) and later in 1266 by the Treaty of Perot (with Norway) to Scotland. Under the reign of Henry V111., the then Kings of Man diplomatically dropped the title 'King' and chose 'Lord' thus better reflecting the position and not offending the King. On the top tier of the hill, the Lord would be surrounded by his Barons including the Lord Bishop. The church at that time was a notable landowner and operated its own ecclesiastical courts. The Bishop representing the Church of England remains today as the only link to those Barons through his right to a seat on the Legislative Council.

Other Barons have included the Deemsters (High Court Judges) who before the laws were written down from the 1400s gave out 'breast law' from memory. The Deemsters lost the right to sit in Tynwald Court in the twentieth century as it was seen preferable to separate the law makers from the judiciary.

82 3•

Changes through the Constitution Act in 1961 first saw the Second Deemster replaced by an elected member to the Legislative council (with the Keys acting as an electoral college) and again in 1975 the First Deemster was replaced by an elected member. The Deemsters do however still promulgate from the hill the laws passed each year by Tynwald, thus retaining a role in the Tynwald Hill Ceremonial.

Technically the sitting on the Hill does not today constitute the formal sitting of 'Parliament' — Tynwald members, the Deemsters, Coroners and other persons 'attend' the proceedings, presided over by the Lieutenant Governor as her Majesty's representative on the Island.

It can be said that since the mid 1700s, the Island has indeed progressed both politically and economically on a steady graph with only in retrospect, minor peaks and troughs. The Revestment Act of 1765 giving 'ownership' to her Majesty's forebears led the Island to having stability and enabled it to progress through each century to the level of secure parliamentary democracy we enjoy today. The early 1800s were notable for the desire of the Manx people to move towards electing its representatives rather than continue with family succession. The Members of the House of Keys (Yn Chiare as feed, the four and twenty) had to all intent and purpose become a self-elected assembly. However in 1866, a new Elections Act meant that popular elections, albeit on a restricted franchise, were introduced. By 1881 a new Act again brought the right for women (property owners) to be allowed to vote. It is interesting to note that Tynwald and the Isle of Man by this Act, could be seen as instrumental in bringing womens' suffrage to Westminster. Emily Pankhurst, the noted suffragette had forebears from the Island and must have gained confidence and support for her stand from the Island's position where her female relatives already had the right to vote. From 1881, the franchise was slowly increased until after the First World War, universal franchise was complete. It is strange therefore that since the elction of Mrs. Shimmin as the first female member of the House of Keys, only a handful have sought election. In 1974 one sixth of the House were ladies (4) whilst today there are only 2 with 1 further female representative in the Legislative Council. The right of property owners to have a vote in more than one constituency was abolished in 1971 along with the voting age being reduced from 21 years to 18 years. The Island has again been to the forefront in democracy by reducing the voting age. In 2006 Tynwald provided legislation to give the right to vote to everyone above the age of 16 years.

Since the establishment of the House of Keys at 24 members, its membership has been loosely based on the six sheadings and as each sheading became sub-divided into Parishes constituencies began to reflect numbers of population. Today, the Island which has a much greater population (82,000) currently has 15 constituencies following the last Boundary Commission change in 1986.

83 4.

Originally the six sheadings each returned four members today there is a mix returning 2 or 3 members to make the 24. Voting is counted on a 'first past the post' system. An S.T.V, (single transferable vote) was introduced for the 1986 General Election but was abandoned again in 1996 as it did not meet popular acclaim. Most Members are Independents and although various party or groupings have been established, over the years very few have been successful at the ballot box. General elections take place constitutionally every 5 years, with bye elections to fill any vacancy that may arise.

The lack of any party politics on the Island is seen by some to lead to consensus in the extreme, To them this means that 'progress' and decision making can sometimes be a lengthy activity. Others will argue that this fits well with the Manx culture and way of life in that it is often laid back believing as it does in "traa-dy-liooar" or "time enough"in English translation. As a small nation however it does mean that our policies are rooted firmly in the community which is not slow to inform its politicians directly when it feels action is required. A typical example occurred when the last Labour administration in Westminster decided to curtail a long standing reciprocal health agreement. Direct action in the Island not only saw our Island's population actively seeking its re-instatement but many residents lobbying vociferously on and off the Island. Typical of the pressure from public and politicians were the Debates initiated in Tynwald Court by Back Bench members with the sole intention of generating further public backing and seeking action from the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers.

Constitutionally, following a General Election, the House of Keys meets and elects its Speaker. The Speaker then becomes responsible for the good order and management of The House, though when sitting in Tynwald Court, he does not have a presiding role, becoming a true representative of his/her constituency. Election to the Speaker's chair does mean that the incumbent is not available for Ministerial Office in Government but can be elected by Tynwald to serve on Standing or Select Committees. Once the House of Keys has elected its Speaker, Tynwald Court sits and elects a Chief Minister and it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to appoint no more than 9 Ministers. This number is explicit in that it gives Government a block vote of 10 whilst a simple majority of the House of Keys is 13. Arguably, this mathematical arrangement means that without back bench support, the Chief Minister is liable to a vote of no confidence. This arrangement is totally at odds with the Westminster system of Party Politics where it is known that a strong majority and a 3 line whip can see 'Party Policy' become more important than a Parliamentary democratic decision. Both the Chief Minister and the Treasury Minister (appointed by the Chief Minister) must annually bring to Tynwald the Budget and a Policy Statement for debate. Our Government needs definite parliamentary support whereas with a Party System, there is an automatic built in majority.

84 5.

It should be pointed out at this point that in the last half century, the role of Tynwald Court and the House of Keys has become moreimportant. Prior to 1960, the Lieutenant Governor of the Island not only presided over sittings of Tynwald Court and the Legislative Council, but was Chairman of the then Executive Council, forerunner of our current Council of Ministers and was responsible for the presentation of the annual budget. With the reduction in the Lieutenant Governor's powers and duties and the increase in responsibility of the Island's elected representatives, it is noticeable that the average age of the elected House has become younger.

Co-incidentally with that responsibility has arisen an increase in remuneration so that today, a Member has basic pay at midpoint of the Civil Service scale. This total salary expense does sometimes mean that our residents point out that we may be over governed, but when it is weighed against the right of the Island to have self-determination and sound democracy, is valued above any alternative.

Today the main function of the House of Keys is to pass primary legislation. Bills dealing with domestic matters over which the Isle of Man has substantial autonomy are dealt with at a formal first reading stage, second readings and clauses stage when the principle of the Bill is debated and any amendments are made, before a final third reading.

Recent changes to Standing Orders of the House provide for the necessary gap between second reading and clause stage to enable amendments to be published in advance of a sifting. However, the House retains the right to suspend its Standing Orders to allow for a shortening of the period between readings and for Members to have the right to propose amendments without the usual notice. In addition Members may propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. By far, most legislation follows the timescale referred to by Standing Orders, only rarely (for example tax legislation following a budget) have three readings been taken on one day.

On completion of its passage in the House of Keys, a Bill is then sent to the other branch of Tynwald, the Legislative Council where it must pass similar stages. Having reached agreement in both branches, the Bill is submitted to Tynwald Court to request Royal Assent. Today, the Lieutenant Governor may give a Bill approval on domestic matters or refer a Bill to the Sovereign and following such approval, it is announced at the next regular monthly sitting thus becoming an Act of Tynwald, followed by its promulgation from the Hill on Tynwald Day (5th July). Failure to promulgate on Tynwald Day within 18 months would mean that the Act would cease to have force. Legislation can start its passage in the Legislative Council, but it is expected today that all Government Bills will start their life in the Keys which, as the popularly elected house, has primacy. The Legislative Council has revision and delaying powers, but ultimately the House of Keys can if they wish, over-ride Council actions in particular circumstances.

85 6.

An unusual further time for consideration and the effect of public intervention can occur when a Bill, having passed in both branches, comes before Tynwald before going for Royal Assent. There is a requirement for a quorum of both Branches to sign. Failure to sign by a quorum even at this late stage means the Bill 'lies on the table' and if not signed will ultimately die at dissolution of the House of Keys.

On the third week of every month, Tynwald Court sits to deal with all matters of finance and secondary legislation. The annual budget put before Tynwald for debate in February may show provision for capital expenditure for example to build a new school within a 5 year programme. The Minister for Education still requires Tynwald approval for the expenditure of such sum when the Department is ready to proceed having dealt with all planning and tendering matters. Similarly, whilst the Social Security Legislation may provide for monies to be made available for social needs, it is only following presentation and debate of the actual payments to be made, that Tynwald Court authorises such amounts, Thus Secondary Legislation is subject to Tynwald approval and whilst Orders are regularly debated, they are rarely voted down. It is common practice for individual members to table motions relating to policy and whilst Government does not necessarily have to fulfil every action requested or expression of opinion approved in Tynwald, it nevertheless has to take account of and respond positively to any such approved resolution. Failure to do so would almost inevitably lead to a vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister or Minister of the Department responsible.

What then of the future? A Parliament with a proud tradition going back over a millennium nevertheless looks forward to improving its visibility to the electorate and public of the Island. In recent times, the Hansard facility in being since the nineteenth century, has seen the advent of modern technology in that today all three chambers are wired for voice recognition. This has enabled our Hansard to be produced more speedily and at a cost saving. Manx Radio, the local radio station broadcasts Tynwald proceedings from start to finish and this broadcast goes out webcast. Voting procedure today is instantaneous in that when a vote is called, a member (who must be in his/her seat unless permission of absence has been granted from the Chair) has 10 seconds to cast their vote electronically by pushing a button either 'for' or 'against' — there is no abstention. The name of the person voting and which way the vote is cast is then automatically displayed on a large screen for everyone (Members and public) to see. With no 'pairing' and the requirement to attend, every vote becomes important in a numerically small legislature as ours.

Constitutionally, over the last century, the position of the electorate through its elected representatives has taken huge steps forward. There is no doubting that the 'three Legs of Man' through its three chamber system of democracy has enjoyed stablility and growth, Nevertheless it remains true that not all the Island's politicians remain satisfied.

86 7.

Recently there have been a number of moves made in the House of Keys to try to establish a popularly elected Legislative Council, Currently a member of the Council is preparing a Bill with that as its aim. Opposition to a popularly elected Legislative Council is largely based on the suggestion that two elected chambers would tend to fight over supremacy, whilst currently the Legislative Council acknowledges the primacy of the House. The abolition of our multiple seat constituencies is regularly questioned and a Bill promoting single seat constituencies has been proposed.

With changes to boundaries, possible popular election of the Legislative Council and the position of its last remaining Baran, the Lord Bishop, under scrutiny, the next century will again see changes, some following the desire of the people of Man and some as a result of an ever changing international scene.

It is the writer's belief that future constitutional change should be slow. There is much yet to do in our relationship with our neighbours and the European Community. The need for the Island to take responsibility for its awn affairs has never been greater.

The move in the U.K. to establish devolved assemblies with legislative powers will inevitably mean greater 'independence' within those countries and the Island's politicians need to be aware of opportunities that may arise. Our relationship with the European Union is governed still by Protocol 3 of the Treaty of Rome. Almost 40 years ago it was seen as a positive move with the Island and the Channel Islands being given special terms, neither paying into or receiving funding from the E.U. Although this formal relationship remains constant, there is no doubt that changes both in the E.U. and the Isle of Man, have meant that our current relationship stretches far beyond the original intent. The Island's economy is no longer dependent on Agriculture, Fishing and Tourism. The finance services are a part of the diverse economy which has grown up despite the Protocol 3. It is doubtful that all will remain constant for the next 40 years and while we may be committed to the continuation of our relationship, that can only be so long as we can maximise its benefits.

The culture and way of life that islanders have come to expect as of right, can and will come easily under attack. Politicians need to remain vigilant in the face of changing patterns and economics beyond our shores, as much as at home. Recent events in world money markets have caused concern and it is the Island's stablility through its democratic system of Parliament that has led the way forward to our economic success. If politicians have the confidence to take decisions in a tried and tested manner, in an open democracy the future of the Island will remain secure.

3548

87 88 2 Starkey Close Ballastowell Gardens Ramsey 1M8 2AS

Telephone 815437

14 January 2012

Mr Jonathan King Clerk to the Joint Committee on the Electoral Reform Bill Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas •It:0 IM1 3PW

Dear Mr King

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 201 1

I should like to submit the following observations for consideration by your Joint Committee.

Firstly, I feel compelled to express my surprise that two governmental committees have been set up to consider, simultaneously, various aspects (often overlapping) of the representation of the people. However, 1 set out below my observations on the present Bill, a substantial proportion of which have already been submitted to the Boundary Review Committee.

