Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. Printed by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF KEYS

(LEGISLATION AND OTHER MATTERS)

______

Douglas, Tuesday, 28th January 2003 at 10.00 a.m. ______Present: The Speaker (the Hon. J A Brown) (Castletown); Mr D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon. A R Bell and Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Mr R E Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon. S C Rodan (Garff); Hon. R K Corkill and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr G M Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South); Hon. R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon. A F Downie and Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Capt. A C Douglas (Malew and Santon); Hon. J Rimington, Mr Q B Gill and Hon. P M Crowe (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Secretary of the House. ______

The Chaplain took the prayers. ______

Items Considered

Welcome to High Commissioner and First Secretary of Namibia K 206 Tribute to the Late Peter Alfred Craine, Former MHK K 206 Bills for First Reading K 206 Submarine Cables Bill – Clauses Considered K 206 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – Consideration of Clauses Commenced K 210 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – Consideration of Clauses Continued K 222 Leave of Absence Granted K 223 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – Consideration of Clauses Concluded K 223 Standing Orders Committee – First Report 2002-3 Received – Recommendations Approved K 238 Electronic Voting in the Chamber – Standing Orders Committee – Report Received – Recommendation K 240 Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Welcome to High Commissioner and First played a vital rôle in promoting and securing the Secretary of Namibia government’s purchase of the then privately owned Isle of Man Railway, which at that time was going The Speaker: Hon. members, it gives me pleasure through a most difficult stage in its history. There can to welcome the High Commissioner from Namibia, be no doubt that without his intervention in helping to Her Excellency Miss Nashandi and the First Secretary, persuade Tynwald to agree to the purchase of this Mr Josob. We hope you enjoy your time with us in the unique and much loved railway, which brings so much House this morning and that you enjoy your time in the pleasure to so many people, it would have been lost to Isle of Man, your Excellency. the Island for ever. The Isle of Man and this House was fortunate indeed to have had such a true Manxman Members: Hear, hear. willing to serve his town and his Island. ______Hon. members, on behalf of the House I extend our condolences to June and the family at their sad loss, a loss that we all share. Tribute to the Late Peter Alfred Craine, Hon. members, let us now stand for a moment in Former MHK remembrance and in honour of a friend and former member of the House of Keys, Manninagh Dooie, The Speaker: Now, hon. members, as hon. Mr Peter Alfred Craine. members are aware, former member of the House of Keys Mr Peter Alfred Craine passed away on 5th The House stood in silence. January 2003. Peter was a member of the House of Keys from 1976 to 1981 and represented the The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. constituency of Douglas South. Peter Craine was born in Douglas on Questions were taken at this point and concluded 30th November 1931 and he lived and was educated in at 11.14 a.m. They are published separately. Douglas, attending Douglas High School for Boys. He ______married his wife June in 1953 and they had two children, Diane and David, and four grandchildren. Bills for First Reading During his time as a member of the House, Peter Craine served as Chairman of the Assessment Board The Speaker: Hon. members, now we go on to and the Sea Fisheries Advisory Committee. He also item 3 on the order paper, Bills for first reading and I served as a member of the following boards of call on the Secretary to the House. Tynwald: Agriculture and Fisheries, and Forestry, Mines and Lands, and he was vice-chairman of the Secretary: Mr Speaker, there are four Bills for Manx Electric Railway Board. Peter Craine was also first reading. They are the Inquiries (Evidence) Bill appointed a member of Tynwald’s Unemployment introduced by the hon. member for Onchan, Committee during 1980-1981, this being a time when Mr Corkill; the Fireworks Bill introduced by the hon. the Island was starting to experience high member for Douglas West, Mr Downie; the European unemployment. Communities (Amendment) Bill introduced by the At the 1981 House of Keys general election he hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill; and the Litter was unsuccessful in being re-elected. However, his (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. member for interest in public life meant that it was not long before Ramsey, Mr Singer. he returned to politics, being elected to serve as a ______councillor on the Douglas Corporation from 1985 until 1992, when he decided to retire from politics. In 1991 he was elected to be Mayor of Douglas and with his Submarine Cables Bill – wife June they represented their town honourably and Clauses Considered with much pride. Peter Craine had a number of interests. He was a The Speaker: Hon. members, we now go on to member of the Manx Museum and National Trust. He item 4 on the order paper, Bills for consideration of was a founder member and past president of the Heavy clauses, and I call on the hon. member for Douglas Horse Society and vice-chairman and director of the West, Mr Shimmin – Submarine Cables Bill, clause 1, Isle of Man Home of Rest for Old Horses. As well as sir, and schedule 2. his love for horses his interests also covered singing, sailing, photography, railways, ornithology, philately Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The and rifle shooting. second reading of this Bill was taken in December. All Peter Craine was a true and proud Manxman and hon. members should have received explanatory notes he is the only person to date to be elected to the House and there were no questions addressed at the second of Keys as a Manx nationalist, standing in the 1976 reading stage, sir. general election as a member of Mec Vannin, the As means of reminder and introduction, the Manx nationalist party, and successfully gaining a seat Submarine Cables Bill is intended to fill a gap in Manx in Douglas South. As a member of the Keys he also law whereby there is currently no statutory K206 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 requirement to provide controls in respect of laying of to do so. Following this, the department is required to submarine cables within territorial waters. The give certain persons details of the authorisation and to legislative framework of the Bill is similar to that give public notice of it. applying to pipelines. Under the stewardship of the Subclause (3) enables the department to include DoT the Bill will strengthen the department’s ability to terms in an authorisation including terms relating to control activities and will achieve specified standards matters in schedule 2 which are as follows: its in Manx territorial waters. This would be instead of duration; who may carry out works under it; the route relying on the good will of owners and contractors of the cable; the limits within which works may be working voluntarily to establish good practice. The carried out; the design and capacity of the cable; what Bill and the regulations leading from it would require the cable may carry – electricity could be at a stated those proposing to lay a cable to apply to the voltage, or telecommunications; what is to be done to department to be granted an authorisation for such reduce interference with fishing et cetera; the removal works. This would require the applicant to provide of the cable on the termination of the authorisation; the information such as an environmental impact giving of a bond or guarantee to secure the assessment, survey data, project layout et cetera. In performance of the holder’s obligations; insurance spite of there being no financial implications to the against loss or damage caused by an escape of department in respect of the Bill, it does, however, electricity; transactions, for example leases or provide for regulations to be made to provide for assignments, relating to the cable which require the licence or inspection fees. department’s consent; restrictions on who may require Moving to clause 1, sir, along with schedules 1 interest in the cable, how and by whom the cable is to and 2, this prohibits the laying of a cable within be operated, information to be provided and directions territorial waters without an authorisation issued by the by the department. I beg to move clause 1 and DoT and provision is made for applications for schedules 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill, sir. authorisations to be issued. The authorisation mechanism is based on part 3 of the UK Petroleum Act The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and 1998 which relates to submarine pipelines and applies Santon. to the Isle of Man. Schedule 1 sets out the procedure for granting Capt. Douglas: I beg to second that, Mr Speaker, authorisations. The department is unable to make and reserve my remarks. regulations requiring Tynwald approval as to applications for authorisations which may include The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, provision for application fees. In the first instance, the Mr Singer. department can decide whether to consider the application, in which case it is to give directions and Mr Singer: Could I ask the hon. minister: in would require the applicant to publicise the determining any decision on the conditions that have to application. Alternatively the department could reject be applied – these will be based, no doubt, on the the application and would normally give its reasons for environmental assessment that is provided to the doing so. If my department thinks that the proposed department – is that environmental assessment route of the cable should be altered, we can notify the provided by the applicant or is it done independently applicant and the applicant can request a hearing by an by the department or the department’s agents? Perhaps appointed person if the applicant disputes a the argument might be that the applicant’s notification. The department may, if it wishes, hold an environmental assessment might perhaps be different inquiry into the application once it has decided to to that which would be provided independently. consider it and the applicant has publicised it. An Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that. appointed person chosen for the purpose will hold the inquiry and the applicant, any persons who made The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, representations in response of the publicity and any Mr Shimmin, to reply to clause 1 and schedules 1 other person who the department thinks has a vested and 2. interest in it are entitled to appear. The appointed person can allow anyone else to appear at his or her Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, it is my understanding discretion and shall consider the question of an altered that the applicant would have the environmental route if the proposed cable route has been raised by the assessment completed. I will confirm that for the third department. He or she is to report to the department reading, sir. and shall send a copy of the report to the applicant and other parties. Provided the applicant has complied with The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before any directions and the department has considered any the House is that clause 1 and schedules 1 and 2 stand representations the department shall make a decision part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, on the application. The department shall notify the no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, hon. applicant and certain other persons of its decision and, member. if it decides to reject the application, give its reasons, except where it would be against the national interest

K207 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 2: provision is The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. made for an authorisation to be terminated at a time provided for in the authorisation by agreement Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I just between the department and the authorisation holder or clarify: who will actually enforce these regulations? following the contravention of the authorisation terms. Furthermore, the department can terminate a licence by The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, giving notice to the holder if the works have not begun Mr Shimmin, to reply. within the time prescribed, which is normally three years from the commencement of the authorisation, but Mr Shimmin: The authorisation of the this may be extended on application by the holder. regulations will be undertaken by my department, and Notice of an application for the extension of time is to that may be assigned to the territorial seas committee be served on certain persons and the department must or directly by myself, sir. consider any representations they make. The department can by notice terminate an authorisation The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before where the holder has contravened its authorisation the House is that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. All terms, but the department must give the holder an those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. opportunity to make representations before taking The ayes have it. Clause 4, sir. action. Provided that it would be unreasonable to do so and the holder has taken steps to prevent future Mr Shimmin: Clause 4 enables a breach of safety contraventions, the department is prevented from regulations under clause 3 to give rise to civil liability taking action. Public notice of the termination of an for compensation for personal injury caused by the authorisation is required to be given by the department, breach. This enables a breach of safety regulations and the terms of an authorisation can be enforced under clause 3 to give rise to civil liability for against the former holder even though the compensation, but only if the regulations so provide authorisation has terminated. I beg to move, sir. and only for personal injury caused by the breach. Civil liability extends to cover liability under the Fatal The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Accidents Act to the dependents of a person whose Santon. death is caused by the breach of regulations. It is made clear that clause 1 and 2 do not affect any liability Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and which may arise otherwise, such as liability for reserve my remarks. negligence of common law. There is provision so that where regulations provide for a special defence such as The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before due diligence to be available in criminal proceedings the House is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. All for a breach of regulations. That defence is not those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. available in civil proceedings either under clauses 1 The ayes have it. Clause 3, sir. and 2 or at common law. For interpretation purposes the personal injury for the purposes of clause 1 is Mr Shimmin: In clause 3 the department may defined to include disease, mental disorder and death. I make safety regulations with respect to submarine beg to move, sir. cables which would require Tynwald approval. The regulations can apply to vessels et cetera in the area The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and and operations or work in the sea or on or below the Santon. seabed. Particular matters with which regulations can deal are: measures for the safety of the cable and Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and associated apparatus; safety measures when cable reserve my remarks. laying, maintenance et cetera is in progress; the movement of vessels and the precautions they must The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before take in the area; the way in which or the place where the House is that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. All any operations are to be carried out. This legislation is those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. based on the Mineral Workings Offshore Installations The ayes have it. Could I suggest, hon. member, that Isle of Man Act 1974. Other regulation-making powers we take clauses 5 and 6 together? are not curtailed by this, in particular powers under health and safety legislation and shipping legislation. I Mr Shimmin: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Clause 5 beg to move clause 3 stand part of the Bill, sir. makes it an offence to break or injure a cable in territorial waters. This corresponds to provisions as The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and contained in article 113 of the United Nations Santon. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which applies to cables under the high seas. It is an offence and Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and penalties are applicable to break or injure a cable in reserve my remarks. territorial waters or to act in such a way as to be likely to do so. An exception to this is if action is taken to

K208 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 save life or one’s ship, provided that all necessary something was done pursuant to subclauses (3), (4) or precautions were taken. (5) does not exempt the person responsible from civil Clause 6 means that a person laying or repairing a liability for any loss or damage caused where the loss cable is liable for any damage caused to another cable or damage was caused by the department in exercising or pipeline. A mariner, provided he has taken proper its powers under (4) or (5). It can claim to be precautions, is given the right to claim against the indemnified by the person responsible. I beg to move holder of the authorisation for anchors, nets or gear clause 8 stand part of the Bill. lost as a result of fouling a cable. This is a correspondent provision to articles 114 and 115 of the The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I Santon. beg to move clauses 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and reserve my remarks. Santon. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and the House is that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. All reserve my remarks. those in favour say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 9, hon. member. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill. Mr Shimmin: Clause 9 contains miscellaneous All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have provisions relating to criminal proceedings for offence it. The ayes have it. Clause 7, sir. under the Bill or regulations. An offence is to be treated as if it were committed in the Island, thus Mr Shimmin: This clause enables regulations to avoiding problems over the course of jurisdiction. be made giving powers to authorised persons such as Private prosecutions are prevented for offences under inspectors and the facilities to be accorded to them to the Bill or regulations, except for offences under assist the department in carrying the Bill into effect. clause 5(1), or regulations as to powers of authorised The regulations would require Tynwald approval. I beg persons. However, it is a defence to prove that an act to move, sir. took place outside territorial waters, not for the prosecution to prove that it took place within them. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Proceedings can be taken against the directors or Santon. officials responsible as well as against a company. There is a general defence of due diligence for failing Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and to comply with the terms of an authorisation. I beg to reserve my remarks. move clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and the House is that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. All Santon. those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8, hon. member. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Shimmin: Clause 8 creates offences under the Bill, provides for penalties and gives the department The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before power to require contraventions to be remedied and to the House is that clause 9 stand part of the Bill. All carry out works itself in default. Certain contraventions those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. are a criminal offence such as: (a) laying a cable The ayes have it. Hon. member, can we take clauses 10 without an authorisation or otherwise than in and 11 together, please? accordance with its terms or damaging cables; or (b) making false statements to obtain an authorisation but Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 10 makes a to induce the department to act or not to act under general provision for regulations under the Bill such as clause 2. Mr Speaker, prosecutions for offences are to safety regulations and regulations as to powers of be brought and are triable either by magistrates or authorised persons. Exceptions from the Bill are deemsters in the Court of General Gaol and carry up to existing cables and applications. The department must two years and/or an unlimited fine, and the department consult interested parties before making any must serve a notice requiring an authorised cable to be regulations. Regulations to create offences are to be removed. This obliges the recipient to comply with a limited in their application to provide for inspection notice, and the department may act in default and fees et cetera and to contain supplemental and recover the costs from him or her. Emergency powers transitional provisions. The department can make are given to the department to remove an unauthorised regulations which require Tynwald approval, excepting cable, and the department is given the power to recover specified kinds of cable, either generally or subject to the cost from the person responsible. The fact that conditions.

K209 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Clause 11 provides for the interpretation of the ancillary offences for terrorist weapons, training and Bill. Saving provisions are made so that no civil claim directing terrorist organisation; providing the Treasury for compensation can be made for breach of the Bill or with new freezing orders and powers, including the regulations, except as provided by clause 4 in relation power to freeze assets related to terrorism; introducing to safety regulations under clause 3. Other statutory new powers in regard to the disclosure of terrorist- restrictions and other civil or criminal remedies are not related information by public bodies; providing new effected. I beg to move clause 10 and 11 stand part of offences for bomb and substance threats; and dealing the Bill. with international bribery and corruption. Mr Speaker, the Bill is based on the Anti-Terrorism Act 2000 of The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Parliament and some of the provisions of the Anti- Santon. Terrorism and Crime and Security Act 2001 of Parliament. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second and reserve my Clause 1, sir: under the Prevention of Terrorism remarks. Act 1990, ‘terrorism’ means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before purpose of putting the public or any section of the the House is that clause 10 and 11 stand part of the public in fear. The definition in the Prevention of Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes Terrorism Act is limited in that the powers and have it. The ayes have it. Clause 12, hon. member. offences in that Act only apply to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, Irish terrorism or Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 12 provides for Irish and international terrorism. The Bill adopts a the short title of commencement of the Bill and its wider definition, recognising that terrorism may have application to existing cables laid in territorial waters. I religious or ideological as well as political motivation, beg to move clause 12 stand part of the Bill, sir. and covering actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can in a modern society have a The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and devastating impact. These could include interfering Santon. with supply of water or power where life, health or safety may be put at risk. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and Subsection (2)(e) covers the disrupting of key reserve my remarks. computer systems. Subsection (3) provides that where action involves The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before firearms or explosives, it does not have to be designed the House is that clause 12 stand part of the Bill. All to influence the government or to intimidate the public those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. or a section of the public to be included in the The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the definition. This is to ensure that, for instance, the Submarine Cables Bill. assassination of key individuals is covered. ______Subsection (4) provides for the definition to cover terrorism not only within the Island but throughout the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – world. This is implicit in the Prevention of Terrorism Consideration of Clauses Commenced Act, but the Bill makes it explicit. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: We now move on to item 4.2, and that is the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill. Hon. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood – clause 1, sir. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I commence the clauses stage of the Bill I would like to The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, remind hon. members what I said at the second reading Mrs Hannan. of the Bill last month: much of what is included in the Bill is not new. It re-enacts those provisions of the Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990 which remain Could I ask the minister: who is to decide, under necessary, with a number of modifications, for section (4), what action happens which could bring this example applying provisions to all categories of legislation into being? It states, ‘Action includes action international terrorism and not restricting them to the outside the Island’ – lots of things happen outside, so affairs of Northern Ireland. In brief, the Anti-Terrorism why and when would this Bill come into being under and Crime Bill updates the Island laws by: introducing this legislation? measures to proscribe terrorist organisations dealing Could I also ask the minister – he suggested that it with fund raising and other means of support for was terrorism for political ends – why it has not been terrorism; providing greater powers so the police necessary just to change the legislation, the Prevention investigator can arrest terrorist suspects; introducing of Terrorism Act that is still in being, to include all

