PP 2019/0095

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019

PETITIONS FOR REDRESS

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019: PETITIONS FOR REDRESS

There shall be a Standing Orders Committee of the Court to carry out the duties imposed upon it by Standing Orders 6.8 and 9.1, and to make recommendations to the Court for the revision of Standing Orders.

6.8 (1) The person presiding under Standing Order 3.29 shall, on receipt of a Petition for Redress refer the petition to the Standing Orders Committee.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Standing Orders Committee to examine every Petition for Redress to ascertain whether it is in order, and report to Tynwald.

9.1 (4) Any Member dissatisfied by a determination of the President may refer the principle of the issue involved to the Standing Orders Committee which shall report thereon to Tynwald.

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald 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

The Hon J P Watterson SHK (Chairman) (Rushen) The Hon S C Rodan OBE MLC (Vice Chairman)

Mr D J Ashford MHK (Douglas North)

Mr D C Cretney MLC

Hon G D Cregeen MHK (Arbory, Castletown and Malew)

Hon R K Harmer MHK (Glenfaba and Peel)

Mr L L Hooper MHK (Ramsey)

Mrs K Sharpe MLC

Hon C C Thomas MHK (Douglas Central) Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520) 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. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019 ...... 1

II. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS ...... 4

APPENDIX 1 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019: FULL TEXT...... 5

APPENDIX 2 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS: ANNOTATED LIST ...... 153

PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2018 155

PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2017 155

PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2016 156

PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2015 159

To: The Hon Stephen Rodan OBE MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019: PETITIONS FOR REDRESS

I. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019

1. The 25 Petitions for Redress reproduced at Appendix 1 were presented at Tynwald assembled at St John’s on 5th July 2019. We have considered these in the light of the relevant Standing Orders.

2. We note that all but three are in order. We continue to encourage petitioners to seek the advice of the Clerk of Tynwald in a timely fashion in order to ensure that their petitions comply with Standing Orders. We also draw attention to the revised Guidance for Potential Petitioners at Tynwald Hill (PP No 2017/0022) issued by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald in February 2017.

3. The petition of Mr Leonard Trevor Cowin in relation to the appointment of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration and whether this was unlawful is not in order by reason of Standing Order 6.11(d), which provides that a Petition for Redress must not refer to any matter the substance of which has been determined by Tynwald in the current session.

4. The petition of Mr Alan Jones and others representing Peel Town Commissioners in relation to the actions of the registration officer in removing names from the electoral register is not in order because it is a matter which could have been referred to the High Court by way of Petition of Doleance. The petitioners note that they are time barred from making such a petition but Standing Order 6.11(c) refers to a specific case which could be adjudicated upon by the High Court unless the petition shows that it

1 was not reasonable to expect the petitioner to resort to the High Court. Running out of time does not justify using Tynwald to adjudicate on matters which are properly within the province of the High Court or other tribunal.

5. The petition of Mr Courtney Heading in relation to the HPV vaccine is not in order by reason of Standing Order 6.6(1), which provides that a Petition for Redress may be presented on behalf of a petitioner but that such authorisation shall appear on the petition. There is no such authorisation on the petition.

6. Our conclusions in respect of this year’s Petitions are set out in the following table:

Petition of Committee’s finding

Millie Blenkinsop-French: Choice and dignity in dying In order

Mark Jason Cleator: Law of adverse possession In order

Leonard Trevor Cowin: Appeals against Planning Committee In order decisions

Leonard Trevor Cowin: Interested person status in planning In order matters

Leonard Trevor Cowin: A report by the Tynwald In order Commissioner for Administration (Mr Cornwall-Kelly)

Leonard Trevor Cowin: Demolition of Glenfaba House In order

Leonard Trevor Cowin: Complaints procedures against In order Ministers etc.

Leonard Trevor Cowin: Appointment of the current Tynwald Not in order Commissioner for Administration

Peter Dawson: Horse tramway In order

2 Paula Gerrard: Provision for those in the IQ 70+ In order category

Courtenay Heading: HPV Vaccine Not in order

Stefanie Elizabeth Kerwin: Wireless radiation In order

Simon Edgar Mann: Funding and provision of urgent In order medical services in the community

Simon Edgar Mann: Isle of Man Health Service In order Independent Review Body

Simon Edgar Mann: Standing Orders of Tynwald In order

Terence Anthony Miles and Reform of the law relating to welfare In order Heather Hazel Miles: of grandchildren

Craig Morris: Provision for ME sufferers In order

Michael Anthony Ashley Prosecution of motoring offences In order Osborne:

Peel Town Commissioners: Electoral Register Not in order

Daniel Richardson: Low impact sustainable living In order solutions

Dorothy Salmon and Philip Code of Conduct for Public Servants In order Salmon:

Petra Trudi Stetina: 5G technology In order

Lee-Anne Elizabeth Taylor: Reform of the law on sexual offences In order

Henry George Martin Renewable energy In order Uniacke:

David John Watts: Academic performance in schools In order

3 II. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS

7. At Appendix 2 is an annotated list of the Petitions for Redress presented in the previous four years going back to 2015. Under Standing Order 6.12 those which are in order and which have not been the subject of a resolution may still be picked up by a Member.

J P Watterson

S C Rodan

D J Ashford

D C Cretney

G D Cregeen

R K Harmer

L L Hooper

K Sharpe

CC Thomas

7th July 2019

4

Appendix 1 Petitions for Redress presented in 2019: full text

5

6 [Signed by M E Blenkinsop-French]

7 8 IN TYNWALD

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of the Tynwald Court

The humble petition of Mark Jason Cleator Lyonville Stuggadhoo Marown Isle of Man IM4 2AJ

Sheweth that Whereas the Manx Government, in failing to adopt The Land Registration Act 2002 as enacted by the UK Government has enabled vexatious and regular application of the law known as Adverse Possession (the occupation of land to which another person has title with the intention of possessing it as one's own), resulting in the legalised theft of land. As demonstrated below, in 1984 the Isle of Man Attorney General concluded that the limitation period for land applies equally to land which is the subject of a trust. The Manx Government, by accepting this opinion without performing further checks as to wider implications (through considering the position of the adjacent Isle or any of the other common law jurisdictions) did fail to ensure the fairness of the relevant Acts of Tynwald. An Act of Tynwald, which enables a person to claim Adverse Possession of land held under a trust, against a life tenant who is not factually in possession of the land, is simply wrong. Similarly, an Act of Tynwald which enables the confiscation of land held in trust on behalf of children or others using Adverse Possession, by implying that the limitation period has run even before the children or others had actually taken possession of their property is also clearly injudicious and in want of reform. The Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984 has allowed just such situations to arise, and this has enabled the theft of property from rightful owners or their heirs and assigns. It is not possible to protect the assets and interests of said persons and consequentially their rightful property is stolen with the Isle of Man Government's agreement and consent. The failure of the Isle of Man Government to ensure the protection of the Manx people has and will continue to lead to property of rightful owners being acquired by others through the use of such Acts of Tynwald and the Manx Courts. It is also the case that as the UK law, which prevents the adverse possession of land which is held in trust does not apply on the Isle of Man, such omission is causing clear and continuous hardship. In addition, Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Court of Human Rights states that "every person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property". The omissions of the Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984 allows property to be taken away from rightful owners, thereby preventing any aforementioned peaceful enjoyment.

9 2

The Differences Between English and Manx Property Law in Relation to Adverse Possession The Land Registration Act 2002 (UK) paragraph 12a reads as follows: "A person is not to be regarded as being in adverse possession of an estate for the purposes of this Schedule at any time when the estate is subject to a trust..." In the UK no adverse possession can be claimed whilst a life tenant was in occupation and the ultimate beneficial owner had not yet come into possession. This position is covered by section 18 of the Limitation Act 1980 (of Parliament) which makes this position clear and intentional. The above rules were not introduced in the Isle of Man to the Manx Limitation Act of 1984. On the contrary, section 18 of that Act states: "The right of action to recover land shall be treated as accruing to a person entitled to an equitable interest in the same manner, and from the same date, as it would accrue if they held a legal interest." Therefore, the position in England and Wales is significantly different from that here, Adverse Possession may run from any time, even if there is a trustee or life tenant in control of the said land that only comes into possession as its beneficial owner at a later date. It is clear that this is the intended interpretation of section 18 (of the Manx Act) when looking at the Hansard of the Legislative Council on 10 April 1984 during the clauses stage. The then Attorney General, discussing adverse possession generally, stated: `It should be noted that in Manx law future estates, that is, the right which a person might have to inherit property following a life interest, are barred after 21 year's possession, except as against the Crown. This clause makes no special provision for future interests in land. In other words, translating that into very simple terms, f a person had been in occupation ofland for 21 years without permission of the owner of the land, then their title becomes absolute and any one who had any claims to any interest in that land loses them. ' The Attorney General went on to state that `Clause 18 provides that the limitation periodfor land applies equally to interest in land which is the subject to trusts'. In saying this, the Attorney General advised the Council that it was acceptable for Manx Law to run differently to the safe and carefully considered position adopted under English law. The principle of Adverse Possession allows land to be claimed by a squatter, under certain strict circumstances. The UK rule, discussed in detail at the Lords Hansard text of 19th July 2001, is designed to ensure that those who have no control over land that they will ultimately own cannot lose entitlement whilst it is held in trust for them. The Isle of Man offers no such protection, and therefore the Adverse Possession rule is wide open to abuse generally on the Island, and indeed is being used by wealthy individuals in a way that was presumably never intended. Adverse possession regulations should at the very least match those in the UK and, where any ambiguity is identified, title should always remain with the paper owner. and Whereas also Legal expenses - in particular once a case is heard before a court - are extremely high. It has become common practice for the art of filibustering and the overwhelming of the courts and others to be exercised by a wealthy party, thus effectively exponentially increasing costs. This practice ultimately leads to considerable hardship on the side of the less wealthy party, to a point where it is not possible to protect himself against further litigation if money runs out,

10 [Signed by Mark Jason Cleator]

11 12 [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

13 14 [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

15 16 In Tynwald

sth July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF :-

Leonard Trevor Cowin of Sea Peep, Poortown Road, Peel, Isle of Man, IM5 1QG

SHEWETH THAT

Your Petitioner has a grievance against the decision of the former Tynwald Commissioner for Administration, Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly, for refusing to investigate complaints which he made to him of maladministration by the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture under section 10 of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 ("TCfAA") , which the Commissioner set out in a "Section 14 Statement" which he presented to Tynwald as follows —

(i) The Planning Committee is not lawfully constituted and there is no legal basis for the committee. (ii) The Planning Committee does not have any power under articles 6 or 7 of the Order to make a "minded to approve" decision in relation to an application for planning approval; (iii) The interface between the Standing Orders of the Planning Committee (which are necessarily of no effect if the committee are not lawfully constituted) and the exercise by officials of the Minister's delegated powers results in illegality; (iv) The Planning Committee is illegal as there is no provision in the Town & Country Planning Act 1999 for the formation and appointment of a Planning Committee; (v) The formation of the Planning Committee, the appointment of their Chairman, and the appointment of its Members under the provisions of the Government Departments Act 1987, were each invalid and unlawful as the only power available to the Minister for the Department of the Environment, Food & Agriculture under that Act is to authorise persons to exercise his Department's functions; (vi) The Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, which is the backbone of the planning application system and the determination of planning applications, is unlawful as it was made three years before statutory provision was made for "development procedure orders; (vii) There is no basis in law for the Planning Committee to make a decision which is expressed to be effective only after an associated agreement with the applicant has been concluded; (viii) The procedure of the Department with regard to the Planning Committee is inconsistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147; (ix) The constitution and appointment of the Planning Committee is not authorised by section 3 of the Government Departments Act 1987.

In correspondence with your Petitioner the Commissioner stated that my complaints raised issues of "pure law" which he said were not within his remit for investigation.

However, in his "Section 14" Statement the Commissioner stated that his mason for not investigating your Petitioner's complaints was that "there is no prima facie case of maladministration or service failure where the action complained of has been taken in accordance with official legal advice, which those concerned with administration are bound to follow".

[Signed by Trevor Cowin] 17 [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

18 [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

19 20 [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

21 22 In Tynwald

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

THE HUMBLE PETTION OF:-

Mr Leonard Trevor Cowin of Sea Peep, Poortown Road, Peel, Isle of Man, IM5 1QG

SHEWETH THAT:-

The Motion moved by Mr Tim Crookall, MHK, at the Sitting of Tynwald on the 19th February 2019 in his capacity as a Member of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Selection Committee —

That Tynwald approves the appointment of Ms Angela Main Thompson OBE as the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration fora period of three years, in accordance with the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011. was ultra vires and unlawful as Mr Crookall wasn't and couldn't be a Member of the Selection Committee referred to, which is mandatory under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 1 of the Act and consists of -

(a) the Chair of the Tynwald Management Committee; currently Mr Juan Watterson, MHK (b) the Chair of the Tynwald Public Accounts Committee; currently Mr Juan Watterson, MHK and (c) the Chief Minister. and in consequence Tynwald's approval of Mr Crookall's unlawful motion makes Tynwald's approval of the appointment of Ms Angela Main Thompson as Commissioner under the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 void and of no legal effect.

Your Petitioner is aggrieved that the Commissioner has been appointed by Tynwald unlawfully as he has a complaint outstanding which he made to the previous Commissioner which cannot be determined until a Commissioner has been appointed lawfully and any decision made by Ms Angela Main Thompson on his complaint in the meantime will equally be void and of no legal effect. Your Petitioner is aggrieved also because he has other complaints of maladministration waiting to be investigated but which can't be investigated until a Commissioner has been appointed lawfully.

Copies of exchanges of e-mail correspondence with the Clerk of Tynwald are attached as an Appendix to this Petition which explain the legal position clearly.

Although Standing Order 6.11 (d) of the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court provides that a Petition for Redress must contain no reference to any matter the substance of which has been determined by Tynwald in the current session, your Petitioner avers that "determined" means and can only mean, determined "lawfully" and that it would be perverse to interpret the word "determined" differently.

(Continued on next page)

23 [Signed by Trevor Cowin] [Signed by Trevor Cowin]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

24 [Contact details redacted]

[Contact details redacted]

[Contact details redacted]

[Contact details redacted]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin] 25 [Contact details redacted]

[Contact details redacted]

[Contact details redacted]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin] 26 [Contact details redacted]

[Signed by Trevor Cowin]

27 28 [Signed by Peter Dawson]

29 [Signed by Peter Dawson]

30 IN TYNWALD

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of: Paula Gerrard, 6 Scarlett Close, Castletown, Isle of Man IM9 1NY

Sheweth that The UK classification of a learning disability (LD) is having difficulties with:

* Understanding new or complex information * Learning new skills * Coping independently

In general the Isle of Man adopts UK laws and guidelines, but LD on the island is decided by an IQ test with a result of under 70. This excludes many people from support and services, it is also not an accurate method, as a person with Autism can have a genius IQ, yet have complex difficulties. The UK model more accurately reflects need. Imes://researchbriefings.padiament.ukiResearchBriefing/Surnmary/SNO7058#fullreport

Greenfield gardens, ERIC, Greenfield cafe near Nobles hospital, various day centres, supported living in different locations, and new accommodation being built to replace Eastcliffe, are exclusively available for people with LD's. Those with IQ 70+ are denied access to all of these, and, no other service exists. Furthermore, individuals are also denied access to Autism Initiatives, autism specialists as they require a dual diagnosis of autism and an LD, we must organise support now, as predicted Autism rates are 1 in 2 by 2025. hups://www.cirjohnbergman.corn/diseaseiautisnal

Children with disabilities become adults with disabilities, post school, no longer with their peers, and unable to obtain the type of occupations available in the past, lead to isolation and then mental health problems, at a cost to the individual, their families, and services. The National Autistic Society states, at least 1 in 3 adults with autism experience severe mental health due to lack of support. littps://www.autism.orgAtidabout/what-isknyths-facts-stats,aspx

Autism affects 850 people on the island, and 4,400 have learning disabilities, our mental health costs in 2015 exceeded £167 million this will continue to rise exponentially, particularly for healthcare, therapists, and drugs, unless we make changes now. (Based on UK statistics and UK diagnosis.) https•1! entalhealdto .ukflearnin -disabilities/a-to-ill/learnin -disabilities

We live in a democratic society, our basic human rights are, equality, dignity, respect, and independence, our duty of care is to address the needs of vulnerable adults, and promote their return to our community, guide and encourage them, so they can flourish, because everyone has gifts and talents, and given the right environment, effective support and lifelong learning, they can develop and reach their potential, leading to meaningful and independent lives, as much as they are able.

The IQ 70+ individuals represent a significant amount of available yet untapped workforce that can contribute to our society, in doing so, they will feel pride, self worth, improved health and well- being, while reducing their mental health conditions and associated costs to the economy. Parents and carers do all they can, but are deeply concerned what will happen to their offspring when they die.

31 [Signed by P Gerrard]

32 IN TYNWALD

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The Petition of:

Courtenay Heading, Richmond House, Richmond Road, Ramsey, Isle of Man, IM8 3PB

The Falling Sun:

Japan cut short her trial of the HPV vaccine in 2013 - such was the evidence of very serious harms, post vaccination. Law suits for serious harms are now before several Japanese Courts. They found numerous harms, similar to which the Isle of Man will be liable, but fails to recognise or debate.

