Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE OF KEYS

Douglas, Tuesday, 7th March 1995 at 10.00 a.m.

Present: He was a conscientious and loyal member of the The Speaker (the Hon J C Cain) (Douglas West); departments of which he was appointed, and I am sure Mr A R Bell and Hon T R A Groves (Ramsey); Mr R E that his contribution and indeed responsibility for the IRIS Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Hon H project will be missed by the Department of Transport, as Hannan (Peel); Mr W A Gilbey (Glenfaba); Dr E J Mann will his membership of the Department of Education. He (Garff); Hon D North (Middle); Messrs P Karran, R K was a conscientious member of a number of committees Corkill and J R Kniveton (Onchan); Hon B May (Douglas including the Public Accounts Committee, and his political North); Messrs A C Duggan and D C Cretney (Douglas contribution to all these and related activities will be sorely South); Messrs D F K Delaney and P W Kermode (Douglas missed. East); Mr A F Downie (Douglas West); Hon J A Brown As an individual, as I have said, he was quiet and (Castletown); Hon D J Gelling (Malew and Santon); Hon unassuming, and he bore his painful fight against cancer M R Walker CBE LLD (hc), Hon J Corrin and Mr N Q with dignity and determination which we all admired. I Cringle (Rushen); with Prof T StJ N Bates, Secretary of am sure that we will extend to his wife Sheila and indeed the House. to his whole family our deepest sympathy at this sad time. I am sure that, quite apart from his work as a politician, his presence as a family man will be sorely missed. TRIBUTE TO THE LATE It is my personal view that it might well be appropriate WILLIAM DAVID CORLETT MHK for this House to adjourn at this time as a mark of respect to our late colleague and to resume the business detailed The Speaker: Hon. members, before we commence on our agenda at, say, 2.30 p.m. this afternoon. However, our formal business today, it is my sad duty to inform the this is a matter for the House and now I would ask all hon. House of the death of the hon. member for Douglas North, members to stand for a moment in silent tribute to our late William David Corlett. colleague. As you will no doubt all be aware, David Corlett was educated at Victoria Road School, Castletown, and The House stood in silence. subsequently at Liverpool University, and was thereafter commissioned into the 1st Battalion The Loyal Regiment The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. during his National Service. He spent 17 years with the Unilever group in various parts of the world and returned Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, further to your suggestion I to the Isle of Man at the conclusion of that service in 1974. would formally propose, as a mark of respect to our late He was on the board of directors of a number of local colleague and to his family: companies and was elected to the House of Keys at the last general election in November 1991. That this House adjourn to 2.30 pm as a mark of So much for the facts. But the question must arise, how respect to our late colleague, the hom member for Douglas will we remember him? He was a quiet, unassuming man North, William David Corlett. who was diligent in his application to the work that he was asked to undertake and who rarely spoke, either in Mr May: Mr Speaker, it is entirely fitting that the House this House or indeed in Tynwald, unless he had carefully should indicate its respect for our former colleague in this thought out not only his own views but the way in which fashion, and I would respectfully second, sir. he was going to present them. As a consequence, in a period of nearly 31/2 years, he gained a reputation within this House which in my opinion reflected the standing and The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. If no member regard in which he was held by us all. Almost his last wishes to speak I will put the motion to the House. Will all parliamentary action was to move successfully those in favour please say aye; to the contrary say no. The amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Accordingly the House will consequence of which will be that the voting system at the now adjourn until 2.30 this afternoon. next general election will revert to the first-past-the-post system. The House adjourned at 10.05 a.m.

Tribute to the Late William David Corlett MHK K496 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

The Chaplain took the prayers. the People Act 1951 as amended. Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. PROCEDURAL Mr Downie: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. I would The Speaker: Before we commence our business this like to ask the hon. minister, what reduction in delegated afternoon, I would call upon the hon. member for Rushen, authority has the board seen since the hon. member was the Chief Minister, to move a motion which I understand appointed minister? has been circulated. Mrs Hannan: None, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Mr Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we adjourned our business this morning shortly after 10 o'clock it is Mr Quine: Could the Minister for Education advise necessary to suspend our standing orders to allow us to this hon. House as to what discussions there have been to continue the business as it is written on the agenda paper, date with the members of the Board of Education in relation and the motion that has been circulated in my name does to the consideration that is now being given to their role? just that. I beg to move: Have they been consulted and, if they have not, will they be consulted? (i) Standing Order 43(2) be suspended; and Mrs Hannan: Vainstyr Loayreyder, members will be (ii) no questions shall be taken after 3.00 pm. aware that in the legislative programme there is a new Education Bill. It is in the process of being drawn up but it Mr Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. will be some time before it is available for consultation. However, it will be out for consultation. The rules relating The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any to the operation of the Board of Education, committees, member wish to speak? If not I will put the motion to the managers and governors, were approved following House. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the consultation with the board members in 1992. Full contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. consultation does take place with the board members. I meet them jointly on a termly basis. Other members of the department meet them more frequently even than that. We BOARD OF EDUCATION — ELECTIONS - have a good working relationship and we do consult with QUESTION BY MR DOWNIE them on a regular basis.