K210 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Acts? Why does it need to bring in legislation which, Mr Singer: Could I ask the hon. minister: do we in actual fact, re-enacts the Act of Parliament and does comply only with the United Kingdom government list not re-enact the Prevention of Terrorism Act that is our or if we felt that a particular organisation should be own Act, when it does not recognise some human proscribed for whatever reason within the Isle of Man rights and other issues? would we not be able to do that on our own? Would it have to be approved by the UK Government? The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood, to reply to clause 1. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, the definition in this Bill has been widened because it represents a Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. It reasonable definition of terrorism. The thing about is interesting that we accept for the purposes of this terrorism is that it is very often a crime committed for legislation who the UK list as being a proscribed particular terrorist purposes. In the absence of this organisation. It seems strange that we are introducing purpose, it becomes an ordinary crime; the overlap is our own legislation but in actual fact we are accepting inevitable. On the action which includes action that is organisations which are listed by another country and outside the Isle of Man, I presume that if there is any we are saying, without even looking at these terrorist action taken by an organisation, then that organisations, that these are terrorist organisations. I would be one of the proscribed organisations which just wonder why we are doing that. Why are we would be in schedule 2 of the Act of Parliament 2001, moving away from what has been accepted under the which would apply in the Isle of Man, and that terrorist Prevention of Terrorism Act – that we would look at organisation would then be banned. organisations and we would list them if we deemed that they were terrorist organisations, as we have done The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before under the Prevention of Terrorism Act with regard to the House is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. All Ireland? It seems that we are just following on the coat those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. tails of the UK; the UK decide that an organisation is The ayes have it. Clause 2, hon. member. to be proscribed and therefore we just accept it without question and it seems strange that we introduce our Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The own legislation to say just that. Maybe the Chief proscription régime under the Bill differs from the Act Minister can explain why the government has gone it replaces as follows: the Prevention of Terrorism Act down this road to introduce this legislation – it is not listed the organisations that are proscribed gave a just the Department of Home Affairs, surely, that has power to amend the list by order. The Bill treats as decided this; it is the government that has decided that proscribed organisations those that are proscribed we should enter into an arrangement such as this. If under the Terrorism Act 2000 of Parliament. This will this is the case, why go through this sham of ensure consistency between the jurisdictions and introducing our own legislation? It is a sham – the avoids the need for complicated appeal procedures for whole of this legislation is a sham, and we are being those appealing against proscription. Under the dictated to by the UK for very many reasons, not just Prevention of Terrorism Act proscription is only the prevention of terrorism. It is all to do with finances, applicable to organisations concerned in Irish and all sorts of other things, making us comply with terrorism. Proscription under the Bill can cover the UK, another government, and that government is organisations concerned in international or domestic hanging on the coat tails of the United States of terrorism. Proscribed organisations are those listed America. I really think that the Chief Minister should from time to time in schedule 2 of the UK Terrorism explain to this hon. House why and how this has Act 2000. The UK schedule can include any happened. organisation deemed to merit proscription and it will Under subsection (2): ‘(1)(b) shall not apply in be proscribed throughout the whole of the UK. relation to an organisation listed in schedule 2 of the Subsection (3) imposes an obligation for the UK Act if its entry is the subject of a note in that governing council to maintain a public list of schedule.’ So what is a note to that schedule? It would proscribed organisations and to publish alterations to be interesting if the minister could explain that as well. the list. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 2 stand And ‘the department shall maintain a list of part of the Bill. organisations’ – it is all very well the department having a list of organisations, and it is all very well The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. publishing a list, but how often is the list to be published? I would suggest to this hon. House that is Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my really another way of putting money in the hands of remarks. the newspaper circulating in the Island because that is what the legislation says. We only have one newspaper The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, – there is only one. So how can we publish in two Mr Singer. newspapers circulating in the Island? Are we just going to rely on the UK newspapers that come in every

K211 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 day? It says nothing about putting a list on the radio or anything like that. In a recent sitting of Tynwald, we Against: Mrs Hannan and the Speaker – 2 voted more support for the radio station and that is for public service broadcasting. There is nothing in here to The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries do with broadcasting and actually getting to the with 16 votes for and 2 votes against. I call the hon. people. How are people to know what organisations member, clause 3, sir. are proscribed, unless they pick up the paper maybe once a year which has a list in, or if some organisation Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I is listed and then removed from the list from time to take clause 3 and 4? time? We know when orders go through the House, they are just nodded through. Hardly anyone takes any The Speaker: Yes, you can, hon. member. notice of sanctions being brought in against organisations. There is a list printed from time to time Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These which mentions all the names, but that paper then is offences are based on those in section 2 of the gone and it is out of date. I just wonder how often this Prevention of Terrorism Act and have similar effects. is going to be broadcast, but I really feel that there The offence in clause 4(1) is not confined to support should be a statement from the government to say why by providing money or other property, because that we should enter into this area under clause 2 that the kind of support is dealt with in part 3 of the Bill. UK should dictate to us who appears on this list and Subsection (4) of clause 4 is intended to permit the then introduce legislation, when it means absolutely arrangement of genuinely benign meetings. nothing? Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 3 and 4 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood, to reply. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In reply Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. to the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, if the Isle of Man did require an additional organisation that was The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, operating in the Isle of Man against the Isle of Man Mrs Hannan. Government then it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would have any problem in adding this Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I organisation to their list. am surprised that under subsection (5) of clause 4 there In answer to the hon. member for Peel’s queries, is reference to a meeting meaning three or more this is a very serious Bill for the security of the people persons, whether or not the public are admitted to a of the Isle of Man. It is a lot easier for the Isle of Man meeting and that that meeting is public or private. I to proscribe those terrorist organisations which are wonder how the Department of Home Affairs relates those proscribed in the United Kingdom, and this to anybody holding a meeting, whether it is in a proscription is very often a matter which flows from house or . . . Because it could be in a house or in a international agreement. In reply to the hon. member meeting hall where the public are admitted, and it for Peel, the adoption of the United Kingdom list is not could be whether the public are admitted or not. I just unheard of, for example the schedules for the Misuse wonder why it has been necessary to say whether the of Drugs Act 1976. The Isle of Man would be seen as a public are admitted or not, in relation to this Act. In soft target if organisations could come over here, if we relation to membership, many of us belong to or had an appeal procedure to remove their organisation support organistions, and I wonder how anyone is from this proscribed list. This would then be very supposed to know whether those organisations are detrimental to the Isle of Man and the international proscribed. Re the comment that the minister community. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 2 stand mentioned that terrorism was to do with politics – I part of the Bill. would suggest to this hon. House that many of us could over the years be described as being maybe not The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before terrorists but certainly interested in politics enough to the House is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. All join together in such meetings, which could be decided those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. by somebody to be doubtful, in what was happening at these meetings. I am surprised at convictions of 10 A division was called for and the voting resulted years or whatever in relation to supporting such as follows: organisations. It could be that we have people – it does not matter where they are from, but we have a number For: Mr Anderson, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, Mr Quayle, of Chinese people living in our community – who Mr Rimington, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, might meet together on a regular basis to talk about Mr Houghton, Mr Henderson, Mr Braidwood, what is happening in their own home county or what is Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie, Mr Bell, Mr Singer, happening to their relatives, and that might be deemed Mr Corkill and Mr Earnshaw – 16 by some organisation or some country to be an illegal

K212 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

act. Would then the government here act on or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Then we information such as that because in some roundabout look at the long list of proscribed organisations. Would way that organisation or that meeting was deemed to this mean then, sir, that if I was to be wearing a beret, be a meeting which supported or created a membership as the Irish Republicans have often worn, that I could for some organisation? We have had, in China, some be arrested and locked up for six months or fined Christian organisation which is being persecuted by £5,000? And how do we possibly know what the that government – could that happen in this situation? uniforms of all these various organisations are that People join together to discuss these sorts of issues, could distinguish them from an ordinary member of and the British Government decide that because they the public deciding to wear his clothing in a certain have been pressurised by China . . . Or it does not manner? Given that he would see, especially in this matter where, it could be the Turks and Kurds, Turkey field of media communications that we are in now coming into the European Union, any of these issues, whereby children can access all sorts of things through and it seems strange to me that because people are the internet and computer games and see a whole range deemed to be meeting together, for whatever reason, of manners of clothing and descriptions and emulate talking politics about their home country, about what is those in their everyday dress . . . What I am saying, happening there, maybe about what has happened to Mr Speaker, is that it brings in a huge area of their relatives, they are deemed to be. . . Under this subjectivity into how the forces of law and order can legislation, could they end up with a 10-year prison decide whether somebody they do not like should be sentence or a fine or both? locked up or not.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My concern Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I know the hon. really mirrors exactly what the previous speaker has member for Peel has mentioned previously that one said. I think it is inadequate to claim, Mr Speaker, that man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. We this is simply a re-enactment of the Prevention of are talking about proscribed organisations. It is only if Terrorism Act provision. I do believe we need some there is a meeting of a proscribed organisation, that far more in-depth explanation as to precisely how this clause (4) becomes operational, not a general meeting is going to work. Over the years we can think of lots of of people. It is only if that organisation is proscribed in people who have been considered terrorists. You are the UK schedule. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. going back to the 1960s for the Sheik of Arrah; you have got Bin Laden people now who are depicted, for The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before example, on T-shirts – that does not mean that they are the House is that clauses 3 and 4 stand part of the Bill. either a member of a proscribed organisation or, in All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have fact, even supporting it. How far does this provision it. The ayes have it. Clause 5, hon. member. actually extend? There are a lot of people, I am sure – in fact I know – who would like to see George Bush as Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This a proscribed organisation. At what point do we draw a clause repeats the offence in section 3 of the line between what is ordinary everyday wear, and how Prevention of Terrorism Act. As was the case under do you interpret what an item of clothing is which the PTA, the offence is summarily only with a depicts support for a proscribed organisation? maximum custodial penalty of six months. Potentially somebody in this position could be jailed Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 5 stand part of for six months. That is a very draconian measure for the Bill. someone wearing an unfortunate piece of clothing. I do think we need a much greater explanation of the The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. implications of this, rather than what we have had today. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mrs Hannan. Mr Rimington. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall would just like to follow on from some of that: maybe be, unfortunately, voting in favour of this clause, but I the Minister for Home Affairs would explain what al- would ask the hon. mover just to consider the actual Qa’ida wear – I am sure that the rest of the world wording of this clause and consider the areas of great would love to know what al-Qa’ida wear. The subjectivity that are within that clause, i.e. that a legislation says, ‘to wear in such a way as to arouse person in a public place commits an offence if he reasonable suspicion.’ Well, obviously if al-Qa’ida wears an item of clothing or wears or carries or were going to wear something that would arouse displays an article in such a way or such circumstances suspicion they would have all been rounded up by now as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member (Laughter), but in relation to somebody wanting to

K213 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 wear any of these black shirts, brown shirts, whatever does not pass onto the accused but through the they were – Moseley and his lot – what is it? evidence led by the prosecution – that there was in fact an intent, an element of criminality involved in this as Mr Henderson: Brown shirts. spelt out in this offence. If you take those two situations and then relate it to the wording of this Mrs Hannan: Brown shirts, thank you. They section I think, by and large, the fears I have heard were actually displaying their . . . And it did arouse, I expressed are not well-founded. It makes it quite clear suppose, reasonable suspicion that he was a member or here that it has to relate to a proscribed organisation supporter of a proscribed organisation – well, I do not and there has to be reliance both in terms of the way think it was proscribed at that time. But somebody who and the circumstances, and this is coming back to what belongs to one of these organisations, I would suggest I said. It is going to ultimately depend upon the to you, is not going to wear something which identifies prosecution being able to prove that guilty intent him or her from the crowd. Otherwise the legislation beyond all reasonable doubts. I do not have any undue that is before us now would not have been needed, concerns about this, when you take the totality of that because they would be going around with bright ties process into account. So I am perfectly content to on like many members are today. If somebody wants support this clause, sir. to wear a badge or something which could be seen as . . . Mr Singer and myself were in Namibia and we felt a The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. bit reluctant to give people our three-legged pins (Interjections)(Mr Henderson: Shame!) – no, because Mr Gill: Eaghtyrane, I am just mindful of the of the very closeness of South Africa and the very comments from the previous speaker and putting them right-wing party that uses that sort of thing. We felt into a location that we can all identify with. The first quite reluctant to – we did, and the people who fourteen lists on the explanatory notes relate to Irish received them received them well, but you have to groups which are proscribed both with nationalist and think about these things. We could be identified by loyalist. It would not be fair, however, to say that some of the things that we wear as being terrorists or because you support a particular football club that is that sort of thing, so I think before we pass legislation identified with a nationalist or a loyalist organisation such as this, we ought to look at ourselves and see or belief that you would reasonably be a supporter of what messages we are giving out to people. I believe it it. So you might wear a Celtic or a Glasgow Rangers is draconian legislation, especially because of what has shirt, that does not mean that you support the IRA or been whipped up at the moment about very unfortunate any of the listed loyalist terrorist groups. So there is an people who are having to try to seek safety in the UK element of reasonableness and we would all expect and and here because of their political leanings in the see that on a daily basis. So whilst I accept some of the country that they have come from, and I think we concerns that have been raised and have some ought to respect some of that. There was somebody sympathy with them, I do think that the points that the who was a member of the Taliban, the ruling party that previous speaker, Mr Quine, has raised, quite rightly was recognised in Afghanistan, that sought political and quite convincingly, and our day-to-day experience asylum in the UK and now it has been suggested that really should be a reassurance that there is not a secret they should not because they could be a danger to the plot to suddenly have an intolerance in position of a UK. The member says, ‘Exactly’ but it is not. It is ‘one police state here. We would all resist that and we are person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’. supported on the basis that this is not the intention. What this legislation is doing is coming down on the This is quite clear and it is quite appropriate the side of the British and we are not questioning it, and I circumstances it would face. Thank you, Vainstyr believe that we should be questioning it in this House. Loayreyder.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are, of course, speaking about criminal law and there is a very Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really clear principle involved here and that is, of course, that prompted to rise mainly because of the particular before anybody is going to be found guilty of this interpretation that the hon. member for Peel has put on offence or any other offence, it is going to have to be this particular clause. I would ask hon. members to clearly established before the court with the various accept that over this weekend we actually saw a period jurisdictions that follow from the initial hearing that he in time which has been set aside now to commemorate is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, not through one the holocaust, and I think this particular clause is step but ultimately through three or four steps where it trying to identify certain groups which may exist can be contested. And as with any criminal offence, within our community. They definitely existed in the part of proving that offence is that the court has got to past: we have all seen the Sir Oswald Mosley riots in be satisfied there was in fact a criminal intent. So the Manchester; the paramilitaries on the streets of Belfast court is going to have to be satisfied through the parading in their uniforms; people dressed up in a evidence led by the prosecution – because the onus certain way who go out to promote ill-feeling,

K214 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 terrorism and really frighten the living daylights out of For: Mr Anderson, Mr Cannan, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, the community, and I think that there has to be a Mr Quayle, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, Mr Henderson, situation in law where a certain offence is committed if Mr Duggan, Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, persons are wearing a particular brand or a uniform, Mr Downie, Mr Singer, Mr Corkill, Mr Earnshaw, they can be identified in this particular way, Capt. Douglas and the Speaker – 17 particularly those who personally go out to whip up hatred and cause all sorts of problems such as terrorist Against: Mr Rimington, Mrs Hannan and Mr Bell – 3 acts within the community. However, it does not prevent an Arab wearing a shamag or an Arab woman The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries wearing a burka cover nor should it prevent a Jew from with 17 votes for and 3 votes against. Therefore clause wearing a skullcap or a prayer shawl or a Sikh from 5 stands part of the Bill. Clause 6, hon. member. wearing a turban. Lots of us have different approaches to our dress and as the hon. member for Ayre said, it is Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This quite easy to see that there has to be an interpretation definition comes into play in the money-laundering of the criminal law attached to this and there has to be offence clause 10 and the power to seize and forfeit some intent. The courts are not fools and one only has terrorist cash clause 17 and schedule 3. to see the legal system in operation. It is very, very Subsection (1) makes it clear that terrorist difficult to convict people who are charged with property can include both property to be used for terrorism and I think when terrorist cases do come terrorism and proceeds of acts of terrorism. before the courts, you will see that the success rate in Subsection (2)(a) makes explicit that the proceeds convicting terrorists is quite small, when you look at of an act of terrorism cover not only the money stolen the actual numbers of people who are charged within in a terrorist robbery but also any money paid in the system. So I know it is difficult for some members connection with the commission of terrorist acts. to accept, but I think this is an attempt to try and Subsection (2)(b) makes it explicit that any identify some of the issues and the way which the resources of a proscribed organisation are covered – legislation can be brought in to deal with the situation not only the resources they use for bomb making, arms when there is prima facie evidence that these people purchase et cetera, but also money they have set aside have been involved in these covert and terrorist for non-violent purposes, such as paying rent. organisations and they utilise a form of uniform or Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 6 stands part of dress to terrorise other people and frighten the living the Bill. daylights out of the community. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, the hon. member Mrs Cannell. for Rushen, Mr Gill and the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie for bringing some reality back into Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a this debate. This morning one of the questions we were little bit concerned this morning that on the back page talking about was zero tolerance and discretion of the of this Bill that we are considering it says, ‘Approved police. Mr Speaker, the police would use their by the Council of Ministers for introduction into the discretion if they saw a youngster wearing a badge of House of Keys.’ (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) And we al-Qa’ida or a T-shirt or whatever, they are not going are being faced with the situation where my colleague, to come along and arrest him. We have to remember the hon. Minister for Home Affairs and my colleague that this clause is already in the Prevention of for Douglas East has been attacked by two of his Terrorism Act 1990 and there has been no problem in colleagues who are in the Council of Ministers the subsequent 12 years since it was passed. I think in (Mr Cannan and Another Member: Hear, hear.). I actual fact the arguments put forward by the hon. believe, Mr Speaker, we need some clarification of this member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, the hon. member for because I am a little bit confused. I thought that the Ramsey, Mr Bell and the hon. member for Rushen, Council of Ministers, when approving legislation, all Mr Rimington have been answered by the other approved it and pulled together. I certainly did not members in this hon. Court. Mr Speaker, I beg to think that there was, within the guidelines issued, a move. procedure where ministers could get up and vilify another minister for moving a Council of Ministers’ The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Bill. I would like the Chief Minister, who has the rick the House is that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. All on this situation hopefully, to advise hon. members as those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. to why we are being faced with this situation today. Clearly if there is a difference of opinion, and I would A division was called for and the voting resulted have thought it had been previously expressed at as follows: Council of Minister’s level, then I think at the very