HPV vaccination aims to target cervical infection with human papilloma virus, said by some, to cause cervical cancer. It is a matter of public interest as the vaccine has been widely deployed on the Island and globally, for more than a decade. On investigation: 1) the trials did not meet accepted scientific standards, 2) the vaccine has no proven benefit against cervical cancer, and 3) relies on a scientifically unfounded Isle of Man Government, Department of Health and Social Care, policy. 4) the vaccine contains infertility components, neurotoxic aluminium, a patented cockroach killer, and in a forensic lab analysis a banned amphetamine, APDB. All such ingredients, which if in food, would be classed as criminal. GP's are untrained in vaccine ingredients, relying on blind faith, not science.

This has major repercussions for the public at large as it targets vaccination of vulnerable adolescent girls, and increasingly boys - such is the pull of market profit (for the 20th least likely cancer suffered by older women). Local GP's have already written of their concerns to me, but daren't go public. They've called it in one case 'a time bomb', and in another, a 'red flag'. (Another small Island shows where we may be unwittingly headed, with Jersey in the Channel Islands due to introduce HPV vaccination, oddly for boys, on 1st September 2019).

My grievance concerns the post HPV vaccine harms suffered by a young girl, for which I have had a 17 year, guardianship role - as well as post HPV vaccination serious illnesses suffered by her friends. My grievance extends to highlighting the harms done to families of many girls, and increasingly boys, across the world. I have met many of these families and their legal representatives while attending HPV vaccine harms events in: England, Ireland, US, Spain, and Mexico. We have a betrayal of a generation, one, on an institutional basis which is furthered by denial of any open debate.

There is growing recognition of HPV vaccine deaths and harms, so far, in 55 Countries. HPV vaccine harms Groups include: SaneVax, Time for Action, R.E.G.R.E.T, AHVID (Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters) and Children's Health Defense (US). There are officially submitted harms on every Continent. On line, is the three part film: Sacrificial Virgins concerning HPV vaccine harmed girls, as well as films of many post HPV vaccine injuries and deaths from: US, Denmark, Ireland, and Columbia. On Island, only Manx Net TV has been willing to air HPV harms concerns. Debate of HPV has been denied on Island, over two years, across many Government Departments and Committees.

I seek:

That Tynwald establish a Committee to report on HPV vaccines and: 1) Investigate test results from independent laboratories of HPV vaccine contents. Forensic laboratory testing has confirmed that

33 [Signed by Courtenay Heading]

34 IN TYNWALD

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of:

Stefanie Elizabeth Kerwin, Beechwood, Ballacollister Road, Laxey, Isle of Man IM4 7JP

Sheweth that:

In 2011, the World Health Organisation (WHO) / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF EMF (radio frequency electromagnetic fields, otherwise known as "wireless radiation") as a Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011 based on credible evidence that linked long term wireless exposure to brain cancer.

In 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), meeting in Kyiv at Standing Committee level, called on European governments to "take all reasonable measures" to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, "and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours".

According to parliamentarians of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), governments should "for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises", and put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially "targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age".

Following the proposals of the rapporteur (Jean Huss, Luxembourg, SOC), the Assembly called on governments to provide information on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby. They should, instead, recommend "the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves".

Governments should "reconsider the scientific basis for the present electromagnetic fields exposure standards set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), "which have serious limitations" and apply as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles.

The adopted resolution underlines the fact that "the precautionary principle should be applicable when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty" and stresses that "them issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial" to achieve a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health.

Technology is developing too quickly for research, legislation and regulation to keep up. Therefore, parliaments, governments, agencies, councils and public health authorities across the world have adopted the 'precautionary principle', to protect their citizens, undertaking public educational programmes, enacting laws and issuing guidelines to minimise their citizens' and in particular, their children's exposure to RF EMF, to safeguard them from possible adverse health effects.

Please take a moment to read Resolution 1815 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (overleaf).

35 Parliamentary Assembly COUNCIL OF EUROPE Assemblee parlementaire

CONSEIL DE LEUROPE

Resolution 1815 (2011)1 Final version

The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

Parliamentary Assembly

1. The Parliamentary Assembly has repeatedly stressed the importance of states' commitment to preserving the environment and environmental health, as set out in many charters, conventions, declarations and protocols since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and the Stockholm Declaration (Stockholm, 1972). The Assembly refers to its past work in this field, namely Recommendation 1863 (2009) on environment and health: better prevention of environment-related health hazards, Recommendation 1947 (2010) on noise and light pollution, and more generally, Recommendation 1885 (2009) on drafting an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a healthy environment and Recommendation 1430 (1999) on access to information, public participation in environmental decision-making and access to justice — implementation of the Arhus Convention. 2. The potential health effects of the very low frequency of electromagnetic fields surrounding power lines and electrical devices are the subject of ongoing research and a significant amount of public debate. According to the World Health Organization, electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed in varying degrees to electromagnetic fields, the levels of which will continue to increase as technology advances. 3. Mobile telephony has become commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennae, or base stations, relaying information with radio-frequency signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed Internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks, are also increasingly common in homes, offices and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the radio-frequency exposure of the population. 4. While electrical and electromagnetic fields in certain frequency bands have wholly beneficial effects which are applied in medicine, other non-ionising frequencies, whether from extremely low frequencies, power lines or certain high frequency waves used in the fields of radar, telecommunications and mobile telephony, appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values. 5. As regards standards or threshold values for emissions of electromagnetic fields of all types and frequencies, the Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the so-called thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation. Moreover, the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Given the context of growing exposure of the population, in particular that of vulnerable groups such as young people and children, there could be extremely high human and economic costs if early warnings are neglected.

1. Text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011 (see Doc. 12608, report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Huss). El a

Fi 41 4

36 Resolution 1815 (2011)

6. The Assembly regrets that, despite calls for the respect of the precautionary principle and despite all the recommendations, declarations and a number of statutory and legislative advances, there is still a lack of reaction to known or emerging environmental and health risks and virtually systematic delays in adopting and implementing effective preventive measures. Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco. 7. Moreover, the Assembly notes that the problem of electromagnetic fields or waves and their potential consequences for the environment and health has dear parallels with other current issues, such as the licensing of medication, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals or genetically modified organisms. It therefore highlights that the issue of independence and credibility of scientific expertise is crucial to accomplish a transparent and balanced assessment of potential negative impacts on the environment and human health. 8. In light of the above considerations, the Assembly recommends that the member states of the Council of Europe: 8.1, in general terms: 8.1.1. take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours; 8.1.2. reconsider the scientific basis for the present standards on exposure to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which have serious limitations, and apply ALARA principles, covering both thermal effects and the athermic or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation; 8.1.3. put in place information and awareness-raising campaigns on the risks of potentially harmful long-term biological effects on the environment and on human health, especially targeting children, teenagers and young people of reproductive age; 8.1.4. pay particular attention to "electrosensitive" people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wireless network; 8.1.5. in order to reduce costs, save energy, and protect the environment and human health, step up research on new types of antenna, mobile phone and DECT-type device, and encourage research to develop telecommunication based on other technologies which are just as efficient but whose effects are less negative on the environment and health; 8.2. conceming the private use of mobile phones, DECT wireless phones, WiFi, WLAN and WIMAX for computers and other wireless devices such as baby monitors: 8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre; 8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing; 8.2.3. introduce dear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use; 8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves; 8.3 concerning the protection of children: 8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves; 8.3.2. for children in general, and particularly in schools and classrooms, give preference to wired Internet connections, and strictly regulate the use of mobile phones by schoolchildren on school premises;

2

37 Resolution 1815(2011)

8.4 concerning the planning of electric power lines and relay antenna base stations: 8.4.1. introduce town planning measures to keep high-voltage power lines and other electric installations at a safe distance from dwellings; 8.4.2. apply strict safety standards for the health impact of electrical systems in new dwellings; 8.4.3, reduce threshold values for relay antennae in accordance with the ALARA principle and install systems for comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all antennae; 8.4.4. determine the sites of any new GSM, UMTS, WiFi or WIMAX antennae not solely according to the operators' interests but in consultation with local and regional government authorities, local residents and associations of concerned citizens; 8.5 concerning risk assessment and precautions: 8.5.1. make risk assessment more prevention oriented; 8.5.2. improve risk-assessment standards and quality by creating a standard risk scale, making the indication of the risk level mandatory, commissioning several risk hypotheses to be studied and considering compatibility with real-life conditions; 8.5.3. pay heed to and protect "early warning" scientists; 8.5.4. formulate a human-rights-oriented definition of the precautionary and ALARA principles; 8.5.5. increase public funding of independent research, in particular through grants from industry and taxation of products that are the subject of public research studies to evaluate health risks; 8.5.6. create independent commissions for the allocation of public funds; 8.5.7. make the transparency of lobby groups mandatory; 8.5.8. promote pluralist and contradictory debates between all stakeholders, including civil society (Arhus Convention).

3

38 [Signed by Stefanie Elizabeth Kerwin]

39 40 IN TYNWALD

IN THE MATTER of

the timely provision of urgent medical

care, the handling of urgent medical

referrals, waiting times for

consultation and treatment

and the management

of Nobles Hospital

and

IN THE MATTER of

the adequate funding and provision of

urgent medical services in the

community

TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF TYNWALD COURT

THE HUMBLE PETITION of Simon Edgar Mann of Aalid Feie, Shore Road, Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

SHEWETH:-

1. Your Petitioner is a Non Practising Manx Advocate and this petition, which is specifically not a criticism of the excellent medical staff at Nobles Hospital and the

GPs serving the Island, is filed in a personal rather than professional capacity

41 2. Your Petitioner returned to live in the Isle of Man in December 2018 being, at that time, in need of continuity of urgent medical care following specialist evaluation and treatment over several months at a UK hospital.

3. Comprehensive history of treatment and up to date priorities of treatment were provided by the UK Hospital

4. Your Petitioner sought a timely urgent appointment with his GP having written to the Surgery ahead of his move back to the Island. On arrival it became apparent that the procedure of gaining an urgent GP appointment was unreasonable and the short term availability of GPs almost non existent with patients in need of urgent care forced into all ringing at 8.30a.m. in morning when the automated telephone system was at peak use. Your Petitioner was eventually seen by his new GP on 4 January

2019 and immediately given urgent referrals for Neurology, Ophthalmology,

Specialist Physiotherapy and Rheumatology.

5. It has become apparent to your Petitioner that matters of urgency in the provision of care at Nobles Hospital and in the wider community are at such a poor level as to represent an unreasonable risk to the health of service users across the

Island. In particular, the Isle of Man Health Service has no regulated maximum waiting times for treatment in all categories and insufficient regulatory framework to maintain proper and safe service delivery of urgent and emergency care at all levels.

Your Petitioner says that, despite the recent Health Service Review, the Isle of Man

42 Health Service has developed an unhealthy law unto itself against which patients are

presented with an unassailable barrier to timely treatment.

6. Your Petitioner says that poor management at Nobles Hospital, conflicts with

the efforts of the excellent medical staff providing the service and lack of adequate

funding by Treasury over a long period time presents a crisis to the staff working at

the hospital and in the wider community and to patients alike

7. By way of example, Your Petitioner was given an urgent Rheumatology appointment from the urgent GP referral in January for September such referrals currently affecting an estimated several hundred patients having become the normal practice rather than an exception owing to lack of funding and adequate staff at

Nobles Hospital. By letter dated 4 April 2019 the Interim Director of Hospitals wrote to your Petitioner confirming the 9 month waiting list following your Petitioners urgent referral in January stating that he found the situation as unacceptable. At the date of this Petition no alternative appointment can been offered and your Petitioner has confirmed that all urgent referrals for Rheumatology still extend to a nine month waiting list. Your Petitioner has established that there is only one Consultant

Rheumatologist whose clinics are completely swamped with patients and have been for a long period of time. Your Petitioner has established that Hospital Managers have not alleviated the problem since it became apparent some considerable time ago and

Treasury have failed to provide additional funding. Your Petitioner will say that

Tynwald has to act where those in positions of responsibility within its own organisation are consistently failing to manage Nobles Hospital with the necessary

43 skill, knowledge and expertise and those in Treasury failing to have the foresight to

provide essential funding in the short term to alleviate unreasonable waiting times for appointments and treatment and lack of specialist on Island services.

8. Your Petitioner has experienced similar short term levels of delay in the

provision of Neurological care which are being covered by staff who do not have the

necessary level of expertise in the absence of an on island Consultant Neurologist at

Nobles Hospital.

9. Your Petitioner has endured journeys to UK hospitals and encountered other patients who have suffered similar excessive waiting times on the Island before consultation and treatment in the UK

10. Your Petitioner has experienced consistent management failures in communication at Nobles Hospital where they relate to both complaints and urgency where modern methods of communication such as email, fax and an expensive teleconferencing facility are not being used to avoid delays in appointments and in communicating with the necessary areas of expertise. By way of example, your

Petitioner's urgent referral for neurology was routinely found on reasonable inquiry to have been left in a tray at Nobles Hospital awaiting for it to be seen by the visiting

Neurologist a fortnight later.

11. Your Petitioner has experienced first hand that the Accident and Emergency

Department is being misused by the Health Service as the only method of directing

44 patients to try and avoid the otherwise excessively lengthy waiting lists for tests, scans and access to Consultants and to avoid waiting for appointments at GP surgeries when same are not reasonably available. This places genuine emergency cases with a potential to face life threatening delay and other patients left waiting even longer for routine appointments. Your Petitioner will say that the allocation of Accident and

Emergency Beds is insufficient and the unit itself is far too small for the increased population that it now serves and the use to which is is currently being put.

12. Your Petitioner has met with Hospital Managers and been told that a significant financial deficit of nearly£10 Million and a stated intention on the part of

Treasury to make future costs savings currently stymie the ability of Nobles Hospital management in the short term to deliver a safe level of health care to the Island. Your

Petitioner has encountered excellent members of staff at Nobles Hospital completely demoralised by the Hospital Management and left unable to provide their services in the manner in which they would wish

13. Your Petitioner has seen the recently published review of the Health Service which terms of reference do not cover adequately or at all any of the urgent issues concerning Nobles Hospital, the unacceptable delays in the provision of treatment referred as "urgent", unacceptable delays in routine appointments, the lack of core areas of expertise at Nobles Hospital and the ineffective state of Nobles Hospital

Management. In particular, the terms of reference of the recent published review of the Health Service did not take into account reviewing the historic substantive complaints about Nobles Hospital and the magnitude of problems involved in the

45 provision of urgent treatment so missed entirely those aspects of the Island's healthcare of greatest concern and greatest current risk to the health and well being of

the Island residents

14. Your Petitioner says that immediate legislative action and urgent intervention is required by Tynwald. Your Petitioner says that this action should be a priority and go beyond the recent acceptance of the recommendations in the Health Service

Review. Your Petitioner says that this is necessary to address and regularise the immediate failures at Nobles Hospital in urgent care and wider in Isle of Man

National Health Service to deliver effective urgent treatment (as opposed to routine day to day healthcare which is currently being addressed) whilst also recognising that those systemic failures are reflecting adversely on many excellent staff in the Health

Service who are trying to perform well without the necessary expertise in management, with insufficient support in the workplace and with inadequate provision of resources and funding by Treasury

15. Your Petitioner says that individual responsibility for the collective management shortfalls at Nobles Hospital in urgent care provision and in the Island's

Health Service both in proper management and in the provision of adequate funding should be identified to avoid the same individuals failing the community they serve, perpetuating the same errors in the future and damaging the realistic chances of future improvements being made.

46 I 6. Your Petitioner says that the proposal highlighted in the local press of the engagement of the Care Quality Commission at this time would be too little too late and potentially waste public money when evidence before a Select Committee from service users will provide a much clearer and quicker insight to the immediate problems and at considerably less expense. It will also spare Nobles Hospital from being adversely graded which will not assist in staff moral and recruitment in the future but will reflect badly on all those responsible for letting the Island's healthcare deteriorate to the current position.

17. Your Petitioner says that Nobles Hospital and the Island's Health Service has been starved of adequate funding by Treasury and badly managed over many years to the point of destroying the heart and soul of the service and sapping the spirit of the many excellent people attempting, against the odds to serve patients well in the

Island. Your Petitioner says that a year on year deficit and the fear of being seen to fail with financial budgeting has led to managers failing to sufficiently highlight the costs of clearing waiting lists for urgent referrals and ongoing treatment and further the costs of maintaining the hospital buildings, fixtures and equipment. Your Petitioner will say that hidden costs in updating and maintaining the existing near 20 year old

Hospital will likely far exceed current financial projections for providing healthcare over the next ten years and de-rail any planned improvements within the longer term

Health Service Review

18. Your Petitioner feels that Tynwald has been kept in the dark as to the true extent of the lengthy waiting lists and historic backlogs in health care provision at

47 Nobles Hospital and in the wider community. Your Petitioner says that the Island currently faces such a shortfall in urgent health service provision and funding as to be seriously inadequate. Your Petitioner says that the situation is so serious that Nobles

Hospital and the Isle of Man Health Service could not currently cope with any widespread outbreak of illness in the community or a major incident such as that which occurred in 1973 or would struggle to do so.