If I understand it correctly, there are two principal aims of the present Bill: (i) to cause the membership of the Legislative Council to be elected by the public and for its members to be representative of eight constituencies, and (ii) for the membership of the House of Keys to be elected by the voters in the same eight constituencies, each such constituency returning three MHKs.

With regard to the first of these proposals, I regard it to be the height of political irresponsibility. Are the public, most of whom do not know what the Legislative Council is for (and many could not care less), really to be entrusted with the election of its members? And, considering the main function of the Legislative Council as a revising chamber, is there to be no requirement that candidates for Council membership should be able to provide evidence of relevant experience, e.g. as prior membership of the House of Keys? And are not Members of the House of Keys better able to assess such experience than the general public? 2

As for the proposal that members of the Legislative Council should be representative of the same eight constituencies as the Keys, which of the two chambers would be considered to be the superior? Have we already forgotten the striking example presented to us very recently by the two chambers of the US Congress (both chambers representative of constituencies), when the two chambers could not agree on corrective measures when the nation was on the brink of bankruptcy? Even the unfinished reform of the House of Lords at Westminster has never been set along that path. This proposal, popular as it may be among certain MHKs, is nothing short of political ineptitude.

There appears to have been a marked change of ethos among Members of the House of Keys in the past 30-40 years. All those years ago, MHKs who had achieved some years of political experience, some having attained the status of 'elder statesmen', seemed to consider it an honour to be elected by their peers to the upper chamber. In contrast today, elections to membership of the Legislative Council (with the exception of the most recent one) have been rendered farcical by the actions of certain MHKs who have seemed to be intent on wrecking the system in order to achieve their aim of a publicly elected Council. It is my belief that most members of the public have little interest in a publicly elected Council, in addition to not being aware of its primary function as a revising chamber, so whom do those MHKs who are pressing for this change think they are representing?

You may have gathered from the foregoing that I am neither in favour of a publicly elected Legislative Council, nor of its Members being representative of constituencies, and I have set out above what I consider to be valid reasons for opposing the proposal. The present system of election to the Council should be retained, and MHKs should, once again, get down to the task of selecting suitable candidates, preferably from among their own number, and certainly who have acquired the appropriate level of political, legal and/or other experience and expertise to render them suitable for election to membership of a parliamentary revising chamber.

With regard to the second of the principal aims of this Bill, that the membership of the House of Keys be elected in eight constituencies, each returning three members, I can do no more than repeat the submission which I have previously made to the Boundary Review Committee, and to include material which I submitted at a subsequent meeting with that committee. This I set out below.

The present system of election of members to the House of Keys, in which some voters are entitled to one vote, others to two votes, and yet others to three, cannot be said to approach the democratic ideal of one person, one vote, or even of all persons having the same number of votes. In seeking to redress this inequality, there would seem to be three alternative approaches to the redrawing of Manx constituency boundaries, these being the provision of: (a) 24 single-seat constituencies; or (b) 12 2-seat constituencies; or (c) 8 3-seat constituencies.

90 3

In disposing of option (a) at the outset, I would suggest that such an approach would lead to unrealistic and undesirably small constituency sizes, particularly in the town and urban conurbations of Douglas, Onchan and Ramsey.

In relation to the other two options, in discussions on this subject that I have seen and heard in the Manx media to date, it has been suggested that the mathematical ideal of equal numbers of voters in all constituencies should not be the only objective, and that considerations of 'community' should also be borne in mind. I feel some sympathy for that approach. Whilst recognising that such an approach could never result in an ideal solution, either from the mathematical viewpoint or from considerations of town/urban/rural community (it must inevitably be a compromise), it would at least retain the principal objective of providing all voters with entitlement to the same number of votes. And if, at the end of the exercise, we finished up with a system in which voter numbers in the constituencies varied by (say) up to 15 per cent on either side of the mean, my response would be — so what? Precise equality of numbers is not a practical possibility in any case, and voter numbers are continually changing with time.

Turning attention_now to option (c) above, which is the proposal contained in the present Bill, I would suggest this to be undesirable from the viewpoint of the likely spread of votes across three candidates in a constituency, which may well result in the third candidate to be elected being seen as an 'also-ran'. It is also possible, of course, for there to be two also-rans, and it is surely not desirable that an electoral system should allow candidates polling relatively low numbers of votes to be elected to a parliamentary assembly. One also-ran per constituency is surely enough, which brings us back to option (b) above.

If my objections to options (a) and (c) above are accepted, then we are left with a scheme for 12 two-seat constituencies, a possible distribution for which I set out overleaf. This has the advantage of leaving the existing constituencies of Douglas (4 in number) and Ramsey (1) unchanged, with other constituencies formed by a degree of combination and redistribution of the existing. In a further two pages, I attach some analysis of voter numbers in these proposed constituencies.

I hope that this submission may be of some interest to your committee.

Yours sincerely •

John Grimson

91 4

PROPOSED CONSTITUENCIES FOR HOUSE OF KEYS ELECTIONS

Constituencies Members

Douglas (the existing constituencies) 4 8

Ramsey (the existing constituency) I 2

Peel and Glenfaba (the existing Town and Sheading) 1 2

Castletown, Malew and Arbory (the existing Town and 2 Parishes) 1 2

Onchan Village (the former Village District) 1 2

Garff (Maughold and Lonan Parishes, including Laxey Village and rural Onchan) I 2

Michael and Ayre (the two Sheadings) 1 2

Middle (the Sheading; i.e. Braddan, Marown and San ton) 1 2

Rushen (Parish), Port Erin and Port St Mary 1 2

12 24

92 5

POPULATION ANALYIS FOR PROPOSED HOUSE OF KEYS CONSTITUENCIES

(Population figures are those collected in the 2006 Census)

Constituency Population Seats Population per seat

Douglas (4) 26,218 8 3,277 (average)

Ramsey 7,309 2 3,655

Peel & Glenfaba Peel 4,280 German 995 Patrick 1,294 6,569 2 3,285

Castletown, 3,109 Malew & 2,304 Arbory 1,723 .7,136 2 3,568

Onchan Village (est) 7,500 2 3,750

Garff Laxey 1,168 Lonan 1,563 Maugho Id 950 Onchan (est) 1,672 5,953 2 2,977

Michael & Ayre Michael 1,640 B al laugh 1,042 Jurby 659 Lezayre 1,237 Andreas 1,381 Bride 418 6,377 2 3,189

Middle Braddan 3,151 Marown 2,086 Santon 680 5,917 2 2,959

Port Erin, 3;575 Pt St Mary & 1,913 Rushen Parish 1,591 7,079 2 3,540

93 6

PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS FROM THE AVERAGE POPULATION PER SEAT

The average population per seat across the Isle of Man is

80.058 = 3,336 24

The constituency with the highest population count is Onchan Village, its percentage deviation from the average being

3750 —3336 x 100 = +12.41% 3336

The constituency with the lowest population count is Middle, its percentage deviation from the average being

2959 3336 x 100 = -11.30% 3336

Hence, the proposed distribution of seats would result in:

(i) all Members of the House of Keys having a broadly similar number of constituents, within the limits given above;

(ii) all voting members of the electorate having the same number of votes (2); and

(iii) by restricting the number of seats per constituency to 2, the chances of an `also-ran' being elected with a relatively small number of votes are minimised.

Olinda South Cape Laxey Isle of Man 1M4 7JB

25 January 2012

Mr J King RECEIVED Joint Committee on Electoral Reform Legislative Buildings 25 JAN 2012 Finch Road OFFICE OF THE Douglas IM1 3PW CLERK OF TYNWALD

Dear Mr King

The Electoral Reform Bill 2011

I refer to this proposed bill & write to register my views on both main proposals contained therein viz. the division of the Island into eight constituencies & that each constituency should have three MHKs & one MLC.

At this time of significant financial turbulence I question firstly whether it is appropriate for this exercise with its associated costs to be carried out now. Certainly I am not aware that this is either a burning issue beyond the political classes themselves or that an irresistible case has been made for the changes proposed.

If, however, such consideration is deemed necessary at this time the starting point should be whether the changes proposed will be beneficial for the electorate & thus enhance democracy & again I do not see that these questions have been answered. It is therefore appropriate to consider the motivation behind the proposals & establish exactly who is intended to gain from this exercise.

Turning to the proposals themselves I offer the following observations:

1. Constituencies & their boundaries should maintain a geographical/historical logic as by & large is the case at present. It is perhaps difficult to see how eight newly created constituencies will either engender 'ownership' by their constituents or prevent anomalies arising. 2. It is important for the size of the electorate within constituencies to be broadly similar. This can be achieved for example in the case of Onchan by splitting the existing constituency as required & adding the nomenclature 'North, South etc.'. 3. Each constituency should return one MHK. This will enable the electorate to have a clear line of approach to a political representative & will more clearly allow the electorate to identify the success or otherwise of that representative. This should enable General Elections to become more relevant by permitting a turnover & renewal of our elected representatives which is not always the case at present in those constituencies which have more than one MHK.

95 2

4. The most difficult but also the most relevant question is the overall number of elected representatives required for the size of population in the Isle of Man. This should form part of any discussion which may lead to legislation in this area. Is it a coincidence that the proposed number of MHKs under the new legislation is the same as are presently elected to the House of Keys?

In conclusion I wonder if the joint committee is being asked to consider the wrong question at the wrong time but I look forward to learning the outcome of the deliberations of the joint committee of the House of Keys & the Legislative Council in due course.

Your sincerely

4144-841" I I VAS* R G Jones

96 Jonathan King

From: David Kermode [[email protected]] Sent: 02 April 2012 12:15 To: Jonathan King Subject: Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Dear Jonathan King,

Thank you for your letter of 14 March. Unfortunately it coincided with a broken leg and my wife recovering from a heart operation. My comments will therefore be brief

1.The Bill is to be commended for seeking to address two longstanding deficiencies in the way in which members of Tynwald are recruited, the indirect election of 8 MLCs and inequalities inherant in the mixture of one, two and three member constituencies for elections to the House of Keys.

2. The proposed staging of elections to the Legislative Council would result in the Island having elections in 3 out of every 5 years, a sure recipe for instability of membership of both executive and legislature. A single election 2 or 3 years after that for the Keys would be less disruptive and would have the advantage of allowing the whole Island to vote in a mid-term election.

3.Given the experience of recent attempts at reforming the Island's constituencies, it might make sense to aim to have approved Boundary Committee recommendations as a schedule to the legislation.

4.The Bill is silent about the ex officio MLCs. If the aim of the Bill is to democratise the Legislative Council, there is a strong case for allowing MLCs to elect their own chair rather than being subject to the choice of Tynwald and for removing the voting rights of the Lord Bishop both in the \Legislative Council and Tynwald.

5. The Bill is also silent regarding the respective powers of the two chambers. If the Legisaltive Council becomes an elected chamber, there is a strong case for restoring parity of power with the Keys and resolving conflict between the branches over legislation and other matters by a joint vote in Tynwald

A fuller discussion of the debate about reform is to be found in my book, Ministerial Government in the Isle of Man:The First Twenty Years (2008), pp.111-27 and pp.400=01

Yours sincerely.

David Kermode

97 98

Claremont Old Castietown Road Port Soderick IM4 1BB Mr Jonathan King Clerk of the Joint Committee on Electoral R 30/12/2011 Legislative Buildings Finch Road RECEIVED Douglas - 4 JAN 2012 IM1 3PW OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYNWALD Dear Sirs,

Views on proposed Electoral Reform Bill

I welcome the proposed bill. As a voter in Middle at the general election, I decided to abstain in future unless the ludicrous imbalance and flaws in the voting system was first corrected.

Two points in my view:-

1) Quota of Voters. It is essential that a vote should be worth the same regardless of where the voter lives. In addition a system should be put in place to prevent the current imbalances from recurring in future. Two elements are required for this. a) An independent boundary authority must make regular reviews and have the authority to press changes. b) The information needed to make these decisions must be continuously collected. In particular, an up to date count of registered voters by postcode is- essential.

2) All votes must be used. The possibility that a candidate might gain advantage by suggesting that supporters do not use their other votes makes the current system undemocratic. The rules for a ballot must force voters to mark their paper for at least the number of MHKs to be elected; otherwise the paper must be considered spoilt.

The proposals as far as I can see appear sensible. There is no particular advantage to three seat constituencies; however it will avoid arguments about loss of identity' from existing units. Introduction of elections for MLCs is not In my view essential, and `aldermanie systems have a long and honourable history. However, if this change is desired, to make it at the same time would be sensible.