K215 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 least those ministers who disagree ought to vacate their Mr Rimington: – and that obviously an issue like chair and leave the chamber. Perhaps they should this, which has serious implications for both protection vacate their office (Laughter). I really do think that this from terrorism and also in terms of fundamental is a very complicated, difficult piece of legislation. It is freedoms, is bound to cause some difficulty with some essential that the Isle of Man is covered by legislation people. I was quite honest in my speech of the second in terms of preventing terrorism here, particularly reading that it caused great difficulties for me but I will because of where we are placed geographically. (A be, in general, supporting the Bill as it stands. That Member: Hear, hear.) We are right in the middle of particular clause, the last clause, I felt as a the Irish sea, a very small nation, and could easily be parliamentarian (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) – and I am here as picked off and targeted. So it is essential that such a parliamentarian and I was elected as a legislation is fully supported at least by the ministers parliamentarian – was a particularly bad piece of law, within the Council of Ministers pulling together. We which is why I felt compelled to vote against it. It has have a situation here where we have had two: one ran not undermined the whole structure of the Bill by that with the hare and the other one stood up – and that is particular action and I still stand that that last clause is no detrimental remarks to my hon. colleague for Peel a particularly bad piece. But in reference to the clause by saying that, it is a figure of speech – and supported which is under discussion, I was going to ask the hon. and elaborated. Then we had the ridiculous situation mover – and I will be voting for this particular clause where a member in this hon. House, who is regarded as because it is right that it should come in – in relation, part of the opposition along with myself, gets up to and this is interpretation, to clause 1 where we define defend the minister and put clarity back into debate, terrorism – and this is what it is all about because we whilst another minister did have the courage of are going beyond the proscribed organisations to conviction to get up and support the minister moving commission of acts of terrorism – should not the whole the Bill. (Interjections) I am totally confused about of the United States Government be encompassed how the Council of Ministers is working at the within clause 6? Under the definition of terrorism in moment and, while I do not expect the mover of the clause 1, which is producing serious violence against a Bill to be able to respond and it would be unfair to person, serious damage to property, endangering a request him to do so, I think the Chief Minister should person’s life other than that of the person committing get up and advise us on how his ministers are the action, i.e. collateral damage, as it is often called, performing in respect of a Bill which states, ‘Approved any government in fact, whether it is the United States by the Council of Ministers for introduction to the or whoever, that goes to war against another country Keys.’ Am I to understand, finally, that this Bill is for whatever purpose actually falls within the approved by the majority but not all? Is it not definitions of clause 1 and should therefore be unanimity here? I would have thought that any Bill encompassed within clause 6. Or is it just selected such as this – important, lengthy, complicated – should people? The hon. mover is just doing his job: he has have all the support of all of the ministers and that been given this job to do to move this rather awkward hon. ministers and members should back this member piece of legislation through the House, but I think if who is moving it. we are going to lose – which we will do through the process of this Bill going through – freedoms, and The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, there are going to be restrictions which have been Mr Rimington. placed upon us which we did not have before in relation to events that have taken place elsewhere to Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I terrorism, then we should be aware of what is welcome the comments from the previous member happening and not just say, ‘Oh, this is a jolly good who has just resumed her seat. I am pleased that she is thing; let’s vote for it wholeheartedly all the way being so supportive of the Council of Ministers through.’ If restrictions are taking place, if personal (Laughter) which tends to be her rôle. Any liberties are going to be placed under threat or there is organisation, I think you will find never has or rarely a potential for those liberties to be placed under threat, has unanimity when discussing matters, certainly not then we ought to be aware of that process as we go this House nor Tynwald Court nor, indeed, even if you through the Bill. That is vitally important. had a party organisation, which we do not have. You will find – The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Cannell: Where is collective responsibility? Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Mr Cannan: Collective responsibility. In moving this Bill, the mover suggested that this Bill was a serious Bill. He suggested that under clause 2. Mr Rimington: – that there is never unanimity and I would say to the member for Douglas East, within a party – Mrs Cannell, that this is a serious Bill and I think, therefore, it should lead to serious discussion of the Mrs Cannell: There is responsibility. issues, whether these issues have been in a previous Bill or not. Because a Bill was accepted in 1990 does

K216 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

not make it right. This Bill could be seen as the thin the content of the Bill and the seriousness of the Bill. end of the wedge. Far be it from actually liberating And if members of the Council of Ministers cannot people from terrorism, it could actually bring in great support the Council of Ministers’ policy on such an restrictions on our rights. Our human rights Bill is not important item in these days, then the least they can do yet in legislation, not statutory, although we are is to do what members have done in the House of Keys working up to it. Before we have got to that, we have from time immemorial: be absent when the vote is actually got legislation that is further restricting human taken. It may not be in accordance with standing rights. I would suggest to this House that we should all orders, but it has been practice and custom for years. be discussing this legislation, not just nodding it Speakers are conscious of it and presidents of Tynwald through, because it is very important legislation. It are conscious of it and allow it to go uncommented changes a number of aspects: it changes our upon in the traditions of the Nelsonian eye. But to have responsibilities to ourselves within the Island, to the two members of the Council of Ministers seeking to UK and it brings in other limitations. We could think undermine such an important government Bill today that it is somebody else, some stranger out there; involving national security – this is not right. The it could be us tomorrow that the drawbridge is brought government must speak with one voice and all of us, down on. So this really is serious legislation and I the non-Council of Ministers members, should freely would put it to this hon. House that we are here to echo our sentiments. But remember this: the Council discuss legislation and I welcome any discussion of of Ministers have debated this in the Council of legislation. I think to try to restrict to say that people Ministers itself, how else could it be printed? They should not comment on it, or one particular part of it, have had the draft. They should have sorted out their restricts our ability to discuss this sort of legislation differences before; the rest of us know that as far as and restricts the ability in the future for us to stand up this Bill is concerned, there is no cohesion. I am and protect rights against this legislation. I do not think supporting this Bill. I am ready and I am on the we should kowtow to this legislation. I think we should department, and if there is something in this Bill that I discuss it, be open and upfront about what it does, and cannot subscribe to, I will not get up and speak against I think the mover and the government itself should my minister. If there was something I would already react to some of the comments that are made before have spoken to him in the department, and if I cannot this House, maybe including the comments made by support it I will not be here to vote against it. I have the member for East Douglas, because I think it is said my piece, Mr Speaker. important that we have freedom of speech in this House and not let it go because we are bringing in this The Speaker: Hon. member for Onchan, restrictive legislation. Mr Corkill.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Michael, Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did try to Mr Cannan. get to my feet a few speakers ago, but obviously other members had indicated to speak before me, so I have Mr Cannan: Mr Speaker, I concur with the listened to what hon. members have had to say. I remarks of the hon. lady for Peel. This is very serious would just like on this particular clause to get a little legislation and I hope that all members take due bit of balance back into the debate, I hope, in as much cognisance of what we are doing. That is the first part. as we are talking about terrorist property and talking The second part is that I want to ask the Chief about an individual clause here. I thank hon. members Minister: is this Bill government policy? If it is of this House for the scrutiny that they are giving this government policy, the policy of the Council of particular clause. Ministers, then they should have collective Can I say in terms of the hon. member for Douglas responsibility, about which they constantly remind the East, Mrs Cannell, who raised the issue about rest of us, and if part of the Council of Ministers do not collective responsibility firstly, and other members agree with what is in here, then the least they could do have spoken to that issue: yes, this Bill has had a great for the benefit of collective responsibility and respect deal of scrutiny within the Council of Ministers and I for the Council of Ministers is, having said their piece hope hon. members would expect us to have given it in the Council, not then to come publicly to undermine that amount of scrutiny. It is a Bill that has come from their fellow member of the Council of Ministers. That the Department of Home Affairs and I am very shows, in my view, a severe lack of leadership in the thankful to the members of that department for Council of Ministers. promoting this Bill through this House on behalf of Is this legislation the policy of the Attorney- government. It is as a lot of members have said from General, the policy of the UK Government or is it the different points of view a very important piece of policy of our government? If it is the policy of our legislation because the world has changed. I am government the Chief Minister should be leading from disappointed that certain members have voted against the front, supporting the minister who is promoting the certain clauses. I am disappointed that there were Bill and, in turn, the ministers of the Council standing certain votes against the previous clause, bearing in behind, and the rest of us have the freedom, as the hon. mind it was existing legislation which certainly has not member for Peel has said, to take due cognisance of caused a problem, as far as I am aware. It has certainly

K217 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 not been raised as an issue or as a difficulty. reflect on some of those at the third reading stage when Nonetheless, as the hon. member for Peel said, you do we have passed the clauses. not just repeat legislation because it is already enacted. It can be changed and here is an opportunity to vote for The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, or against that particular clause. So it is a surprise to Mr Singer. see people voting against it in as much as it is the status quo in that particular clause, and I think the hon. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I honestly mover of the Bill, Mr Braidwood, made that fairly believe that that explanation by the Chief Minister has clear. made things worse. This is an extremely significant Can I just make the comment about collective Bill. It is a most important Bill, perhaps the most responsibility, Mr Speaker, and I will try not to hold up important Bill that has come before us during the life the progress of this important Bill for too long. The of this session because of the things that are going on block vote, as it is often referred to, can be argued two in the world and the effect that it has on this Island. I ways. On a number of occasions the block vote is seen believe that this hon. Court has to offer the unswerving as a way of gagging certain members. It is sometimes adoption of this Bill because it will make a difference construed as a vehicle which is designed to bludgeon in the way that we are treated by other countries in the things through – the block vote – but can I say that world. It will make a difference as to whether any democracy is alive and well within the Council of major airline will fly into this Island and whether Ministers. We do have lively debates and we do come insurance companies are going to offer any cover if we to consensus decisions, collective decisions which we are not adopting these anti-terrorist laws. It will also then support each other on. I know that the ministers quite significantly affect investment into this Island who voted against that particular clause are in general from the outside world if we are seen to be standing support. They are supportive of this Bill which is a back, and I think it is extremely important that we are requirement of international changing times. So I absolutely unanimous in adopting this Bill. And we listened to what has been said this morning. These have been talking about collective responsibility, issues are not easy. There are lots of things where the Mr Speaker. Council of Ministers can be unanimous and it is dead easy to vote collectively. There are difficult issues Mr Corkill: Others have. which do not always stay submerged, and members as parliamentarians feel the duty to express on behalf of Mr Singer: Or others have been – all right, if the their constituents what they have been elected here to Chief Minister wishes to pick at that. Normally I do. It is not an exact science. understand that members of the Council of Ministers But, yes, in answer to the last speaker, it is can opt out on two reasons: one is on conscience and government policy. This is an important Bill. There are the second is on a constituency matter. Neither of those other jurisdictions who have already passed this conditions apply to this Bill and the hon. Minister for legislation and the Isle of Man should not allow itself DAFF talks about, ‘Some people think it is not a jolly to be used as a back door. I was listening with interest good thing to adopt some parts of this Bill.’ Well, if he about the proscribed list at an earlier clause where we wishes to argue that it is not a jolly good thing, that seemed to feel that perhaps, even as a small country, argument should have taken place behind the closed we are able to create our own list and perhaps expose doors of the Council of Ministers; and if the other ourselves and open ourselves up as a back door for members think that it is a jolly good thing and the terrorist organisations. When I look at this list, in the majority said so, then it is either up to him to agree explanatory overview – with them and stay, or disagree with them (Mrs Cannell: Exactly.) and leave – but not to stand The Speaker: Could I, Chief Minister, just up here and talk down one of the members of his interrupt you there, if I may? Clause 2 has been dealt department who is being backed by the majority of with, sir, and the opportunity for you to speak at that people but he feels that he has a right to stand up in stage was open to you; you did not. I therefore feel it is public and - inappropriate for you now to take that opportunity. You may wish to do it at third reading. Mr Rimington: Where is your clarification?

Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that Mr Cannan: And to be on the Council of guidance. This particular clause is dealing with Ministers. terrorist property and, of course, that terrorist property is defined by that proscribed list and therefore that is A Member: Yes, hear, hear. why I made reference to it. I will close my comments now. I hope hon. members, as a House of Keys, will The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, support this legislation. It is government policy. Mr Rimington. Government is promoting this Bill through this hon. branch for scrutiny and we are listening to the Mr Rimington: Could the hon. speaker just comments of members. Hopefully we will be able to acknowledge that I have not attacked the hon. mover

K218 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 for this Bill? My focus has been purely on the moneys for dangerous drugs or any one of these other legislation. matters? The answer is that it is materially the same. So we are talking about a single clause. It is an The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, interpretation clause and in its structure, I do not think Mr Singer. Could I just say, hon. members, I think a you will find that it is dissimilar – not exactly the lot has been said about the issue involving the vote same, clauses are rarely the same – but we are taking previously by two members. I thought that the an approach. The difference is its application in a response from the Chief Minister had in fact terrorist situation. There will be subsequent clauses to endeavoured to cover that, and I would advise this where we will be looking at that, but this is quite a members not to get lost on the importance of the simple issue and I would simply like to invite members debate before you which is actually about this Bill and to come back to what is before us: a very simple clause the clause. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Whilst I by way of a definition of terrorist property. understand hon. members’ concerns, I do think members are able to move on now, because I think The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, points have been made. If there is a further need for Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. this matter to be raised, I think that can be raised on another occasion. Hon. member Mr Singer. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, for getting Mr Singer: May I make just a couple more us back onto clause 6 instead of the why-nots of this points, Mr Speaker, because what the Chief Minister Bill which is in front of us. One thing I am not going to did not say when he stood up was that there was a free do is restrict debate on any clause in this Bill; that is up vote on this Bill. That is what I would have expected to every individual member in this hon. Court. But him perhaps to say to be able to clarify the point that what I will say: it is important legislation, we have to was made originally. He did not say there was a free have it enacted, we cannot act in isolation with these vote and therefore collective responsibility should be proscribed organisations, with the international norm. invoked in here, and should be seen to be invoked. We have seen it in Bali, Kenya and near at home, in There has been an attempt to put collective Manchester, just lately. responsibility onto members within departments, and Mr Speaker, Mr Rimington mentioned the United yet that attempt is surely less important than invoking States of America – why are they not a terrorist it on members of the Council of Ministers. It is not the organisation? At the present time, as far as I am first time that this hon. minister has been attacked or concerned, they are acting under United Nations disagreed with by members of the Council of resolutions. They have not attacked Iraq. Mr Speaker, I Ministers. beg to move clause 6. So can I make one other point in relation to a comment by the hon. member for Michael that he felt The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before that perhaps a member should absent himself: I think the House is that clause 6 stand part of the Bill. All this is too important for members to absent themselves those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. in order not to vote. They sit here and they should be The ayes have it. Hon. member, can we take clause 7 quite clear that they are supporting in the government; and clause 8, please? if they are not supporting their own government and their own Council of Ministers, then it is time for them Mr Braidwood: Would you like to take clause 9 to think what their position is and reconsider it. as well, sir?