19. Your Petitioner specifically separates this Petition as standing aside from other action taken by Tynwald in respect of the recent Health Service Review, and makes the distinction in the need to highlight and deal with an obvious impending crisis at

Nobles Hospital and in the wider community caused by overloaded GP surgeries, and excessively long hospital waiting times for referrals and treatment. Your Petitioner says that the current position requires immediate and urgent action and inquisitorial review of Nobles Hospital Management and the short term funding of the Hospital and the provision of GP services in the wider community particularly where it relates to urgent patient referrals to specific areas of expertise and the timely delivery of treatment as matters stand at the present date and before any projected changes are made to save money in future years.

20. Your Petitioner says that immediate action is required to regulate waiting times for all forms of treatment and to change the current provision of urgent healthcare services to avoid the position where managerial staff in the hospital and the wider community who lack medical qualification are deciding the timescale of

48 treatment delivery and allocation of urgent appointments, funding and resources over the professional judgement of medical staff.

21. Your Petitioner says that four new modem strategic regional GP medical centres should be provided in Ramsey, Peel, Castletown and Onchan at Government expense incorporating pharmacies, scanning facilities, routine X-Ray and blood testing and same should be open between 8am and 8pm 7 days a week and staffed by transferring existing GPs and Nurse Practitioners on a shift basis

22. Your Petitioner says that the current position cannot continue without risking patient health and the loss of essential experienced healthcare staff and a future hesitancy to attract qualified staff to the Island.

23. Your Petitioners says that taxes should be raised in the short term to pay for essential improvement in urgent and timely healthcare delivery and restore pride in the Isle of Man Health Service for the Island

24. Your Petitioner says that current heavy reliance on the availability of expertise from NI-IS hospitals in the UK is likely to fail in the short term as local demand at those hospitals increases and it becomes more apparent in those communities how many patients from the Island are being given their appointments, increasing their waiting lists and using their scarce resources irrespective of payment being made.

49 WHEREFORE Your Petitioner humbly prays that Tynwald appoints, as a matter of public urgency, a Select Committee to:

(a) take evidence as to the current provision of both urgent and emergency medical care provided to the people of the Isle of Man by

Nobles Hospital in particular as to the timely delivery of same including the availability of necessary expertise, surgeons and senior

Consultants out of hours and at weekends, the allocation and use of theatres and the sufficiency of theatre staff, the priority and grading of operations on the list, the provision, expertise and availability of support staff

(b) take evidence as to the current timescale in the provision of urgent appointments and treatment on and off Island in all the main areas of medical expertise

50 (c) take evidence as to all areas of delay and timescales and to examine the merit of immediately implementing a statutory 18 week

(maximum) timescale for all routine appointments, a two week (maximum period for oncology) and a one week (maximum) period for urgent referrals and an 8 hour

(maximum)emergency period for hospital treatment and 24 hour (maximum) timescale for all urgent GP appointments

(d) take evidence as to what measures can be immediately implemented to avoid delays including whether all modern means of communication are being properly used throughout the Island's healthcare system and in communication with UK hospitals

(e) take evidence as to whether the managers of

Nobles Hospital and primary health care facilities are sufficiently effective particularly as to their qualifications, overall experience and performance and in doing so to provide adequate protection to "whistle blowers" patients and other service users to enable them to give evidence without fear of recrimination.

51 (0 consider statutory and regulatory changes determining responsibility between Health

Service and private care providers

(g) take evidence and consider the provision of a Health Service Ombudsman scheme for quick resolution of disputes involving the short term provision of medical care including the enforcement of any statutory 18 week timescale for routine hospital appointments and the provision of adequate treatment in the event of urgent referrals and the enforcement of the adequate provision of emergency GP appointments

(h) take evidence and consider the provision of modem strategic medical centres, in house pharmacies, out of hours medical care and the merits of extended GP opening hours and of GPs working all Island shift patterns to cover such hours and alleviate pressure on the Accident and

Emergency facilities at Nobles Hospital

(i) take evidence and consider whether current budgetary projections for Nobles Hospital over the next ten years fully include all necessary costings together with the costs of modernisation of buildings and equipment and the expansion of

52 facilities in line with current and projected

increases in population and then to consider the

implementation of a specific all Island health tax to provide the necessary short term funding

(j) Further, or in the alternative, take evidence and consider the implementation of a means tested basic consultation and treatment fee structure similar to that already in place for NHS

Dentistry to contribute to the increased costs of improving GP services

(k) consider the office of Health Minister and as to making any recommendations as to an appropriate level of qualification and experience in future appointments made by Tynwald and as to whether a junior minister should or could be appointed to provide additional ministerial scrutiny and clearer political oversight of one of the largest departments of government

(I) consider whether Treasury cost cutting has impacted on the ability of the hospital management to adequately fund and manage timely hospital treatment and avoid backlogs and delays in service delivery

53 [Signed by Simon Edgar Mann]

54 IN TYNWALD

In the matter of die timely provision of urgent medical care, the handling of urgent medical referrals, waiting times for consultation and treatment and the management of Nobles Hospital

and

In the matter of the adequate funding and provision of urgent medical services in the community

The Humble Petition of Simon Edgar Mann

Aalid Feie Shore Road Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

55 56 IN TYNWALD

IN THE MATTER of

The Isle of Man Health

Service Independent

Review Body

TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF TYNWALD COURT

THE HUMBLE

PETITION of

Simon Edgar Mann of

Aalid Feie, Shore Road

Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

SHEWETH:-

1. Your Petitioner is a non practising Manx Advocate and this petition is presented in a personal rather than professional capacity

2. A member of your Petitioner's family died in June 2013 at Nobles Hospital the death being routinely reported to the Coroner of Inquests. This Petition does not seek the reopening of that inquiry.

57 3. Your Petitioner says that, at the time of that person's death there were serious shortfalls in the management of Nobles Hospital and in the provision of timely essential and effective urgent treatment both at Nobles Hospital and in the wider community such shortfalls still existing to this day (being subject of a separate

Petition) and being of significant risk to the health and well being of everyone on the

Island.

4. Your Petitioner says that efforts to highlight the issue of shortfalls in urgent and emergency care at Nobles Hospital and shortfalls in care in the wider community were hampered because routinely The Coroner of Inquests declined to hold an inquest and instead his officer advised your Petitioner to take up any issues regarding shortfalls in urgent and emergency medical care and issues in healthcare in the wider community with the Health Service Independent Review Body

5. By letter to the Health Service Independent Review Body at the end of June

2013 your Petitioner was party to a complaint regarding the medical care afforded to the deceased both at Nobles Hospital and in the wider community where such care also related to a patient who was being cared for at home whilst suffering from terminal illness. The complaint extended most significantly to delay in an operation following emergency admission on a Sunday via a ward to Nobles Hospital when

Accident and Emergency could not cope with routine injured parties from a road traffic accident which had occurred at about the same time. An essential operation which should have been carried out shortly after admission was then scheduled for

Monday and finally did not occur until Thursday. The deceased died the following day.

58 6. A further member of the family died in October 2014 having never seen the outcome of the complaint. Your Petitioner will say that that family member was determined to see that nobody in the Isle of Man would suffer the same poor standard of treatment as that outlined to the Health Service Independent Review Body

7. A report was eventually produced by a Convenor of the Independent Review

Body dated 8 May 2015 which was factually incorrect and substantially flawed and demonstrated that the Convenor and other panel members had not studied the case fully nor collated the information correctly.

8. Your Petitioner requested a further examination of the case and after entirely unwarranted further delay eventually a Panel Hearing was convened for Thursday 18

August 2016.

9. Having seen the earlier flawed report made by the Independent Review Body, your Petitioner was keen to ensure that that the newly convened Panel Hearing would endeavour to ask sufficiently searching questions and obtain answers in respect of every aspect of the complaint. On reasonable enquiry, your Petitioner established that he was to be specifically refused the opportunity to be present when evidence was given and to cross examine witnesses. Your Petitioner was also refused the alternative of asking questions of witnesses via the Chairman.

59 10. Your Petitioner declined to attend the hearing on the basis that the hearing was manifestly unfair to the complainant and further that the process adopted by the

Internal Review Body failed to allow for reasonable questions to be properly asked by a complainant and for essential answers to be given.

11. Your Petitioner finally received the report of the Internal Review Body (dated

20 December 2016) by being handed same by a postman on Christmas Eve, 2016 at your Petitioner's then residence in Norfolk. The letter had been sent on a recorded timed delivery clearly designed to serve your Petitioner with an unsatisfactory outcome and a result which the Panel would have reasonably anticipated to cause distress at an optimum moment.

12. Your Petitioner says the manner in which the Independent Review Body conducted it's affairs is totally unacceptable in modem society, heavily weighed against a complainant and likely to present a considerable challenge to a vulnerable complainant. Your Petitioner says that, likewise, nothing has changed in the procedure of health service complaints at Nobles Hospital to date and, if anything, matters have deteriorated.

13. The report of the Independent Review Body demonstrated that it had been possible for Nobles Hospital and the Isle of Man Health Service in the wider community to escape valid scrutiny and provide flawed explanations in respect of the complaint which, owing to the process adopted by the Independent Review Body had stood unchallenged. Further, that it had been possible for the Isle of Man Health

60 Service to avoid criticism by laying blame at the hands of a private care provider and

also to avoid cross examination of their own key members of staff.

14. Your Petitioner is concerned that the deficiencies set out to the Independent

Review Body where they relate to all levels of medical care, emergency medical care

and surgical provision, particularly urgent operating theatre facilities provided to the

deceased and further the level of care provided in the wider community are of general

concern to other patients in the Isle of Man and particularly those suffering from

serious, life threatening and terminal illness and were not properly traversed by the

Independent Review Body such that improvements could urgently be made

15. Your Petitioner is also concerned that the flawed process adopted by the

Internal Review Body is producing a slow, ineffective and unreliable method of

investigating complaints which may have significant and future life threatening

outcomes to other patients in the Isle of Man because opportunities to make recommendations for important procedural, managerial and service provision changes are being missed and/or completely disregarded.

16. Your Petitioner is also concerned that the current system of reporting deaths

leaves a loophole in the investigation of deaths at Nobles Hospital and elsewhere whenever there is a recommendation made, instead of an inquest, that complaints in respect of medical care relating to a death are directed to the Health Service

Independent Review Body and not made and investigated in a properly convened inquest where relatives otherwise have the ability to ask questions and seek satisfactory answers.

61 17. Your Petitioner is also concerned that the findings of the Independent Review

Body are not routinely copied to the Coroner of Inquests for further consideration as to whether an inquest should be held and not sent back to the Coroner's Officer for discussion with the family of the deceased.

18. Your Petitioner says that the present system is unreasonably slow, unreliable and lacks in depth investigative capacity. Your Petitioner says that, as such, it leaves room for serious shortfalls in medical care to escape proper scrutiny. Your Petitioner says that the Health Service Independent Review Body is not fit for the purpose of providing a reliable service to people in the Island and should be replaced in its entirety. Your Petitioner says that the law and procedure in respect of both healthcare, complaints about medical care and further, the investigation of deaths where the standard of treatment is in question needs to be urgently and substantively reviewed.

WHEREFORE Your Petitioner humbly prays

that Tynwald appoints, a Select Committee to:

(a) Take evidence and consider whether the

Health Service Independent Review Body, in

taking three years to investigate a complaint and

the complaints handling process at Nobles

Hospital is fit for the purpose, sufficiently

independent of the medical profession and

provides sufficient confidence for complainants

62 and timely and thorough resolution of their complaints

(b) Consider whether the process adopted by the

Coroner's office of referring complainants to the

Independent Review Body is a sufficiently reliable means of examining matters involving a death at Nobles Hospital where there have been questions raised as to the level of care provided

(c) Consider whether the appointment of a

Deputy Coroner of Inquests to oversee all deaths at Nobles Hospital would be a better, cost effective and more efficient replacement for or supervisor of the Independent Review Body

(d) Consider whether the final report of the

Independent Review Body in the case of a deceased should be copied to the Coroner of

Inquests

(e) examine whether regulations should provide a basic structure against which Health Service standards and service delivery timescales can be measured both for the purposes of health service complaints and inquests

(f) consider regulatory changes determining responsibility between Health Service and

63 [Signed by Simon Edgar Mann]

64 IN TYNWALD

In the matter of The Isle of Man Health Service Independent Review Body

The Humble Petition of Simon Edgar Mann

Aalid Feie Shore Road Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

65 66 IN TYNWALD

IN THE MATTER of

Petitions for Redress of

Grievance

and

IN THE MATTER of

The Standing Orders of

Tynwald

TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF TYNWALD COURT

THE HUMBLE PETITION

of

SIMON EDGAR MANN of

Aalid Feie Shore Road

Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

SHEWETH

1. At all material times your Petitioner has been a non practising Maroc Advocate and this petition is filed in a personal rather than professional capacity.

67 2. For the past ten years your Petitioner has been resident in the UK though working part time in the Isle of Man for the Isle of Man Government and paying

Manx Tax and National Insurance

3. Your Petitioner has lived and worked in the Isle of Man for in excess of 35 years

4. Prior to the sitting of Tynwald in July 2017 your Petitioner sought advice from the Clerk of Tynwald as to the filing of a Petition concerning the Isle of Man National

Health Service Independent Review Body but was advised that a UK resident could not petition for Redress of Grievance without first obtaining the use of a Manx accommodation address.

5. Your Petitioner says that Tynwald, as a Court, should accept Petitions for

Redress of Grievance, where the subject matter of the Petition is Manx irrespective of the residency of the Petitioner following a like procedure to that adopted in the High

Court of Justice of the Isle of Man in other matters.

6. In December 2018 your Petitioner moved back to the Island with the issue of the serious shortfalls in the Health Service Independent Review Body having been delayed in being brought to the attention of Tynwald through the matter of residency alone.

7. Your Petitioner says that Manx people and those with sufficient length of residency on the Island should be able to exercise the right to Petition Tynwald for

Redress of Grievance irrespective of their residency across the globe

68 8. Likewise, in presenting Petitions for Redress of Grievance Petitioners are not currently allowed to address the Court nor properly allowed to speak and be heard unless their petition is adopted and a select committee is appointed. Your Petitioner says that precedent from the earliest Tynwald assembly prior to the widespread availability of parchment and paper should provide a Petitioner with the right to speak

(if they so wish in Manx or English) and be heard and not just to present a written document. Your Petitioner will say that placing the subject matters of Petitions for

Redress of Grievance on the order paper would enable Petitioners to speak on

Tynwald Day. Your Petitioner will say that fully re-instating this ancient right will make proceedings more interesting for the public and give Petitioners a greater opportunity to make their case before members of Tynwald and the people of the

Island.

9. Your Petitioner says that, in affording Petitioners the right to present their case and be properly heard, your Petitioner considers that Tynwald should provide suitable facilities within the confines of the Hill from which Petitioners may address the assembled company

10. Your Petitioner further says that, currently, the public have no part in validating petitions for debate nor signifying their approval of the legislation that their

Government proposes to enact. Your Petitioner considers that Tynwald Day is very much about engaging public opinion. Your Petitioner says that Standing Orders of

Tynwald Court should enable public support for or against a Petition or for or against

69 a particular piece of legislation to be signified by a show of hands sought from those assembled in the vicinity of the Hill or otherwise by on-line signature.

11. Your Petitioner further says that, as parties to the proceedings on Tynwald Day

Petitioners are not currently invited to join the Court in the Chapel Service at St

Johns. Your Petitioner says that in acknowledging that all are equal Tynwald should extend the allocation of seats in the Chapel for Petitioners and members of the public to attend the Chapel Service if they so wish and to fund an extension to the Chapel for the future if this proves necessary.

WHEREFORE your Petitioner humbly prays

that Tynwald appoints a Select Committee to:

(a) consider changes in the Standing Orders of

Tynwald Court in relation to acceptance of

Petitions from off island residents where the

subject matter of the Petition is Manx and Manx

birthright or sufficient qualifying residency of

the petitioner can be established as a potential

alternative

70 (b) take evidence and consider whether Standing

Orders of Tynwald Court should be extended to accommodate inclusion of the subject matter of Petitions for Redress of Grievance on the

Order Paper and thereby to accord Petitioners on

Tynwald Day the right to speak and summarise their petitions within the hearing of the assembled company on the Hill if they so wish

(c) then consider adequate facilities for

Petitioners to have up to ten minutes to speak on the content of their Petition and to be able to sit as a rightful party to the proceedings at the foot of the Hill, alternatively, if there be too many petitioners, to be granted equivalent time in Tynwald at it's next sitting

(d) consider changes in the Standing Orders of

Tynwald Court in the adoption of Petitions and the fairness or otherwise of the current provisions, in particular to consider that the validity of any petition and the approval of current new legislation could commence with a majority show of hands by those members of the public in close proximity to the Hill and if there

71 [Signed by Simon Edgar Mann]

72 IN TYNWALD

In the matter of Petitions for Redress of Grievance and In the matter of The Standing Orders of Tynwald

The Humble Petition of Simon Edgar Mann

Aalid Feie Shore Road Ballaugh IM7 5AZ

73 74 [Signed by T A Miles] [Signed by Heather Miles]

75 76 [Signed by Craig Morris]

77 [Signed by Craig Morris]

78 [Signed by Michael Anthony Ashley]

79 [Signed by Michael Anthony Ashley]

80 2015 2016 2017 Total Number of driving prosecutions at court 283 309 371 Number of driving prosecutions resulting in one or more offences convicted 283 309 370 Number of driving prosecutions resulting in one or more offences acquitted 0 2

In 2015 no driving offences were acquitted, and there were 283 prosecutions where one or more driving offences resulted in conviction. In 2016 two offences were acquitted in separate prosecutions, both of which also resulted in prosecution for a different driving offence, and there were 309 prosecutions where one or more driving offences resulted in conviction. In 2017 one driving offence was acquitted, and there were 370 prosecutions where one or more driving offences resulted in conviction.