Yours Sincerely

ohn L Motley

99 100

Mullen Beg Patrick ISLE OF MAN IM5 3AW

Telephone. 01624 842912 Fax: 01624 843356 e-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan King Esq Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW 3rd February 2012

Dear Mr King

Electoral Reform Bill 2012

Thank you for your letter of 21st December last inviting me to comment on the above Bill. I have had various involvements and in a number of capacities with Tynwald and the wider Isle of Man Government over the years, but the comments I am submitting in this letter represent my own views, albeit informed by my experience gained through those involvements.

I note that the Joint Committee has been entrusted with considering the constitutional principles raised by the Bill and not necessarily the detail of its provisions. I have therefore sought to limit my comments to that narrow overview.

The Bill proposes two radical changes to the composition of the Legislature in that it both provides for the Legislative Council to be directly elected, and also determines that the Island should be divided into eight constituencies, each returning the same number of representatives rather than the current mixture of constituencies returning different numbers of representatives. Dealing with these proposals in turn:-

1. I have always felt that the current method of electing the Legislative Council ("LegCo") is unsatisfactory in that its objective is unclear i.e is LegCo intended to be, as it is often described, a less taxing retreat for former members of the House of Keys, or a Chamber which adds a different perspective to the legislative process by introducing views of those who have had a wider and/or different experience? I am not sure if the Bill answers that question, and it is a question over which the Keys agonises every time there are vacancies to fill. In part, the answer lies in the purpose of LegCo — is it intended to be purely a revising Chamber with largely delaying powers, or a Chamber with parallel and complimentary, though not necessarily equal, legislative and executive functions? 2. Whatever my own personal view (and I have no mandate to promote any particular view — though I tend to favour the latter), the House of Keys will have

101 to recognize that, if LegCo becomes directly elected by the people as opposed to an electoral college, its mandate changes dramatically. Not only can its members claim to represent the voters directly and they will have a mandate to prove it — but by virtue of the numbers of members, they can claim to have an enhanced mandate over their House of Keys colleagues. Even if that principle is not readily accepted, it is undisputable that the vote of a LegCo member, being one of eight rather• than one of twenty four, carries greater influence over any outcome so long as each Chamber sits and votes separately. 3. Thus any proposal to have LegCo members elected directly, unless appropriately constrained, would have the effect of reducing the legislative supremacy of the House of Keys. (An obvious example is the Senate in the USA which is regarded as superior to the House of Representatives — it is a genuinely "upper house"). I make a suggestion as to how that presumption could be avoided below. 4. Turning to the proposed method of election, I struggle to understand the purpose of having LegCo members elected at different times than House of Keys members. It certainly would not reduce their authority or diminish their mandate -- indeed I could see candidates defeated at a House of Keys election having a "second bite" at a subsequent LegCo election and claiming an equal or even superior mandate notwithstanding their defeat at the earlier contest. I also think that the electorate would struggle to appreciate why elections were staggered, and would not generate as much enthusiasm for LegCo elections; it would also be difficult to express a collective view on a Government's record if elections were not held contemporaneously. 5. The cost of holding a series of elections would obviously be higher than one election in each constituency every 5 years (more frequently in the event of by- elections). 6. Turning to the proposed division of the Island into eight constituencies, I am aware from my experience as a former Chair of the Boundary Commission, that such a division is possible — indeed it does form one of the easier and more obvious divisions as it overcomes objections based on the exact boundaries of smaller constituencies which often bedevil a Boundary Commission's recommendations. I have no problem with three member constituencies — I do have a rooted concern over the present assortment of differently sized constituencies returning anything from one to three members which seems inherently undemocratic. Any legislation which determines that problem would be an advance. One of the strongest arguments for larger constituencies, is a move away, even if it is largely symbolic, from the current highly parochial approach of much of the political process based on very small and local constituencies. 7, Returning to my comment in paragraph 3 above, I feel that the interests of democracy could be better served were the Nordic precedent to be followed and the whole of Tynwald elected at the same time with three of the members being returned for each constituency allocated to the House of Keys and one to the Legislative Council. The relevant importance of each Chamber and its relative function (i.e as revising chamber or as equal, if not superior chamber) could be determined by the priority of allocation of successful candidates — if the first to be elected were to go to LegCo, that Chamber's relative superiority would be obvious: were the fourth candidate to go to Legco, its secondary and more complimentary status would also be unquestionable. This would also remove the need to impose restrictions on sitting members seeking election to "the other place".

102 Turning to other matters, I welcome the requirement for a Boundary Committee to designate the proposed eight new constituencies — but feel the Bill does not go far enough. In my view, there should be a requirement for a Boundary Review every, say, 10 years and its findings should be binding and not subject to Tynwald approval. The lack of any meaningful adjustment of parliamentary boundaries on the Island in the past thirty years (and even the last changes actually adopted — the Butler Report - were not implemented in full) notwithstanding significant demographic changes, is regrettable. In my view there should be an obligation for reviews at regular intervals and the principles on which such reviews should be conducted should be established and set out in statute.

I also note that the Bill is, in effect, a series of amendments to existing statutes. For such a significant change in the political process, a stand alone Bill would not only recognize the importance of the proposals, but would also make it so much easier for the average observer to understand the provisions without having to cross refer to endless tomes of past legislation, itself already heavily amended. Whilst the current Bill may be technically acceptable, it certainly does not ease understanding (other than to a small minority used to interpreting complex legislative provisions). I think such a significant constitutional step deserves a stand alone statute.

May I thank the Joint Committee for inviting me to comment — I hope my observations are of interest and assist the Committee in finding a solution to the problems that have defied resolution for so long.

Yours sincerely

Robert Quayle

103 104 Jonathan King

From: Click [[email protected]] Sent: 16 May 2012 10:19 To: Jonathan King Subject: RE: Electoral Reform Bill Consultation Attachments: Boundary Review Committee - Consultation 2012 CT letter 15052012.pdf

Dear Jonathan

Although I did not submit to the Electoral Reform Bill consultation in February, I did make a submission to Boundary Review Committee consultation which I think is closely related to Electoral Reform Bill. Please find my submission attached.

Kind regards

Chris Thomas Tel: 617852 or 415820

From: Jonathan King [mailto:j.kingPtvnwald.org.im] Sent: 01 February 2012 15:47 To: 'click@manx. net' Subject: Electoral Reform Bill

Dear Chris Thomas

Thank you for your phone call earlier. I can confirm that it is fine for you to submit your comments to me tomorrow. There is no need for your response to bear today's date: you should just put on it the date on which you are sending it.

Jonathan

Jonathan King Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Clerk of the Legislative Council Legislative Buildings, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3PW 01624 686303

105 106 Dolls House, Old Castletown Road Douglas IM2 1QB

15th May 2012

Ms Sally Bolton, Chair of the Boundary Review Committee c/o Mrs Ann Craine, Secretary to the Boundary Review Committee, Chief Secretary's Office Government Office, Bucks Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Dear Ms Bolton

Boundary Review Committee Response

Although I became a St George's Ward Douglas Borough Councillor on ft May 2012, I submit this view in a personal capacity as a resident, registered voter, and member of UN Association.

Please find below:

• My preference in respect of combination of constituencies and members, plus general comments about Boundary Review and parallel call for evidence on electoral reform by Tynwald committee established in connection with Callister Bill; and • Advice of views about 'first principle' questions in letter of 18th April sent to UN Association.

Combination of constituencies and members

I prefer 6 constituencies with 4 members for three reasons:

• 6 (or 12) fits with some population mathematics of Island e.g. Douglas has 1/3rd of Island's population, and balance of East, West, North and South have about 116th each; • historical connections of 6 in that this is both i) the number of sheadings, the historic administrative district of Island and ii) the number of wards in Douglas Borough Council. This historical connection can be used when naming new constituencies; and • 4 member constituencies would be different from all existing constituencies (1, 2 or 3 members) so no current sitting MHK has an advantage through continuity.

I acknowledge this is in conflict with the Callister Electoral Reform Bill proposal for 8 constituencies. In my view proposing 8 constituencies is driven by the current number of MLCs, and both the election/selection of them and the number of MLCs are separate questions from constituency/member combination.

I believe the combination I prefer can be enhanced with each of the 6 constituencies having 2 types of MHKs, 1 'national' sheading' MHK, representing the whole of the constituency, and 3 'local' 'town or parish' MHKs, each representing one third of the constituency. Thus there would be 6 'national' MHKs and 18 'local' MHKs in the Isle of Man elected in the 6 constituencies. Every Isle of Man registered voter would have two votes, 1 for a 'national' MHK and 1 for a 'local' MHK. This proposal is in line with Tynwald resolution about the 'equality of representation' and about 'all constituencies each return(ing) an equal number of MHKs', except that there are two types of constituencies. Having two types of constituencies is often a feature of national parliaments.

107 The 6 national constituencies I propose (named in terms of Douglas wards and Sheadings), and with 2011 population details, are:

Proposed constituency 2011 Resident Population Comments Douglas North (Athol, Derby & 13 970 (1/2 of 27940) Athol, Derby, Victoria wards Victoria) Douglas South (Hills, Murray's 13 970 (1/2 of 27940) Hills, Murray's, St George's St George's) wards Ayre & Garff 15 142 Andreas, Bride, Laxey, Lezayre, Lonan, Maughold, and Ramsey Glenfaba, Marown & Michael 13 523 Ballaugh, German, Jurby, Marown, Michael, Patrick and Peel Middle 13 549 Braddan, Onchan, Santon Rushen 14 343 Arbory, Castletown, Malew, Port St Mary, Port Erin, Rushen

Divisions of the 6 'national' sheadings' into 18 'local' town or parish' constituencies could be:

Sheading constituency Parish or Town constituency Douglas North Athol Derby Victoria Douglas South Hills Murray's St George's Ayre & Garff Ayre Garff Ramsey Glenfaba, Marown & Michael Glenfaba & Marown Michael Peel Middle Braddan Middle Onchan (originally in Middle, not Garff) Rushen Castletown Ports Malew & Arbory

This proposed combination of constituencies and members might also contribute to progress being made in respect of three other long-discussed political reforms as follows:

• Local authority provision might be grouped roughly in line with these constituencies, except it is hard to imagine Douglas being subdivided, and Douglas and Middle might be combined. In fact naming the proposed compass point 'areas' as 'sheadings/Douglas' might increase acceptability; • 6 members of LegCo could come from each sheading, either by election or by indirect election from local authorities. Thus my proposal is not incompatible with Callister electoral

108 reform proposal if it was amended slightly. If current membership of 8 MLCs should be continued, then 2 other MLCs could come from functional groups, e.g. trade unions, chamber of commerce etc.; and • Chief Minister might need to be one of 6 'national' sheading' MHKs who had put national rather than local manifesto forward and had mandate from around 15 000 people, rather than merely 5 000 or so.

First principle questions

Importance of Sheadings are important historical features of the Isle of Man, and have been sheading boundaries the basis of constituencies in the past. They should remain so. However the towns have grown at the expense of rural districts. This makes it impossible to use the six sheadings as precise basis. However the sheading names can be used, as can the fact that there are six of them. This is my proposal. Importance of local Important. Wards in Douglas can be used for area and names, as can parish authority/parish names and borders in combination. This is my proposal. boundaries Geographical size of Population is the basis of a constituency, not geographical area. This has to constituencies be the case for principle 1. There have always been larger and smaller constituencies. This is no problem. Population or It has to be population, as resolved by Tynwald. Equal voter registration eligible voters per across the Island would bring eligible voters in line with population. MHK Community Important and should be respected wherever possible. So in South Ports and boundaries Castletown seem to have identity, as do Garff (Garff Initiative) and Northern Parishes. Onchan and Middle (Rural Onchan) seem to have identity etc.. National v local Tynwald and House of Keys need national politicians to determine national MHKs issues. However there is historic closeness between MHKs and constituents through tiny absolute size of constituencies and this should be respected. My proposal for two types of MHKs deals with this dichotomy. Costs to candidates There should be maximum spend on election costs, and I believe there of elections should also be forfeitable deposit. Canvassing and political case work in rural and town constituencies is different, and this might be reflected in costs. But this is not main issue, especially in this consultation. Surely this is another Representation of the People Act reform issue, one of several. Involvement in All population should be engaged and involved in electoral process. electoral process Registration is one important element of that.

Please do not hesitate to be in touch to discuss any of these points (tel: 617852 or 415820; email: [email protected]).

Yours sincerely

Chris Thomas

109 110 Positive Action Group (P A G) Submission

The House of Keys and the Legislative Council Joint Committee considering the constitutional principles raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Task of the Joint Committee

The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 makes two main proposals.

1.that the Island should be divided into eight constituencies 2. that each constituency should return three MHKs and one MLC.

The Joint Committee is to consider the constitutional principles raised by the Bill.