Members: Hear, hear. The Speaker: And 9.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Braidwood: These clauses correspond to section 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just Under clause 1(5) of the Bill, the words ‘for the like to invite hon. members to focus on the issue of the purpose of terrorism’ can be taken to include ‘for the moment, so to speak. I have heard comments which benefit of a proscribed organisation’. As a result the are . . . well, I think that they would be very properly offences of fundraising, using and possessing money placed within a debate on second reading or something and entering into funding arrangements for a such as that, but the issue of the moment is a very proscribed organisation, section 8 of the Prevention of simple one: all it is is a definition, an interpretation of Terrorism Act, are subsumed into these clauses. I beg what is terrorist property. And if you read that and the to move that clauses 7, 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill. two qualifications, of course, added to that by virtue of subsection (2) and then ask yourself: if you took out The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. the word ‘terrorist’ and perhaps related that as the clause stands, as an interpretation, is that materially Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, different than what we would see by way of the sir. structure of a clause on the confiscation in relation to

K219 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel. that somebody has ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ – how do you find that out? Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Could I ask the minister: how would someone know if The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, someone was raising money? It could be for an Mr Braidwood to reply. organisation, for an NGO or for a school in another country. Who is to make the decision that this money Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, we are talking about is used for the purposes of terrorism? It is all very well funding for terrorist organisations. The hon. member to say that a person commits an offence if they raise for Peel has gone on: how will you know if somebody money or other property and intend that it should be comes along with a bucket and is raising money for a used or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be certain organisation that that money will not be used for the reasons that they are raising money, as diverted to a proscribed organisation which is listed that clause goes on, ‘for the purposes of terrorism.’ under that schedule 2? But I think it was mentioned in Who is to say that that money raised for a charity one of the other clauses by the hon. member for Ayre, supporting many areas in the world that are poor is not Mr Quine: we have to provide evidence. It has to go to going for those purposes that that money is raised for the courts, and it is up to the courts – if it is a summary and vice versa? It is all very well to say that we have it court, it will be the six months and a fine not so good here that we raised a little bit of money and we exceeding £5,000, or if it was going to be a higher send overseas aid, the government sends money out to penalty then it would go to the general gaol for the 14 these countries, they go to NGO’s which are assisting years, depending on the severity of the offence. So I local people to do local things in areas. Who is to say think you are not just going to say to a person, ‘Right, that people believe that this is what is happening when you have been collecting for this proscribed in actual fact it is not or vice versa? organisation for terrorist activities.’ It has to be proved The other area that concerns me: a person and it has to be proved in the courts, Mr Speaker. I beg commits an offence if he provides money or property to move clauses 7, 8 and 9. and knows or has reasonable cause. If you are a long way away from somewhere, you might think you are The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before assisting your family, but they are involved in some the House is that clauses 7, 8 and 9 stand part of the argument with the state – who is not to say that the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes state will then try to get that organisation, that political have it. The ayes have it. Clause 10, hon. member. party – we have seen it in countries throughout the world, in Zimbabwe, in other African countries where Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This a dictator or even an elected . . . And there are some clause corresponds with section 9 of the Prevention of other comments that have been made here today, Terrorism Act and has the same effect. Although it is talking about the issues – we know that this sort of entitled ‘Money Laundering’ and is most likely to be legislation has been used to keep governments in used for money it also applies to laundering-type power. They can be elected democratically because arrangements in respect of other property. I beg to people have no choice but to go to elect. We have seen move, Mr Speaker, that clause 10 stand part of the Bill. it in Iraq: people went out to vote. They voted – almost 100 per cent – for Saddam Hussein. They had no other The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. choice. That is how they saw it. And there will be people in England and in other places, and in the Isle Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. of Man, I dare say, who are sending funds back to organisations in Iraq. Because we deem that the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before government of Iraq is a baddy, but the other the House is that clause 10 stand part of the Bill. All organisations are goodies, it is okay. And a similar those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. thing happened in the war: you could say that in The ayes have it. Now, clause 11 and part 1 only of France there were undercover agents and all the rest of schedule 1, hon. member. it, but there was a government there – and it was all right because the West was supporting people who Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This were trying to undermine that government. clause is based on section 16 of the Prevention of I see this legislation has lots of holes in it. We talk Terrorism Act and has the same effect, except that about reasonableness and in this legislation we are financial institutions are excluded from it and are saying that that person commits an offence. How do covered by a separate clause in the Bill, clause 14. This we know that that person has a reasonable suspicion or clause requires a business to report any suspicion that a reasonable cause when they are sending money they have that someone is laundering terrorist money home? We know it happens in very many places: or committing any of the other terrorist property people come to the West because their own countries offences in sections 7 to 10. are so poor and they send money back. I just do not Subsection (1)(b) ensures the offence is focused know how we have got to this particular stage where on suspicions which arise at work. we are introducing this sort of legislation suggesting

K220 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Subsection (5) preserves the exemption in respect against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses of legal advisers’ privileged material. Suspicions 12 and 13, hon. member. arising in home life were covered by section 16 of the PTA, which is not repeated in this Bill. Part 1 of Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These schedule 1 defines what is business in the regulated clauses correspond to section 10 of the Prevention of sector. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 11 and Terrorism Act and have the same effect. part 1 of schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 ensures that businesses can disclose information to the police without fear of breaching The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. legal restrictions. Clause 13(1) allows for the activities informants Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my who may have to be involved with terrorist property if remarks. they are not to be found out, and protects others who may innocently become involved. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Subsection (2) makes it possible for someone Mrs Hannan. involved with such property to avoid prosecution by telling the police as soon as is reasonably practical, Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. subsection (3) and discounting his involvement if Could I ask the mover of the Bill: under subclause (2), asked to do so by the police, subsection (4). I beg to if a person commits an offence and ‘does not disclose move that clauses 12 and 13 stand part of the Bill. it to a constable as soon as is reasonably practicable his belief or suspicion, and the information on which it is The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. based’ does that mean that anybody who is involved with somebody who is raising, sending or using money Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my for whatever will be reported to a constable as soon as remarks. is reasonably practicable? Lots of people put money into banks and building societies. How is someone The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, going to . . . Should someone report any amounts of Mrs Hannan. money? We are looking at savings, banks, credit unions, building societies, all of those sorts of things – Mrs Hannan: Yes, again this is disclosure and I how is someone to know that this is happening? I would ask the mover in relation to these particular know it is under the previous legislation, but it does clauses. I would not have thought that it is usual not mean that it is right. If it is the case that somebody legislative language: ‘after he becomes concerned’ and is expected to disclose, and if they do not then it is an ‘a constable forbids him to continue his involvement in offence, I would like to know how and why? the transaction or arrangement to which the disclosure relates’ and it goes on to the defence that ‘he intended The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, to make a disclosure’ and that ‘there is a reasonable Mr Braidwood, to reply. excuse for his failure to do so’. I just think it is an imposition that we are placing on people who work, Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think and try to build up trust with the people that they work in any organisation, particularly financial institutions, with, when we use language such as this. If someone you have to rely on those employers or employees of becomes concerned, it might be a concern that they that company. We know ourselves that there could be had moved half their money or something, as the dormant accounts in the Isle of Man which can be mover said before, large amounts of money going out, activated, and if those accounts are activated and there large amounts of money coming in. Lots of these is a lot of money coming in and a lot of money going things never see the light of day: it is people buying out, suspicion is normally aroused. Then those property, dealing in drugs and all sorts of illicit areas. I employees would report their suspicions to their just wonder what sort of information that government superiors, who then would report it to the Financial is looking for within this legislation to make sure that Supervision Commission. I think again this is the same it is not the person who says, ‘Sorry, I did mean to principle. I will try to get additional clarification for inform you but I just had not got round to it’, and they the hon. member for Peel at the third reading, but at could be guilty of an offence, whereas somebody else the present time, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause who does not come within the regulatory or the 11 and part 1 of schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. business is not affected at all.

The Speaker: Right, hon. members, the reason The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, that we are only moving part 1 of schedule 1 is Mr Braidwood, to reply. because parts 2 and 3 of schedule 1 are actually in a subsequent clause, which is clause 14. Therefore, I put Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I was not a member to the House that clause 11 and part 1 of schedule 1 of this hon. Court in 1990 when the Prevention of stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; Terrorism Act went through. It is a pity that at that time the hon. member for Peel did not raise all the

K221 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

objections in that, although she is raising it in this Bill, must take any guidance issued by a supervisory because this clause only corresponds to section 10 of authority, or any other appropriate authority, into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. account when determining whether an offence has been committed. That guidance has to be approved by Mrs Hannan: I do not understand – we are taking the Treasury and must be published in a manner legislation through. approved by the Treasury so as to bring it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it. A list of Mr Braidwood: And I think it is entirely up to the supervisory authorities is to be found in schedule 1, employee of any financial institution, if they suspect part 2. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 14 and any activity which is suspicious, to report it. It is schedule 1, parts 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill. entirely up to them. That is how the Isle of Man is regarded as one of the most reputable financial centres The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. in the world, because of our legislation now in place; because people know that by putting money through Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve the Isle of Man it is going to a well-legislated my remarks. jurisdiction (Mrs Cannell: Yes.) and I think we must not lose sight of that, Mr Speaker. I beg to move The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before clauses 12 and 13. the House is that clause 14 and schedule 1, parts 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is that against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause clauses 12 and 13 stand part of the Bill. All those in 15, sir. favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause That concludes the business for this morning. The 15 ensures that persons in the regulated sector can House will now stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m. this disclose information which causes them to know or afternoon. Thank you, hon. members. suspect or gives them reasonable grounds to know or suspect that an offence has been committed to the The House adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed its police without fear of breaching any other legal sitting at 2.30 p.m. restriction which would otherwise apply. I beg to move that clause 15 stand part of the Bill, sir. ______The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – Consideration of Clauses Continued Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: We start with clause 14, schedule 1, parts 2 and 3. Hon. member for Douglas East, The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Mr Braidwood. the House is that clause 15 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause The ayes have it. Clause 16 and schedule 2, hon. 14 provides that where a person knows or suspects or member. has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that a person has committed an offence under any of the Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause sections 7 to 10 of the Bill, and the information came 16 is based on section 11.2 of the Prevention of to him in the course of a business in the regulated Terrorism Act and has similar effects subject to one sector, he must disclose that information. Failure to do substantive modification. so is an offence. That this provision is only directed at Subsection (6) allows for forfeiture of the persons who are carrying out activities in the regulated proceeds of a terrorist property offence. This could sector reflects the fact that they should be expected to arise in a case where an accountant prepared accounts exercise a higher level of diligence in handling on behalf of a proscribed organisation, thus facilitating transactions than those engaged in other businesses. the retention or control over the organisation’s money Where a business carries out some activities which are and was paid for doing so. The money he received in specified in schedule 1, part 1 and some which are not, payment could not be forfeited under section 11.2 of then it is only to the extent that information that is the Prevention of Terrorism Act because it was not obtained in the course of the specified activities is intended or suspected for use in terrorism. Subsection covered by these provision. (6) ensures that the power of forfeiture operates in a The requirement to pass on information where way that is consistent with other powers of forfeiture there are reasonable grounds to know or suspect that under criminal justice legislation. The clause someone has committed an offence lays down an introduces schedule 2 which contains the detailed rules objective test for criminal liability. In recognition of for forfeiture. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 16 this, subsection (6) of clause 14 provides that the court and schedule 2 stand part of the Bill.

K222 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: The motion before the House is that clause 18 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill. All Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. sir. The ayes have it. ______The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clause 16 and schedule 2 stand part of Leave of Absence Granted the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 17 and schedule The Speaker: Now, before I call on the hon. 3, hon. member. member for the next part of the Bill, I would just like to advise the House that the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause Mr Karran, has advised that he is unwell and therefore 17 introduces schedule 3 which expands and replaces has leave of absence – members may be wondering the current provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1990 where he is. so far as they relate to terrorist cash and the seizure ______and forfeiture of terrorist cash. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 17 and schedule 3 stand part of the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill – Bill. Consideration of Clauses Concluded The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: We now go on to clause 19. Hon. Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my member. remarks. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before definition applies to the power in clauses 20 to 23 to the House is that clause 17 and schedule 3 stand part of use cordons, to the powers in schedule 5 to obtain the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The search warrants, production orders and explanation ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 18 and schedule orders and to the power in schedule 6 to make financial 4, hon. member. information orders. There is also an offence in clause 27 of tipping off in relation to a terrorist investigation. Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, clause 18 introduces Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 19 stand part of schedule 4 which introduces a power for the High the Bill. Court to order access to accounts of named persons and bodies. The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. provision enabling a deemster to order a person to produce particular material to a constable for the Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve purposes of a terrorist investigation. Similar provisions my remarks. now appear in schedule 5. The power is, however, not well suited to information related to transactions. In The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, particular, it only relates to material and possession of Mr Singer. the person ordered to produce it or to material which will come into existence within 28 days of the order. Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the As a result, such production orders cannot require the minister why it is necessary to have this within the Act real time disclosure of the fact that a transaction on the to be able to cordon off an area? Surely that would be account has occurred as there may well be a delay an expected part of a police investigation? Is it within before the material recording that fact is produced. an Act whenever the police wish to cordon off an area, Thus there is a gap in the current provisions where or is it just under this terrorism Act? investigating authorities need to be able to obtain information relating to the account or accounts held by The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East. I a named individual or body. Account-monitoring am not sure if the hon. member was actually talking orders will be the mechanism available to obtain this about clause 20 - information. The information requires is principally that relating to transactions on the account. Mr Singer: Clause 20. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 18 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: And we are on clause 19.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Singer: I beg your pardon. I shall repeat the question in a few moments. Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Okay. The motion before the House is that clause 19 stand part of the Bill. All those

K223 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The from a cordoned area; (e) arrange for the movement of ayes have it. Clause 20, 21 and 22, hon. member. a vehicle within a cordoned area; (f) prohibit or restrict access to a cordoned area by pedestrians or vehicles.’ Mr Braidwood: Could I also include 23, Subsection (2) of clause 23: a person commits an Mr Speaker? offence if he fails to comply with an order, prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of subsection (1). The Speaker: No, I wish to have that one taken Subsection (3) is a defence for a person charged separately, unless it is totally tied into those other two, with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that he which I do not think it is quite. had a reasonable excuse for his failure. Subsection (4): a person guilty of an offence under Mr Braidwood: Right. subsection (2) shall be liable on summary conviction to a custody for a term not exceeding three months or a The Speaker: I would prefer it if you take that fine not exceeding £2,500 or both. Mr Speaker, I beg one separately. to move that clause 23 stand part of the Bill.

Mr Braidwood: Right, Mr Speaker. Clauses 20 to The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. 22 give the police the power for a limited period to designate and demarcate a specified area as a cordoned Mr Gill: I second and reserve my remarks, sir. area for the purposes of a terrorist investigation, for instance in the wake of a bomb. They may also make it The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before an offence to breach a cordon. Mr Speaker, I beg to the House is that clause 23 stand part of the Bill. All move that clauses 20, 21 and 22 stand part of the Bill. those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 24 and schedule 5, hon. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. member.

Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This sir. clause introduces schedule 5 which deals with power to obtain search warrants, production orders and The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, explanation orders. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that Mr Singer. clause 24 and schedule 5 stand part of the Bill.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope you The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. all accept that my premature remarks were because of my enthusiasm for this Bill. Could you explain to me Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve why we need the law to enable the police to be able to my remarks. cordon off an area? I would have thought it was part of normal police proceedings. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East to reply. Mrs Hannan: In schedule 5, Vainstyr Loayreyder, 4(a) and it is under a number of issues, it Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will says: ‘seizure and retention of items subject to legal try to clarify the point; I would have thought as well privileges.’ I wonder if the minister could explain what that the police have powers to cordon off certain areas ‘legal privilege’ is under this legislation? And also it if there are accidents or whatever, but I will clarify that states: ‘a warrant under this paragraph shall not situation for the third reading. authorise a constable to require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an The Speaker: Right, hon. members, the motion outer coat, a jacket and gloves’, and I wonder why. before the House is that clauses 20, 21 and 22 stand Some beliefs are that people should retain their part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, headgear. I can understand it if it is a baseball cap or a no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 23, hon. top hat or something like that, but it says ‘headgear’ so member. it could be anything. Does this legislation allow someone with religious beliefs to leave their headgear Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause on? I think those are my main concerns: the stop and 23, police powers, enables a constable in uniform to: search I am concerned about. I do believe that we ‘(a) order a person in a cordoned area to leave it should be protecting people’s rights and I realise there immediately; (b) order a person immediately to leave has to be a balance in all of that, but I think within this, premises which are wholly or partly in or adjacent to a we should be recognising that people do have beliefs cordoned area; (c) order the driver or person in charge and that because they have beliefs it does not of a vehicle in a cordoned area to move it from the area necessarily make them a terrorist. immediately; (d) arrange for the removal of a vehicle