In conclusion less than 1% of driving prosecutions In any of last three years have had any offences resulting In acquittal,

Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

81 82 In Tynwald

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

THE HUMBLE PETTION OF:-

Mr Alan Jones, Mr Ian Davison, Mrs Christine Moughtin, Mr David Lace, Mr Eddie Convery Mrs Hazel Hannan, and Mr Ben Heath in their joint capacities as Peel Town Commissioners ("the Commissioners").

SHEWETH THAT:-

Your Petitioners are aggrieved that in 2015 the Registration Officer, at the time an officer of the Cabinet Office appointed by the Chief Secretary to undertake the duties of Registration Officer under the Registration of Electors Act 2006 ("the Act"), unlawfully removed in such capacity, the names of some 100 or so persons from the Electoral Register for the polling district of Peet.

It is common knowledge that the Registration Officer removed also the names of hundreds of other persons from polling districts around the Island amounting to almost a fifth of the names on the register.

Following requests sent out by the Registration Officer, in 2014, under the provisions of section 5 of the Act, for information from registered electors for the purpose of updating the register, the names of registered electors who had not responded to such requests were removed by the Registration Officer from the Register of Electors for the polling district of Peel ("the Register') in 2015.

Your Petitioners aver that such removal was unlawful because section 5 of the Act doesn't give the Registration Officer the power to remove the names of persons from the Register.

Your Petitioners are aggrieved in particular, but not exclusively, that the names of two Members of the Commissioners at the time were removed from the Register which led to conflicting legal advice as to whether they could continue to hold office as Commissioners.

Your Petitioners aver also that all persons whose names were removed from the Register unlawfully were disenfranchised by having their names removed from the Register.

After pressure by the Commissioners, Mr Paul Morris a local Advocate was eventually appointed to undertake an investigation into this matter but his hands were tied behind his back because his terms of reference precluded from examining questions of law and the circumstances surrounding the removal of the names, even though such questions were fundamental to the issues which he was investigating. A copy of Mr Morris's Report is attached as Appendix 1. A copy of a letter from the Chief Minister dated the 11th April 2019 is attached as Appendix 2. A copy of a reply to that letter from Mr Alan Jones, Chairman of Peel Town Commissioners, dated the 13th May 20129 is attached as Appendix 3.

Regardless of Mr Morris's findings it is clear and unambiguous that section 5 of the Act does not give any powers to the Registration Officer to remove names from the register. It gives

83 [Signed by Alan Jones, Ian Davison, Christine Moughtin, David Lace, Eddie Convery, Hazel Hannan, Ben Heath]

[Signed by Alan Jones, Ian Davison, Christine Moughtin, David Lace, Eddie Convery, Hazel Hannan, Ben Heath]

84 CONFIDENTIAL

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL INVESTIGATION

INTO A COMPLAINT

DATED 25 SEPTEMBER 2018

MADE BY

PEEL TOWN COMMISSIONERS

AGAINST

THE CHIEF SECRETARY

REPORT

P D Morris

External Investigating Officer

liPage

85 CONTENTS

Pages Introduction 4 Terms of Reference 4 Analysis of Terms of Reference and letter of 25 September 2018 4 to 5 Summary of the Investigation 5 Chronological background 5 to 16 Report in respect of the Complaint 16 to 17 Conclusion/Findings 17 to 18

2IPage

86 APPENDICES

Divider I Letter of Appointment, Terms of Reference and Letter of Complaint Divider 2 Documentation provided by Peel Town Commissioners Divider 3 Response of Chief Secretary, together with documentation in support Divider 4 Legislation and PSC Complaints Procedure Divider 5 Documentation provided by interviewees Divider 6 PDM correspondence fife including manuscript interview notes

31Page

87 Introduction

1. My letter of appointment dated 8 November 2018 (Divider 1, page 1) records my appointment by Jon Callister, Secretary of the Public Services Commission, as an independent person to conduct the investigation into a complaint made by Peel Town Commissioners (the Commissioners) against Will Greenhow, the Chief Secretary (the Chief Secretary). The complaint is set out in a letter dated 25 September 2018 from the Commissioners to the Chief Minister (Divider 1, pages 4 and 5).

2. I accepted the appointment on 9 November 2018. This Report and all of the information and documents supplied to me and /or gathered during the course of this investigation is to be kept confidential and is to be delivered to the appointing officer at the conclusion of my investigation.

Terms of Reference

3. The Terms of Reference accompanying my letter of appointment (Divider 1, page 2) outline a complaint against the Chief Secretary as contained in the letter of 25 September 2018, that he has "failed to answer the question raised in earlier correspondence: 'What lawful authority and legal process was followed in removing the names from the Register of Elections in 2015?'".

4. I understand that a copy of my Terms of Reference were provided to the Commissioners and to the Chief Secretary. I further understand that the Commissioners contend that the terms should be extended and that they have written to the Chief Minister in this respect. By letter dated 25 February 2019 from Mr Callister to the Deputy Chairman of the Commissioners, Mr Callister advised that he had determined that the Terms of Reference would not be broadened. Consequently I have proceeded on the basis set out in the existing Terms. The Chief Secretary has not taken issue with the Terms of Reference so far as I am aware.

5. The Terms of Reference instruct that my investigation is to be conducted under the Public Services Commission Complaints Procedure (Divider 4). The Investigation is to focus on the specific allegations contained in the Commissioners' letter of 25 September 2018 with no exceptions.

Analysis of the Terms of Reference and the Commissioners' letter dated 25 September 2018

6. The Commissioners' letter of 25 September 2018 (signed by the Chairman Christine Moughtin and by the Deputy Chairman Alan Jones) refers to the Chief Secretary's letter to the Commissioners dated 28 August 2018 (Divider 3, Tab 30) which, the Commissioners comment, was in response to a "complaint" made to the Chief Minister and a request that "the matter" be properly investigated. The Commissioners continue that they are "perturbed" that although "we wrote to you" it was the Chief Secretary who has responded. Their concern is because "it was the Chief Secretary who originally stated that Attorney General's advice was followed by his officers to avoid explaining the legal authority which his

4 ?Page

88 officers had used'. It is pertinent to add that the earlier letter to the Chief Minister that the Commissioners seem to be referring to is their letter of 10 August 2028 (Divider 3, page 29). It seems, therefore, that, in accordance with my Terms of Reference, my investigation is into the complaint that "even in this latest missive" (i.e. the Chief Secretary's letter of 28 August 2018) the "basic question" of "What Lawful Authority and legal process was followed in removing the names from the Register of Elections in 2015?" remains unanswered. Thus am taking it that this independent investigation is not to answer that question but to investigate the complaint that the Chief Secretary has failed to do so in, in particular, his letter of 28 August 2018. If I understand their position correctly, it is this distinction which raises the concern of the Commissioners in respect of the Terms of Reference,

Summary of the Investigation

7. I have conducted interviews with the Commissioners represented by the Deputy Chairman Mr Jones and by their Clerk Mr ❑erek Sewell. Mr Sewell subsequently provided me with copies of his file of correspondence which i have carefully considered (Divider 2). 1 have also interviewed the Chief Secretary and he provided me with a file containing copies of relevant correspondence from the files of the Cabinet Office (Divider 3). At the request of the Chief Secretary i also had meetings with IIM= and of the Attorney General's Chambers. I should record that I was informed that the Chief Secretary had specifically waived any legal privilege for this purpose arid I am most grateful for that. The Chief Secretary also asked that I interview in the Cabinet Office, in the Cabinet Office and but at the relevant time, 11111111111111111111111111 Ail of these interviews have taken place. I am most grateful for the helpful and frank assistance i was given. Manuscript notes of the interviews can be found at (Divider 6). in this instance I considered that it was unnecessary to convert these notes into formal statements because the documentary record gives a clear picture of the background circumstances. Where appropriate, however, i have referred to comments made by the interviewees which are relevant.

Chronological background

S. Although, as I have endeavoured to summarise above, the present investigation is quite narrowly defined, it would be unrealistic to ignore the history of events, leading to the Commissioners' letter to the Chief Ministe► of 10 August 2018 and the Chief Secretary's response to it of 29 August 2018.

9. On 24 December 2014 at 11:05am the Communication's Executive of the Corporate Communications Service of the Cabinet Office sent to all local authorities an email attaching a news release issued by the Cabinet Office in respect of the forthcoming annual canvass which is the annual update of the voters' register.

10. The email {Divider 2, Tab Annual Canvass Media 2015-2019) states that householders will soon be receiving registration forms for them to confirm details of eligible voters living at

5IPage

89 their premises. A highlighted paragraph states that to ensure the accuracy of the electoral register, names will be removed from the voters list "next year" if forms are not completed and returned by 18 March 2015. The email continues that the registration forms will arrive at every household early in the New Year in envelopes "prominently over printed" to highlight the importance of the enclosed documents. A spokesperson for the Crown & Elections Unit of the Cabinet Office is quoted as explaining that voting in elections is the fundamental democratic right of every eligible Island resident but that the right can only be exercised if a name is on the register of electors. The press release continues that in the past it had been the practice to leave names on the list if there was no response but that over time this had made the register increasingly unreliable and inaccurate. The press release also says that action is now being taken to clean up the register so the onus is more than ever on the householder to ensure that voter details are confirmed. The email also pointed out that residents cannot vote in House of Keys or local authority elections unless they are on the register. Being unregistered could also affect a person's credit history and excludes them from jury service.

11. It appears that the registration forms were then issued and that steps were subsequently taken to remove the names of persons from the voters list who had not returned the forms by 18 March 2015. Unfortunately, two of the persons who failed to return the forms were sitting members of the Commissioners. Section 6 of the Local Elections Act 1986 reads as follows:

"Qualifications and disqualifications

6 Qual&aim's for election and holding office as member of local authority

A person shall, unless disqualified by virtue of this Act or any other enactment, be qualified to be elected and to be a member of a local authority for any district if his name is entered on the register of electors for that or any other district and on the day of the election he has attached the age of18."

It would seem that this situation was not confined to Peel. According to Mr Sewell, some of the local authorities who found themselves in the situation where sitting members may no longer be qualified to be a member of the board felt constrained to take their own legal advice. In some cases, it would seem that the advice was that a member whose name was not entered on the register of elector had to stand down. In the case of Peel where two members out of eight were potentially disqualified and where the quorum for meetings was five, the decision was made that the two members would remain on the board, take part in debates but not vote on the outcome.

12. It would seem that the situation was complicated further when, by email of 23 July 2015, the Department of Infrastructure (Dot) as the Department providing central support and guidance to local authorities and having responsibility for the administration of the Local Elections Act 1986, issued a statement to all local authorities on the subject of whether or not members of a local authority have to be on the electoral register in order to remain

Wage

90 eligible to hold office. The statement says that, following consultation with the Attorney General's Chambers, it was the Dot's view that "the relevant section of the legislation (i.e. section 6) is capable of more than one interpretation. It continues that whilst it is a matter for individual local authorities to determine, the Dol believed that there is no clear and unambiguous requirement to remove members who are not on the electoral register. Local authorities were urged to take a "pragmatic and practical" approach to the interpretation of the relevant legislation. This was followed by a letter to all local authorities from the Chief Executive of Dol, Mr Black, on 5 August 2015 to provide further clarification.

13. Mr Black says that it remains the Dol view that section 6 is capable of interpretation in more than one way, either that a member must always be on the register for the duration of their membership or that as long as a member was on the register on the day of their election, subsequent removal from the register did not mean automatic disqualification. Mr Black's letter continues by suggesting what steps might be taken in cases where a member is not on the electoral register.

14. At a meeting of the Commissioners held on 4 August 2015, Mr Sewell was instructed to write to the Cabinet Office to express the Commissioners' dissatisfaction about the situation. The letter which is dated 11 August 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 1) refers to "a change of policy" to cease the long standing custom and practice to retain voters on the register beyond 1 April 2015. Mr Sewell complains that the effect of section 6 is that members not on the register were unable "to take part in local authority decisions". Mr Sewell says that this was foreseeable and should have been identified by the Cabinet Office and the Dol. He refers to the change of policy being likely to result in legislative changes (to the 1986 Act) and that, therefore, consultation should have taken place and an impact assessment should have been undertaken. Mr Sewell also complains about the communication of this major policy change at 11:05am on Christmas Eve 2014. He refers to the news release as Ineffective and misleading" as it received very little media coverage. The same was true of a reminder issued in February 2015. Mr Sewell says that the process has been poorly administered and should be subject to a formal investigation to ascertain if the procedure complied with best practice and whether local authority politicians have been treated openly and fairly. In addition, the Commissioners complain that a substantial number of voters have been disenfranchised and call for the "reinstatement" of the two members of the Commissioners onto the register.

15. Mrs Fletcher as Registration Officer replied on 21 August 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 3). She begins by emphasising the importance of the accuracy of the register. She then refers to the legal requirement, set out in section 5(3) of the Register of Electors Act 2006 (erroneously referred to in the letter as 1986), to provide Information to the Registration Officer:

"5 Provision of assistance to registration officer [1984/3/4(1) and (2) and 3(6) and (711

(1) The registrar of each registration district appointed for the purpose of registering births and deaths pursuant to the Chill Registration Act 1984 shall

7/Page

91 supply to the registration officer on the prescribed dates in each year lists of all the persons of full age whose deaths have been registered in the registration district since the previous list was supplied.

(2) Every local authority shall assist the registration officer in the preparation of the register of electors for any polling district which falls wholly or portly within the district of the authority.

(3) The registration officer may require any householder or person owning or occupying any premises, or the agent of any such person, to give information requiredfor the purpose of the registration officer's functions under this Act.

(4) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (3), or gives false information in pursuance of such a requirement, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000."

Mrs Fletcher says that this legal requirement is met in two ways, firstly by the Registration Officer sending out the registration form and, secondly, by seeking compliance by the completion of the form. She refers to the requirement being highlighted by the statement on the form that "failure to return the form will result in the removal of those entries from the electoral register". In addition, the envelope is prominently marked that action is required. Consultation was not applicable in this instance because there had been no policy change and there is a legal requirement to return the form. Mrs Fletcher says that the consequences of not returning the form was disseminated as widely as possible before, during and after the canvass period including to local authorities and members. As to the members of the Commissioners whose names were removed from the register owing to non-return of the registration forms, they cannot be reinstated to the register other than by returning completed registration forms in advance of the next revision. Mrs Fletcher points out that compliance with the requirements of the 1986 Act is a matter for the local authorities and the members themselves. She says that she understands that some local authorities ensure conformity by regular checks. She also says that the Council of Ministers has determined that there is to be a "root and branch" review of election legislation after the 2016 election for the House of Keys to cover all elements of the election process from registration to declaration.

16. On behalf of the Commissioners, Mr Sewell replied to Mrs Fletcher's letter on 28 August 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 5) saying that she had not addressed the issues raised by the Commissioners in their letter of 11 August 2015. He highlights five areas:

(1) The cessation of the custom and practice of retaining voters on the register. Mr Sewell enquires about the statutory requirement to reregister annually to remain on the register and the change introduced in 2015. He says the Commissioners are unaware of any new primary or secondary legislation dealing with this requirement. The wording of the 2006 Act to which Mrs Fletcher referred is "very open ended"

!Wage

92 and would require a formal political decision to change such a long standing practice.

(2) He refers to the 2006 Act and in particular to section 3 (Entitlement to registration) which does not have a requirement for annual registration to remain on the list and to section 6 {Revision of registers) which similarly has no such requirement.

(3) He also takes issue on the matter of consultation relying on the Council of Ministers Code of Practice and suggests that the Cabinet Office has failed to follow criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

(4) As to the guidance from Dol in respect of the 1986 Act, Mr Sewell complains that the Department will not release the legal advice received from the Attorney General's Chambers and states that individual local authorities should seek their own advice.

(5) Mr Sewell says that the Commissioners believe that the change in the custom and practice by the Cabinet Office has resulted in an incomplete register of electors. This has a detrimental impact ❑n democracy and it has disenfranchised a substantial number of potential voters. The Commissioners ask again for a formal investigation and the "reregistration" of their two commissioners under section 11 of the 2006 Act.

17. Mrs Fletcher endeavoured to respond to these five issues in her response (undated but received by the Commissioners on 3 September 2015 — Divider 3, Tab 6).

(1) She accepts that there is no legal requirement to re-register annually to remain on the register. She says that it has long been the practice to conduct an annual canvass of electors. The legal obligation to co-operate with the Registration Officer comes from section 5(3) of the 2006 Act. Changes in the population which were not adequately captured by the annual canvass process meant growing inaccuracies in the Register which was being compounded year on year. There is a potential threat from thousands of poll cards being send to addresses where the householder is no longer resident.

(2) The 2006 Act and the Regulations made under it require to be updated. Work is about to commence.