The Speaker: Now we have eight questions for oral Mr Quine: The minister has indicated that a Bill is answer this afternoon and I call upon the hon. member for either in draft form or being drafted. Will she confirm that Douglas West, Mr Downie, to ask the first of those the members of the board will be consulted before that questions. Bill is finalised and printed?

Mr Downie: Mr Speaker, I beg leave to ask the Minister Mrs Hannan: I can confirm that, Vainstyr Loayreyder. for Education: Question 2, in the name of the late hon. member for Does your department continue to find the role of Douglas North, Mr Corlett, was omitted and method of election to, the Board of Education to be satisfactory?

The Speaker: The Minister for Education to reply. IRIS SCHEME — ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF SEWAGE SLUDGE - Mrs Hannan: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I thank the hon. QUESTION BY MR DOWNIE member for his question. Since the introduction of the The Speaker: departmental and ministerial system of government the role We move on to question number 3 and of members of the Board of Education has caused some again I call upon the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr concern, not only to myself and members of the department Downie. but to board members themselves. Indeed, it may well be that the number of candidates at the last election reflected Mr Downie: Mr Speaker, I beg leave to ask the Minister the uncertain role of the Board of Education. However, I for Transport: am conscious of the valuable work undertaken by the board members. They serve on many committees, act as What are the estimated quantities of sewage sludge governors and managers of schools, college and youth to be produced when the IRIS scheme is running at full organisations and in that role they are a valuable contact working capacity? between communities and schools. At the moment members of the Board of Education are elected in The Speaker: I call upon the Minister for Transport to accordance with the provisions of the Representation of reply.

Procedural Board of Education — Elections — Question by Mr Downie his Scheme — Estimated Quantity of Sewage Sludge — Question by Mr Downie HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K497

Mr North: Mr Speaker, the estimated quantities per provide an assurance to hon. members, that all sewage WRC of sewage sludge which will be produced are, under sludge produced by your department can be adequately phase 1, which is Douglas and Onchan, 1,050 tonnes of and safely disposed of before actually constructing this dry solids per year, under phases 1 and 2, which would be sewage sludge element into the overall IRIS scheme? the current population, including industrial and tourism, it would be 1,675 tonnes of dry solids per year, and phases Mr North: Mr Speaker, from indications, as hon. 1, 2 and 3 it would be 2,513 tonnes of dry solids per year. members will be aware, trials have been undertaken at It should be noted that phases 1 and 2 together will provide Knockaloe and elsewhere on the Island and we anticipate for a population equivalent of 100,000 which includes, as no problem whatsoever. As I have said in the answer I have said, industrial and tourism use, and phase 3 will initially, we are talking about, for phases 1 and 2, 320 acres bring the treatment capacity up to 150,000 population required per year out of 42,000 acres. There is no problem equivalent. Taking standard criteria for sludge application whatsoever in applying this. I have to say that in the United to agricultural land, the above quantities translate to the Kingdom, contrary to what some people claim, there is a following land requirements: under phase 1, 130 hectares waiting list for sludge to be used for agricultural purposes or 320 acres; phases 1 and 2, 210 hectares or 520 acres, and in the Isle of Man we anticipate that there will be no and phases 1, 2 and 3, 315 hectares or 780 acres. This problem whatsoever in disposing of that sewage sludge. compares with an estimated 17,000 hectares, or 42,000 acres, of agricultural land potentially available for sludge Mr Delaney: Having answered my supplementary, Mr spreading on the basis of cropping and a further 30,000 Speaker, that the nasties - if I can refer to them as that - acres of grassland potentially available. will be extracted before it goes on the land, what is the Consequently only 0.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent of the method of disposal of the nasties that are taken out of this cultivated land area of the Island would nominally be dried sludge? How do we get rid of them? required for sludge application annually. However, areas of land would be excluded due to soil type, slope, unwilling Mr North: Mr Speaker, those, as I understand it, go to farmers, location of water courses, housing, et cetera. landfill. Whilst a detailed land assessment has not been carried out, it is clear that there are substantial areas of land potentially available which are sufficient to sustain a sludge to land operation for many decades - centuries in fact, into the SEWAGE SLUDGE — QUANTITIES future. FOR DISPOSAL ON LAND - QUESTION BY MR DOWNIE Mr Downie: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. As sewage sludge is known to contain pathogenic bacteria, viruses, The Speaker: I call upon the hon. member for Douglas protozoa, together with other harmful elements such as West to ask question number 4. heavy metals and chemical substances, what current standards in the United Kingdom or European Community Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg leave to directive will sludge or bio-solids produced in the IRIS ask the Minister for Transport: scheme comply with? What talks have taken place between your Mr North: Mr Speaker, there are various standards set department and the agricultural community to ascertain down and in fact there is, which I have here in front of me, what quantities of sewage sludge can be disposed of on a pamphlet which is a farmers' guide to the agricultural the land? value of sewage sludge and that lays down as to where it can be applied and as to what areas. There are fairly strict The Speaker: The Minister for Transport, again, to guidelines and in fact we are very fortunate on the Island reply. that we do not have the presence of heavy metals that exist in Europe and other areas. Mr North: Mr Speaker, there have been a number of meetings over recent years, including occasions when Mr Delaney: Mr Speaker, the minister, in his reply to officers of the department have made presentations to the my hon. friend, said that there would be 1,050 tonnes per Manx National Farmers' Union regarding the use of year of dry sludge. Would the minister indicate to this sewage sludge on agricultural land. The current position House whether that includes, in that dried sludge, all the is that the MNFU Council have stated, in a letter dated modern materials and waste that go down the sewer or is 11th January 1994, that 'the matter was discussed at council there some method of extraction going to be introduced to and in general farmers are not against sewage waste being ensure that they do not go on the land? applied to agricultural land. There have been cases in the Mr North: Mr Speaker, the preliminary treatment will United Kingdom where too much sewage material was remove all those solids prior to it going into the treatment injected, leading to aerobic conditions and subsequent plant. failure of root crops, and so care will be needed not to extend beneficial levels of application. Please keep the Mr Downie: Does your department intend to enter into MNFU informed regarding the scheme proposed for the contracts or agreements with landowners, and therefore disposal of this waste material.'