K224 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, either knows or believes might help prevent another Mr Braidwood, to reply. person carrying out an act of terrorism or might help in bringing a terrorist to justice in the Island. The words Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I think if a Sikh ‘an act of terrorism’ are to be read with the definition walked down the road or cordoned area, I do not think of terrorism in clause 1 and include active acts of the police officer would ask him to remove his turban. terrorism anywhere in the world. Again, it is at the discretion of the police officer. I did Subsection (3) identifies a constable as the person not quite catch the point that the hon. member for Peel, to whom disclosure should be made. Mrs Hannan raised with the search of the individual. Subsection (4) makes it a defence for a person to Could she just repeat it? I did not catch it, Mr Speaker. prove he had a reasonable excuse for not making the disclosure. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel. Subsection (5) sets out the penalties for people found guilty of offences under this legislation. On Mrs Hannan: The query I raised was under item conviction, on information, a person may be detained 1(4)(a) where it says, ‘a warrant under this paragraph in custody for up to five years or receive a fine or both shall not authorise seizure and retention of items or, on summary conviction, a person may be detained subject to legal privilege’, and I wondered what legal in custody for up to six months or receive a fine not privilege is in relation to this piece of legislation. I also exceeding £5,000 or both. queried the headgear, but I am not sure what else the Subsection (6) allows a person to be charged with member thinks that I raised within that area. the offence even if he was outside the Isle of Man at the time he became aware of the information. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East. Subsection (3) of clause 27 makes it an offence for someone to disclose information to another person Mr Braidwood: I cannot see the definition of which would be likely to prejudice an investigation legal privilege, Mr Speaker, but if the hon. member for resulting from a disclosure under this clause or to Peel does not mind me coming back at third reading, I interfere with the material which is likely to be will try to make a definition. I beg to move, sir. relevant to such an investigation. The penalties for these offences are the same as under this clause. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Clause 27 corresponds to a section of the you is that clause 24 and schedule 5 stand part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act with a similar effect. The Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes offence it sets out, including that of subsection (2)(a) have it. The ayes have it. Clause 25 and schedule 6, which is sometimes called ‘tipping off’, are essential to hon. member. the disclosure régime and have a powerful deterrent effect. The defence at clause 27(5)(a) is one to which Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause 68 applies, and therefore imposes an evidential clause introduces schedule 6 which deals with power burden only on the defendant. Mr Speaker, I beg to for a deemster to order a financial institution to move that clauses 26 and 27 stand part of the Bill. provide customer information. I beg to move that clause 25 and schedule 6 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clause 25 and schedule 6 stand part of Mr Singer: Can I make a comment on this clause the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The but it does, I think, apply to other clauses: I am a bit ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 26 and 27, hon. concerned, because of the importance of this Bill and member. the effects of people not disclosing necessary information to the law, about why the penalties are Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause being pitched what I consider to be rather low, at a 26 makes the failure to disclose information about acts maximum of six months or a maximum of £5,000. of terrorism a criminal offence. The new offence is Could the minister perhaps explain why, certainly in similar to that which was found in section 16 of the my opinion, it is so low? Prevention of Terrorism Act. Section 16 related only to acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The new offence The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, has no geographical limitation. Mrs Hannan. Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause make it an offence for a person subject to the defence in Mrs Hannan: On clause 27(6), it states that subsection (4) to fail to disclose information which he subclauses (2) and (4) do not apply to disclosure which

K225 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

is made by a professional legal adviser. Could the Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, on searching a minister explain that particular clause in more detail? person, I think it would be inappropriate for them to be searched on the aircraft or on the ship. They would be The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, taken, as far as I can see, if it was in Douglas, to the Mr Braidwood, to reply. police station and searched on those premises. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the penalties on clause 26, which has been mentioned The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, it depends the House is that clause 28 and schedule 7 stand part of if it is a General Gaol case, because there are two the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The penalties there: five years or a fine or both. If it is ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 29, hon. under summary courts then they are restricted to only member. six-month prison sentence and a fine not exceeding £5,000. I do not know if that explains, but it depends if Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, would you like me you are in a general gaol court or you are in a summary to take clauses 29 to 32 because they deal with the rest court, because summary can only go to six months. of the power in related search powers? The hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, has mentioned clause 27(6), that subsections (2) and (4) do The Speaker: Okay, you can do, hon. member, not apply to disclosure which is made by professional and schedule 8. a adviser. I think it is quite straightforward that the advice is not with a view to furthering the criminal Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These activity which might be applicable to a terrorist clauses make similar provisions to the arrest and organisation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. detention provisions at sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There is a special arrest The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before power for use in terrorist cases to make provision for the House is that clauses 26 and 27 stand part of the circumstances where at the point when the police Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes believe an arrest should take place there is not enough have it. The ayes have it. Clause 28 and schedule 7, evidence to charge an individual with the particular hon. member. offence even though there is reasonable suspicion of involvement with terrorism. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause Clauses 31 and 32 give the police powers to 28 brings into effect schedule 7 on port controls. search premises for people liable to arrest under Subsection (2) takes account of existing section 30 and also to search such people. Mr Speaker, legislation relating to residents and immigration. I beg to move that clauses 29 to 32 and schedule 8, sir, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 28 and schedule stand part of the Bill. 7 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Under clause 30 this particular part relates to detaining Could I ask about searching a person under the someone for 48 hours and it has to be recorded. Could schedule, paragraph 6, an examining an officer ‘may I ask the mover how long that person would be held? I for the purpose of determining whether he falls . . . think if you turn to the schedule, it relates to detention search the person’. Could I ask where that search will and the treatment under section 30 and also schedule 7, take place? It says it must be carried out by someone and it relates to a number of issues which I feel should of the same sex, but what are the rules under which actually be discussed reasonably separately, because it that person will be searched? Will the person be taken does take away people’s rights, it allows for intimate from the ship or the aircraft for a search, or will it take searches and for people to be held for long periods – I place there? Where will it be? Will it be in relation to think up to seven days. Whereas the mover of this the place where they are picked up or will they have to legislation has suggested while taking this legislation be taken somewhere else? through that some of these issues should have been discussed in 1990 when the Prevention of Terrorism The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Act was going through, I would put it to him that these Mr Braidwood, to reply. issues were discussed. What schedule 8 does is take away the rights of people under the human rights

K226 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 legislation, and I think that we should all be aware of democratic process – but then, they had a democratic that fact. We were very careful in 1990, Vainstyr process in Germany as well. Loayreyder, to pass legislation which conformed with the rulings of the human rights decisions, and this in The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. actual fact has removed from the legislation but placed it in a schedule that the period in relation to a person Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Certainly I being held shall end not later than the end of the period would concur with a lot of the sentiments of the of seven days beginning at the time of arrest. I think previous speaker – I am sure we all would – and I hope we were very careful when we took the prevention of it is a given that we all believe in freedom and terrorism legislation through that we did conform to democracy, and we do not want to do anything that the rulings that had been issued by the European court, will hasten or allow the formation of a police state. We where someone could be held for two days and then it have covered that ground earlier. would be referred to the High Bailiff. They could then Could I ask the minister in responding if he could be retained for another three days, before being confirm that there is still the principle of the custody referred back or released. This is to protect everyone, clock, so the clock ticks from the moment the person is and I would have thought that to bring in legislation detained, and that the custody officers have to be such as this these issues should have been considered. mindful that these are maximum periods of detention Can I ask the Minister for Home Affairs, because that that we are describing, not a given period, and that any is what he is, if government has recognised that the period of detention has to be justified? Thank you, human rights of people under this legislation no longer Mr Speaker. conform to the rulings under the European court’s rulings? The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, This legislation also relates to a number of issues: Mr Braidwood, to reply. it relates to the immigration Act, to being reasonably practicable, there is all this reasonableness under this Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The legislation. In actual fact, searches and how searches government were well aware of the human rights, and are carried out, can be retrospective, too, so it removes in actual fact the article which the hon. member for rights from people. In debating a piece of legislation Peel was talking about is a contravention of article such as this, I believe the full force of what this 5.1(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, legislation does should be made available to the court because it was argued that it was in contravention. and not just, ‘This is what this piece of legislation However, the power of arrest without warrant in clause says.’ 30 is similar to that contained in section 12 of the 1990 Schedule 8 is a major part of this legislation I Act. The government have looked at this proposal very would put to this hon. House. If they are held, people carefully and at judgements which have taken place in can ask to have an advocate but it can be denied them. the European courts and are quite satisfied that it is We have seen what has gone on where people are held compatible with article with 5.1(c) of the convention. even when it has been declared that there is a war on Mr Speaker, we have to realise this legislation has terrorism and the like. People are held without being to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental allowed access to families, legal advice and arrested civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited for very long periods, and I think it should be spelt out by those who would destroy them. It brings specific in this House what exactly this legislation is to do and targeted proportionate measures into place so that the how government have addressed the removal of human enforcement intelligence and other services can tackle rights in these sort of issues. We fought long and hard the new terrorist threat. under the Prevention of Terrorism Act to keep within In replying to Mr Gill, hon. member for Rushen, I the ruling of the European court, where it said people think that what he mentions is in clause 29, that the should only be retained for a very limited period governor, after consultation with the Chief Minister or before they were taken to court. That was supported by the minister of affairs, may in any particular case the government then. Now it seems we have reverted extend the period of 48 hours mentioned in clause back again with this legislation. 29(3) for a period or periods specified with him but I know members will support it today, but I just any such further period or periods shall not exceed want members to know that it is a step backwards for three days in all, and if an application for such an the protection of not only people that drift in and extension is made, the person detained shall as soon as suddenly become part of the community; it could also practical be given written notice of the fact and of the happen to us in certain circumstances. It depends on time when the application was made. So in actual fact who is in power here at any one time. and this could in good evidence would have to be shown to retain after actual fact bring in a police state. You might think, 48 hours. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. ‘Oh, that is pie in the sky’; it is not. This is what could happen under this legislation, and if people are not The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before vigilant and are not aware of what is going on, this is the House is that clauses 29, 30, 31, 32 and schedule 8 what will happen should people in here become all- stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; powerful. We can look at democracy and consider the against, no. The ayes have it.

K227 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

A division was called for and the voting resulted pedestrian was stopped.’ Those are clauses 33 and 34, as follows: sir, to stand part of the Bill.

For: Mr Anderson, Mr Cannan, Mr Quine, Mr Quayle, The Speaker: The member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Rimington, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, Mr Houghton, Mr Henderson, Mr Cretney, Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Mr Duggan, Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, sir. Mr Downie, Mr Bell, Mr Corkill, Mr Earnshaw, Capt. Douglas and the Speaker – 19 The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Against: Mrs Hannan – 1 Mrs Hannan: Yes, could I just ask, Vainstyr The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries Loayreyder: the authorisation is made by the Chief with 19 votes for and 1 vote against. Therefore those Constable – I am just at a loss to know how the Chief clauses stand part of the Bill, along with the schedule. Constable would know how to stop pedestrians in a Clauses 33 and 34, hon. member. pedestrian area or a place specified. I can understand ‘in the place specified’ – if somebody is going into a Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, do you want me to property – but does the pedestrian have to be in a take 35 and 36 as those are general powers to stop and certain place? It does say, ‘in an area or at a place search? specified’, but can this be a pedestrian? Say somebody wanders into an area, they stop and they can search the The Speaker: I would prefer 33 and 34 pedestrian because they are in that area, what sort of separately, please, if you do not mind. search would that be? They have just wandered into the area – is that area cordoned off? Would they know Mr Braidwood: Right, sir. These clauses give the that they were wandering into an area that was police powers to stop and search vehicles and their unauthorised for a pedestrian wandering into it? The occupants and pedestrians for the prevention of police can stop anyone anywhere and search anything terrorism. Authorisations only apply to certain specific that is being carried by a person; I wonder why it is areas and for a maximum of 28 days. necessary in this instance? Would somebody know that Clause 34 is an exercise of power and the power they could be searched by being in an area? confirmed by an authorisation under section 33(1) or (2): ‘(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, searching for articles of a kind which could be used in Mr Braidwood, to reply. connection with terrorism, and (b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I cannot see a suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.’ pedestrian wandering into a cordoned-off area if it has Subsection (2): ‘A constable may seize and retain been authorised. If the person was in that area then, an article which he discovers in the course of a search yes, he would be stopped and searched, but I cannot by virtue of section 33(1) or (2) and which he see any pedestrian walking into a area which is reasonably suspects is intended to be used in cordoned off. connection with terrorism.’ Subsection (3): ‘A constable exercising the power Mrs Hannan: That is all I want to know: if it is conferred by an authorisation may not require a person cordoned off. And you say it is. to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.’ Mr Braidwood: Yes. Subsection (4): ‘Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 33(1) or The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time the House is that clauses 33 and 34 stand part of the as is reasonably required to permit the search to be Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes carried out at or near the place where the person or have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 35 and 36, hon. vehicle is stopped.’ member. Subsection (5): ’(a) Where a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 33(1) or (2), and (b) the Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clauses driver of the vehicle or pedestrian applies for a written 35 and 36 are on the authorisation applying to a statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was specific area for a maximum of 28 days, although that stopped, by virtue of section 33(1) or (2), the written period may be renewed. Vehicle stop-and-search statement shall be provided.’ authorisations as well as pedestrian authorisations will Subsection (6): ’An application under subsection have to be confirmed or amended by the Governor (5) must be made within the period of 12 months within 48 hours of their being made or they will cease beginning with the date on which the vehicle or to have effect. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 35 and 36 stand part of the Bill.

K228 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 42, hon. member. Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Braidwood: Sir, do you want me to take 42 and 43? The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 35 and 36 stand part of the The Speaker: No, I would like you to take 42 on Bill. All those in favour say aye; against no. The ayes its own, please. have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 37, 38 and 39, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Right, sir. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 42, weapons training: ‘A person Mr Braidwood: I can take 40 and 41 if you like commits an offence if he provides instruction or as well, Mr Speaker, because they all come under training in the making or use of (a) firearms, (b) parking. radioactive material or weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of any radioactive material, (c) The Speaker: Yes, okay. explosives or (d) chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These Subsection (2): ‘A person commits an offence if clauses give the police the powers to restrict or he receives instruction or training in the making or use prohibit parking for a limited period in a specified area of (a) firearms, (b) weapons designed or adapted for for the prevention of terrorism and make it an offence the discharge of any radioactive material, (c) to park in or refuse to move from such an area. explosives or (d) chemical, biological or nuclear Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 37, 38, 39, 40 weapons.’ and 41 stand part of the Bill. Subsection (3): ‘A person commits an offence if he invites another to receive instruction or training and The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. the receipt (a) would constitute an offence under subsection (2) or (b) would constitute an offence under Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, subsection (2) but for the fact that it takes place outside sir. the Island.’ Subsection (4): ‘Subsection (3)(b) applies in The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, respect of the United Kingdom nationals and bodies Mrs Hannan. incorporated under law of the Island or any part of the United Kingdom.’ Mrs Hannan: Again, Vainstyr Loayreyder, would Subsection (5): ‘For the purpose of subsections (1) this area be cordoned off? It seems strange that we are and (3), (a) a reference to the provisions of instruction introducing legislation to stop people parking when it and includes a reference to making it available either seems under this legislation we are going to have generally or to one or more specific persons and (b) an plenty of police officers. At the moment very little invitation to receive instruction or training may be activity takes place with regard to parking – illegal either general or addressed to one or more specific parking or anything in relation to that. So is this an persons.’ area that is going to be cordoned off? Is it going to Subsection (6): ‘It is a defence for a person have restrictions on it or how is it going to be advised charged with an offence under this section in relation to the public that offences could take place if someone to instruction or training to prove that his action or parks in any of these areas? involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism.’ The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Subsection (7) ‘A person guilty of an offence Mr Braidwood, to reply. under this section shall be liable (a) on conviction on information, to custody for a term not exceeding 10 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think years, to a fine or to both or (b) on summary we have seen this for 30 years in Northern Ireland conviction, to custody for a term not exceeding six where there is terrorist activity: where there might be a months or to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to both.’ terrorist activity going on, or bombs, you move people Subsection (8): ‘A court by or before which a away from that area. I would not like to see people person is convicted of an offence under this section parking their vehicles in an authorised area where they may order the forfeiture of anything which the court are not allowed to if there was going to be some sort of considers to have been in the person’s possession for terrorist activity. This is just prudent legislation. purposes connected with the offence.’ Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Subsection (9): ‘Before making an order under subsection (8) a court must give an opportunity to be The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before heard to any person, other than the convicted person, the House is that clauses 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 stand who claims to be the owner of or otherwise interested part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against,

K229 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 in anything which can be forfeited under that The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before subsection.’ the House is that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. All Subsection (10): ‘An order under subsection (8) those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. shall not come into force until there is no further The ayes have it. Clauses 48 and 49, hon. member. possibility of it being varied or set aside on appeal disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These appeal out of time.’ clauses are included to enable the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings The Speaker: Hon. member, I do apologise: you and the United Nations Convention for the can take 43 with it, as they are tied together. Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to be extended to the Isle of Man. They will enable the Isle Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is of Man to meet its obligations under the provisions of mainly, Mr Speaker, the interpretation of what these conventions. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that happened in clause 42. I beg to move clauses 42 and clauses 48 and 49 stand part of the Bill. 43, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 48 and 49 stand part of the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes the House is that clauses 42 and 43 stand part of the have it. The ayes have it. Now go onto clauses 50 and Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes 51, hon. member. have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 44, 45 and 46, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 50 allows the Treasury to make a freezing order if two Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause conditions are satisfied: first, the Treasury must 44 makes the directing of any terrorist organisation an reasonably believe that action threatening the Island’s offence. The organisation need not be proscribed for or the United Kingdom’s economy or part of it or the this offence to be committed. life or property of the Isle of Man or United Kingdom Clauses 45 and 46 introduce new offences relating residents or United Kingdom nationals is taking place to possession of articles for terrorist purposes and the or is likely to take place; secondly, the persons collecting or recording of information for like involved in the action must be resident outside the purposes. The defences in clauses 42 and 43 are ones Island or be a government outside the British Islands. to which clause 68 applies and therefore impose an Clause 51: a freezing order prohibits all persons in evidential burden only on the defendant. Mr Speaker, I the Island and all persons elsewhere who are United beg to move that clauses 44, 45 and 46 stand part of Kingdom nationals ordinarily resident in the Island, the Bill. bodies incorporated under Isle of Man law for making funds available to or for the benefit of a person or The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. persons specified in the order. The order may specify the persons taking the action referred to in clause 50, Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve and any person who has provided or is likely to my remarks. provide assistance directly or indirectly to those persons. This specification may be by name or by The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before description of persons set out in the order. Where a the House is that clauses 44, 45 and 46 stand part of person is specified by description, the description must the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The be such that a reasonable person would know whether ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 47, hon. he fell within it. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that member. clauses 50 and 51 stand part of the Bill.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. clause makes it an offence to incite another to commit a terrorist and criminal act abroad. Mr Speaker, I beg Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second to move that clause 47 stand part of the Bill. and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 50 and 51 stand part of the Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes my remarks. have it. The ayes have it. Clause 52 and schedule 9, hon. member.