(3) Mrs Fletcher mentions again the consultation undertaken in relation to the change in practice and reminds Mr Sewell of the responsibilities of a Commissioner's Clerk to bring matters to the attention of members and to ensure that their members were on the register before the deadline of 18 March 2015.

(4) Mrs Fletcher had no comment to made about the Dol guidance.

9I Page

93 (5) As to the registration of electors, Mrs Fletcher comments that the number of non- returned forms after the annual canvass is evidence that the list was neither accurate nor complete. There have been few calls suggesting arbitrary disenfranchisement. The majority of people have accepted personal responsibility for not returning their forms and have remedied this in time for inclusion on the register published on 1 July 2015. It is not possible to re-instate the two Peel members who omitted to return their forms in time for inclusion on either the 1 April or 1 July revisions but if their forms are completed and returned by 17 September 2015, they will appear on the register, effective from 1 October 2015. She says that the remaining six Commissioners did return their forms and are on the register.

18. The Commissioners considered Mrs Fletcher's response at a meeting on 8 September 2015 and resolved to continue with a formal complaint to ensure the issue was investigated to prevent similar problems in the future. Mr Sewell's letter of 17 September 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 7) outlines the complaint:

(1) In the absence of a specific statutory power to require persons to re-register annually, the Cabinet office are, for the first time, using Section 5(3) of the 2006 Act "to force" all persons to re-register or they will be removed from the register.

(2) The Commissioners believe that section 5(3) of the 2006 Act does not give the Cabinet office the legal authority to demand re-registration or permit the removal of a person from the register should they fail to respond. The specific power to permit the registration officer to revise the register is contained in section 11 of the 2006 Act, specifically section 11(2):

"(2) Where it appears to the registration officer that it is necessary to make any alteration to a register of electors (other than an alteration under subsection (1)) in order to ensure that no person — (a) shall be incorrectly registered; or (b) shall be registered when not entitled; the registration officer shall, in accordance with regulations, give to the person affected notice in writing of the proposed alteration, stating that that person may, within such period as is prescribed, in writing require the registration officer to refer the matter for a hearing.

(3) If no requirement is made pursuant to o notice under subsection (2), the registration officer may make the necessary alteration to the register of electors, but otherwise the registration officer shall refer the matter for a hearing under Schedule 1, and shall give notice in writing to the person affected of the time and place at which the matter will be heard by the High Bailiff "

10 1Page

94 The Commissioners believed that the relevant statutory procedures have not been followed to remove persons from the register. Instead formal notices should have been issued t❑ those persons under section 11(2) rather than requiring information under section 5(3).

(3) The Commissioners did not accept that any consultation had taken place. The email of 24 December 2014 was a news release and was sent to local authorities for information purposes. Following existing best practice procedures should have resulted in the identification of the impact of this change would cause under the 1985 Act.

(4) Mrs Fletcher's position on the ❑ol was noted.

(5) As to the reinstatement of the two Commissioners, procedural requirements under section 11(2) of the 2006 Act would have protected electors from removal from the register, including through a hearing under section 11(3).

19_ Mrs Fletcher replied on 5 October 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 9) stating that the Commissioners' formal complaint has been passed to the Chief Secretary for determination. She adds that all Commissioners are now on the electoral roll as the remaining two were registered with effect from 1 October 2015.

20. The Chief Secretary wrote to the Commissioners t❑ advise on the outcome of his investigation into their complaint on 19 November 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 11). Dealing with the specific issues raised by the Commissioners, the Chief Secretary sought to emphasise that the main objective of the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) is the accuracy of the register. It is through the annual canvass and the information provided in returned forms which enables the ERO to establish the entitlement of those to be registered. For a number of years electors who did not return forms remained on the register. This has led to the register becoming increasingly Inaccurate. It is a legal requirement to return the form.

21. The Chief Secretary was satisfied that the form used for the annual canvass in January 2015 clearly emphasised the requirement for the form to be returned in order to establish entitlement to remain on the register. He was therefore also satisfied with the ERO's decision to remove people from the register who did not return the form. I note that the Chief Secretary did not specifically comment on the Commissioners' assertion that the power to d❑ this was not given under section 5(3) of the 2006 Act. He concludes, however, that it is his view that the removal of electors for who there is no evidence of entitlement to be registered is in accordance with the ERO's responsibility to maintain the electoral register.

22. As to the impact ❑n section 6 of the 1986 Act, the Chief Secretary says that as the legal advice shared with all local authorities by the Dol on 23 July 2015 emphasised that there was no legal requirement to remove unregistered members, he is content that there was no purpose in drawing the issue to the attention of the Commissioners as removal was not an

11 Jeage

95 inevitable consequence of not being registered. The fact that differing interpretations by local authorities resulted in a variety of outcomes was a matter for individual local authorities based on independent advice. The Chief Secretary considered that to be outside the scope of his investigation.

23. As to the issue of consultation on the impact on section 6 of the 1986 Act, the Chief Secretary said that he was not persuaded that the actions of the ERO could be categorised as either consultation on primary legislation or major policy decisions. He says rather they are of an operational nature for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the register. The Chief Secretary was satisfied that significant efforts were made to publicise the consequences of the failure to return forms through the repeated use of all available media channels. In addition, focal authority clerks were informed of the requirements on 24 December 2014. Although this was close to the holiday period, the annual canvass began on 1 January 2015 and the deadline for the return of forms was 18 March 2015. Given that many people did so, he was satisfied that there was sufficient time for everyone to comply.

24. Revisions to the register are effective quarterly from 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October in each year. For that reason, it was not possible to add or delete entries in respect of Commissioners who failed to return their form. The Chief Secretary says that provision to give formal notice to a person to be removed from the register under section 11 of the 2006 Act is difficult to adhere to in practice. If people are no longer resident at an address, there is no way of contacting them.

25. Mr Sewell was instructed by the Commissioners to reply on 11 December 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 12). He asks "which legislative powers in the Act provides the ERO with the authority to remove persons from the electoral roll when canvassing for information?" The Commissioners also ask why the power under section 5(4) of the 2006 Act is not being used to prosecute in the event of a failure to provide information to the ERO and also where in the 2006 Act is the requirement for annual re-registration? Further, they ask why the "simple procedure" under section 11 was not used in 2015 prior to removing a person from the register? His letter concludes by saying that the Commissioners believe that the Chief Secretary's investigation has inadequately dealt with a number of issues.

26. The Chief Secretary's replied on 15 January 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 14). He mentions the impact of the shortcomings in the legislation which were compounded by the different approaches taken by local authorities in respect of the need or otherwise to remove from office members who did not return the forms as requested by the ERO. The Chief Secretary also referred to a variance in the degree to which clerks of local authorities fulfilled their "legal responsibility" to supply elected members with a copy of the electoral register, as sent to the clerks quarterly by the ERO, thus ensuring that elected members know whether or not they are registered. He emphasises that the priority is to modernise rather than revisit outdated provisions. He also says "That being said, whilst some of these provisions have been found wanting, the 2015 canvass was undertaken on the basis of legal advice throughout and on the principal of improving the accuracy of the Electoral Register".

12 IPage

96 27. The Commissioners' response of 22 January 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 15) expresses disappointment at the lack of factual responses to the five specific questions in their letter of 11 December 2015 and seek such responses in time for their next meeting on 2 February 2016.

28. The Chief Secretary responded on 30 March 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 18) saying that he did not feel that further detailed and protracted dialogue on those questions, on a point by paint basis, about the interpretation of the legislation would be helpful. He assures the Commissioners that the conduct ❑f the annual canvass has been consistently carried out in accordance "with the guidance of legal advice received".

29. The Commissioners then wrote to Chief Minister Bell on 19 April 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 19), providing a copy of their letter of 11 December 2015 setting out their five specific questions to which, the Commissioners say, the Chief Secretary has declined to respond. They say that the Chief Secretary's investigation was inadequate.

30. The Chief Minister responded on 7 June 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 20). He says that he is aware that the ERO and the Chief Secretary have previously supplied detailed responses to the Commissioners' various letters and that he is unable to add anything to those responses save that the shortcomings in the legislation were recognised some time ago and the Council of Ministers had already agreed that an independent root and branch review of all electoral legislation should be undertaken following the elections in 2016. He also reiterated that all actions taken were the subject of legal advice from the Attorney General's Chambers,

31. Mr Sewell's reply on behalf of the Commissioners dated 24 June 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 21) expresses disappointment at the failure to answer a legitimate enquiry. It continues that the Commissioners have their own legal advice to the effect that "Government failed to follow the current legislation in removing names from the register" and that Government should have followed the current legislation or should have introduced new legislation which would have been offered for consultation and scrutiny. The Commissioners ask that the Attorney General's advice be shared.

32. Kirsty Hemsley, Senior External Relations Officer, replied on behalf of the Chief Minister on 11 July 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 22). She enclosed a copy of an answer given by the Acting Attorney General in respect of electoral registration and removals in Tynwald on 21 June 2016

33 Mr Sewell replied to the Chief Minister on behalf of the Commissioners on 2 August 2015 (Divider 3, Tab 23) pointing nut that the Attorney General's response in Tynwald made no reference to Section 5(3) of the 2006 Act which the ERO had referred t❑ in her letter of 21 August 2015 which the Commissioners had consistently stated does net contain the legal authority t❑ remove persons from the register. He continues that the Commissioners d❑ not believe that the documents sent out in the "annual update" of vatesin January 2015 was a formal notice under Section 11(2) of the 2006 Art. The letter concludes with a request for formal Tynwald scrutiny and review.

13 (Rage

97 34. Mrs Hensley replied on behalf of the Chief Minister on 22 and 23 August 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 24). Her letter emphasises that the actions taken in regard to the Electoral Register were in accordance with advice received from the Attorney General's Chambers and that these matters were set out in Tynwald. Mrs frlemsley also told me that local authorities have statutory obligations under section 8(4) ❑f the 2005 Act to notify the ERO of errors and omissions in the register. She told me that the files do not indicate any correspondence from the Commissioners regarding any such errors or omissions.

35 The Commissioners then wrote to the new Chief Minister, Mr Quayle, on 9 November 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 25). They point out the "discrepancies" between the ERO's letter of 21 August 2015 and the Acting Attorney General's response in Tynwald an 21 June 2016. The Commissioners say that the Acting Attorney General's statement "endorsed" the Commissioners' assertion that the ERO's use of Section 5(3) of the 2006 Act to remove electors from the register was inappropriate and that section 11 should have been used. They ask for a Select Committee to be established to scrutinise the annual canvass that took place prior to April 2015 resulting in a large number of electors being removed from the register and in the removal or suspension from office of elected local authority members.

36. Mrs Hemsley replied on behalf of the Chief Minister on 2 December 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 26) saying that there was little that could be added to previous correspondence and noting the Commissioners' interpretation of what they considered to be discrepancies between the Acting Attorney General's answer in Tynwald and the ERO's letter of 21 August 2015. She reiterates that the ERO had always followed the advice of the Attorney General's Chambers and that a root and branch review of the electoral legislation had begun.

37. The Commissioners wrote to the Chief Minister again on 16 November 2016 (Divider 3, Tab 28), a letter that was not received until 20 January 2017. The letter expressed the Commissioners' "frustration" that the Cabinet Office's reply "deliberately" failed to address "a specific and evidenced discrepancy' in the information provided to the Commissioners. They refer to the ERO's reliance on the advice of the Attorney General's Chambers predating 31 March 2015 which endorsed the use of section 5(3) of the 2006 Act to remove electors from the register from 1 April 2015. The Commissioners make a Freedom of Information (Fol) application to release this advice to the Commissioners.

38. The Private Secretary to the Chief Minister replied on 23 January 2017 (Divider 3, Tab 27) by providing the form for an application under the Freedom of Information Act 2015 and a link for an online request.

39. The correspondence in relation t❑ the Fol request (Divider 2, Tab Complaint Chief Minister and FOI) is lengthy and is contained in the file I received from the Commissioners. The situation is helpfully summarised in Mr Sewell's letter to the Chief Minister dated 20 August 2018 (Divider, Tab 29). He refers to the Information Commissioners' Appeal Decision of 22 December 2017 which states that "The public authority (Cabinet Office) does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to d❑ so, find the information the applicant has

14 ledge

98 requested". The information which had been requested was the legal advice provided to the ERO or the Cabinet Office prior to 1 April 2015 in relation to section 5(3) of the 2006 Act. The Information Commissioner also said: "whilst a lack of information in any form recording such advice may seem unusual, particularly given the public authority's reliance on such information in several communications to the review applicant, there is nothing to suggest the information does exist, The Information Commissioner can, therefore, only conclude the public authority does not hold the Information sought and a practical refusal reason therefore applies".

40. The letter continues that, following the Attorney General's Chambers becoming a public authority on 1 July 2017, the Commissioners made a further Fol request to Chambers on 18 April 2018. The response stated that the Attorney General's Chambers did not hold any written records of the information (the advice given to the ERO or the Cabinet Office) either.

41. Crucially, in my view, Mr Sewell's letter says that the Commissioners' conclusion is that "no formal recorded legal advice was given by the Attorney General's Chambers to the Cabinet Office on the removal of citizen's right to vote and represent their communities in Local Government prior to 1 April 2015".

42. I pause to say that, in my view, it is incorrect to say that no formal advice was given. The outcome of the Fol requests is to the effect that any advice given was not recorded in written form, not that no advice was given. in fact, during my investigation, aim of the Attorney General's Chambers candidly and helpfully confirmed to me that advice was indeed given. 11 thought that it had been recorded in written form but regrets that, after an extensive search, it could not be found provided copies of two documents, en email exchange of 26 September 2014 and a file note ❑f 11 May 2017 (see Divider 5) which appear to show that such advice was given by 1111111111 in September 2014. It seems that an officer in the Cabinet Office was asked to make "a record for the Me" of "the main issue" that had "cropped up" in a meeting with MIN on the morning of 26 September 2014 but it seems that this was not done. I cannot say for certain that this was the advice about section 5(3) of the 2006 Act but this seems a strong possibility.

43. Mr Sewell's let-ter then seems to proceed on the assumption that the outcome of the FoI requests was to confirm the Commissioners' apparent suspicion that no advice regarding the use of section 5(3) of the 2006 Act had been given. In fact, I am satisfied that it had, albeit the advice was verbal and not recorded in permanent form as it should have been. Mr Sewell's letter then proceeds to apply the Commissioners' assumption t❑ all of the historic correspondence commencing with the ERCI's letter of 21 August 2015 and commenting, for example, that this letter "evidences no formal legal advice was taken ... and the ongoing assurance by a large number of Government Officers including on behalf of the Chief Minister, was at best misleading and at worst a fabrication". The Commissioners ask for an investigation by the Council of Ministers.

44. For the record, it is my view that clear legal advice given orally is no less "formal" than advice recorded in written form. i entirely agree that it is unusual and unsatisfactory for

15 {Page

99 advice not to be confirmed in writing for many reasons, not least, so there can be no future misunderstandings, but advice does not have to be in permanent form to be "formal". I am satisfied that advice was given and the Commissioners are incorrect in their assumption that it was not. The consequence is that the conclusions that the Commissioners have arrived at in their letter of 10 August 2018 are, on the evidence I have gathered in the course of this investigation, incorrect.

45. This leads me to the Chief Secretary's letter of 28 August 2018 (Divider 3, Tab 30) which is the foundation of the Commissioners' complaint. This letter is the response to the Commissioners' letter of 10 August 2018. The Chief Secretary points out that he conducted a formal and full investigation into this matter and he issued a report on 19 November 2015. He says that the basis of the Commissioners' request for a further investigation is for sight of the legal advice given which led to the removal of electors from the register who had not returned registration forms. The Chief Secretary confirms that advice was sought from the Attorney General's Chambers and this was given orally (as confirmed by the response to the Fol request) and no written record can be found. The Information Commissioner's decision notice comments that this may seem unusual given the Cabinet Office's reliance on it, but there is nothing to suggest it exists. The Chief Secretary concedes that it is unusual for a record of the advice not to be kept but that this is not without precedent. The Commissioners comments that a removal from the register should follow a prescribed procedure with formal appeal provisions in statute are noted and are part of the root and branch review currently underway. The Chief Secretary says that the matter has been fully investigated and Fol rights have been utilised. He regrets the Commissioners' dissatisfaction but further investigation will not lead to a different conclusion and the request for an investigation by the Council of Ministers cannot be acceded to.

46. As stated above (paragraph 6) this led to the Commissioners' complaint about the Chief Secretary as contained in their letter of 25 September 2018. As also stated above (again paragraph 6) my analysis of my Terms of Reference is that it is not my task to answer the question as to the lawful authority and legal process that led to the removal of names from the electoral register in 2015, but rather to examine whether the Chief Secretary has failed to answer that question in, in particular, his letter of 28 August 2018.

Report in respect of the Complaint

47. Taking the evidence in the round and considering in particular his letter of 28 August 2018, has the Chief Secretary failed to answer the questions highlighted in the Commissioners' letter of 10 August 2018 to the Chief Minister?