Introduction

1.Positive Action Group (P A G) is a political lobby group, not a political party. It is a not for profit Association the objectives being to promote an awareness and understanding of politics and citizenship. We encourage members of the public to participate actively in politics by taking part in discussions, making their views known, voting, standing for office and holding public office. (See Appendix 1) It is funded by membership subscription and donations.

2. P A G revised its Charter in 2011 and this can be read at Appendix 1.

3. Within the P A G Charter we declare:-

"The people to have the right to elect Members of the Legislative Council"

4. P A G therefore strongly supports the underlying principle of the Electoral Reform Bill 2011, that of popular election of most Members of the Legislative Council.

5. P A G considers the constituency re-revision and allocation suggested in the Bill to be an ingenious and sophisticated mechanism of realising the underlying principle

111 Discussion

1.Unlike many countries, the Isle of Man,does not have a written constitution, so the Joint Committee has an unenviable and difficult task in easliy identiying and agreeing underlying constitutional principles.

2. It may be interpreted that the remit of Joint Committe is to identify any unintended consequences of changes embodied in the proposed legislation.

3. A written constitution define's citizens' rights and codifies a country's political system.

4. In the IOM an unwritten constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case law, historical documents and Acts of Tynwald

5. As a result vestiges of an arcane relationship between the citizen and the State remain. One such throwback is that over a quarter of the Members of Tynwald are not elected by the public.

6. The Electoral Reform Bill 2011 essentially seeks to provide a more inclusive, publicly participative, form of democracy and is on a continuum of a long tradition of progress towards democratic reform

7. Having MLC's elected by the public is a modern progression to the democratisation of our parliament and as such does not appear to have an impact on any constitutional principle.

8. In creating 8, three Member (MHK), constituencies the Bill elegantly enables a democratic anomaly to be rectified, namely it provides equality of repesentaion in each constituency.

9. This was a recommendation of previous Boundary Review Committees;

a) Referring to 'democratic values' the Boundary Review Committee Interim Report (2006) stated " as great, if not greater importance in maintaining the principle of one man, one vote, is the concept of equality of representation"

b) Over 5 years later, in December 2011, The Interim Report of the latest Boundary Revue Committee was received and its recommendations approved by Tynwald

Recommendation 1 states:- "Tynwald accepts the principle of equality of representation so that all constituencies each return an equal number of Members to the House of Keys".

One of the ways to achieve this ,and suggested by the Boundary Revue Committee, is the establishment of 8 constituencies each having three MHKs

112 This is a proposal incorporated within the Bill.

11. In addition, in order to preseve the exixting structure of the Legislative Council, the Bill calls for Council member to be popularly elected alongside the 3 MHKs for each newly 'designated constituency'.

11. The main business of the Legislative Council would remain:- a) sitting seperately: the consideration of primary legislation. and b) sitting together with the House of Keys, as Tynwald Court: to consider matters of policy and finance.

12. The function of each MLC is not altered by the legislation.

Conclusion

1.Despite having members present at both readings of the Bill, PAG readily admits it is not able to identify constitutional principles raised by the Bill.

2. PAG recognises that the Bill may alter the relationship of popularly elected MLCs with their colleagues in the House of Keys, but this ought to be regarded as an unintended consequence of the change. It will not affect the function of the Legislative Council.

3. PAG considers that the legislation provides an extension of the democratic principle which would instill greater public confidence in the Council and ultimately Tynwald.

4. PAG fully endorses the Bill.

W Roger Tomlison Chair, Positive Action Group (PAG) January 2012

113 Positive Action Group (P A G) Appendix 1

Objectives

To promote awareness and understanding of politics and citizenship To encourage members of the public to participate actively in politics by taking part in discussions, making their views known, voting, standing for office and holding public office. To encourage an increase in the percentage turnout of the electorate, by raising awareness of the importance to the electorate of exercising their democratic right to vote - a consequence of which will be that they can help to shape and secure the future of the Isle of Man. To bring to the attention of Tynwald Members, the Government of the Isle of Man, or any other appropriate bodies, issues or matters of public interest raised by members of P A G; and which may include submissions in response to public consultation exercises. Charter

Positive Action Group (PAG) believes that three 'core principles' should apply to the system of Government in the Isle of Man.

OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT RIGOROUS CONTROL OF PUBLIC FINANCES; and A FAIRER SOCIETY FOR ALL

Towards this end we RESOLVE that these steps be taken to implement the 'core principles': The people to have the right to elect Members of the Legislative Council: - before this is implemented, no MLC may become a Minister. The Chief Minister be popularly elected The number of Ministries to be reduced. The number of Departmental members to be reduced. Equality of representation in each constituency be introduced That Tynwald should introduce legislation to:

PASS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

PASS A CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ACT

114 WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF

LOCAL AUTHORITIES 116 AN REAS PARISH COMMISSI NERS BARRANTEE SKEEREY ANDREAYS Please reply to the Clerk: J. J. Quayle Ballavarran, Jurby, Isle of Man, TM7 3AN - FrA)t a Tel: 01624 897686

28th January, 2012,

Mr J King, • Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Clerk to the Committee, Legislative Buildings, Douglas, isl eof man, IM1 3PW. re; Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Dear Mr King,

I refer to your letter dated the 21st December 2011. in connection with 'the above which my Commissioners have now considered.

I have to inform that Andreas Parish Commissioners consider that the House of Keys should be made up of 24 single seat constituencies. At least this way, the principle of one man one vote wold make all voters equal.

The Commissioners also consider that Membership of the Legislative Council should continue to be elected by the House of Keys. However, when a vacancy arises in the Legislative Council, such vancany should be filled by a Member of the House of Keys, at least then such Member going to the Upper Chamber will have been initially elected by the voters.

If such Member elected to the Upper Chamber by the House of Keys did not perform well, they could always be voted out by the House of Keys when up for re-election at'the end of their term of office.

Yours sincerely,

Clerk. RECEIVED 3 0 JAN 2012

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYNWALD

117 118 allaugh Parish Commissioners ifl,ARRANTEE SKEW REY BALLEY. NY LOGREY Please reply to the Clerk: J, J, Quayle Ballavarran, Jurby, Isle of Man, IM7 3AN . Tel: 01624 897686 i

28th January, 2012, ry Mr J King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Clerk to the Committee, Legislative Buildings, Douglas, isl eof man, 3PW.

re; Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Dear Mr King,

I refer to your letter dated the 21st December 2011' in connection with ,f .above which my Commissioners have now considered. • .,

I have to inform that Ballaugh Parish Commissioners consider that the House of Keys membership should remain at 24, but that the Island should should be divided into 24 single seat constituencies. Fbis way, at least the voters would know who their House of Keys Member is and who to turn to if they require help and assistance. This already is the case in the constituency of Michael.

The Commissioners also consider that Membership of the Legislative Council should continue to be elected by the House of Keys. The Legislative Council, or Upper House, is mainly a revising or scrutiny chamber and should remain that way.

Yourssincerel ,

Clerk.

RECEIVED 3 0 JAN 2012 OFFICE OF CLERK OF TYN'•:7,4,LD

119 120 Braddan Parish Commissioners Barrantee Skylley Viraddan Commissioners' Office, Close Corran, Union Mills, Bracldan, Isle of Man, 1M4 4LZ Telephone (Chellvane): (01624) 852808 Fax Line only (Fats): (01624) 852180 E-mail (Post-L): [email protected]

Our Ref 125/55 30th January 2012

Mr J King Clerk to Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 Legislative Buildings Douglas IM1 3PW

Dear Mr King

I write further to your letter of 215t December 2011 which was considered at a recent meeting of the Commissioners.

I can advise that they have no comments or submissions to make on the matter.

Yours sincerely__ • RECEIVED • 3 1 JAN 2012 OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF 71[14110. J C Whiteway MBA Clerk [email protected]

121 122 JonathanF.2j-i

From: Eddie Convery [[email protected] Sent: 10 January 2012 16:30 To: Jonathan King Subject: Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Jonathan

Thank you for your letter dated 21/12/11, which was discussed at a recent meeting. The Board have instructed me to advise that they consider the Bill a positive step forward and look forward to further details

Eddie

Eacti,er Co-rweey Town Clerk Castletown Town Commissioners Town Hall & Civic Centre Farrants Way Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1NR

Ye.l 01624 825005 FouP: 01624 827134

[email protected]

123 124 VI I 1th February 2012 POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE — Minutes of Meeting held on Friday, 27'1' January, 2012. Members present: Mr Councillor D W Christian (Chairman), the Mayor, Councillor Mrs S D A Hackman, Mr Councillor S R Pitts, Mr Councillor D J Ashford, Councillor Mrs C E Malarkey, Councillor Mrs E C Quirk, Councillor Mrs D M Kinrade. In Attendance: Borough Treasurer, Assistant Town Clerk, Assistant Borough Engineer, Assistant Chief Officer (Corporate & Development) (from 3,10pm to 3.25pm). fl,nevoq-

*8. Consultation Document— Electoral Reform 131112011 The Committee considered a written report by the Assistant Town Clerk in relation to a consultation document received from the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald in respect of a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr D Canister. MLC. Members were advised that the Bill contained only two principal proposals — (i) that the Island should be divided into eight constituencies: and (ii) that each constituency should return three Members of the House of Keys and one Member of the Legislative Council. it was not clear to what extent the proposals would affect local authorities. except that, in the case of most authorities outside of Douglas, existing local authority areas were likely to be combined within the larger constituency. In Douglas, which currently had four constituencies electing two Members each to the Keys, there would clearly be some change, either by reducing the number or possibly by adding a bordering area to one of the existing constituencies. The intention of the Bill was to create equality of representation and also to stagger the elections to the Keys and Legislative Council, so that they would take place in different years. The Bill also envisaged the boundaries being fixed by a Boundaries Committee, once it was approved, which might provide a good opportunity thereafter to review local authority boundaries, so that there was no conflict between the two. One issue, relating to the qualification of Members of the Legislative Council, was drawn to Members' attention. This being that is was proposed to exclude sitting Members of the House of Keys from standing for election to the Legislative Council. It was recommended that an alternative proposal be put forward, to the effect that it might be more appropriate for them to be permitted to stand, but then to automatically become disqualified on election to the Legislative Council (in the same way that local authority Members could stand for election to the House of Keys, but lose their local authority seats on election). ft was proposed that the changes would apply from the elections to be held in 2016 and, if they were not implemented by then, the provisions lapsed. In the interim, the Bill made provision for the extension of the terms of office of Members of the Legislative Council due to retire in February 2013 and February 2015 until the August of those years. to bring their dates in line with the terms after implementation of the Bill. 125 263 8th February 2012 The Bill would not, however, apply to elections before 2016 and elections to the Legislative Council would be by the House of Keys, as at present. Resolved, "(i) That particulars of the report be noted on the minutes; (ii) That the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald be advised that the Council had affirmed its support for the introduction of direct public elections for Members of the Legislative Council, but not by the means proposed in the Electoral Reform Bill 2011; and (iii) That the Select Committee of Tynwald considering the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 be asked to take account of the following comments;

• That the division of the Island into eight constituencies be not supported;

(6 For. I Against. Mr Councillor S R Pitts recorded his vote against this recommendation.]

• That the election by each constituency of three Members to the House of Keys and one to the Legislative Council be not supported; [Recommendation agreed unanimously] • That the Boundaries Committee to be established under the Bill should commission an independent review of the constituencies; (Recommendation agreed unanimously.] • That the proposed exclusion of Members of the House of Keys from standing for election to the Legislative Council he not supported, but Members should become disquali fled as Members of the Keys on their acceptance of office following election to the Legislative Council, with the Keys' seat accordingly being declared vacant; and [Recommendation agreed unanimously.] • That, should the Select Committee require attendance and evidence on behalf of the Council, then the Council Leader, Chief Executive and Assistant Town Clerk would be delegated as representatives." [Recommendation agreed unananously]

126 JURBY PARISH COMMISSIONERS BARRANTEE SKEEREY YURBY Please reply to the Clerk: J. J. Quayle Ballavarran, Jurby, Isle of Man, IM7 3AN rot% ¢ Tel: 01624 897686

28th January, 2012,

Mr J King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Clerk to the Committee, Legislative Buildings, Douglas, isl eof man, EV11 3PW. re; Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Dear Mr King,

refer to your letter dated the 21st December 2011 in connection with the above which my • Commissioners have now considered.

1 have to inform that Jurby Parish Commissioners consider that the status quo should be preserved. The adage being, that if it not broken why fix it.

Yours sincerely,

Clerk.

F ' RE IF,I'VE, 1

3 0 JAN 20V Of leitelie, OF TUE LCLERK OP TYNWALD

127 128 Jonathan King

From: maureen rimmer [[email protected]] Sent: 01 February 2012 11:24 To: Jonathan King Subject: The Electoral Reform Bill 2011

❑ear Mr King

I am writing to advise you of comments on the above Bill.