K230 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, clause makes provisions about freezing orders. Mr Braidwood, to reply. Subsection (1) specifies that a freezing order lapses two years after it was made. Mr Braidwood: I would have thought, Subsection (2) requires the Treasury to keep under Mr Speaker, that an individual who is ordinarily review whether any freezing order should be kept in resident in the Island would have a house here and if force or amended. he was employed here, which is again slightly Subsection (3) introduces schedule 9 which different, he would be paying income tax and national contains provisions about the contents of freezing insurance contributions. But I can get the correct orders. definition of what is ordinarily resident in the Island Subsection (4) declares that a freezing order is a and bring it forward for the third reading, Mr Speaker. public document. This makes it clear that it is to be treated as legislation. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Subsection (5) permits a freezing order to include the House is that clauses 53, 54 and 55 stand part of supplementary, incidental, saving and transitional the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The provisions. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 56 and schedule Subsection (6) ensures the application of the 10, hon. member. Interpretation Act 1976 to freezing orders. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 52 and schedule 9 stand part Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This of the Bill. clause clarifies and extends a number of information disclosure provisions available to public authorities. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The powers are listed in schedule 10. It permits disclosure to assist any criminal investigation or Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second criminal proceedings being carried out in the Isle of and reserve my remarks. Man or abroad, or to facilitate determinations of whether or not such investigations or proceedings The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before should begin or end. The clause does not limit any the House is that clause 52 and schedule 9 stand part of power to disclose that exists apart from this clause. In the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The determining whether they may disclose information ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 53, 54 and 55, public authorities must ensure that their disclosure is hon. member. proportionate to that which is intended by disclosing. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 56 and schedule Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. 53 sets out the persons who are residents of the Isle of Man or nationals of the United Kingdom for the The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. purpose of this part. It also sets out who is resident of a country outside the Island for the purposes of this part. Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second Clause 54: a freezing order must be made by order and reserve my remarks. made by the Treasury. The order must be laid before Tynwald and is subject to the negative resolution The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before procedure. the House is that clause 56 and schedule 10 stand part Clause 55: freezing orders bind the Crown and of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. Crown servants but the Crown is not criminally liable The aye has it. The aye has it. (Laughter) Clause 57, for breaches of freezing orders. The orders do not bind hon. member. the Queen in her personal capacity. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 53, 54 and 55 stand part of the Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Bill. clause enables the Department of Home Affairs to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purposes The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. of overseas criminal investigations or criminal proceedings that would otherwise be permitted by Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, clause 56, or without clause 56 by the provisions sir. modified by that clause. This power may be exercised where it appears to the department that the overseas The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, investigation or proceedings relating to a matter in Mrs Hannan. respect of which it would be more appropriate for any jurisdiction or investigation to be exercised or carried Mrs Hannan: Could I just ask the minister: in out by the authorities of the Isle of Man or a third relation to 53(2), a resident of the Island is an country. Any person who knowingly makes a individual who is ordinarily resident in the Island – disclosure prohibited by the Department of Home what does that mean? How long would someone have Affairs pursuant to clause 57 will be guilty of an to live here to be ordinarily resident? offence. The person will be liable on conviction of

K231 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 information to custody imprisonment for a term of up Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the mover of to two years or a fine or to both and on summary the clause has said, clause 58 applies to information conviction to imprisonment for a term of up to six which is held by or on behalf of the Treasury and to months or a fine of up to £5,000. Mr Speaker, I beg to information obtained before, as well as after, the move that clause 57 stands part of the Bill. coming into operation of this section. Given the importance of this clause and the wide range in powers The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. that it provides for, the Treasury is concerned to ensure that the provisions are as clear as possible. So the Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve amendments which I have placed before the House are my remarks. as follows:

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Page 38 - the House is that clause 57 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. lines 6 to 8 omit from “or the” to the end of the The ayes have it. Clauses 58 and 59, hon. member. subsection.

Mr Braidwood: There is an amendment to clause line 15 for “criminal” substitute “terrorist”. 58. line 17: after “whatever” insert – The Speaker: Sorry, there is too. Clause 58, then, hon. member. “which relate, directly or indirectly, to any matter specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This section 19 (terrorist investigations) and”. clause applies to information held by or for the Treasury or the Assessor of Income Tax. The clause line 25: after “functions” insert – provides that no obligation of secrecy excepting the Data Protection Act 1986 requirements prevents the “which relate to protection from, and the voluntary disclosure of information on the authority of prevention and detection of, terrorism”. the Treasury made for the following purposes: to assist any criminal investigation or criminal proceedings Page 39 - being carried out in the Island or abroad or to facilitate whether or not such investigations or proceedings line 9: for “holders” substitute “Treasury”. should begin or end. In addition, the clause allows for disclosure to the intelligence services in support of line 12: for “any of the holders” substitute their functions. These functions include the protection “the Treasury”. of national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime. These essentially are to focus this particular clause Disclosed information cannot be further disclosed and the provision of this clause on matters relating to by the recipient except for the purpose permitted for terrorism, and not to criminality. This is because we original disclosures and with the consent of the already have quite well-established and separate Treasury. Bodies who receive information from the provisions in existence for releasing and co-operating Treasury may not further disclose that information to on criminal matters. the intelligence services, except for the purposes of From the Island’s general welfare point of view, it criminal investigation or proceedings. is vitally important that this clause does not provide an The clause does not limit any power to disclose opportunity for external authorities to launch fishing that exists apart from this clause. In determining expeditions on the Isle of Man’s financial matters, whether they may disclose information public other than for those relating to terrorism. So, the first authorities must ensure that their disclosure is part relates to our concern about limiting the scope of proportionate to that which is intended by disclosing. this particular clause to really what the intent of the Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 58 stands part of Bill is, which is relating to terrorism and not a more the Bill. general provision. Secondly, the opportunity is also being taken to The Speaker: We need a seconder before we can clarify subclause (9), which relates to information move on, hon. members. Hon. member for Douglas held. In the Bill it currently refers to ‘holders’ and ‘any North, Mr Houghton. of the holders’ of information. This amendment changes those terms to ‘the Treasury’, and removes Mr Houghton: I beg to second, sir. any doubt as to the identity of the holder. So, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendments to The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. this clause which are printed on the order sheet, and I can tell hon. members this has had full discussion in the Council of Ministers and, indeed, with the

K232 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Department of Home Affairs and the minister prior to Subsection (3) sets out the penalties for these putting this forward. offences. On summary conviction a person may be kept in custody for up to six months or receive a fine The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. up to £5,000. On conviction on information a person may be kept in custody for up to seven years or receive Mr Gill: Thank you, sir. I beg to second the a fine or both. amendment as moved in the order paper. Clause 62(1) provides definition of ‘thing’ and ‘substance’ for the purposes of clauses 60 and 61. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Subsection (2) deals with the intent of a person Mr Braidwood, to reply. who is charged with an offence under subsection (3) or 61. To be guilty of the offence the person does not Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The have to have any particular person in mind in whom Department of Home Affairs, as the Treasury minister the belief in question is to be induced. Mr Speaker, I has mentioned, has no problem with this amendment. I beg to move that clause 60, 61 and 62 stand part of the beg to move, sir. Bill.

The Speaker: Right, hon. members, the motion The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. before the House is that clause 58 stand part of the Bill. To that we have an amendment in the name of the Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I beg to second hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. All those in favour and reserve my remarks. of the amendment please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before I now put the clause as amended. All those in the House is that clauses 60, 61 and 62 stand part of favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The have it. Hon. members, we now move on to clause 59. ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 63 and 64 and schedule 11, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause defines terms used throughout part 8 and Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause specifies that criminal conduct refers to conduct which 63(1) confirms that a power confirmed under the Bill would be criminal if conducted in the Isle of Man. is additional to powers available to the police under Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 59 stands part of common law or under any other enactment and that the the Bill. Bill should not be taken to effect those other powers, subsections (1)(a) and (b). The Speaker: Are you all right, sir? Hon. member Subsection (2) allows a constable if necessary to for Rushen, Mr Gill. use reasonable force when exercising a power except for the power of examination under schedule 7 while Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. under subsection (3) anything seized under the Bill may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before circumstances. the House is that clause 59 stand part of the Bill. All Clause 64 introduces schedule 11 which amends those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. enactments relating to police powers. Mr Speaker, I The ayes have it. Hon. member, we take clauses 60, 61 beg to move that clauses 63, 64 and schedule 11 stand and 62. part of the Bill.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. clause 60 it will become an offence for a person to use or threaten to use a biological, chemical, radioactive or Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve other noxious substance to cause various kinds of my remarks. serious harm in a manner designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public. Offences carry The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before a sentence of up to 14 years’ custody and a fine. the House is that clauses 63 and 64 along with Clause 61 fills a gap in the law. Subsection (1) schedule 11 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour makes it an offence to place anywhere or send say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. anything intending to make others believe that it is Clauses 65 and 66 along with schedule 12, hon. likely to be or contains a noxious substance or is likely member. to explode or ignite. Subsection (2) makes it an offence for a person Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause falsely to communicate any information to another the 65 gives effect to schedule 12, which makes provisions noxious substance or a bomb et cetera is or will be in a about the exercise of functions authorised. place. Clause 66(1): a power to search premises conferred by the Bill can include searching a container.

K233 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Under subsection (2) – the power to stop a person to a special tribunal. This clause deals with the conferred under the Bill includes power to stop a consequences of a successful appeal against a refusal vehicle. of deproscription where, as a consequence, an order is It is an offence under subsection (3) not to stop a made under the UK Act deproscribing the vehicle when required to do so under this clause. organisation. Subsection (4) sets out the penalties for those Anyone convicted of one of the offences listed in found guilty on summary conviction of this offence up subsection (1)(c) of the clause in respect of the to six months’ custody or a fine not exceeding £5,000 deproscribed organisation may if the offence was or both. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 65 and committed after the date of the refusal to deproscribe 66 and schedule 12 stand part of the Bill. appeal against his conviction to the court of appeal, the Staff of Government Division, the court must allow the The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. appeal in such cases. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 69 stand part of the Bill. Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve the House is that clause 65, schedule 12 and clause 66 my remarks. stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, 67 and 68, hon. member. Mrs Cannell.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are on 67 deals with issues surrounding consent to clause 70, Mr Speaker? prosecution. Under subsection (1) proceedings under the Bill The Speaker: Clause 69. cannot be instituted with the consent of the Attorney- General. I am getting tongue-tied, Mr Speaker! Mrs Cannell: Oh, I beg your pardon. Subsection (2) ensures that the limitation in subsection (1) does not prevent the taking of The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before preliminary steps, such as arrest or the issue of the House is that clause 69 stand part of the Bill. All warrants for arrest. those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clause 68 covers defences provided by the Bill for The ayes have it. Clause 70, hon. member. those charged with offences under the Bill. The clauses intend to make sure that defences in the Bill which Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause require the defendant to prove a particular matter are 70 gives the Governor in Council power to extend not construed as imposing an obligation on a defendant money-laundering offences under the Bill to Crown to prove his innocence. If a defendant presents servants who might otherwise be exempt from the sufficient evidence to raise a particular defence under provisions. the Bill then the court is to assume that the defence is Subsection (2) gives the Governor in Council the satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond power to exempt from the offence or fail to disclose reasonable doubt that the defence is not proved. acknowledge or suspicion that another is engaged in Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 67 and 68 stand money laundering any person appearing to be form and part of the Bill. regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions. The exemption will be necessary should The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. money-laundering legislation place the financial indices supervisory authorities under a duty to report Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve such a knowledge or suspicion to a constable. my remarks. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 70 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 67 and 68 stand part of the The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 69, hon. member. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, 69 under the Bill: an organisation is a proscribed Mrs Cannell. organisation if it is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 of Parliament. That Act permits proscribed Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is just a organisations to request deproscription, and where query, really, in respect of this: the Governor in deproscription is refused the UK Act permits an appeal Council may make regulations – would we as members

K234 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

of this House be advised on what those regulations are Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause or would we need to approve such regulations or can 73 amends and inserts two new sections into the he merely make them anyway? And also, in 70(2): ‘the Corruption Act 1986. Governor in Council may make regulations providing Subsection (1) ensures that the existing for section 11 not to apply to persons who are in his presumption of corruption contained in the Corruption opinion. . .’ – in expressing his opinion, would he also Act 1986 does not apply any more widely as a result of have to provide the necessary paperwork to back up the provisions of clause 73. This clause allows the his opinion and again, would we get an opportunity or presumption to continue to apply only in those cases at least would the Department of Home Affairs get an where it applies at present. opportunity to actually look into that? What would The new section 2A inserted into the Corruption happen if that was followed through and the Act 1986, which is inserted by subsection (1)(b) of the department did not agree with his opinion and there clause ensures that section 1 of that Act applies in was a suspicion raised in terms of a person who respect of agents and principals, whether or not their allegedly was connected in one of these areas here – respective affairs or functions are connected with the supervisory investigative, registration, regulatory, Island. function of a public nature? I just wonder to what The new section 2B of the 1986 Act, which is extent it actually empowers the Governor in Council. inserted by subsection (1)(b) of the clause, gives the court extra-territorial jurisdiction over bribery and The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, corruption offences committed abroad by UK nationals Mr Braidwood, to reply resident in the Island and bodies incorporated under Isle of Man law. It enables the offences specified in Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My subsection (3) of the new section 2B when committed interpretation of this clause is that if any of the by those nationals and bodies to be prosecuted in the government authorities, such as the Financial Island wherever those offences take place. Supervision Commission, are making their own Subsection (2) amends section 323 of the Criminal inquiries then they would be exempt from section 11 Code 1872, bribery of persons connected with the where they have to report to a constable because they administration of justice. It makes it clear within that would be making their own investigations. I think that code that section 2B of the 1986 Act were applied to is the correct interpretation but I will again, section 323. This means that bribery offences Mr Speaker, come back at third reading with this committed by UK nationals who are resident in the clarification. I beg to move, sir. Island and bodies incorporated under the law of the Island can be prosecuted in the Island wherever those The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before offences take place. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House is that clause 70 stand part of the Bill. All clause 73 stand part of the Bill. those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 71 and 72, hon. member. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Braidwood: Clause 71, Mr Speaker, repeats Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my provisions formerly in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 to the remarks. Prevention of Terrorism Act. It deals with the operation in the Isle of Man of UK warrants issued to The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the intelligence services. Warrants in respect of crime the House is that clause 73 stand part of the Bill. All require the consent of the Attorney-General. In other those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. cases they can be issued only after consultation with The ayes have it. Clause 74 and schedule 13, hon. the Chief Minister or the Minister for Home Affairs. member. Clause 72 ensures that certified signed copies of certain documents issued by the Governor in Council Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause under the Bill may be received and may be admissible 74 gives effect to schedule 13 which deals with the as evidence in court. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that security of pathogens and toxins. Mr Speaker, I beg to clauses 71 and 72 stand part of the Bill. move that clause 74 and schedule 13 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, sir. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 71 and 72 stand part of the the House is that clause 74 and schedule 13 stand part Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. have it. The ayes have it. Clause 73, hon. member. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 75 and 76, hon. member.

K235 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause Clause 79 and schedules 14 and 15, hon. member. 75 provides definitions for terms used in the Bill. Clause 76 specifies the provisions responsible for Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause defining expressions within the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg 79 gives effect to schedule 14, consequential and to move that clauses 75 and 76 stand part of the Bill. minor amendments, and gives notice that the enactments listed in schedule 15 are repealed or The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. revoked to the extent specified. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 79 and schedules 14 and 15 stand part Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my of the Bill. remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 75 and 76 stand part of the Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes sir. have it. The ayes have it. Clauses 77 and 78, hon. member. The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is that clause 79 and schedules 14 and 15 Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; 77 covers orders, regulations and rules of court and against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clauses specifies which are subject to the affirmative Tynwald 80 and 81, hon. member. procedure. Under clause 78 a direction given under the Bill Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause may be varied or revoked by a further direction, for 80 allows for any expenditure by government under example, directions requiring security measures under the Bill to be provided out of the general revenue of clause 7. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 77 and the Island. 78 stand part of the Bill. Clause 81 provides for transitional arrangements between the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. 1990 and the coming into force of the Bill. In particular, it provides that where somebody is detained Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, immediately and reserve my remarks. before the coming into force of the Bill they should continue to be held under the PTA régime until his or The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, her detention comes to an end. This is essentially to Mrs Hannan. avoid complications arising from switching from one régime to another. Mr Speaker, I beg that clauses 80 Mrs Hannan: I just ask for a clarification of and 81 stand part of the Bill. clause 77(3) where it says, ‘Pending the coming into force of any rules of court under this Act, proceedings The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill. under this Act shall have been made in such a manner and shall be subject to such conditions as the deemster Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve or court receiving the application shall direct.’ With my remarks. regard to that, have the rules that the deemsters will operate on been approved? They do not come to The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Tynwald, I do not think; and do any rules of court the House is that clauses 80 and 81 stand part of the subsequently that are made come to Tynwald? Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 82, hon. member. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood, to reply. Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, clause 82 provides a short title for the Bill and enables it to be brought into Mr Braidwood: Any amendment to any Act operation by means of an appointed day order made by would have to come in front of that hon. Court, the Department of Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, I beg to Mr Speaker, but on the rules of court, I am afraid I do move that clause 82 stands part of the Bill. not really know so I will clarify that position as well on behalf of the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, at The Speaker: Hon. member for Michael. third reading. Mr Cannan: I beg to second and congratulate the The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. hon. member on the handling of the Bill. members, the motion before the House is that clauses 77 and 78 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say Members: Hear, hear.