48. The Chief Secretary has responded to the complaint in a letter to me dated 10 December 2018 (Divider 3). In particular, he states that legal advice was sought from HM Attorney General's Chambers regarding the removal of electors in households that failed to comply with the legal obligation under section 5(3) of the 2006 Act to provide the information requested by the ERO. Advice was communicated verbally by HM Attorney General's Chambers to the Cabinet Office and HM Attorney General's Chambers have responded to

lb (Page

100 Fol requests submitted by the Commissioners in 2018 to state that no written records are held in relation to the legal advice provided prior to 1 April 2015. This was reaffirmed in a decision notice published by the Information Commission.

49. The Chief Secretary accepts that it is unusual for a written note of the advice not to be provided and that the absence of such a note is unhelpful and below the standards expected. However, it is a fact that legal advice was provided and followed prior to names being removed from the Electoral Register in 2015. The Chief Secretary is satisfied that the ERO and the Cabinet Office have acted in accordance with the legal advice provided by HMI Attorney General's Chambers,

50. The Chief Secretary provided me with a schedule detailing each item of correspondence where the Commissioners were notified of the legislation utilised to remove the electors from the Electoral Register (Divider 3). This amounts to ten notifications in total.

51. It is clear that the Commissioners take the view that section 5{3) of the 2006 Act does not give the ERO the statutory power to remove persons from the register. Indeed, in correspondence {see paragraph 33 above) and in their meeting with me, they stated that the Commissioners have advice from their own advocates to this effect. Happily, it is not within my remit to pass an opinion on the subject other than to comment that if they are of the view, on the basis of the advice they have obtained, that the ERO or the Cabinet office or both have acted unlawfully and, if they are within time and if they have appropriate locus stundi to do so, it is presumably open t❑ the Commissioners to take action.

52. It is, however, my view that in relation to the specific question highlighted in the Commissioners' letter of complaint dated 25 September 2018, that the Chief Secretary has, both in his letter of 28 August 2018 and in prior correspondence answered the "basic question" they pose, Looking at the correspondence of the Chief Secretary and members of the Cabinet Office in the round, it is clear to me that the verbal advice received from HM Attorney Ceneral's office was to the effect that section 5(3) of the 2006 Act could be used as the basis for removing names from the electoral register during the 2015 annual canvass. Indeed, this has been confirmed to me by IMO of HM Attorney General's Chambers. That legal advice had been followed was mentioned on several occasions in the correspondence. As I have said, it is clear that the Commissioner's believe that the advice is questionable. I make no further comment about that. They have also assumed that the effect of the outcome of their Fol requests is that the legal advice does not in fact exist. I respectfully conclude that they are wrong in that assumption. I am quite satisfied that verbal advice was given. I endorse what the Chief Secretary has conceded in his letter to me that this is unusual, unhelpful and falls below an acceptable standard but it remains the case that "formal" advice was indeed given and clearly Followed.

Conclusion/Findings

17 IP ge

101 53. On the basis of the findings I have outlined above, it would be my recommendation that the complaint of the Commissioners dated 25 September 2018 is misconceived and that no further action should be taken against the Chief Secretary.

P D Morris Investigating officer 11March 2019

181Page

102 ;JD S 4 ir;5- Office of the Chief Minister Olk yn Ard-Shirveishagh

Hon Howard Quayle VIM Chief Minister DOUGLAS 11 April 2019 Isle of Man IM1 3PG Telephone: +44 (0) 1624 685706 Private and Confidential Email: chief.ministeragov.im Mr Alan Jones Deputy Chairman Peel Town Commissioners Town Hall Derby Road Peel Isle of Man IM5 1RG

Dear Mr Jones Enquiry into Chief Secretary

I refer to your letter of 12 March 2019 concerning the letter you received from the Public Services Commission (PSC) in response to your request for the terms of reference for the investigation to be amended. I note that Mr Callister, on behalf of the PSC declined that request and, accordingly, the investigation has continued on the basis of the original terms of reference.

Before I respond to the comments in your letter of 12 March 2019, I can now confirm that Mr Morris has concluded his investigation and determined that 'The complaint of the Commissioners dated 25 September 2018 is misconceived and that no further action should be taken against the Chief Secretary".

It is not normal practice to share such an investigation report with a complainant as it contains personal data relating to the subject matter of the complaint, and it is a well-established principle under data protection law that information relating to an internal investigation or disciplinary hearing will carry a strong expectation of privacy. However, the Chief Secretary has consented to the release of a redacted copy of the report and this is attached for your information. Please note that copies of the Appendices as referred to in the report are not included in the disclosure as insofar as you have not already had access to same, they contain personal information and'or are relate to the redacted material in the report.

I have provided you with the report as it provides considerable context in respect of the points you raise in your letter of 12 March 2019, and for which I now respond as follows using the numbering shown in your letter:

1. I stand by the position adopted by Mr Callister, on behalf of the PSC, in his letter dated 27 February 2019. The question of lawfulness was addressed in the Chief Secretary's letter to you dated 19 November 2015, and in subsequent correspondence which is referred to in Mr Morris' report. That it was not dealt with to your satisfaction, does not mean you have the

103 [Signed by Howard Quayle]

104 13 May 2019

Chief Minister Government Officers Bucks Road DOUGLAS

Dear Chief Minister

Thank you for your letter dated 11th April 2019.

We apologise for the delay in replying but it was necessary for us to properly consider your letter and attached report.

With regard to paragraph 2 of your letter we are sorry that Mr Callister was unable to understand the point being made. The correspondence was merely pointing out that Mr. Morris was eminently qualified to investigate the full circumstances of the removal of the names from the register.

We note that you consider that matter closed, however the report by Mr Morris does highlight our original concerns. He confirms that the advice given to the ERO by the Attorney General's Department was to follow the requirements of S5 of the Registration of Electors Act 2006. Mr Morris makes it clear that he is constrained from commenting on the advice given or the actions taken — only that he is satisfied that advice was given.

It is dear and unambiguous that section 5 does not give any powers to remove names from the register. It only gives powers to prosecute those who fail to provide or give false information.

The section that gives the power to remove names is section 11 of the Act. This requires a specific notice to be sent out. Section 11(2) states that "where it appears to the registration officer that it is necessary to make any alteration to a register of electors" subsection (b) states that "the registration office shall give the person affected notice in writing of the proposed alteration stating that the person may within such period as is prescribed in writing require the registration officer to refer the matter to a hearing." Subsection (3) gives the option for the registration officer to "refer the matter for a hearing under Schedule 1, and shall give notice in writing to the person affected of the time and place at which the matter will be heard by the High Bailiff."

No such notices were sent out. In fact the Chief Secretary has stated to us and noted by Mr Morris, "that the provision to give formal notice to a person to be removed from the register under s.11 of the 2006 Act is difficult to adhere to in practice."

105 It is quite clear from the evidence provided that the legal requirements to remove names from the register were not followed and that citizens of the Isle of Man were disenfranchised without lawful power.

The Act which may have been flawed was written with specific safeguards to protect citizens from being so disenfranchised. It is not for Civil Servants or the Government to ignore such safeguards as they are `too difficult to follow'. We would further contend that the situation was not so serious to warrant such action. The contention of Mrs. Fletcher that thousands of households are wrongly registered does not appear to be upheld by the subsequent evidence.

We would also point out that shabby and sloppy manner in which this important decision appeared to be made. Verbal legal advice was given (or at least no written record could be found by the Attorney General's department or the Cabinet Office). This denotes very sloppy and unprofessional standards in dealing with such an important matter as removing a person's right to vote. This only serves to reinforce the impression that the Government and its Civil Servants only have contempt for the rights of the citizens it purports to serve and its duty to follow their legal obligations.

The failure to allow a full investigation into this matter and restrict the enquiry by Mr Morris does give the appearance that the Government is using machinations to avoid dealing honestly with our concerns and it is clear that the Government are supporting the right of Civil Servants to ignore the law and proper process. It is not proper to excuse actions by saying that they are too difficult to follow.

We would further contend that the failure to follow the correct lawful process to remove nearly a fifth of the Electorate from the Electoral Roll is a clear breach of protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights to which the Isle of Man is legally bound to follow. It is not for the citizen to prove (at great expense) that they have bene disenfranchised it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that they have respected the rights of the citizen. To ignore a legal requirement and protection of the right to vote because `it would be too difficult' is no defence.

If you believe that by failing to properly address the issues we have raised you are protecting the `good name of the Isle of Man Government' than you have failed as not only Peel Commissioners but many other who have been following our attempts to be told the truth and have the matter properly resolved will see this as Government as yet again refusing to deal properly with the legitimate concerns of its citizens and dealing responsibly and lawfully with its failings.

Certainly we are very disappointed that your Government which promised much in the way of change when it was formed has failed to live up to the high ideals of openness and integrity it promised.

Yours sincerely

Alan Jones Chairman of Peel Town Commissioners

106 12 March 2019

Chief Minister Government Officers Bucks Road DOUGLAS

Dear Sir,

Enquiry into Chief Secretary — Letter from John Canister dated 27th February. We have received a letter from Mr Callister of the Public Services Commission which causes some concern (copy attached). I would make the following points:- 1. Peel Town Commissioners have been consistent in requesting an investigation into the circumstances under which a fifth of the electorate were removed from the Electoral Roll in 2015. It is difficult to ascertain why the scope of the investigation into the conduct of an investigating officer can deliberately seek to exclude the details of the official complaint they were appointed to impartially and thoroughly investigate. 2. Mr Callister states he is unable to allow or task Mr Morris to investigate this as a matter of deciding whether the actions of Civil Servants were lawful can only be determined by a court of law. In essence that would mean that there is no mechanism for investigating a Civil Servant who breaches the law or fails to follow lawful guidelines. I would contrast his stance with that of the Police Complaints Commissioner who regularly overseas alleged breaches of law in respect of complaints against Police Officers. We would be grateful if it could be explained how Civil Servants can apparently breach the law and face no investigation and that it is up to a complainant to fund an expensive and unclear course of civil action at great expense. I would further point out that Mr Morris is a very experienced and respected Advocate who is on the Deemsters panel. To suggest he would be unable or be incapable of investigating this allegation is unworthy of the Public Service Commission. 3. There is no complex legal issue to be investigated. It is a matter of fact. The legal steps to be taken in removing the names from the Electoral roll are clear and unambiguous. The Chief Secretary told us that the names were taken off the register under section 5 of the Registration of Electors Act. On being challenged that the actions of the Civil Servants failed to follow the requirements of that section refused to discuss that element again. The Attorney General in Tynwald stated that section 11 of the Act was followed. However it was clearly evident that the requirements of that section had not been met. This is fact not a question of lawful interpretation and does not need a court of law to decide.

107 4. We have also been informed that the actions taken were in accordance with legal advice from the Attorney General. No written record exists of such advice either in the Attorney Generals Chambers or within the Cabinet Office. The alleged legal advice has not been disclosed so no one can ascertain the viability of such advice. I would point out that the Public have a reasonable expectation for any Government to state under what lawful Authority names are removed from the electoral roll and citizens are disenfranchised. 5. Mr Callister is Junior to the Cabinet Secretary and yet is being asked to make decisions with regard to his `Manager'. There is an apparent conflict with his responsibility not only to act fairly but to be seen to act fairly. Perhaps it might be better to ask a Tynwald oversight committee to look in to this. The conduct of the Civil Servants in dealing with this matter have fallen well below the standards espoused in the Nolan Principles of Public Office especially with regard to Principle 1} Selflessness principle 2) Accountability and principle 3) Openness. 6. We are sure that as a person with the reputation of having a high moral character would not wish the reputation of the Government to be besmirched due to the machinations of Senior Civil Servants trying to cover up an action that should have been dealt with properly and in accordance of good Governance. We would urge you instruct the Public Service Commission to allow Mr Morris to investigate this matter properly.

Yours sincerely

Alan Jones Deputy Chairman

108 Mr H. Quayle MHK Chief Minister, Office of the Chief Minister, Government Officers, Tynwald Buildings Prospect Hill, Douglas

6 February 2019

Dear Chief Minister,

Re Enquiry into Chief Secretary.

We would like to thank you for arranging the appointment of an investigator to assess the Commissioners' complaint. However, after having an knitiat meeting with him it is clear that his ability to conduct a proper enquiry is hampered by the restrictions placed on him which explicitly exclude him from looking at the alleged unlawful removal of names from the electoral roll in 2015. Such limitations give the impression that the Government is continuing to try to cover and hinder any proper investigation in to our concerns. Peel Town Commissioners have resolved to seek a proper investigation in to the circumstances surrounding the removal of a fifth of the electorate from the roll in 2015.

I would point out that a recent poll and other media comments show that the public's belief in the integrity of the Isle of Man Government is being eroded and such views will not be improved by regular media attention to our complaint.

We would be grateful if you would instruct the Department responsible t❑ allow Mr Morris to conduct a unrestricted enquiry into the Commissioners' complaint so that this matter can be dealt with properly.

Yours sincerely

Alan Jones Peel Town Commissioners Deputy Chairman

109 110 [Signed by Daniel Richardson]

111 112 IN TYNWALD.

5th of JULY 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF:-

Dorothy Salmon and Philip Salmon of 54 Duke Street, Douglas, Isle of Man IMI 2AR

SHEWETH THAT:-

In March 2009 the Isle of Man Government updated the Code of Conduct for Public Servants that publication was issued out of the Office of Human Resources. This Code defines the minimum standards of conduct that members of staff are expected to observe when canying out their official duties.

It is intended to complement any codes already in place through employing authorities and any professional or ethical codes. It also gives individual employers across Government the opportunity to develop and implement more detailed, job specific codes of conduct.

Employing authorities have a duty to make public servants aware of this Code and its principles and in line with the requirements of the Isle of Man Government Principles of Corporate Governance and Code of Conduct to put in place arrangements to ensure compliance with formal codes of conduct defining standards of personal behaviour.

The Code was originally developed by the then Personnel Office in conjunction with a working group comprising representatives from across Government, with the support of the Chief Officers' Group and the then Civil Service Commission, and the endorsement of the Council of Ministers.

The Code applies to all public servants and defines the minimum standards of conduct that members of staff are expected to observe when canying out their official duties. The Code is effective from I st April 2009.

113 [Signed by Philip Salmon] [Signed by Dorothy Salmon]

114 IN TYNWALD 5th July 2019 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court The humble petition of: Petra Trudi Stetina of Heron's Rock, 41 Queen Street, Castletown Sheweth that: RF EMF exposure is already vast and has exponentially increased in the last 10 years. The ICNIRP report (1998) is outdated and flawed. There is NO evidence that the new 5G technology is safe. There should be a ban on WIFI in schools which should instead invest in hard wiring. We should act on the precautionary principle! Tynwald has a Duty of Care to the public. The civilian populace has no need for 5G, which is industry driven to host industrial revolution 4.0 (AI, robotics, driverless cars, drones). This innovation is questionable in many ways: it will increase RF EMF exposure levels yet again and have implications on health and privacy; it will enable extraction of data from us which can then be sold on for profit, be liable to hacking, creating security issues (both private and national). SwissRE the reinsurer has listed 5G mobile networks at HIGHEST RISK (>3year) in this years new SONAR report! I am concerned about the health implications this technology has on the human body and all life forms (biological effects)! I am also concerned about the effects of the RF and EMF and dirty electricity of the "smart" meters in the homes. I object to the removal of any mature trees or greenery on our island to make way for more transmitters (which will be in a much denser network and can be put up without planning up to 20 meters to our houses -see new planning order consultation for telecoms) I want to protect the unique habitats of flora and fauna of our dear island, any potential risk or threat to its thriving must be halted immediately. We do not need any more transmitting devices on this island-there are already too many. The peace and bliss of our natural countryside and our heritage has already been altered too much! Connected devices such as phones are already causing major addiction and mental health problems especially amongst the younger generations who do not even have the chance to experience natural life without "connectivity". However the so-called "connectivity" does exactly the opposite: it is a highly addictive and soul destroying substance which we are readily distributing amongst the youngest and vulnerable. I therefore also call for a ban of WIFI in our schools and invest in hard wiring.

115 [Signed by Petra Trudi Stetina]

116 [Signed by Nigel R Taylor]

[Signed by Lee-Anne E Taylor]

117 change.org

Tynwald

Greetings,

Convicted sex offenders being removed from the same school as the victim.