This comment is from one of the Commissioners and should not be taken as the view of the whole Board.

"I would suggest that the MLC's stay as they are voted; from within the house and actually they should concentrate on a fairer spread of MHK's".

Thank you

Kind regards

Maureen Rimmer Clerk Lezayre Parish Commissioners

129 130 MAROWN PARISH COMMISSIONERS HALL CAINE PAVILION Clerk to the Commissioners OLD CHURCH ROAD Mr I. J. MAULE BSc DipLaw Telephone: 01624 851630 CROSBY ISLE OF MAN Ismail marown.comnipmanxmet IM4 2HA

For the attention of Mr J King, Clerk of the Committee The Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, DOUGLAS, IM1 3PW Isle of Man

25 January 2012

Dear Sir,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ELECTION REFORM BILL 2011

Your letter of 21st ultimo was considered by the Commissioners at their meeting on Wednesday last when it was resolved to comment as follows: 1. The Commissioners acknowledge that a change is required as Marown in particular is under-represented in Tynwald presently relative to its population. 2. The Board's view of the proposals would be coloured by the proposed distribution of the 8 constituencies, and to this end, consider that the Bill may be premature and any changes should await a debate in Tynwald on the report of the Boundary Review Commission. 3. The Commissioners view is further coloured by with whom Marown might be included in an 8-constituency solution. Fundamentally, they would oppose any proposal to divide the Parish between two or more Keys Constituencies. The Commissioners trust that this is helpful. Please contact the undersigned dif you require further information.

Yours Faithfully

VPdft‘r MAULE Crrk to the Commissioners

RECEIVED 6 JAN 2012

OFFICE OF TRH CLERK OF TYNWALD

Office Open 1000 — 1200 Mondays to Thursdays only

131 132 BARRANYEE SKEEREY AIAGHAL MAUGHOLD PARISH COMMISSIONERS

Clerk : Martin Royle, St Maughold's Church Room, Maughold Village, Isle of Man 1M7 lAS. Tel/Fax: (01624) 819690 E-mail: maughold@manxnet website: www.maughold.org.im

Mr Jonathan King Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas IM1 3PW

31st January 2012

Dear Mr King

For the Attention of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

The Commission thanks the Committee for inviting their comment on the matter of electoral reform.

It is the belief of Members of the Commission that matters in regard to electoral reform should not be considered until the Boundary Review Committee 2011 completes its findings and reports to Tynwald later this year. In this respect it is the view of the Commission that the Joint Committee is premature and should be postponed until after these findings are published.

However, the Commission wish to submit the following general comments at this stage:

The Commission is opposed to any move to dispose of the historic Sheadings, particularly Garff which has served this community well for many hundreds of years.

The potential consequences of the break-up of this system include a loss of local identity and the loss of the traditional direct route of connection between the people of the various parishes and high government in Tynwald.

Members of the Commission prefer a system as proposed by the Hon. S.C. Rodan SHK in which 32 Members are elected from the existing 15 constituencies. This would address the problem of the current under-representation of Gaff and other constituencies such as Peel and Middle by integrating the additional 8 elected Members. Such a system would also allow the traditional Sheadings, with their distinct characters and identities to be maintained.

It is the view of the Commissioners that Mr Rodan's proposal that the Legislative Council be reformed to become a purely revising body should be given full and careful consideration.

Members thank the Joint Committee for considering these matters.

133 Yours sincerely ✓'9.4'. LL

Martin Royle Clerk to Maughold Parish Commissioners

134 Jonathan King

From: [email protected] Sent: 26 April 2012 17:24 To: Jonathan King Subject: RE: Joint Committee on Electoral Reform

Hello Mr King

Thank you for your patience in these matters.

The Commissioners understanding of Mr Rodan's proposal is gained from direct discussions with him, and upon e-mail correspondence which he communicated to the Garff Initiative earlier in the year.

I suspect that Mr Rodan has made a submission that puts forward his proposal in more detail. If not I would have to ask his permission to release any details from the e-mail; I am sure he would be amenable to this being done in some form if requested. In the e-mail Mr Rodan sets out some detail of the representation of MHKs and how MLCs maybe incorporated into the proposal.

The Commissioners are cognisant of the fact that the work of the Boundary review Committee is principally in regard to boundary changes that will improve the operation of our national government. However, they are also aware that its work could provide some initiative to those senior politicians who are seeking changes to the local authority structure on our Island. In this respect the authorities of Garff would resist any changes to local government which resulted in the financial and operational inefficiencies of the larger town authorities being imported into Laxey, Lonan and Maughold.

As I stated the Commissioners are also supportive of Mr Rodan's proposal because it would allow the joint Garff authorities to work with their MHK/s with some sense of consistency (as happens now); both would represent the same geographical constituency. The Commissioners believe that this 'geographical consistency' is an aspect which should be maintained whether Garff has one or two MHKs.

Such a structure is an important condition for ensuring clear communication to residents/constituents down the government chain. The Commissioners feel that the consequences of having different constituencies for local and national government could lead to a more dysfunctional system that is disjointed and potentially provides barriers to communication between public, commissioners and national politicians.

Many thanks

Martin

Martin Royle Scrudeyr, Barrantee Skeerey Maghal Clerk, Maughold Parish Commissioners

135 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:37:16 +0100 >From: Jonathan King >Subject: RE: Joint Committee on Electoral Reform >To: "'Maughold Parish Commissioners''

> Mr Royle, Thank you for your e-mail, which will be > put before the Committee. Your e-mail is interesting > but you still haven't explained what Mr Rodan's > proposal is, apart from saying that it is 32 Members > from 15 constituencies. Is any more detail available > on the proposal, please?

> Jonathan

> From: Maughold Parish Commissioners > [[email protected]] > Sent: 25 April 2012 12:13 PM > To: Jonathan King > Subject: RE: Joint Committee on Electoral Reform >

> > Hello Mr. King >

> The Commissioners apologise for the time taken to > reply to your e-mail below.

• The Commissioners original comments are made in > support of Mr Rodan's proposal because it would > allow the traditional Sheading structure to be > maintained. Importantly, this will allow the > existing local link between elected Member/s and > constituency to be continued. >

> > In particular, the Commissioners are extremely keen > to maintain this structure for the following > reasons:

> - We are one of the three local authorities > in the Garff Sheading. Currently we work together > extremely well and our services are delivered > efficiently and at a fraction of the cost of some of 146 > the town authorities. For example the costs of our > refuse collection service are around half per head > of population of some of the town authorities. > > > > - Garff has over 4,200 residents in total > has the equivalent of 2.5 office staff and one > member of staff directly employed on maintenance of > the parish (contractors are used to deliver the > majority of services in Garff). In comparison we > are advised by Mr Ronan MHK that one typical town > authority (with smaller population of approx 3,200) > has many several more office staff, and 15 employees > conducting operational and maintenance duties in > the town. > > > > - The Commissioners seek to safeguard their > ratepayers from the importation of the indicated > types of inefficiencies from the larger authorities, > should local authority boundaries be broken up in > the wake of changes made to Tynwald boundaries. > > > > - The Commissioners wish to keep this > Sheading together, and whilst we note that your > remit is in regard to Tynwald constituencies, the > feeling is that this review will lead to changes > that will encourage changes at local authority > level. > > > > > > Mr Rodan's proposals would maintain the current > Sheading structure and allow for the level of > representation to be equalized across the Island. It > continues to receive the support of the > Commissioners. > > > > Martin Royle > > > > Scrudeyr Barrantee Skylley Maghal > > Clerk to Maughold Parish Commissioners > > > >

137 > > This email message and any files transmitted with it > are confidential and may be subject to legal > privilege. You must not copy it to any other person > or use its contents in any unauthorised manner > without the permission of the sender. If you are not > the intended addresseeof this e-mail, please delete > it and notify the sender as soon as possible. > > > > From: Jonathan King [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 13 March 2012 16:10 > To: 'Maughold Parish Commissioners' > Cc: Brenda Cannell; Roger Phillips > Subject: RE: Joint Committee on Electoral Reform > > > > Dear Mr Royle > > > > Thank you again for your e-mail and attachment, > which have been considered by the Committee. You > refer to "a system as proposed by the Hon. S.C. > Rodan SHK in which 32 Members are elected from the > existing 15 constituencies". The Committee would be > grateful if you would please provide further details > of this proposal. Does it correspond to one of the > numerous Constitution Bills which has been produced > over the past 20 years or so? > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > Jonathan King > > Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Clerk of the Legislative > Council > > Legislative Buildings, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3PW > > 01624 686303 > > > > > > > > From: Maughold Parish Commissioners 148 > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 31 January 2012 3:10 PM > To: Jonathan King > Subject: Joint Committee on Electoral Reform

> Dear Mr King

> Please find attached a response from Maughold Parish > Commissioners to the request for comment from the > above committee.

> Please advise if a paper copy is needed.

> Many thanks

> Best Regards

> Martin

> Martin Royle

> Scrudeyr Barrantee Skylley Maghal

> Clerk to Maughold Parish Commissioners

> This email message and any files transmitted with it > are confidential and may be subject to legal > privilege. You must not copy it to any other person > or use its contents in any unauthorised manner > without the permission of the sender. If you are not > the intended addresseeof this e-mail, please delete > it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

Information from ESET Smart Security, > version of virus signature database 6843 (20120131)

139 > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > Information from ESET Smart Security, > version of virus signature database 6962 (20120313) > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > Information from ESET Smart Security, > version of virus signature database 7084 (20120425) > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com

40 Jonathan King

From: [email protected] Sent: 17 May 2012 17:01 To: Jonathan King Subject: Fwd: Electoral Reform Attachments: Message 1.eml

Hello Mr King

Regarding the e-mail sent earlier today. I intended to delete a phrase at the end of the penultimate paragraph.

This error has been corrected below.

Apologies for this oversight.

Many thanks

Martin

Martin Royle Clerk to Maughold Parish Commissioners.

Below is a statement that provides some detail on the proposal initially suggested to the three Garff authorities by Mr Rodan SHK, Member for Garff. The Board of Maughold Parish Commissioners is in principal supportive of the system that it seems would result from this proposal.

As stated previously, the attraction for the Commissioners is that something of the traditional organisation which goes back to the origins of our parliament is maintained. This is not a mere whim or a a nicety in the view of the Commission. It is their view that the people of the Isle of Man are 'dialled' closely in to their political system largely through the way its linked, but distinct, communities are represented.

Members are concerned that the 8 constituency proposal, though seemeingly balanced and worthy of consideration on paper, will act to distance politicians in Tynwald from their communities and electorate.

Local Authorities do have a role to play in the success of any new arrangement. A well run local authority which responds to the everyday needs of its constituents, and solves their queries/difficulties, reduces the need of the MHK to become involved in 'Parish Pump Politics': the more inefficient a local authority the more the MHK will be drawn into issues that could be attended to at a lower tier of government. The placing of the boundary is irrelevant to this situation.

The proposal:

Mr Rodan suggests a model where 32 Tynwald members are elected together at a single election to Tynwald from the existing 15 constituencies, some of which would have the number of their elected member increased to provide the 8 new places.

Currently, Garff, Middle and Peel are grossly underrepresented - there is an average of 2,300 voters per MHK, but Garff has 3,400. This would be a way of taking care of that problem. The elected 32 would then divide into Keys and Council as purely legislative bodies, ie dealing 1

141 exclusively with primary legislation, no ministerial question time, with Tynwald sitting more frequently to deal with other parliamentary matters. The mechanism for this would need to be determined.

Mr Rodan also commented on a new role for the Legislative Council, in which the existing system of 8 unelected Council members is confined to scrutinising primary legislation sent up from the Council. Any revisions have to go back to the Keys, which as the elected body has the final say.

Mr Rodan suggests that this would perhaps overcome the problem of the unelected Council members playing a full voting role in Tynwald, determining policy, etc. Their current role puts them on a par with Keys members (albeit that collectively the Keys always will carry the day in votes in Tynwald). It is "the Tynwald problem" which having an elected Council seeks to solve.

A further suggestion is that the Committee may consider the alternative of keeping everything as a it is, but reducing the power of Council in Tynwald, so that it is a purely legislative revising body.

I hope that these details provide a clearer indication of Mr Rodan's proposal made earlier this year to the Garff Authorities of Laxey, Lonan and Maughold.