K236 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Council of Ministers would review the situation and Mrs Hannan. would report to Tynwald where a conscious decision – obviously a vote – would be taken to decide whether Mrs Hannan: I have an amendment before the the legislation should continue or not. House, which is on the order paper, Vainstyr I have been critical of this legislation. I feel that it Loayreyder: is a serious Bill, as mentioned by the mover of this legislation, but I do feel that it should not lie on the Page 52 - statute book for longer than is absolutely necessary. But my amendment allows each House to decide at after line 18: add - some time during the life of that House whether to continue that legislation or not. Therefore I beg to ‘(4) This Act shall remain in operation until move, and I would hope members would find their 1 March 2008 and shall then expire unless way to support it. continued in force by an order under subsection (5). The Speaker: Hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill. (5) The Council of Ministers may by order provide - Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would be (a) that all or any of those provisions which in a position, I think, to second the amendment in the are for the time being in operation hon. member for Peel’s name. I think we have had (including any in operation under an good scrutiny of this Bill so far, and it is only at the order under this paragraph or clauses stage. Can I say that, on behalf of government, paragraph (c)) shall continue in we are very sensitive to the rights issues that are within operation for a period not exceeding 5 this whole Bill and so on the basis that in five years years from the coming into operation of time hopefully the climate of world terrorism might be the order; better, but that would be for other people, the next administration of this Isle, to actually consider at that (b) that all or any of those provisions which time anyway. So it does not seem unreasonable in the are for the time being in operation shall Council of Ministers’ view for the process to be put in cease to be in operation; place now. I want to make it clear that from an Isle of Man (c) that all or any of those provisions which Government perspective we intend to play our are not for the time being in operation international part in the fight against global terrorism. shall come into operation again and That is quite clear, and this Bill puts us in line in that remain in operation for a period not respect, but nonetheless in regard to the sunset clause, exceeding 5 years from the coming into which has been in other pieces of legislation in years operation of the order; or gone by with regard to how we deal with terrorist threats, we have taken a considered view, a collective (d) for such miscellaneous, transitional or view, and I say to hon. ministers that in fact it would savings provisions as the Council of be sensible to support this amendment. Ministers may consider necessary in There is a concern, though, that in fact by doing connection with the exercise of any this we could dilute the message that is going out from power in paragraphs (a) to (c). this Island and I want to make it clear that the government has no intention of wanting to in any way (6) An order under subsection (5) shall not come dilute the message. Nonetheless, if these parts of the into operation unless it is approved by Tynwald.’ legislation were to lapse in five years’ time, they would automatically then surface for consideration of It is made with the suggestion that the legislation the members of the day, and I think that it is a fitting comes into force but shall expire unless continued in legacy that we should do that with this. So I am very force by an order under subsection (5). Under (5), the happy to support the amendment in the member for Council of Ministers would make a conscious decision Peel’s name and hope that all members can support it. that the legislation would continue and about the necessity for it to continue. Subsections (b), (c) and (d) The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, relate to the matters which would be considered and Mrs Hannan, to reply to the amendment. for the consequential matters arising under that there are certain portions of the legislation which might Mrs Hannan: I would just like to thank the Chief never need to be, or would want to be, repealed, such Minister for his comments. I did ask during, I think it as the bio-interest and the toxicity. So this order under was, clause 2 to have some sort of clarification. I am subsection (5) would not come into being unless it was glad that the government has recognised the approved by Tynwald. So what would happen is that responsibilities that it has taken under this particular after five years of this legislation being in place the legislation with regard to human rights and

K237 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

responsibilities, and I welcome the Council of Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have the Ministers’ support for this amendment. pleasure, sir, to move that the First Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the House for 2002-3 The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, be received and the changes to standing orders in 38, Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. 39 and 40 recommended in the report be made. As indicated in this report, this hon. House passed a Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am resolution in March 2001 that a committee of the quite happy to accept this sunset clause, as the Chief House should examine the possibility of establishing a Minister mentioned. I just hope we will mark it down committee to deal with standards and privileges of the in our diary that we do not forget this order, otherwise House. There is at present no committee of the House we will not have any legislation whatsoever. with the explicit responsibility for these matters. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. While the resolution relates to ‘standards and privileges’, your committee have formed a view that The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the word ‘standards’ is in itself sufficiently inclusive. the House is that clause 82 stand part of the Bill. To Furthermore, while ‘privileges’, in the context of that we have an amendment in the name of the hon. parliamentary practice, is well understood by members member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. All those in favour of of this legislature, this may not be so in the wider the amendment please say aye; against, no. The ayes public domain. have it. Now, having determined that a void exists within standing orders in relation to privileges, your A division was called for and the voting resulted committee has opted to address this deficiency by as follows: amendment of the provisions of an existing committee, namely the Consultative Committee – in short, to For: Mr Anderson, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, Mr Quayle, create a Management and Standards Committee which Mr Rimington, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, would replace the Consultative Committee. The Mr Henderson, Mr Cretney, Mr Duggan, existing Consultative Committee in part deals with Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Mr Shimmin, management issues. Now this is apparent from Mrs Hannan, Mr Bell, Mr Singer, Mr Corkill, paragraphs 1.03 and 1.04 of the report which is before Mr Earnshaw, Capt. Douglas and the Speaker – you. Notwithstanding the general nature of the third 20 aspect – that is any matter referred to it by the House – in practical terms it represents the most appropriate Against: Mr Cannan – 1 existing vehicle for dealing with standards. There is, or course, provision in standing order The Speaker: Hon. members, the amendment 201 for Mr Speaker to require an hon. member to carries with 20 votes for and 1 vote against. I now put withdraw for abuse of standing orders and willfully to you the clause as amended. All those in favour say obstructing the business of the House. Also, under aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. standing order 202, Mr Speaker can name a member Hon. members, that concludes consideration of the resulting in his suspension. These are clearly Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill 2002, and I am sure disciplinary matters. that we congratulate the hon. member in moving For what I believe to be good reason, your (Members: Hear, hear.) what has been a lengthy Bill. committee has drawn heavily on the House of ______Commons standing orders dealing with members’ privileges and conduct. Facets not relevant to the Isle Standing Orders Committee – of Man situation, for example matters concerning the First Report 2002-3 Received – parliamentary commission of the standards, have been left out. Recommendations Approved Hon. members will note that it is proposed that Mr Speaker and three other members should constitute Item 5.1. The hon. member for Ayre (Mr Quine) the membership of this committee; further, that the to move: membership should comprise the key to representatives on the Joint Committee on the That the first report of the Standing Orders Emoluments of Certain Public Servants. Committee of the House for 2002-3 be received and The proposed amended standing orders 38, 39 and the changes to standing orders 38, 39 and 40 40 are set out in paragraph 4 of the report. The new recommended in the report be made. wording which has been substituted is shown in italics. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. The Speaker: Now, hon. members, we now move onto other motions and under item 5.1 on our order The Speaker: Hon. member for Michael. paper I call on the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, to move. Mr Cannan: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

K238 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

The Speaker: Hon. member for Garff. House and its members.’ So I take it by that, then, that if the committee has a degree of things to consider, Mr Rodan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Accepting allegations of one member to another or the use of the arguments that have been laid out in support of a language from one member to another – whether or not committee to deal with matters such as standards and it is expressed within this chamber or in fact within the privileges, with which I have no difficulty at all, I overall precinct. welcome the recommendation, I would just ask the It also in this report refers to the fact that it would mover to elaborate on the recommendation under extend into the members’ room or the Keys lobby et number 4 as to what was the thinking behind the cetera, and I wonder: is this the right way to clearly membership of this committee? That procedure is laid deal with conflicts which may occur from time to out: following a general election there shall be elected time? It is in this place and another, I believe, where three members to form a Management and Members’ we do express our differences of opinion, we do have Standards Committee along with Mr Speaker and those our arguments and we do thrash things out and we members shall be the House of Keys members of the either agree to differ or we charge forward. But when joint committee on emoluments who are, of course, at we step out of this place and another, that is the end of the moment elected as a separate procedure. What was the argument as far as I am concerned. (A Member: the thinking on having the same members in both Hear, hear.) Grudges and this sort of thing should committees? I would have thought the remits of the really not spill over from this chamber. (The Speaker: committee on emoluments, of course, is not just to deal Hear, hear.) This is the place where heat comes from with the emoluments of members of this House; it is to time to time and expressions of opinion, but once we deal with public servants such as deemsters, for are out of that door then we return to hopefully our example and members of the judiciary – there is not an normal, amiable, good folk. (Laughter and automatic overlap of interest – the Governor is another interjections) It worries me, though, that because of the example. I do not see automatically that it follows that stamina, vigour and passion expressed from time to the members of one committee are dealing time during debate it often does spill out, until we automatically with matters that are within the remit of reach outside and then the cold clarity of fresh air the other committee and I see as much reason for the usually puts us back into our normal minds and state of committee on emoluments to continue to be elected being and we return to ourselves. But what is separately and, if need be, have quite separate concerning me is that it is referred to in this report that members. So could the mover please explain the this committee will be set up and could consider issues thinking behind that? such as that – it seems to me a little petty. There are provisions within standing orders to The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, consider very serious things that may or may not occur Mrs Cannell. from time to time in this place and another, and they are empowering The Speaker in terms of the Keys Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have chamber and the President in terms of the Tynwald some slight reservations in respect of this particular chamber. I am concerned that we are going a bit over report, starting on page 3 under 2.06, where it talks the top here to deal with perhaps something that has about the standards committee: ‘Examples would been relatively small, and I have to say: things are said include the use of certain expressions or descriptions in in the heat of debate and exchange, and can sometimes debate – “unparliamentary language”, courtesy and spill out of this chamber into the precincts of Tynwald protocol in relation to dealings between members of and Keys generally, and into members’ rooms, but the House and references to the business or officers of such is the nature of the job. We have to be thick- the House.’ It seems to me that we could be by skinned; we have to learn to take it on the chin, even if supporting this we may be accused of setting up an we do not like it. I have taken it on the chin on a ‘agony aunt’ situation. It then goes on to say that: ‘Of number of occasions and I know other hon. members immediate value would be the facility for referring have, and one must not take things personally. (A individual complaints by members about other Member: Hear, hear.) members to committee for which there is no adequate Unless I hear a very convincing argument from provision at the moment.’ So you could have a the hon. mover as to why and how procedures – and situation where you have one member going to see the members, more importantly – will benefit from what is committee, complaining about another, then the other being put forward here in the recommendations to set goes in and tries to justify or explain, followed by up yet another committee – some members feel we another and so on and so forth, without any clear have too many as it is – then I am afraid I may have to decisive conclusion mechanism within this report on consider voting against it, unless I can appreciate what how they would be dealt with, other than on page 6 the benefits are going to be for all hon. members. under (4), that the committee would ‘consider and Thank you, Mr Speaker. report on such standards and such privileges of the House and of members as have been, or in the future The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel. should be, recognised as necessary and desirable for the proper and effective discharge of the duties of the

K239 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

Mrs Hannan: I am really responding to the Committee represent us on the emoluments committee member that spoke who has resumed her seat. I think at the moment, that has been practiced for a long time. this does relate to conflicts in the House. It relates to We are just streamlining – well, restructuring – the how we conduct business within the House. It does not Consultative Committee to take on board this variation relate to anything once you go through that door. It of rôle and it is logical, I think therefore, that they relates to how we act and behave to each other in the should continue with the existing practice that the area of debate and discussions within the parliament members of this new committee would be our itself. Therefore I think it is right that we do strengthen representative on the emoluments committee. the position of standing orders and a committee to The second point raised by the hon. member for oversee that, so that issues such as the behaviour, East Douglas is the question of whether or not this unparliamentary language, courtesy, protocol and all of committee is going to have a rôle to resolve conflict those issues can be referred, quite properly, to a between members. Now, I think that is taking this committee which will then look at the issues. I think it committee somewhat out of context. The object of this is quite right and proper that we do, but to say that committee is essentially a point of reference in relation issues stop once we go through that door is completely to standards and privileged as a wherewithal to wrong, as far as I am concerned. Things are said facilitate the business of the House. I have certainly outside of this hon. House, Vainstyr Loayreyder, but not envisaged to the best of my knowledge that we this committee, I would put to this hon. House, would would be arbitrators of disputes that may take place have no control or anything over what happens there. It outside of this chamber. Our objectives we have in happens in the media – only this week the Chief place, to deal with this matter of the best management Minister castigated myself for my green credentials. I of our affairs i.e. the management aspect – which shall write to him about it but he is at liberty to say essentially exists under another name at the moment – that, if that is what he believes. to put in place a better mechanism for this question of privileges and standards. So it is the business of the Mr Corkill: I did not mention that. House in the House on which the focus of attention falls. That is the purpose of the exercise. I think they Mrs Hannan: No, you did not have to, Vainstyr are the only two points that I need to respond to, sir. Loayreyder (Interjections). Yes, but my credentials are With that I beg to move, sir. okay as far as I am concerned, and I will protect them – but it will be outside of the Court or it will be The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before questions in the House. I can lay that down the line. the House is standing at item 5.1 on our order paper in (Interjection) There are other members who run to the the name of the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. All press and ask for people’s resignations, but that does those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. not come within this particular report before us today. The ayes have it. Therefore I would hope that members will support it so ______that the product of the House is within the standing orders and that the presiding officers, in this case Electronic Voting in the Chamber – Vainstyr Loayreyder, has the wherewithal to control Standing Orders Committee – Report the discussion within the House, and I would recommend the report to hon. members. Received – Recommendation Approved

The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, Item 5.2. The hon. member for Ayre (Mr Quine) to reply. (Interjections.) to move:

Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Essentially I That the Report of the Standing Orders Committee think there are two points that have been raised. The of the House on Electronic Voting in the Chamber be first one, of course, was raised by the hon. member for received and its recommendation approved. Garff, Mr Rodan, and that is the proposed 38(2): ‘The members of the Management and Members’ Standards The Speaker: I call on the hon. member for Ayre, Committee shall be the House of Keys members of the Mr Quine. Joint Committee on Emoluments of Certain Public Servants. The situation there, I think, is quite Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This report straightforward: at the present time we have a which is before us on electronic voting in the chamber Consultative Committee. It is proposed that the comes to the House following a resolution as long ago Consultative Committee be reformed to form this new as February 2000 and that was a resolution the House committee dealing with management and members’ passed requesting the Standing Orders Committee to standards. At the present time the membership of the investigate and report on the issue of electronic voting. Consultative Committee are our representatives on the The combination of changes of staff in the Tynwald Tynwald joint emoluments committee. So we are just office and the interposition of the general election in carrying forward a continuation of existing practice in 2001 have resulted in the requested report not coming that matter. The membership of the Consultative back to the House as soon as it should have done, and for that I apologise. However, research has now been K240 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 undertaken on the broad feasibility and cost of such a keep that traditional method is also very important. I change and at the same time the position of the do not think we should have change for change’s sake. Legislative Council in Tynwald Court has also been An advantage of an electronic system I suppose would taken into account with a view to providing, if change be a certain amount of speed, it would certainly be is to be made, the most cost-efficient type of quicker than the present system; but of course there installation. That is not to say that the decision whether would be the disadvantage that one comes across with to move to electronic voting must necessarily be taken the vulnerability of electronic systems and technical in relation to all three chambers or none. Clearly it is breakdown. open to the House to make its own decision and for Now it is said, and it is made a play of in this that to stand alone, but it is at least possible that if the report, that one of the advantages would be the House decides in favour of this change, Tynwald Court prevention of tactical voting. That is a matter of will do likewise and in that case the Legislative opinion. I think that tactical voting is an integral part Council, for very little additional cost, could be of our political system and an important part, included at the same time. particularly for backbenchers. It does bring a great deal As hon. members will see, the figures show of colour, and tradition would be lost if tactical voting broadly that for this chamber alone the cost of was eliminated. As I say, tactical voting is perhaps one electronic voting would be in the region of £20,000 of the very few weapons available to backbenchers, and that for all three legislative chambers the cost and I think that we should be very careful that we do might be something like £70,000 to £75,000. These not actually destroy that particular advantage, if you figures are approximate at the moment for two reasons. can look at it as an advantage, to backbenchers. My There is no provision in the Tynwald budget for 2003- opinion is that £75,000 could be far better spent than 4 for expenditure of this kind and it would need to be spending it on a new electronic voting system for such provided, of course, in the 2004-5 budget, unless a small membership, and therefore I do not believe it is exceptional financial decisions were to be made which a consideration at this time or in the near future. So I in a matter of this sort I think would be very unlikely. believe that we should leave tings as they are. Let us The second reason is that formal tenders would stick to our tradition as it is now. I do not see any have to be invited, should a decision be taken to go reason to change. ahead, and it would have been inappropriate without such a decision in principle for tenders to have been The Speaker: Hon. member for Onchan, invited. So we need that decision in principle. The Mr Earnshaw. matter is therefore before the House to test the views of hon. members, whether in principle we should go Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of ahead in this direction, given the likely cost and the all, I would like to thank the person who has moved absence of any unsuitable difficulties on the technical the motion, the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine and side, the decision will be largely one I think of policy. his committee for this report, but I share the views of We have outlined in part 2 of the report what appears the previous speaker. I am reluctant to support the to be the issues of policy for and against, and I would motion that is before us for much the same reasons. I commend to members that they have a look at that think it is an unnecessary break with tradition. I cannot section of the pros and cons. Overall your committee see any great problem with the existing system that we concluded that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages have – it is really value for money I think – which and your committee commends the initiative to the would justify the expenditure of £75,000. We have not House. The views of hon. members will, of course, be had any votes today, I do not think, where this would of paramount importance. I beg to move, sir. have come into play, so I agree with my colleague from Ramsey, Mr Singer, that the money could be The Speaker: Hon. member for Michael. much better spent. If we were going to spend it in this House, there are desks and chairs that have been here Mr Cannan: I beg to second and reserve my for a hundred years. We could perhaps look at remarks, Mr Speaker. spending some money on that sort of thing, but I think we would get far better value for money in other areas. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Singer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have taken Mr Gill: Thank you. Just briefly I suggest this the view that if it was approved and there was going to recommendation is in principle, as we can see, but it is be a likelihood of a total spend of the £75,000, I have also on the basis that we will actually vote however tried to weigh up, in terms of £75,000, what would be many millions it will turn out to be for a the advantage to the work of this House. I think voting refurbishment. I am not sure in the times of takes up relatively little time of this House and of straightened austerity that we have been asked to another place because of the relatively small number of embrace that we should actually be making that members. I do not see any problem really at present. I decision, but that is for another time (Mr Cretney and think we have a traditional method and I think just to Another Member: Hear, hear.). I do take the view,