118 Signatures

Name Location Date

Lee-Anne Fleming Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Michelle Arthur Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Odette Smith Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

laura kermeen Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Holly Taylor Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Jennifer Oates Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Lesley Howard Jurby, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Hannah Foster Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Robyn Spencer Ramsey, UK 2019-06-26

Jude Lewin Laxey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Euan Christian Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Shelley Rawstron Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Stacey Mcmullan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

angela tucker Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Debbie Walsh Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Amy Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Charlotte Cheeseman Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Nik Quayle Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Ashley Clegg Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Isobel Hodgson Douglas, Isle of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

119 Name Location Date

Lisa McGarrigle Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Kay towey Ireland, Ireland 2019-06-26

Kirree Milne Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Beck Beetham Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Mark Hewitt Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Kevin Fleming Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26 kira izzard Port Erin, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rachael Simkiss Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Suzanne Moore Isle of man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Sasha O'Dell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Gemma Hide Isle of Man 2019-06-26 jordyn Dunning Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Deniss Sergejevs Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Karen Bouskill Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Charlotte Hughes Lancashire, England, UK 2019-06-26

Belinda Walton Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rebecca Black Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Lynn Sullivan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Michelle Williams Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

David Spencer Ramsey, UK 2019-06-26

Craig Kennish Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26 jemma crowe Douglas, UK 2019-06-26

120 Name Location Date

Rachel Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Joanne Harding wexford, Ireland 2019-06-26

Maria Karabova UK 2019-06-26 sharon corfield Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Dan Taylor Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Ann Halliday Ramsey Isle of Man, UK 2019-06-26 catherine hinks Isle of Man, UK 2019-06-26

Kealy smethurst Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Katie Thompson ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Stephanie Edmonds Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rachel Groves Isle of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Michelle Towers Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Sharon Kissack Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Ruth Newbery Reeder Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Billie Hall Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Natalie Cowley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Sarah Vincent Peel, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Georgina Kinrade Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26 lesley hall ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Cliff Duff Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Georgia Dobbie Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Lynn Watkinson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

121 Name Location Date

Anya Jennings Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Penelope clegg Andreas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Jennifer Smith Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rachael Quirk Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Samantha Mathewson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Shirley Fleming cheshire, England, UK 2019-06-26

Jenna lawley Isle of man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26 michelle taylor Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Lisa McKenna Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rachelle Jones Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Jade ADamson ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Rachel Carine Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26 mary lawrence Braco, Scotland, UK 2019-06-26

Jes Greenbank Doncaster, UK 2019-06-26

Stephanie Blevins Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Nigel Taylor Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Louise Richardson Peel, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Kirsty Tiernan Northampton, England, UK 2019-06-26

Tia Watts Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

TA Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Adam Roberts Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Emily McGilvray Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

122 Name Location Date

Anna Froehlich Staines, England, UK 2019-06-26

Abi Bray Onchan, Isle of Man 2019-06-26

Zoe Popelier Claremont, Australia 2019-06-27

Beverley Keys Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Christine Taylor Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Karen Faragher Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Amanda Eaton Failsworth, England, UK 2019-06-27 heywilio Jefferson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Nikki Kewley Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Grace Sullivan Newmarket, UK 2019-06-27

Leanna watson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Mary Tobin Donegal, Ireland 2019-06-27

Libbi Mark Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 morgan taylor Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Amber Walsh Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 cheryl roselle Manchester, England, UK 2019-06-27 abigail stoutt Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Myfanwy Creer Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Christine Urquhart Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Jessica Stoutt Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Julie Stoutt Peel, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Gary Twist Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

123 Name Location Date

Tracey Lee Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 chris quayle Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Nicola Westhead Douglas, UK 2019-06-27

Elaine Burgess Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Carol Dunford Isle of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Amy O'Sullivan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 lynne straker Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 jay hogg Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Adam Wood Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Edel Noone Buncrana, Ireland 2019-06-27

Micheal Kennedy Pinner, UK 2019-06-27

Amy Bell Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Shelley Curphey Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Elen J Grant Donegal, Ireland 2019-06-27

Della O'Donnell Bolton, UK 2019-06-27

Sophie Corlett Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Ashleigh Gillespie Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 2019-06-27

Megan Turner Douglas, Ireland 2019-06-27

Jody Birtles Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Megan Walkom Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Gemma Mcilmail Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 2019-06-27

Emma Rymill Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

124 Name Location Date

Alex NoThanks Laxey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Sam Baxter Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Courtney Findlay Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Brenda Collister Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Liam Gregson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

James Whitelegg Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Carol Christian Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 lisha brown Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Mary-Jayne Heavey Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Wendy Bell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 keirra golby Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Sarah-Jane Bell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Latisha Thomas Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Aimee Campbell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Jacqueline Keany Ireland 2019-06-27

Daniel Done Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Aisha Jepson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Victoria Maroney Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Katy Rothwell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Shaun Everest Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Pete Freeland Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 fames mclear Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

125 Name Location Date

Mairead Brew Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 chris fayle leeds, England, UK 2019-06-27

Kirsten Vickery Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Kirstie Rowson Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Daniel McCormick Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Stephanie Rose Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Daniel Beresford Manchester, UK 2019-06-27

Stephanie Kissack Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Leanne White Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Emily France Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 sinead curphey Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Kevin Glynn Isle of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Carole Gray Onchan, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Jenna Skillan UK 2019-06-27

Tamasin Wedgwood Douglas, UK 2019-06-27

Janet West Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Laura Jackson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Natasha Richards Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Lewis Hutchinson Onchan, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Dixie Yardley - Scott Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Grace Brown Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Kara Varetto Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

126 Name Location Date

Pamela Fargher Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 elizabeth coe Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Michael Duncalf Onchan, UK 2019-06-27 misha thomas Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Tara Brown Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Gerard Thomas Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Josie Quirk Isle of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Lily A Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 sophii king Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Beth Barrett Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Debbie Boyle Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Shannon Eccles Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Connor Prince Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

H J Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Kathleen Farmer Jurby, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Abi sayle Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Francesca Scarffe Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 lisa mcmullin Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 emma quirk Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Jayne Smith Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Judith Hooley Mountain View, US 2019-06-27 kerry Martin ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

127 Name Location Date

Eddie Caley Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Sarah Stoutt Peel, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

VIVIEN DAWSON PORT ERIN, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Leah Quayle Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Alice Bexon-Ingham Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Laura Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Clare Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Ania Kenny Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Norma-Gene Kewley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Val Holmes Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Sally Huxham Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Maia Johnstone Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Neil Booth Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Thomas Whitelegg Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Katy Murphy Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Rachelle Doherty Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Adam Gomersall Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Connor Gregory Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 megan millichap Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Katie Kissack Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Hannah Dawson London, UK 2019-06-27

Aimee Mallorca Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

128 Name Location Date

Kerry Crowe Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Ray Taylor Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 emma kneale Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Megan Fielden Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Ryan Quigley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 paula me cann co donegal, Ireland 2019-06-27 tegan perry Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Peter Boussougou Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-27 natasha van buul Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Stephen Headin Belfast, UK 2019-06-27

Ruth O'Sullivan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-27

Leila Dobbie Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Caitlin McConnell Vera Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Lorna Fairclough Isle of Man, UK 2019-06-28

Dennis Quine Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Louise Drinkwater Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Jennifer Hi!ditch Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 2019-06-28

Graham Browm Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Danielle Wilton Belfast, UK 2019-06-28

Amber Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Ben Ray Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Stephanie Mckittrick London, UK 2019-06-28

129 Name Location Date

Cowan Thompson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Shane Hughes Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Mathew Kneale Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Cal Clarke Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Teena Toner Wisbech, England, UK 2019-06-28

Megan Whyte Coventry, UK 2019-06-28 beverley Mitchell ramsey, UK 2019-06-28 tony robinson lincoln, England, UK 2019-06-28

Malcolm Dillnutt Macclesfield, England, UK 2019-06-28

Ann Westwood Exmouth, England, UK 2019-06-28

David Hodges Torquay, England, UK 2019-06-28

Bill Snelling Laxey, Isle of Man 2019-06-28 christopher seymour colchester, England, UK 2019-06-28 daryl Lawrence auckland, New Zealand 2019-06-28

Bradley Dillon Hebburn, England, UK 2019-06-28

Bailey Mallon-Ward Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Fiona Eyre XGHAJRA, Malta 2019-06-28 emma kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Julie Smith Isle of Wight, UK 2019-06-28

Graham charlton Pontypool, UK 2019-06-28

Daniel Georgiev Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-28 tessa taylor Marsaskala, Malta, Malta 2019-06-28

130 Name Location Date

Jacqueline Rochford Wexford, Ireland 2019-06-28

Karmin Watson Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Ethan Audsley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Therese Daunt-Smyth Wexford, Ireland 2019-06-28

Donna Fielding Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Jodiesapphire Smith Markfield, England, UK 2019-06-28 emily kennaugh Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Helen Chase Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Oily Cox Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Katie Louise Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-28

Megan Baliington Ramsey IOM, UK 2019-06-28

Aimee clague eureop, Isle of Man 2019-06-28 pamela Mc laughlin Donegal, Ireland 2019-06-28

Carole Collins Ramsey, UK 2019-06-28

Ian Farmer Weymouth, England, UK 2019-06-29 suzy bailey isle of man, UK 2019-06-29

TRISH ADAMSON Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Alan George Dillnutt Preston, UK 2019-06-29

Ryan Surridge Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29 irene brew ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Laura Gillett Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Michelle Taylor Ramsey, UK 2019-06-29

131 Name Location Date

Sue Scott Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Beatrice Garbett Mosta, Malta 2019-06-29

Luke Brackenridge Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Jazmine Hay Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

E Williamson Douglas„ Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Amanda Hudgeon Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Maureen Hamilton Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Elaine Cannan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Claire Malcolm Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-29

Clive Medley Eastbourne, England, UK 2019-06-29 robert lunt Downs Barn, UK 2019-06-30

Terry Tattersall Whitley Bay, England, UK 2019-06-30

Richard Pa ker Bristol, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Andy Traviss Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Krzysiek ANDRUSZKIEWICZ Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Patricia Boyle Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Bryony Shields Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Machala Brown Rochdale, England, UK 2019-06-30

Bill Mclelland Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30 skye stockley ballure, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Wayne Quigley Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 2019-06-30

Susan Wheeler San Francisco, California, US 2019-06-30

132 Name Location Date

Chukwuka Anaziah Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Amy Hart Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Peddyr Cubberley Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Maria Ullyatt Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-06-30

Jason Davies Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jennifer Lewis Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 kayleigh edmonds Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Lauren Callow Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Nicole Shand Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Charlotte Ferran Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Leah Garrett Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Hatti Berry Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 grace bayley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Georgia Price Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Charlotte Heath Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Louisa Burton Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Isabella Grant Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Yvonne Roberts Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Lucy Johnson Liverpool, England, UK 2019-07-01

Steven Simpson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Francis Arellano Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

John O'Neill Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

133 Name Location Date lani kate pollie Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jordyn Greason Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 sylvia slevin Isle of man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Caroline Stowell Todmorden, UK 2019-07-01

Rachael Kinnin Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Nikola Brindley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jessica Quinn Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Stephanie O'Neill Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Rachael Smith Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Emma Parry Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Stephanie brown Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Shannon Smith Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Catrina callister Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 natalie casson Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 katie leech Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Sarah Wood Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Keira Corteen Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Gemma Jaggard Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Aly Allison Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Peter Walkom Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Avril Davies Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Glynis Ryan Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

134 Name Location Date

Sharon Hirs New Zealand 2019-07-01 rachel gilpin Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 heather quayle justice, UK 2019-07-01 gary meakin iom, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Dannii Turner Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Amanda Holdcroft Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Patrick Coney Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Charlotte Tucker Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Darrell Thacker Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 lamara craine Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Katie allison Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 samantha merrett Auckland, New Zealand 2019-07-01

Suzanne Gell Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Hollie Kennish Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Cindy Iveagh Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Rita Clague Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Andrew Skelly Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Gina-marie Baker Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Rebecca Collister Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Wendy Gawne Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Alice Ashworth-Hayes Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Barbara Coney Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

135 Name Location Date

Shauni Blake Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Tynisha Parsons Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Rose O'Hanlon Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Kellie Fargher Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Paul Cottier Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Laura Howard Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Barbara Hepburn jurby, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Lee Mciver Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Alexandra Robinson Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Bryan Fyfe Jurby, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Simon Marshall Bowdon, England, UK 2019-07-01 liz taylor douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 kay Kerr Ramsey, UK 2019-07-01

Maxine Harrison Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 catherine stark Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Kate Watson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

James Walker Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Mercedes kinrade Andreas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Emma Orr Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Liam Kinley Liverpool, UK 2019-07-01

Kirsten Hadwin Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 hannah cregg Ramsey, UK 2019-07-01

136 Name Location Date

Jakki Woods Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Mike Exon Isle of Man, UK 2019-07-01

Jacqueline mcmahon uk, UK 2019-07-01

Charmain Corcoran Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Sally Fisher ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Loryn Walker Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 rebecca hempsall Ballasalla, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Amy Leathers wallasey, England, UK 2019-07-01

Sandra Tait Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Sophia Murray Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Valentina Delivron Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Laura craine Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Ashleigh Gray Onchan, UK 2019-07-01 lyndsey Coney Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 paul mylchreest Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

June Thomas Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

David Jeff Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jackie Cordas Laxey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Helen Wallace Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 victoria moss Manchester, England, UK 2019-07-01

Lorna Kneale Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Roger Luckman Baldrine, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

137 Name Location Date

Liam Christian Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Tina Quayle Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jessica Tomlinson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Jacqui Kneen Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Nora Amil UK, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Rosalin peel Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01 trina mckay Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Ellen Bolton Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Ryan Holland Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Hayley Reid Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-01

Clara Brown Douglas, UK 2019-07-01

Alice Bell Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Lizzy Irwin Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Jessica Cannan Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Julie Porter Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Rhiannon Taggart-Williams New Zealand 2019-07-02

Orna Mc Keever Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

David Dutton Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Shanice Crowe Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Felicia Porter Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Sandra Tomlinson Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Lily Toland Wythenshawe, England, UK 2019-07-02

138 Name Location Date

Kyle Richards Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Charlotte Percival Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Rhona Peel Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Karen Ainley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Matthew Cain Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02 lorna newman Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Sophie Kirk Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Jenna McCrory Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Nichola Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Nigel Fairclough Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Shannon Lewis Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Christine Oates Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Jodie Callow Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Christian Howard ISLE OF MAN, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Blae Cain Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Davey Taylor Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02 richard kissack Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Drew Mcdonald Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Angela Spicer Peel, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Jamie Quinn Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-02 wendi keggin isle of man, UK 2019-07-02

Dave Sutcliffe Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

139 Name Location Date

Lucy Carter Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

G.maxine Woodward Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-02

Jayne Titley Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Anita Kanitz Stuttgart, Germany 2019-07-03

Mark Boyde Isle Of Man, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Becci Rea Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-03 stephen woodward Andreas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Rachael Irvine Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Kerry Griffiths Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Susan Knighton Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Allan Astin Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Denise Richards Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Anna Kelly Douglas, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Alana Timoney Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Heather Merry Isle of Man 2019-07-03

Matt Quine peel, UK 2019-07-03

Jan Ferguson Ramsey, Isle of Man 2019-07-03

140 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the Internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name Address

se Deft- ? pa, r tc CY Le-dc(

lc5-t 61e'fi-i2-79 5 n\t ', ens- Ate/ k-0i )- . !,.-. ..„..,„ 6,-...,-3.5 i O c Cors.)_. at i n 7

y, (AP\ 201,(0 14/21- ( 21 CL.RZ.71S Ott lien (g/ 4:(,:41,SC) y r

1- Ca gt LYLE' 8ECCCV1 t qk26V 6.- .tktCA 1) 4 1\ I " i —1-100 Cedit I Sk L , Sirockk/c/ Co -E, ecumsey A-\\e.ck ( \r \ A' 1 \-S.‘ YA/3„.9 .

&"‘_/ ' , 4. ,,t-2 S:\ -- ..,_ H- li-lieve, 1, GotiaiD?cir vA:s ctA4-1SeNt ft[V,I PrN1 SPThiltS 15 ci_OsE CA PrRAS i e-VOL) ' eXiikrt au \ X-XS-At• 94— t.\\; VC-(31\ CC PS3 CXXV- 0 C--kil ei fi-e)ricarl -- r; \ 04- 4)1-j-CctIC

-1 VS•s. ;27 eiR0-(L) ,EL rite,' AgAs. Ey Elc(%€, E- ktiai I, cwe Co 4 ac) , my) re co ,,--:,--vE-T.Q.5,,,,,,, 5(4-W Y „ 4, 0 en---- 3 3 -- 3'1 /14 “.- 6:- r ti ye, ceCz 1_ , 9 -5 12, q/ V\ °kit CZ \MAACORAI 6 'Isla el Mo,nrs i inari,<:. (jrom {Lc, w c_

(,,,A 9 nde."-. J+ &i C-' 1-1Ai•-it-c'-1 tio...:-/Ir el-Ng-4SC,y

141 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name Address

9Atif 0 Dc40,1....- 7 3 Si( etc() Cu r kt r Lc, ten,-k- „fried.A.-Q

7 CZ n od 16 rsixOCA4- IrSit.L.-, fr-ak flIcimv-LL

t-k r-‘ Coda_ -C (0‹ SC-(Site cu(ks, P i< Kia_r< frtte-tterde._ J 0 C‘rett vi, 1 ratn Sit crank -Orly., se . 4 3 .? (7‘4 4-tool21 7_34-fr>eit tek../ 12) Sk M S 5—," .Zr 3 ccersz. A- 3,..N. 5 m,c_cyijis 1, 4-7-cess_k- aiLck -rtek--)42,,ca:- (-2k (-- _CT.z.e.no- --Cle--1 2 2 •=-7.• c t-i --7e9, 7 cV7h.Ar, C/OCyrt , qt, 6;pivau_-\ (0 , P Rom 12,AnKt4 Kai .e ( 00)w CA NIceilc Vertra(0 tam.507 - mew 5 Pi-Air 'i 4,- 5 rte , si F-i>,,is- ‘11 tA_L 4 i "Ago:.