Many thanks

Martin

Martin Royle Clerk to Maughold Parish Commissioners

142 ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE/CLERK Onchan District Commissioners BARRAncee ARcliyn Chonnajhgn P. M. Hulme, CEnv lEng MIWO - Chief Executive/Clerk and Commissioner for Oaths Main Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, 1M3 IRD Administration and Finance: Tel: (01624) 675564 email: [email protected] Surveyors and Works: Tel: (01624) 624967 email: surveyors(Oonchan.org.im Fax: (01624) 663482

23rd January 2011

Mr J. King Deputy Clerk of Tynwald

Legislative Buildings ReceIpt IxcicnoWledg,ed: DOUGLAS : Isle of Man Category *xt lactIon: ions: IM1 3PW Lnstroct

Dear Mr King

re: Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Thank you for your letter dated 21st December 2011.

The Bill has been considered by the Board of Onchan Commissioners.

The Onchan Constituency currently returns three members to the House of Keys but the question has always been whether the elected member in second or third place in the Polls truly reflects the wishes of the electorate or whether it is a case of "least worst".

Under the principle of 'one man, one vote', our Commissioners believe that 24 constituencies returning 1 member each represents the most reasonable arrangement.

P.M. HULME CHIEF EXECUTIVE RECEIVED

5 JAN 2012

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OE TYNIALALD

www,onction.org.im 143 144 PATRICK PARISH COMMISSIONERS Alartantee *01 *rich

CLERK OF COMMISSIONERS HALL CAINE PAVILION IAN MAULE BSc DipLaw OLD CHURCH ROAD CROSBY IM4 2HA ISLE OF MAN Tel 01624 803031 [email protected]

Uor the attention of IVIr Jonathan King,_Cierk to the Joint Committee Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, RECEIVED DOUGLAS, Isle of Man 18 JAN 2012 OFkiCE OF 1.11E January 17, .c.-)1 R Dear Sir,

JOINT ...:X,"?...ejlitt fEl.,,,:42111_13Nfigm. 1101.2p.0: .

The (._:onirnissionk:rs considered your le't'ter of AP ultimo at their meeting on Monday before hist. 'r he COMMISS1011C1'8 that.the Ct8.inelI $3.11(.1 House) of KQri sholdd be kept absolutely separate: they IciM tilt formeris role a thktt of t4 revising chamber and this role is devalued or made impossible If the two branche8 of Tynwald sit towther, 'lley feel that the proposal to cftl1140. t,.t.11DititUql1VkS tAti tbratCd in the Bill would blur the diMrenec even further and. have the L.....froa of leaving no purpow for the lAiltilative C.:ouncil, 1.8„ eourAc, without pit re) any \'Ic \' thc Commissioners may have on how rIi 8 co tuencJes are delilleated; r yirm (::xprqsSe.:d prvviomly would be to 0111105Q t DICrging or PatriQk With 1)Qe1 for tihiti any Other putvon. The Commissioners hope th18 .Pje.ase contaa.-the---under4g4v.1 vou further information

Yours Faithfully'

M Cltz: 1. tcj tIle Commktiloi.

OF :100(1--1200 A40NbAY TO TRUMPAY ONLY

145 146 PEEL TOWN COMMISSIONERS BARRANTEE PHURT NY HINSHEY

P, G. LEADLEY Town Clerk Cleragh y Valley TOWN HALL, HALLEY BALJEY, Commissioner for Oaths Barrantagh Looee DERBY ROAD, RAAD DERBY Tel: Peel (01624) 842341 PEEL, PURT NY HINSHEY, Fax: Peel (01624) 844010 ISLE OF MAN, ELLAN VANNIN Email: [email protected] Website: www.peelonline.net IM5 1RG All communications to be addressed to the Town Clerk Dy chooilley insh dy ye er ny enmys rlsh Cleragh y Valley

Our Ref PGL/CK 3"1 February 2012 ,49:317E; Mr. J King 6 FEB 2072 Deputy Clerk of Tynwald oPpicE oe Legislative Buildings cLERK °pry' DOUGLAS ,TALD IM1 3PW

Dear Mr. King

Re: Electoral Reform Bill

I refer to your letter of 21st December 2011. The Commissioners discussed the Electoral Reform Bill 2011 at a recent meeting.

Some concern was voiced over the timing of this Bill's consultation alongside the Boundary Review. The Commissioners suggest that the two matters are better considered if taken at different times with the Boundary Review being given priority.

In terms of the Reform Bill Members only comment was their preference for proportionate representation.

Yours sincerely

P G Leadley Town Clerk

147 148 THE COMMISSIONERS OF PORT ERIN Warrantee Purl Chiam)

Tel: 01624 832298 COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE, Fax: 01624 836169 12, BRIDSON STREET, email: [email protected] Website: www.porterin.gov.im PORT ERIN, M, J. KEWLEY ISLE OF MAN, Clerk IM9 GAN Comm iSS ioner fur Oaths All Correspondence to be addressed to the Clerk

Mr J King Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings RECEIVED Douglas 1 9 JAN 2012 IM1 3PW OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYNWALD 18th January 2012

Dear Jonathan

Re: Joint Committee on the Constitutional Principles Raised by the Electoral Reform Bill 2011

I refer• to your letter of the 21st December 2011 which has now been considered by the Commissioners.

I am directed to inform you the Commissioners fully support the proposed changes. They particularly believe the election of the Legislative Council by popular vote is long overdue.

I am also directed to request consideration be given to reviewing the method of voting in multi seat constituencies. It is not considered the 'first past the post' method is suitable and some form of proportional or preferential voting method would be more desirable.

Trusting the above views will be taken into account in your Committee's deliberations.

Yours sincerely

Receipt Acknowledged: erk. Category: Next Action: Other Instructions:

149 150 Barmantee Skeerzeg Rosier Rasher Popish Cornrnissioneas Clerk/ Cleragh: Mrs. Gillian Kelly NEWLANDS • BALLAGAWNE ROAD • COLBY • RUSHEN • IM9 4AX THALLOO NOA • RAAD BALLEY GAWNE • ROS1EN • 1M9 4AX Telephone/Fax: (01624) 834501 email: [email protected] www.rushen-commissioners,com

23`d January 2012.

Mr J. King Deputy Clerk to Tynwald 'RV riqw VED Clerk to the Committee on Constitutional Principles Legislative Buildings 2 4 JAN 2012 Douglas. Utt itt..k. CLERK gyvyiwrip Dear Mr King Re: Electoral Reform Bill 2011. Further to your letter of 21st ult. asking for views from Rushen Parish Commissioners regarding the two main proposals for the reform. The Members of Rushen Parish Commissioners considered these proposals and they are agreed in their opinion that Members of the Legislative Council should not be elected. They do not agreed with the proposed eight constituencies nor with the proposed allocation. They are happy with the existing arrangement and also for there to be 3 MHKs for Rushen. I trust that these comments will be of assistance in the Committee's deliberations. Yours sincerely

/4462' Gillian Kelly (Mrs) Clerk

Receipt Acknowledged: Category: Next Action: Other Instructions:

151 152 Jonathan King

From: Clerk to Santon Commissioners [[email protected]] Sent: 05 January 2012 16:55 To: Jonathan King Subject: Electoral Reform Bill 2011 - Joint Committee on Constitutional Principles

Dear Mr. King,

have been instructed by Santon Commissioners to advise that they are quite satisfied with the constituency or Malew and Santon as it stands and that they would not wish to see any change in the present boundary or representation structure.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Benson.

Clerk to Santon Commissioners. Tel. 822761.

153 154 ANNEX 1 156 IN THE COUNCIL

ELECTORAL REFORM BILL 2011

Explanatory Memorandum

1. This Bill, which is promoted by Mr David Callister MLC, provides for the election of members of the Legislative Council by public franchise on a constituency basis and for new constituencies to be drawn up to elect both Branches of Tynwald.

2. Clause 1 names the Bill.

3. Clause 2 amends the Representation of the People Act 1995. In addition to minor amendments applying the provisions of the 1995 Act concerning Keys elections to elections of the Legislative Council and a provision which prevents current members of the Council standing for the Keys, some new sections are inserted into the 1995 Act as follows.

4. A new Part 1A concerned with the Legislative Council is inserted. Section 10A provides for the term of office of elected members of the Council and for members to go out of office on the same days as members of the Keys but in different years. The members standing in a "designated constituency" (see paragraph 6 below) are to serve until 2 years after the last general election of the Keys and members standing in other constituencies until 4 years after that election. Section 10B provides for the President of Tynwald to report a casual vacancy in the Legislative Council to the Governor and mirrors section 5 of the 1995 Act which covers casual vacancies in the Keys. Section 10C applies provisions on sitting and voting in Tynwald to elected members of the Council.

5. Section 11 is substituted to make new provision about constituencies. In particular, a "Boundary Committee" appointed by the Governor in Council has to draw up 8 constituencies, subject to the approval of Tynwald and each of these constituencies is to return 3 members of the Keys and 1 member of the Council.

6. A new paragraph is inserted into Schedule 6, making provision prior to the 2016 general election. The President of Tynwald is required, within 1 month of the constituencies first being approved by Tynwald under section 11(1), to designate 4 constituencies that together represent a reasonable representation

157 ii Electoral Reform Bill 2011

of the whole Island in geographical terms, these being the ones elected first in accordance with section 10A(1). There is also provision to extend the office of Council members due to go out of office in February 2013 and 2015 to continue in office until the normal time for going out of office before an election (being a date in August).

7. Provision is also made for interim casual vacancies in both the Council and the Keys to be filled under the current electoral system; but if the constituencies have not been agreed within 3 months of the Council elections that would otherwise take place in 2013 and 2015 or the general election of the Keys in 2016, the existing systems will continue to apply here too. If there has been no approval by the date of the 2016 general election, this Bill is deemed never to have been enacted.

8. Clause 3 makes consequential amendments to other legislation and in particular provides that a current member of the Keys may not stand for the Council. Clause 4 introduces the Schedule which sets out the consequential repeals.

9. It is anticipated that the costs arising from the Bill in respect of the elections to the Council will be £170,000 in each five year term of the Keys.

10. In the view of the member moving the Bill its provisions are compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 2001.

158 Electoral Reform Bill 2011 iii Arrangement of Sections Section 1. Short title 2. Amendment of the Representation of the People Act 1995 3. Minor amendments to other enactments 4. Repeals Schedule — Repealed provisions

159

Electoral Reform Bill 2011 1

A BILL

to provide for the election of Members of the Legislative Council by public franchise and to provide for the revision of House of Keys constituencies into eight Electoral Areas, to be determined by a Boundary Committee; and for connected purposes. E IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by Band with the advice and consent of the Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. The short title of this Act is the Electoral Reform Act 2011. Short title

2. (1) The Representation of the People Act 1995 is amended Amendment of the as follows. Representation of the People (2) In section 1(1) after paragraph (c) insert Act 1995 [c.13] 5 "(ca) he is not a member of the Council; and".

(3) In section 4(1)(a) for "any member of the Council elected by the Keys" substitute "any elected member of the Council". (4) In section 6(6)(b) delete "the Council or of'. 10 (5) After Part 1 insert —

160 2 Electoral Reform Bill 2011

"PART 1A

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Term of 10A. (1) An elected member of the Council shall members of the Council serve until the Thursday following the third Tuesday in August — 5 (a) in the case of a member standing in a designated constituency, 2 years after the last general election of the Keys; and

(b) in the case of a member standing in any other constituency, 4 years after the last general 10 election of the Keys.

(2) In each year in which a member goes out of office in accordance with subsection (1) an election shall be held on the last Thursday of the September in those constituencies in which the member has gone out of 15 office.

(3) In this section "designated constituency" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6.

Casual 10B. If a casual vacancy occurs in the office of elected 20 vacancy in office of member of the Council, whether by reason of death, elected resignation, disqualification by virtue of sections 12 to member 18 of the Isle of Man Constitution Amendment Act 1919 [X p.390] or otherwise, the President of Tynwald shall report the vacancy in writing to the Governor, stating the name of 25 the constituency by which the new member is to be returned.

Sitting and 10C. Sections 7 and 8 apply to elected members of the voting Council as they apply to members of the Keys.".

(6) For section 11 substitute — 30 "Constituencies 11. (1) For the purposes of an election, the Island shall be divided into 8 constituencies, drawn up by the Boundary Committee subject to the approval of Tynwald, each of which shall return 3 members of the Keys and 1 member of the Council. 35 (2) In drawing up the constituencies the Boundary Committee shall have regard to the desirability of having, as far as is reasonably practicable when taking

161

Electoral Reform Bill 2011 3

into account population distribution, a similar number of voters in each constituency.