K241 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 sir, and I would look for some definite clarity from the What we may find, however, is a lot of lobbying going mover that that is the case and my understanding is on before we enter this place and another, but that goes correct – it is just in principle and there would not be on anyway: lobbying to support or not to support a any move to come back – because I have to say on the particular thing. basis of how things are that exist now and if there is I think it is a move in the right direction, we not to be any refurbishment, then I would support should support it in principle and I think it will stop Mr Singer’s contention that things are not so badly certain members today and in the future from sitting on broken that they need fixing at this expense at this the fence, when they should be decisive for the sake of juncture. Thank you, Mr Speaker. their constituents in going one way or another. Secondly, I think it will save time in all having to call The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas East, out individually and some being bolder than others and Mrs Cannell. others being quieter than others. I think it will save administrative time for the Clerk in having to record Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise the votes and then passing the results on. All of that actually in support of the initiative which we are being can take time and in another place, Mr Speaker, we asked to give a definitive decision on in terms of the have consistently, I would suggest, for at least two ‘in principle’ aspect of it, because having sat in the years been running the full three days when we are in gallery of another place and in here on and off for 10 Tynwald Court, and of course we are being accused by or 12 years before entering this hon. House, I have certain individuals of time-wasting, we have to be watched tactical voting and have not been very quicker on this, this has to be pulled to order, and impressed on occasion by the tactical voting, certain questions are not asked in Tynwald because we particularly when a very worthy laudable motion has have run out of time. Important aspects of been before the House or before Tynwald Court. I parliamentary scrutiny are being sacrificed as a cannot agree with the comments made by the hon. consequence of time, and if there is a mechanism member who calls himself a backbencher from where we can bring in a fairness, an impartiality, a Ramsey, Mr Singer. I too am a backbencher, better democratic situation in terms of voting Mr Speaker, and being one of the members who votes procedures and save time, then I think it should be in the middle, on being called – because there is a supported, because we are not looking at an awful lot standard where we are called, and the first person to be of money. called is always that person to be called and the last to Of course, the other thing is, too, that it is only in be called is always that person to be called – I am principle. It is also tied to the fact that it would only somewhere in the middle, and it can swing one way or come in as and when the refurbishment of the the other. What I have witnessed over the years is that chambers came in, and of course that is still up in the some members here present, and who have been air. I expected all members to receive in July of last previously present in previous Houses, have – year some kind of financial request coming forward to Tynwald Court for that, but it did not and of course, as The Speaker: Hon. members, please! I understand it, the whole thing is being re-evaluated, but nevertheless that has still got to come forward, we Mrs Cannell: – thank you, Mr Speaker – sat on still have to consider that. This is in addition to that, the fence on a particularly contentious issue, they have but as part of a move forward. not known what to do. ‘Do I go with the established I congratulate the committee, Mr Speaker, as view, even though I have reservations about it?’ ‘Do I chair, the hon. member for Michael, the hon. member be true to myself and go with myself and my own for West Douglas, the hon. member for Peel and the conviction and my predetermined position?’ ‘Am I hon. mover today, Mr Quine, member for Ayre. being pulled by collective responsibility as a member Bearing in mind the wide range of personality and of a department, despite the fact there is nothing differences of opinion and view, they have come up written down to say that I should?’ ‘I am a minister, with a very good, very laudable suggestion and should I also go with collective responsibility?’ – but recommendation. I think we should support it because going by this morning’s example, Mr Speaker, the it is a move forward not backwards. answer to that, of course, is up in the air a bit (Interjection). At the end of the day, when there is a The Speaker: Hon. member for Onchan, very important issue up for consideration and debate Mr Corkill. and decision, I think it is prudent that the House or the Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My parliament assembled with the Legislative Council comments will be brief. There are basically two issues should make a definitive, precise and strong vote – in before us at the moment, in my view, and one of them other words they all vote together. I think the result has a budgetary aspect to it and as I understand it, this may well be very surprising to members of the public, debate really is to establish a principle. Budgetary officers and members of this House, because we may issues are for another time and another place. There are well find for the first time in the history of the Isle of many things that not only the House, but government, Man, we are all having to use our own brain to resolved by Tynwald, for instance, decides upon, but determine how we are going to go in a particular vote. they do not happen until the finances are made

K242 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

available at a future date and that is the environment if by chance the refurbishment did not occur, then we live in. electronic voting would fall as well, and I would say as I have always thought that we should seriously a principle it stands alone, it should not be attached to examine electronic voting and I am very pleased that any proposed refurbishment. Obviously it is an the committee has done this. I think we put a great opportunity from a financial perspective, but if we burden as a House – and always have done – for really believe in the principle of electronic voting – instance on the member for Glenfaba, who always has ‘instant voting’ is what I would call it’ and instant to be alert and responsive (Laughter) to be available to recognition of what those votes are – then I think we cast the first vote. should either be for or against that principle and not really attach it to anything else. That was the only The Speaker: Younger now! (Laughter) point I wish to make, so I am generally supportive and (Interjection by Mrs Crowe) would thank the committee for their deliberations.

Mr Corkill: Yes, like the hon. member’s The Speaker: Hon. member for Michael. predecessor! But that leads me to the point that has been raised by other speakers about tactical voting. Mr Cannan: Just to say, Mr Speaker, that I was Certainly by the time the voting gets to this part of the the original mover of the motion in February 2000, I House and further along, very often one knows am pleased that I am also on the committee, I whether the vote has been won or lost. Therefore that obviously support it very much, it is a matter of gives members at the end of the voting process an integrity and I fully support all the comments the Chief opportunity to change their vote from what they are Minister has made. Indeed, as a matter of historical thinking, to make a statement – and that is politics, I reference, I came to this House when the hon. member can accept that that is not necessarily wrong – but it is for Glenfaba’s father was sitting in his seat and he a privilege, perhaps, that members who vote later in complained to me that he was the only man who ever the pattern of voting, which is established by voted in the House of Keys, the rest followed one way convention or by practice, who are lower down the or the other, and that has been the custom ever since. I calling have that option, but members such as the first think, as the Chief Minister said, everybody should member to vote do not have that. So I could easily, as a vote accordingly and not any one person have the member for Onchan, where very often a vote is almost advantage towards the end of the voting session. So I known by the time it gets to my vote, say, ‘Well, I will hope that you will all support the report and that the keep that tactical ploy for myself.’ But I do not think voting will be seen to be the true voting of members on that is fair on other members who vote earlier in the all occasions. Thank you, Mr Speaker. procedure and I never have thought that that was right or fair. I think by the time the vote is called, in my The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, view, hon. members should know which way they are Mr Downie. going to vote. (Mrs Crowe: Absolutely.) They should have made their minds up and they should not be Mr Downie: Yes, thank you. As a member of the looking at other members at that stage. So that is, I committee, we did go into this issue in some depth and find, progress. It is something I have been interested in whether we like it or not, hon. members – and I am not ever since I became a member of this hon. House, that one to promote breaking with tradition – but we are we should examine electronic voting. entering a new age, I would expect in the next few I was also interested in the comment from my years or some time this year to see laptops present here colleague, Mr Earnshaw, who said that we have not and in another place. (Laughter and Interjections) I really had any votes today with regard to the need for would actually envisage members of this House electronic voting and I can understand what the hon. actually logging on and making sure that unless they member is saying, but of course with an electronic were logged on the vote would not be recorded. That is system every vote on every clause, every member’s the way things are moving in parliamentary circles. name would be attached either for or against for the As far as electronic voting goes, I think it would public record in a very easy convenient form which be much clearer; there would be less time then given to would be available, electronically presumably, in a calling divisions; we would be able to see straight number of ways, in the way that those votes are away what the vote was; and as previous speakers have recorded in Hansard. Of course, when you have a said, it is much more democratic and it is what is general vote – the ayes have it or the noes have it – expected in a modern day jurisdiction. As I say, names are not necessarily recorded unless a division is whether we like it or not, time is not standing still. called. So with electronic voting you are accountable This is not the House that we had 100 years ago, when for your vote in a greater way, and I do not have a members arrived in the horse and cart or on the train problem with that as a member of this House. and they came here for a day’s business. We need to There was one issue with the report which ties it get on and we need to reflect that in the way we in to the redevelopment of the old government office conduct our business and the message we send out to buildings, which would be – well the way I read this, the people who are investing in the Isle of Man. We and I would not hold the mover to task on it, was – that are out promoting IT, I-business and everything else,

K243 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 and we should cut our cloth accordingly and set a good handbagging by sitting just here (Laughter). So it is example for the rest of the Island, its schools, and quite an onerous responsibility, but I think listening to education system to follow. So I do not have a problem the previous speakers perhaps the principle should be with the report. established, but I am not sure that now is the time to I do have a problem with the expense that is spend the money. Thank you. involved and I would support that we should not really be nailing our colours firmly to the mast until we know The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, that the money will be properly and wisely spent, and Mr Shimmin. we can have a system that, if we do relocate somewhere else in the not-too-distant future, can quite Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I did not easily accompany us and be installed in our new intend to speak on this one; I will be supportive of the chambers. Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. report. However, I would make reference to a couple of points the members have made regarding the timing The Speaker: Hon. member for Garff. of this. I am in favour of, in principle, looking at this process, but I am not in favour of going down this road Mr Rodan: Mr Speaker, I listened with interest to in isolation. I think that we will be afforded as a the psychoanalysis of the explanation by the hon. chamber one opportunity when the refurbishment takes member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, as to what place that we then need to try and develop the future drove hon. members to vote the way they do, and of opportunities that that chamber or chambers will allow. course the implication is that there are various degrees Therefore I think the committee is right to have looked of honesty and tactical voting and ‘if the fence is broad at linking it together. I do not believe this is a pressing enough, I will sit on it’ type of thing. I would not care issue for any of us; I think it is an issue that the to comment on why people vote the way they do, but opportunity has arisen. I think it should be linked there is of course what we have talked about is this purely to the refurbishment and along with the progression of successive voting and how that might comments my colleague in West Douglas has made effect the outcome, and it just strikes me that the same regarding future technology, I think most of us are considerations apply not just to when a division is somewhat resistant to the idea of laptops on our desks. called or a ballot taken but also when the presiding However, I think it is something which should be officer seeks the first vote, the first call of aye or no. I incorporated within a future development so that wonder, therefore, why the report in paragraph 2.1 opportunity is availing of itself, but it will take far appears simply to refer to: ‘Electronic voting simply more discussion before we actually go down that road. means that when a division or ballot is called, the I think we, as members, have an obligation to begin to members vote by means of pressing a button for yes or familiarise ourselves with the technology that is no’. Is this report recommending that on the first call available. However, it is certainly a long way from that be done by the traditional call by the presiding getting it in this chamber when hon. members still offices? If so, there is the same scope then for a have limited access to computers either in the offices member to conceal his true of her true motives and just upstairs or their own personal laptops. go with the flow or not, and never have tested So I think we have got a number of debates still to necessarily being out on a limb or whatever, and it go, but I would encourage the committee to say, ‘Yes, strikes me that the same arguments that are being made it is right to look at this’ and link it in with any further also apply for the first call of the vote. Yet the report refurbishments of the chambers and facilities for does not specifically say that, and I wonder if the members. That means that we should incorporate it in committee deliberately excluded that for a particular the one change, so that we do not have an abomination reason – of further developments five years down the road. So I welcome the committee’s report, I think it does make A Member: Tactical reasons. sense to consider it, but let us not lose sight that this is not a burning issue for all of us; it is taking the Mr Rodan: – for tactical reasons maybe – or opportunity when it arises. whether they did give that some thought. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, to reply to the debate. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is Santon. perfectly clear in the report, actually, that the issue was raised by the committee on the basis that it was an Capt. Douglas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the opportunity for this hon. House to express their newest member, when I first came here I thought the support or otherwise on the principle that is involved. last in was the last person to vote, but I very quickly We have made it quite clear that that is the basis upon realised that the eyes were upon me, so to speak, and it which we are inviting members to give us an is quite a threatening position to be in! Integrity is a indication of their wishes in this matter, and we have byword, but I also realised that being last, you are said in the report – and it was what indeed one or two quite liable to get some sort of lashing or a members have said – it is not a matter of high priority

K244 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003

and for that reason we have said in the report that to be Minister on that, but that is another matter! I am just realistic there is no question of breaking budget cycles demonstrating that there is another aspect to this or giving this a high priority. We are talking of 2004- tactical voting which, of course, we have not touched 05. We are talking of a window of opportunity when upon and I think it should be recognised that that refurbishment takes place, so I think that position is exists. perfectly clear. It is, as I said, principle, so I do not think I need to The hon. member for Ramsey seems to feel that it reiterate that. The hon. member for Garff has raised the is change for change’s sake; I do not think that that is a matter of whether this would be limited to divisions true reflection of the situation. The position is that we and ballots, or whether it could be applied to the first hold ourselves out as a government, as a business call where we give our ‘aye’ and our ‘no’. This is not community, as recognising the importance of an issue which the committee has focused on because, technological advances and being seen as being up-to- as I said, we are coming forward on the basis of date and in step with what people outside this chamber principle. Certainly if you were to look at it in terms of are taking on board, and have to take on board in many time saved it would not apply on the first call, because of their cases to stay afloat in business. I think it is not it is a simple call of yes or no, as the case may be, but unreasonable that we who represent those who are it may be that a case could be made on the tactical outside here, should also put our markers down and ground. That is a matter for further examination at show that we are in step with that modern thinking and another time. It is the principle of whether we move to that, if there is value in technological advance, that we electronic voting that is the issue here today. should take advantage of it and that includes taking I think they are the only matters that I would wish advantage of it in this hon. House. That has got to be to comment on, sir, other than to thank hon. members weighed against opportunity and costs. Quite clearly for their various contributions and particularly those those factors have to be taken into consideration. members who have supported the report which is The point that has drawn the greatest attention is placed before them. I started out as something of a this question of tactical voting. I feel it is not an sceptic in this matter, I honestly did. I felt that there overpowering consideration, but I think it is an was limited scope in this direction. But the more I have important one, and the comments we have had of read up on the matter, the more I have looked at what course have tended to centre I think more in our work other places are doing and the opportunity I have had place. They have tended to reflect practice and to weigh the pros and the cons of this, then as far as the requirements for this House, but if we take ourselves principle goes I believe it is a very strong case to back to the meetings of Tynwald, then perhaps we can support the principle, and I would commend to see this question of tactical voting such as it is in a members that they support this report. That would be somewhat different context. There you have not only our endorsement of the principle and then matters can get the question of tactical voting, in the sense that move forward from there, as and when and if the funds those that vote later can do their own little sums and and the willingness of the members of this hon. House say ‘Right, I am going that way or I am going this is there to lend it their support. I beg to move, sir. way.’ It would be nice to think that everybody is completely independently minded, but that is not the The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before reality of politics, of course. The simple fact is that if the House is the item at 5.2 on our order paper that the you are sufficiently down the line and you have the report should be received and its recommendation luxury of voting for or against something, knowing approved. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The that you are not going to lose the cause, then your vote ayes have it. is going to give you a public projection outside that is favourable and you are not seen as voting against the A division was called for and voting resulted as issue. So this tactical voting is an issue of some follows: significance. The second part of this, which has not been For: Mr Anderson, Mr Cannan, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, touched upon under this heading of ‘Tactical Voting’, Mr Quayle, Mr Rimington, Mrs Crowe, is of course the other place. When we sit in Tynwald Mr Houghton, Mr Henderson, Mr Braidwood, Court, we go through our voting here and there would Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie, Mr Shimmin, be the limited scope for us to vote tactically, but what Mrs Hannan, Mr Corkill, Capt. Douglas and happens up there? I think most of us can reflect just the Speaker – 17 back as far as the last Tynwald and we had one or two very interesting votes, because they are able to look Against: Mr Gill, Mr Cretney, Mr Duggan, Mr Bell, down here, see how the vote has gone here and they Mr Singer and Mr Earnshaw – 6 take it from there - The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before Mr Corkill: So they should! (Interjections) the House carries with 17 votes for and 6 votes against. Now, hon. members, that concludes the business Mr Quine: Well, that is an argument: if they had of the House for today. The House will stand a statutory rôle I might be agreeing with the Chief

K245 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 28TH JANUARY 2003 adjourned until 10 a.m. next Tuesday, 4th February in our own chamber. Thank you, hon. members.

The Court adjourned at 5.02 p.m.

K246