WizArktc.A/c---L_ /s7 L VAN CI-A) , Caritl,3 et\ 11. e ti 7/rhat9 NWet._ --C 1//a7- 137-74 l eoz14/ LcxCl2 g Cc \rwi.t-cr_ Cpl.` ne\t-L K iiqch CC-i--- ,,, ,,, 2 co, --rii,)--)ca-cls efirnsa el\, ve.t_cL, tictcactog.A-tac.rk- vierav ) - Ft'' c.;...+1.• tok--;\ Ar r ti 0 -,)--,,,c-rt-, 1 n i z

142 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name 5-.1q,Ciefkli; AdcAr icAgis 170(.0E— ik / /L K / J-1 2 Au t_ Sm.cc*k. 3.1,4k-szelS SR\VE---- 9,AING-ei i_N1/4,23r: /<,43 th u tortikg AWIferti Oat, au t-&- 1457-/79Lt 9 2- 610,-cit, _tit {Y) SW6 Fi-Jc- QL SL) ce-t) 0 cx)(zsc pnc2x, u AR -ran] A-NAP-4 I (f- Cc---Ki A u (... /VFW Louifb 7;onAns rk 1.-&„\--,\Nz lic-ikyi? QoM 0 al lard- A Li3eiT t-loti5r7 ISA LA 0G14 1 Oh pt\ ,c\--(---- -Ce,_A--CovC)_ Zo\dN-\‹ -; ., p41 Ye, 5s) 0 t \cal— el: err , v\1 K011 za ( ocilit WILL k i•.) \C \AC iv‘ iCHA CC , il ni n--rtitek)c 4(4 3044nAmQJ,N, 5c/a 0./et P, 6,4-1 , 5 2,--9- 0 vccivs Pig kilo R 12) iotKov41\) if+ i\-Ac tile, 6-,-.4-rae.,,S (2c,mse--t Z(eou-e-c- 41 C32.06,- Ga0-48 C214-ibm---y f 1 2Z (2 1.10 1t1428) 110-7 EelIQ

A- (kOVeckt-t- Netdeed r an. thYdLii 1, k f ACilif VI-4e 6 J - 3 r < rld-Ae,„,. ¬e( _ Al cl ,- /4“ , LC.1"/ / 0 le4-‘1.-/.14+6/1

driV &IC/ i e L_CZA rt.?: 0 aintiC.--7",

143 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name Address

{i-c_.; L__ ar, L36-A—L5 '(\--t(ac2._4_60,a_cy (4 C.C2-t.c)C -7 c•Pit-is'G

:',---RS.Q ( CZ—id-1.1UL) -3 1364.e_.A.4 \),,e HAD& r-L0 L._7( Carol &ALCS--ttiL0 Ceit5i L. 12sQ CAnicbrtraspHute Crlacey TO \ R. 1 rec_s RnSC-ienos, c -\ (--th‘r\I CM if Aancc-i

C Sc 1 0 5 -7.4" C.COC\k( Pc - C\ r 1 , (<)-0“‘6Q-C-1 / .(2, . 7/ 141 1-c-7 Arielzi•I'C ZiA'-&- (449 ''7 P✓Imini ,1 A a ic HAODS 22 -1,2Aie lomc SrliP-itocao &Psi) 2,cvv‘Serl ,

Su g Et 9--e t4i:, Nia. Li ,c+f 12-o St S-Weil elk) I S ME OPok-^-) $4 IS y

(14./i it. OA 3 4112.4r11 Si-r-e} Ra.. 5-e .

ancif fat _5 „ m lAtC0 r:.-') at .r.2 c .4.- 5, ! (1\it S \' Dry m . A , ten- -n,SCL Pc c"-....„,..„....ar1 Nei e5r -cAkz J --)yr bc) 1;i3\ --....c" C,,,,-(,,,ed- 23 ?ran -Q..csktke1th 11-ANN Yecicbc.st, 2-1 (grei-k C es\-cik -\) KM-1--Le,—) rjniur I Broi-o-uv s--e.ci-4 e, _Sock! kaw(ccAr- \ \A-k.kfr. V\ cSlb 0 k -INA.kk Itntak, IA_ tvalsi 10)201---t, ciorxty .0_.Lie pi i 1_,) g- DICReAvN5k,c,-1)-1E Eit , ePrCa--0EE. s6- 1N3t neir14/ Si-2”. ke,m-c) ‘\., c)OAD 4 ) c/LA,vcie)\.(5 ,e, yosiL(sccit .4 fttveOliae-i ?-9 (M -b rolt)62-Ary 0444(22-"Y

144 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name Address

)-(6{LN Cchvi.0_ 9 9-cirt, Clkntibi\, 17 i (Mg ,2 PK ,,, 2.,7-r-c12._:-T-tc--... --, c_s• G coo e_ 77 Sc CF::72(‘) -C--- 7,i r t L Ezt-fiZer CRek- i0evce--7 st-ciphoxLkQ kcc, r r \ c.- ,i,-....*.,,, , i.:, ck,v,: ,c,,e ,, - --A-tAt-e-41-001 .e cem,• , tOccA rarie- 1>n'uk-z,

je._. i ,-.J .-C, c-... On 14/1)..i, C.- \L;;---, t- r-ltin. 2 'RC) •^^SilS .., --Ns:S--S'Q) " Leaville scuns\ntiK5 cig I-1 n i i cioc) Ame cte cv,, ), io, c; C - MC LEM AO 700 lit/ouc,s .1\NJE-1•14/.)ve . L., ki,&-1...) 6"e 46,4c/C 7. /-) i' 4 0 lJait eea- , Ca' -P-i01,..et‘ tdv v\ 0'Nen 4i-7 Dcf\cy 0\i-e, DC/LA ' 3 \akdozr _AV A L-17 OEC6,ii Cvikort 1 004,1ct 5. \\> i r :c.- dA c, 1-4-7 (4,4 icii,,c, , S 3CleikR, .fb -b- 6 -c( Spv\CA`'- 1 ni th iNtitCr a , XcantAck (61.1x -e r ((addeirk (Gitcli7 ,SLob. , iiLi -4-z÷le

aid tits, Oa 11 I Vi " SS D r We_ - 130C-1Cfrk-S

145 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name )Address

6,,7_,/,...—c.----- c..4_,A-4&-.4.--. 2 ci 47 Z) / 8ry/ IS iffy 'Ley /9 / , (----,),E,e-r- tr- -7-

P- Le)c-v- /0 {-.1 Co/0v c c ,..„.6, , Afrc__,,,t. Am") E, v_c_LLi /q; Orel Sko,' e 41 - l f-ros) t , C-2. .1 A NZ\ i•-.M Ck Con:\ yr,_,5\--„, (2-1a-hr-- ci c_ , i' 3ELLA I ct iv oe_ H SWORE Pd, Pa s...0 K 07c-ti-e- l N o c*-'\ ‘t4 0 le Sz,aA. Rc--M-Sel llkcb, USG -e5V-. II/ivc.t4 cc/ l4, ANCe-7 Cr. I Y-1 • Veiorci-efr R C-I t.3€ vl mae, ecei\N WD6ti3Vitmek WI RC&.

146 To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

We the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that:

Tynwald legislate to ensure that anyone found guilty of any sexual offence against another pupil in the same school maybe removed and placed into another school on the island.

If the petition is presented in Tynwald this page will be published on the internet with the intention that it remain available permanently. By providing your name and address below you consent to the Clerk of Tynwald publishing this information

Name Address c?.._ 0,..k3A R ji=b k • 4 ( ) _0/ i\A.. c-

,oAr14/ ?-, 4-Poke 0 Ri--teo..13 ; at\ •••• .,ciPto R AKSei I) 151'); t !.IcI. i_ it 13,91-CrinQC. c 0-7- I A cr' C /3 /9". L nu

M ar t ow 14 CA6se 1 tin GI ) p S-iQPt Cii, Cicy ., CitAt, bp_A-1- Rc- r

GIN - (V{ jk ,~~~csl J -,--7 ,_,s-,(c,:-\----- voy(- C c-6,-Ce.--t-E-- % rii%

147 148 IN TYNWALD Friday 5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of: Henry George Martin Uniacke of 20 Derby Road, Peel. IM5 1HW

Sheweth that:

In light of the climate and biodiversity emergency, declared by Tynwald, which is acknowledged as a global, not solely insular problem, we are all called to act with globally sustainable solutions.

It is within this context that I have started an online petition, which can be found at: http://chng.it/Q1Z6qXnm

The petition reads:

"Make Isle of Man Carbon Neutral in 3 years

The Isle of Man has a phenomenal green energy resource that is the envy of many other countries: Wind and sea. It has a 4000km2 sea territory, seven times larger than its land mass. Wind turbines off the East coast of the Isle of Man would not only make us carbon neutral, but carbon negative. It is the ONLY green resource in the Isle of Man currently capable of making us net carbon neutral within 3 years. With wind contracts now turning subsidy free, due to the development of the technology, this is the time for the Government to grant planning permission to wind farms in its territory and make the Isle of Man Carbon Neutral."

The petition as of 1/7/2019 had 715 signatures.

In addition, a further online petition by Peter Christian, considers the current licence to investigate gas reserves within Manx territories in relation to our international responsibilities: http://chng.it/cyLFJzpvvX

The petition reads: "No fossil fuel extraction, fight climate change !

Climate change is the biggest threat to humans and all species, and time is running out to change course. I worry about our grandchildren, I care about other species, and I'm embarrassed and angry that the Isle of Man Government is not discharging our international responsibilities and ignoring the harsh reality as shown by the IPCC. Instead of digging up new fossil fuels we should be developing renewable energy and finally starting to reduce our emissions."

The petition as of 1/7/2019 had 2,308 signatures.

149 [Signed by Dr Henry Uniacke]

150 IN TYNWALD

5th July 2019

To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court

The humble petition of:

David John Watts, 38 Arbory Street, Castletown, Isle of Man, IM9 1LN

Sheweth that:

The Department of Education, Sport & Culture (DESC) utilises a number of key performance indicators (KPIs) to determine aspects of pupil progress and attainment in the Island's primary and secondary schools. There has been little change or addition to these metrics for some years and an inconsistent approach has been adopted by schools in that they collate such information with varying degrees of granularity. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2015 (FOIA), following their refusal to do so, the Department were directed by the Island's Information Commissioner to release certain pupil attainment data relating to schools. This shows that whilst some establishments repeatedly achieve higher levels of academic performance others consistently deliver results below the Island average. Given that school catchment area regulations mean that pupils are geographically constrained in their choice of preferred primary and secondary schools, those students and parents who place emphasis on strong academic performance may well be forced to accept a lower performing educational establishment.

And

It should be noted that Section 24 of the Education Act 2001 states that every child of compulsory school age must receive a "... full time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have."Successive DESC responses to FOIA requests have conclusively shown that some schools "game the system" in order to manipulate key performance results by concentrating on C/D borderline students. Furthermore, responses also show that children are taught in wide ranging ability sets covering a number of National Curriculum levels (or completely random ability sets) which makes meeting Section 24 (education suitable to a pupil's ability) extremely challenging if not impossible.

And

Whilst current performance measures provide for on Island benchmarking to be undertaken thus enabling the relative performance and ranking of Island schools to be determined, they do not always facilitate sophisticated benchmarking against adjacent or other jurisdictions. The IOM Government is seeking to grow the economically active segment of the Island's population and in doing so would want to attract young families. Such people moving from the UK will be accustomed to having ready access to a given school's performance data and ranking via "league tables". Island residents are forced to rely on material independently published online (and largely sourced via FOIA requests) by those who seek to hold the DESC and their schools to account and who believe that parents and other stakeholders have a fundamental right to know how the Island's schools are performing in terms of pupil attainment, pupil progress over Key Stages etc. Island residents and those seeking to relocate should be free to make comparisons between Island schools and compare (so far as is practically possible) performance with other jurisdictions with which the IOM curriculum is closely aligned.

And

According to the DESC Service Delivery Plan 2016-21 their stated vision is "A world class education system for all..." albeit that it has no benchmarking processes against other jurisdictions' education systems which would enable it to determine how close or far away it is from being internationally regarded as having a world class education system for all. The DESC has not defined "world class".

And

Key Stage 4 GCSE/iGSCE results for the academic year 2017-18 show worrying results in the key subjects

151 [Signed by David John Watts]

152

Appendix 2 Petitions for Redress presented in the previous four years: annotated list

153

154 Petitions for Redress presented in 2018

Brendan O’Brien seeking that a Committee be established to investigate and report on property service charges and shared freehold arrangements. In order.

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that a Select Committee of three Members be established to review the system for appeals against planning decisions.

In order.

Robert Powell Hendry seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate the conduct of the Department of Social Care and the Supervised Contact Centre in cases where children are under contested care orders. In order.

Gerrard Christopher Power seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate the system for police complaints.

In order.

Andrew Smith seeking that a Select Committee of three Members be established to review the Landlord and Tenant Act. In order.

Petitions for Redress presented in 2017

Alan Grace, Chairman and Alastair Hamilton, Clerk of Port St Mary Commissioners seeking that a Committee of three Members be appointed to consider and report on weaknesses in the law and practice relating to planning, rights of way, foreshores, ports, and other areas of unregistered land, and connected matters.

In order.

G. Stephen Holmes seeking that the Lieutenant Governor examine miscarriages of justice in relation to family matters.

Not in order.

Patricia Anne Kelly seeking that Tynwald appoint an independent select committee to investigate current procedures within the justice system and review any decisions previously taken where a conflict of interest can be found.

Not in order.

155 Patricia Newton seeking that a Select Committee of three Members be established to examine the success of the Government’s stewardship of the historical built environment, and related matters.

In order.

Gavin Organ seeking that Tynwald appoint an independent select committee to investigate the possibility of legalising cannabis for medicinal and personal use.

Not in order.

Chrissie Parkes seeking that a Select Committee of three Members be established to review the means of establishing a fair system of rating for water and related services.

In order.

Christopher Michael Quirk seeking that a Select Committee of three Members be established to review the means of establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission.

In order.

Petitions for Redress presented in 2016

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to consider the lack of direct, formal, officially recognised, complaints procedures and associated remedies against Ministers, Members of Tynwald, the Chief Secretary and Members of Government bodies and connected matters.

In order.

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to consider a complaint about a Member – Mr Bell – and the lack of direct, formal, official recognised, complaints procedures and associated remedies against Ministers, Members of Tynwald and Members of Government bodies.

In order.

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to consider a complaint about a Member – Mr Gawne – and the lack of direct, formal, official recognised, complaints procedures and associated remedies against Ministers, Members of Tynwald and Members of Government bodies.

In order.

156 Mrs. J. Bell and Mrs. L. Owen and Mrs Richards seeking that Tynwald support the erection of a statute in honour of Sophia Jane Goulden.

In order. Debated on 17th April 2018. Motion carried.

Robert Powell Hendry seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the legislative framework of the Looked After Children system of the Island.

In order.

Neil Cheetham and Dr Rebecca Foulger seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the law relating to animal cruelty.

In order.

James Corlett seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate the disclosure of salaries and other remuneration of senior public servants and connected matters.

In order.

Anna Maria Kawalek seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the Island’s drainage system.

In order.

James Anthony Brown OBE and Colin Leather TC seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to consider the return to Castle Rushen of the Swearing-In Ceremony of the Island’s Lieutenant Governor.

In order.

Stephen Broad and Christopher Clegg and Peter Howe seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the impact on goods vehicle operators of the proposed Road Transport Regulations.

In order.

Louise Whitelegg on behalf of the Committee of the 0.7 Campaign seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate the Government’s commitment to achieving a funding level of 0.7% Gross Government Income to contribute to the global fight against poverty in the developing world.

In order.

Carol Quine and Lynn Sirdefield and Richard Halsall seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the provision of free TV licences for residents over 75 years.

157 In order. Motion to appoint a Committee tabled for 18th October 2016 but not moved, as the funding of free television licenses for over-75s was agreed earlier in the sitting.

Carol Quine and Lynn Sirdefield and Richard Halsall seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the provision of free train and tram travel for residents of state pension age.

In order. Select Committee appointed on 18th October 2016. Report [PP 2017/0042] laid on 21st March 2017. Debated [GD 2017/0018] on 16th May 2017.

Jonathan Frank Edward Irving seeking that Tynwald appoint an independent person or persons to conduct an inquiry into the adoption and implementation of the best practice of Good Government.

In order.

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate a complaint about the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee and related matters.

Not in order.

Leonard Trevor Cowin seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to investigate a complaint about a Member - Mr Bell - and related matters following a complaint against the Members of the Civil Service Commission.

Not in order.

Jonathan Frank Edward Irving seeking that Tynwald appoint an independent person or persons to investigate the handling of winding up and other legal issues.

Not in order.

158 Petitions for Redress presented in 2015

Charles Guard seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the success of the Government's stewardship of the historic built environment including conflict between the concepts of commerce and conservation; the process of grading buildings and the registration of buildings.

In order.

Craig Morris seeking that Tynwald build on the recommendation from the 2010 Select Committee of Tynwald on Legal Aid in family matters and establish a Select Committee to investigate the current divorce laws.

In order.

Residents of Harcroft Meadows seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the provisions of the first time buyer scheme made by the Government and the residents of Harcroft Meadows.

In order. Select Committee appointed on 21st October 2015. Report [PP 2016/0054] laid on 19 April 2016. Debated [GD No 2016/0029] on 22nd June 2016.

John Ffynlo Craine and Annie Andree Jeannine Hommet seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to review the Land Registration Act 1982 so that applications for the First Registration of property are advertised in a similar manner to Planning Applications and that a more efficient and equitable complaint handling procedure be established regarding such First Registrations.

In order. Select Committee appointed on 21st October 2015. Report [PP 2016/0078] laid on 17th May 2016. Debated [GD 2016/0050] on 21st July 2016.

The Reverend Canon Dr Jules Gomes seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the law relating to the employment rights of clergy.

In order.

The Reverend Canon Dr Jules Gomes seeking that Tynwald appoint a Select Committee to examine the law to examine the law relating to racial harassment and acts of racial hatred on the Island and to report on ways of improving legal protection against such acts.

In order.

159 Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles July 2019 Tel: 01624 685520 e-mail [email protected] Price: £19.00