(3) The Treasury shall prepare a map of the Island showing the boundaries of each constituency and shall 5 cause the map to be deposited in the General Registry. (4) The Chief Registrar shall make the map prepared under subsection (3), or a copy of it, available for inspection by any person at the General Registry at all reasonable times and shall supply a copy of the map 10 to any person on payment of such reasonable charge as the Treasury may determine (5) In this section "Boundary Committee" means a committee appointed by the Governor in Council of such persons as the Governor in Council thinks appropriate.". 15 (7) In the following provisions after "Keys" insert "or the Council" —

(a) section 14(1)(g);

(b) section 15(a); (c) in the definition of "candidate" in section 55; 20 (d) section 56(1);

(e) section 66(1) (in both places where it occurs), (2) (in the 3 places where it occurs) and (3); (1) in the definitions of "election" and "member" in section 77.

25 (8) In Schedule 2 (a) in the table in paragraph 1, under "(1) Issue of writ" after paragraph(a) insert — "(aa) Within 2 months of the date of an election to the Council.";

30 (b) after paragraph 5(2)(a) insert — "(aa) all the constituencies in which an election is to be held, in the case of an election to the Council;";

162 4 Electoral Reform Bill 2011

(9) In Schedule 3 —

(a) in paragraph 8(3) after "the Speaker" insert "or the President of Tynwald as the case may be";

(b) in paragraph 8(3) and (4) (in both places where occurring) and in paragraph 17(1) and (2) (in both places 5 where occurring) after "Keys" insert "or the Council as the case may be";

(10) In Schedule 6, after paragraph 7 add — 10

"Arrangements prior to 2016 general election

8. (1) Within one month of the constituencies first being approved by Tynwald under section 11(1), the President of Tynwald shall choose 4 constituencies that together represent a reasonable representation of the 15 whole Island in geographical terms, to be designated as those in which elections to the Council are to be held in accordance with section 10A(1)(a). Elections in the other 4 constituencies are to be held in accordance with section 10A(1)(b). 20

(2) The members of the Council due to go out of office in February 2013 and February 2015 shall continue in office until the Thursday following the third Tuesday in August of the year in which they were due to go out of office. 25 (3) Any vacancy —

(a) among the elected members of the Council arising earlier than 3 months before —

(i) the elections to Council due to be held in 2013 in the case of a member due to 30 go out of office in 2013;

(ii) the elections to Council due to be held in 2015 in the case of a member due to go out of office in 2015;

(b) in the Keys arising earlier than 3 months 35 before the Keys is dissolved in 2016; or

163

Electoral Reform Bill 2011 5

shall be filled as if the Electoral Reform Act 2011 had not been enacted and sections 2(5), 3 and 4 of, and the Schedule to, that Act shall not apply to any such vacancy.

(4) Any vacancy arising after a date mentioned 5 in sub-paragraph (3) but before the date on which the relevant member goes out of office in 2013 or 2015 or the Keys is dissolved in 2016, as the case may be, shall be filled at the election taking place in that year.

(5) This sub-paragraph applies if no constituencies 10 have been drawn up and approved in accordance with section 11(1) within 3 months of —

(a) the elections to Council otherwise to be held in 2013 or 2015, as the case maybe,

(b) the general election of the Keys to be held in 15 2016, to the vacancies to be filled by that election

(6) If the constituencies have not been approved under section 11(1) by the date of the general election of the Keys to be held in 2016, the Electoral Reform Act 20 2011 shall be deemed never to have been enacted.".

3. (1) In the Isle of Man Constitution Amendment Act 1919 Minor amendments to other (a) for section 7(2) substitute — enactments "(2) Eight members elected in accordance with the [X p.390] Representation of the People Act 1995 (in this Act [c.13] 25 referred to as the "elected members").";

(b) in section 12 (i) for "A person to be qualified as an elected member" substitute "A person wishing to stand as an elected member";

30 (ii) at the end of subsection (b) add "• and

(2) In the definition of "national election" in section 15(1) of the Registration of Electors Act 2006 after "Keys" add "or the [c.12] 35 Council".

164 6 Electoral Reform Bill 2011

Repeals 4. The Schedule sets out the provisions of enactments repealed.

165 Electoral Reform Bill 2011 7

Section 4 SCHEDULE

REPEALED PROVISIONS

Reference Short title Extent of repeal

X p.390 Isle of Man Constitution Sections 8, 10, 20, 21, 22 Amendment Act 1919 and 23.

c.34 Isle of Man Constitution The whole Act (Elections to Council) Act 1971

c.12 Isle of Man Constitution Section 3. (Amendment) Act 1975

c.6 Constitution Act 1990 Schedule I paragraph 3(2), (3), (7) and (8).

c. 13 Representation of the People Schedule 1. Act 1995 c.9 Constitution (Amendment) The whole Act. Act 2008

166 IN THE COUNCIL

Electoral Reform

A BILL

Leave to introduce given in the Legislative Council 27 April 2010.

MR. CALLISTER

JUNE 2011

Printed (by Authority) by The Copy Shop Limited 48, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man No. 555820

167 168 ANNEX 2 170 ANNEX 2

Summary timeline of boundary reviews and Constitution Bills since 2003

Keys and Council Tynwald Court March 2003. Constitution (LegCo) Bill 2003 introduced into the Keys. (Quine) April 2004. Tynwald initiates Boundary Review Committee. (Quayle motion) July 2004. Tynwald suspends Boundary Review Committee pending outcome of Bill. orkill motion) June 2005. Bill passes Third Reading in the Council and is returned to the Keys having been substantially amended. July 2005. Tynwald rescinds the 2004 suspension of the Boundary Review Committee. (Quayle motion) Oct 2005. The Keys calls for a conference on the Bill. 17 January 2006. Tynwald debates interim report of Boundary Review Committee. 24 January 2006. The conference having been concluded, the Keys considers the Council's amendments and the Bill falls. February 2007. Tynwald suspends Boundary Review Committee pending outcome of 2007 Bill. (Cannan motion) March 2007. Constitution Bill 2007 introduced into the Keys. (Carman; later Quayle) April 2009. Tynwald dissolves Boundary Review Committee until Bill is determined. (Brown motion) June 2009. Bill defeated at Second Reading in the Council. Possibility of it being progressed as a Keys-only Bill remains in theory until May 2011. July 2010. Tynwald re-establishes Boundary Review Committee. (Crookall motion) June 2011. Electoral Reform Bill 2011 introduced in the Council (Canister). Nov 2011. Joint Committee formed. December 2011. Interim report of the Boundary Review Committee debated. End date of December 2012 set. October 2012. Second interim report of the Boundary Review Committee debated. End date of June 2013 set.

171 172 ANNEX 3 174 ANNEX 3

Composition of the Legislative Council: historical note

1. Historically the Council consisted of "King's men" or "Lord's men", presided over by a Governor appointed by the Lord of Man. 2. The House of Keys was reformed in 1866 with the introduction of direct popular elections. Major reform of the Legislative Council followed in 1919 with the removal of the Archdeacon, Vicar General and Receiver General. The Governor, Bishop, two Deemsters and Attorney General remained, but they were counterbalanced by six others: two appointed by the Governor and four elected by the House of Keys (referred to as "elected Members"). 3. Both Branches had now become much more "inclusive" or "representative" of society at large. To make it possible for those of modest means to participate as Members of the Legislature, new financial arrangements were introduced around the same time, the first Payment of Members' Expenses Act being enacted in 1922.

4. During the 1960s and 1970s the Deemsters and Governor's appointees were replaced by additional "elected Members", and the Attorney General was deprived of the right to vote. In 1980 the Governor was removed. He was initially replaced by one of the "elected Members", elected as presiding officer by the Legislative Council itself. From 1990 the President of Tynwald presided over the Legislative Council. 5. The key dates in the evolution of the Legislative Council are as follows: 1765 and before Historically the Council consisted of "King's men" or "Lord's men", presided over by a Governor appointed by the Lord of Man. 1846 Vicars General reduced from 2 to 1. 1885 Office of Water Bailiff abolished. 1918 Posts of First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls amalgamated.

1919 Isle of Man Constitution Amendment Act removes Archdeacon, Vicar General and Receiver General and introduces for the first time Members elected by the House of Keys.

175 1961 Isle of Man Constitution Act adds a further elected Member. A proposal to remove the Second Deemster fails.

1965 Second Deemster removed.

1969 Governor's appointees replaced by elected Members.

1971 Attorney General deprived of the right to vote.

1975 First Deemster replaced by an elected Member.

1980 Governor no longer presides. Presiding officer elected from among other Members of the Council.

1990 Post of President of Tynwald created.

The composition of the Council at different times is summarised in the following table. Shading denotes a Member elected to the Council either by the House of Keys or by Tynwald Court. Italic type denotes a non-voting Member.

1765 1919 1961 1965 1969 1975 1980 1990 Governor Governor Governor Governor Governor Governor Elected 1 President Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop Bishop Attorney Attorney Attorney _j Attorney Attorney Attorne_y Attorney Attorney D2 D1 + CR D1 + CR Dl + CR D1 + CR Elected 1 Elected 2 Elected 1 CI of Rolls D2 D2 Appted 1 Elected 1 Elected 2 Elected 3 Elected 2 D2 Appted 1 Appted 1 Appted 2 Elected 2 Elected 3 Elected 4 Elected 3 Archdeacon Apyted 2 Appted 2 Elected 1 Elected 3 Elected 4 Elected 5 Elected 4 Vic Gen 1 Elected 1 Elected 1 Elected 2 Elected 4 Elected 5 Elected 6 Elected 5 Vic Gen 2 Elected 2 Elected 2 Elected 3 Elected 5 Elected 6 Elected 7 Elected 6 Receivr Gen Elected 3 Elected 3 Elected 4 Elected 6 Elected 7 Elected 8 Elected 7 Watr Bailiff Elected 4 Elected 4 Elected 5 Elected 7 Elected 8 Elected 8 Elected 5

176 ANNEX 4 178 ANNEX 4

Timeline since 1982 of legislative proposals relating to electoral reform and of Tynwald proceedings relating to boundary reviews

30 Mar 1982 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill (Mr Kneale). This Bill proposes dividing the Island into 12 two-seat constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of Keys.

27 Apr 1982 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill (Mr Kneale). This Bill proposes that the Island be divided into nine constituencies for the purpose of direct elections to the Legislative Council. The Council would still be elected in two overlapping groups. The Bishop's right to vote would be discontinued.

27 April 1982 In the Keys, the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill (Mr Kneale) is carried and the Bill is referred to a Select Committee.

4 May 1982 In the Keys, the Second Reading of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill (Mr Kneale) is carried and the Bill is referred to a Select Committee.

8 Nov 1983 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People Bill (1983) (Mr Kneale). This Bill was produced by a Select Committee of the Keys, chaired by Mr Kneale, which had been established in 1982 to consider two previous Bills in his name. It proposes a Tynwald of 33 members elected from 16 constituencies. After the General Election, Tynwald would elect nine of its members to form the Legislative Council, the remainder forming the House of Keys. A regional distribution would be maintained in both branches.

179 8 Nov 1983 Representation of the People Bill (1983) passes its Second Reading in the Keys

6 Dec 1983 Representation of the People Bill (1983) passes its Third Reading in the Keys

14 Feb 1984 Representation of the People Bill (1983) passes its First Reading in the Council 28 Feb 1984 Representation of the People Bill (1983) passes its Second Reading in the Council 15 June 1984 Representation of the People Bill (1983) passes its Third Reading in the Council and is returned to the Keys with amendments 26 June 1984 The House of Keys rejects the amendments made by the Legislative Council to the Representation of the People Bill 18 Dec 1984 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People Bill (1984) (Mr Kneale). This successful Bill divided the Island into 15 constituencies as opposed to the previous 13. 22 Jan 1985 Representation of the People Bill (1984) passes its Second Reading in the Keys 29 Jan 1985 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill (1984) (Mr Kneale). This Bill divides the Island into nine constituencies, one MLC to be elected from each by the House of Keys. The Bishop's right to vote is modified. Representation of the People Bill (1984) passes Clauses Stage in the Keys. 5 Feb 1985 Representation of the People Bill (1984) passes its Third Reading in the Keys 5 Feb 1985 The Second Reading of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill (1984) in the Keys is interrupted by a matter of urgent public importance, the proposed cessation of Steam Packet sailings to Liverpool

180 12 Feb 1985 Representation of the People Bill (1984) passes its First and Second Readings in the Council 12 Feb 1985 Debate is resumed in the Keys on the Second Reading of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill (1984) and the motion is lost 26 Feb 1985 Representation of the People Bill (1984) passes its Third Reading in the Council 21 May 1985 Royal Assent is announced to the Representation of the People Act 1985 8 Mar 1988 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People Bill (1988) (Mr Kneale). This Bill repeats the 1983 proposal for a unicameral Tynwald of 33 elected members. 8 Mar 1988 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People (No 2) Bill (Mr Cannan), proposing 24 single- seat constituencies for the House of Keys 29 Mar 1988 Mr Kneale's Representation of the People Bill is defeated at Second Reading. 29 Mar 1988 Mr Cannan's Representation of the People (No 2) Bill passes its Second Reading. 24 May 1988 In the Keys, Clauses Stage of the Representation of the People (No 2) Bill begins 1 Nov 1988 In the Keys, Clause stage of the Representation of the People (No 2) Bill is completed 8 Nov 1988 The Keys votes on the Third Reading of the Representation of the People (No 2) Bill. The vote is tied 12-12. Mr Speaker (Kerruish) promptly exercises his casting vote in favour of the Bill but this is challenged.

15 Nov 1988 On further reflection and having taken advice, Mr Speaker (Kerruish) reverses his previous ruling and exercises his casting vote against the Third Reading of the Representation of the People (No 2) Bill.

181 1 May 1990 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People Bill (1990) (Mr Kneale). This Bill repeats the 1983 and 1988 proposal of a unicameral Tynwald of 33 elected members. 8 May 1990 Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill (1990) carried in the Keys. Bill is referred to a Select Committee of the Keys. This Committee appears still to have been sitting on 27 November 1990 because on that date the Keys elected a Member to it to replace Sir Charles Kerruish, who had been elected President of Tynwald. However, the Committee does not appear to have made any Report. 22 Feb 1994 First Reading in the Keys of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill (1994) (Mr Cannan). This Bill proposes 24 single-seat constituencies.

1 Mar 1994 Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill (1994) falls at Second Reading Sept 94 Report of Boundary Review Committee chaired by His Honour H W Callow submitted to Tynwald 14 Mar 1995 Keys gives Mr Brown leave to introduce an Isle of Man Constitution (Election to Council) (Amendment) Bill. No such Bill appears to have been introduced. 22 Apr 1997 Keys establishes a Select Committee to consider the role, constitution, election and remuneration of the Legislative Council. Mr Quine, Mrs Cannell, Mr Cretney, Mr Rodan and Mr Speaker Cringle are elected to the Committee.

24 Mar 1998 Keys receives interim report of its Select Committee 26 Oct 1999 Keys receives Select Committee report and endorses its recommendations, namely a directly elected Tynwald of 32 Members, with a President and seven other Members elected by Tynwald to the Legislative Council shortly after a General Election.

9 Nov 1999 Legislative Council gives Mr Lowey leave to introduce a Constitution Bill

182 16 Nov 1999 First Reading in the Legislative Council of the Constitution Bill 1999 (Mr Lowey). This Bill proposes a five-constituency model for popular elections to the Legislative Council, with two members each from Douglas, the North and the South, one from the rest of the East and one from the West. Elections would take place 21/2 years after the General Election to the Keys. The Legislative Council would be re-named the Senate. 16 Nov 1999 In Tynwald, an attempt to debate the constitution is ruled out of order because the Constitution Bill is before the Council. 23 Nov 1999 Constitution Bill 1999 passes its Second Reading and Clauses Stage in the Legislative Council 30 Nov 1999 Constitution Bill 1999 passes its Third Reading in the Legislative Council 25 Jan 2000 Constitution Bill 1999 passes its First Reading in the Keys 1 Feb 2000 Constitution Bill 1999 is rejected at Second Reading in the Keys

30 May 2000 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution Bill 2000 (Mr Cannell). This Bill proposes that 33 members would be directly elected to Tynwald by the public. After the election, Tynwald would elect a President of Tynwald and nine Members of the Legislative Council. 27 June 2000 Constitution Bill 2000 (Mr Cannell) passes its Second Reading in the Keys. 27 June 2000 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution (No 2) Bill 2000 (Mr Quine). This Bill proposes to remove the President of Tynwald from the joint role of President of the Legislative Council.

24 Oct 2000 The House of Keys refers the Constitution Bill 2000 (Mr Cannell) to a Committee. The following are elected to the Committee: Mr Cannell, Mr Cretney, Mr Quine, Mr Rimington, and Mr Singer.

183 24 Oct 2000 The Constitution (No 2) Bill 2000 (Mr Quine) is rejected by the House of Keys at Second Reading

5 Dec 2000 Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution Bill 2000 (Mr Cannell) is received by the House of Keys.

23 Jan 2001 Constitution Bill 2000 (Mr Cannell) is withdrawn by leave of the House

25 Mar 03 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2003 (Mr Quine). This Bill provides for a 5-constituency model for elections to the Legislative Council with 2 MLCs from each of Douglas, the rest of the East, and the South, and 1 each from the North and the West. It also removes the Bishop's right to vote and the Council's right to introduce Bills.

1 Apr 2003 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2003 passes Second Reading in the Keys. Keys then amends the long title to permit changes to the constitution of the Keys as well as the Council, and refers the Bill to a Committee of five persons. Mrs Cannell, Mrs Hannan, Mr Rimington, Mr Rodan and Mr Speaker Brown are elected. Mr Rodan chairs the Committee.

27 Jan 2004 The Select Committee of the Keys appointed in April 2003 presents an interim report recommending changes to the procedure for Keys-only Bills. (This recommendation leads ultimately to the Constitution Act 2006, a private Member's Bill in the name of Mr Rodan.) 20 Apr 2004 On a motion of Mr Quayle, Tynwald resolves that the Governor in Council should appoint a Boundary Review Committee 1 June 2004 The Select Committee of the Keys appointed in April 2003 reports to the House that it has been unable to reach unanimous or majority agreement on reform. It recommends continuing with Clauses Stage anyway. A move by Mr Earnshaw to reject the recommendation fails.

184 22 June 2004 Clauses Stage in the Keys of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2003 begins 29 June 2004 Clauses Stage in the Keys of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2003 continues

15 July 2004 On a motion of the Chief Minister (Corkin) Tynwald resolves that the Boundary Review await the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2004 26 Oct 2004 Following the retirement of Mr Quine the House of Keys gives Mr Rodan leave to promote Mr Quine's Bill through its remaining stages. Oct 2004 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2003 (Mr Quine) is reprinted as the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 (Mr Rodan) with amendments shown in italic and original clause numbers retained. This text has 32 members elected to the Keys, 2 each from 16 constituencies, but also has 8 members elected to the Council from 5 constituencies. 23 Nov 2004 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 completes its Clauses Stage and passes its Third Reading in the House of Keys.

Nov 04 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 is reprinted with amendments incorporated in roman type and clauses renumbered. It now proposes a Tynwald consisting of President, Bishop, Attorney General and 32 members elected 2 each from 16 constituencies. Immediately after the General Election, 8 Members are to be elected by Tynwald to the Legislation Committee. The remaining Members of Tynwald are to form the House of Keys and to sit separately. The Bishop can vote.

30 Nov 2004 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 appears on LegCo Agenda in the name of Mr Delaney. V&P records "motion not made".

185 7 Dec 2004 On a motion of Mrs Crowe, the Bill is referred to a Committee of the Whole Council.

25 Jan 2005 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 considered in private by Committee of the Whole Council.

1 Feb 2005 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 considered in private by Committee of the Whole Council.

26 Apr 2005 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 considered in private by Committee of the Whole Council.

3 May 2005 Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill 2004 appears on Legislative Council Agenda for continuation of First Reading in the name of Mrs Crowe. First Reading is carried. 10 May 2005 Mrs Crowe moves Second Reading. Bishop moves that the Council resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole Council. The Committee now sits in public. The President puts eight propositions and most are carried.

31 May 2005 Second reading carried. Clauses Stage commences with an amendment to the Long Title. Clauses are moved by Mrs Crowe. Substantial amendments are moved in each case, many of them by Mr Lowey.

14 June 2005 Clauses Stage continues. 28 June 2005 Clauses Stage concluded and Third Reading passed. The Bill as amended by the Legislative Council now proposes an 8-constituency model. 12 July 2005 The Keys consider a motion by Mr Delaney asking Mr Rodan to make a statement about the Bill at the next sitting. They adjourn this question itself to the next sitting. 14 July 2005 On a motion of Mr Quayle, Tynwald Court rescinds its motion of 15 July 04. The effect is that the Boundary Review Committee can now resume its work.

25 Oct 2005 The Keys asks for a conference and puts Mr Rodan, Mr Rimington and Mr Speaker Brown on the delegation.

186

Nov 2005 Keys delegation report published. It recommends that the proposals of the Council should not be over-ridden but should instead be given further consideration. 17 Jan 2006 Interim Report of the Boundary Review Committee debated. 24 Jan 2006 The Keys accepts the delegation report and goes on to consider Council amendments. The amended long title is accepted but the amended Clause 1 is defeated 12-8 and Mr Speaker (Brown) states that the Bill has fallen. 22 Feb 2006 In answer to a Question, the Chief Minister (Brown) tells Tynwald he will not disband the Boundary Review Committee 23 Jan 2007 Mr Caiman is given leave to introduce a Bill to require Members of Tynwald to be subject to popular election. 20 Feb 2007 On a motion of Mr Cannan, Tynwald requests the Council of Ministers to suspend the work of the Boundary Review Committee until such time as the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2007 is known. 13 Mar 2007 First Reading in the Keys of the Constitution Bill 2007 (Mr Cannan). This Bill proposes a 32-Member House of Keys (2 each from 16 constituencies) with a statutory Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. 27 Mar 2007 Constitution Bill 2007 passes its Second Reading in the Keys 24 Apr 2007 At the outset of Clauses Stage, the Keys consider three long titles: Mr Cannan's, Mr Quayle's and Mr Karran's. Mr Quayle proposes an 8-constituency model and Mr Karran an all-Island constituency model. Mr Quayle's is the only proposal to be supported by a majority. 8 May 2007 A move by Mrs Cannell to have a fresh Second Reading is defeated. 22 May 2007 In the Keys, Clauses Stage of the Constitution Bill 2007 (Mr Quayle) begins.

187 29 May 2007 In the Keys, Clauses Stage of the Constitution Bill 2007 (Mr Quayle) continues. Clause 9 and Schedules 3 and 4 removed. 27 Jan 2009 In the Keys, Clauses Stage of the Constitution Bill 2007 (Mr Quayle) continues. An attempt to re-insert an amended and updated version of Clause and Schedules 3 and 4 is defeated.

21 Apr 2009 On a motion of the Chief Minister (Mr Brown), Tynwald resolves that the Boundary Review Committee should be dissolved; and re-established once the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2007 is determined.

5 May 2009 Constitution Bill 2007 passes its Second Reading in the Keys 12 May 2009 First Reading of the Constitution Bill 2007 appears on the Legislative Council Order Paper. Discussed but not moved. 26 May 2009 Constitution Bill 2007 passes its First Reading in the Legislative Council 23 June 2009 Constitution Bill 2007 is rejected at Second Reading in the Legislative Council

17 Feb 2010 Referring to the April 2009 Tynwald resolution and quoting advice of the Clerk of the Council, Chief Minister (Brown) tells Tynwald the outcome of the Constitution Bill 2007 will not be "determined" before May 2011.

14 July 2010 On a motion from Mr Crookall seconded by Mr Quayle, Tynwald requests CoMin to re-establish Boundary Review Commission. Mr Crookall acknowledges CM's Feb 2010 answer but says there is no political will to progress the Constitution Bill 2007 as a Keys-only Bill.

7 Dec 2010 Chief Minister (Brown) tells the House of Keys that the Boundary Review Committee is to report to Tynwald by January 2012

188 18 May 2011 Tynwald rejects a motion tabled by Bill Malarkey MHK to have a referendum on a directly elected Council.

14 June 2011 Electoral Reform Bill 2011 (Mr Callister) passes its First Reading in the Council. The Bill proposes an eight- constituency model for both Keys and Council, each constituency returning three MHKs and one MLC. Elections to the Council would continue in two overlapping groups of four with each group of four having a geographical spread. 25 Oct 2011 Council resolves to ask the Keys to participate in a Joint Committee on the Electoral Reform Bill 2011.

22 Nov 2011 Keys agrees to a Joint Committee. 13 Dec 2011 Tynwald debates Interim Report of the Boundary Review Committee; approves recommendations including equality and equivalency; and directs Committee to complete its work by December 2012. 16 Oct 2012 Tynwald debates Second Interim Report of the Boundary Review Committee; accepts accepts that the twenty four seats of the House of Keys be divided into twelve constituencies of two members each; and directs the Boundary Review Committee to complete its Report by defining and delineating the boundaries of such constituencies and to report back no later than the June 2013 sitting of Tynwald.

189 190 Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW BritishIsles November2012 Tel: 01624685520 Fax: 01624685522 e-mail [email protected] Price: £16.00