Sewage Sludge — Quantities for Disposal on Land — Question by Mr Downie K498 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

It should not be forgotten that much of the Island's tanks which sewage sludge will be removed from, benefit sewage sludge was historically disposed of to agricultural Douglas East and indeed the Isle of Man waters as a whole land up to a decade ago. This sludge was not of the quality as a result of what you are doing on that promenade and now being produced through the department's sludge there will be no other indignities of this kind imposed on processing plant at Glen Vme. In particular, the screenings our waters? then contained within the sludges were the very visible evidence, as crops grew, of the origins of the material. It The Speaker: Hon. member, before you reply, I would was not, however, the farming community itself which advise you that, in my view, that supplementary is outside stopped this practice. This was a conscious decision of the the terms of reference of the question on the order paper. Department of Highways, Ports and Properties in 1988. It is a matter for you. Indeed as recently as May 1990, at an MNFU meeting, one farmer was willing to take all the sludges then being Mr North: A very brief answer. Mr Speaker, until the produced. This offer was not taken up because the sewage treatment plant in Meary Veg is completed, that department believes it to be of vital importance that the situation will not exist. safe and beneficial use of sewage sludge must first have been fully demonstrated. Mr Downie: Is the minister aware that currently only Since 1990 the sludge processing plant at Glen Vme one per cent of agricultural land in the United Kingdom has been in operation. After further storage, to comply with receives sewage sludge? Can you confirm that the amount public health requirements, the processed sludges are being of agricultural land available to your department for sewage used in a series of field trials. The first field trial was carried disposal purposes in the Isle of Man can meet the present out by WRC during 1992 at the Knockaloe Experimental United Kingdom Department of Environment code of Farm and with the assistance of the Department of practice laid down for agricultural use of sewage sludge? Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The results were reported, Hall 1993, and showed that sludge contributed Mr North: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that, yes, we can to increased crop yields and that the sludge had very low and that those standards can be met. As I have said in a concentrations of contaminants - heavy metals. Farmers previous answer, there is an exceedingly good brochure were able to view the plots during farm open days. which was presented along with several pages - in fact, I The current trial, of which MNFU is aware, is with a think, two to three dozen pages - on sludge disposal at the winter barley crop being grown on northern sandy soil. recent public inquiry on the agricultural value of sewage This trial will compare crop production for equal-sized sludge and it details exactly how it should be done and we plots with different sludge application rates against a find no problem whatsoever with that procedure. similar plot with zero sludge. Before and after soil quality will also be monitored. It is intended that the results of this and other trials will be made widely available to the INCOME TAX — EXCLUSION OF LOW PAID farming community. Once the environmental soundness — COST TO GOVERNMENT - of the policy to receive sewage sludge as a fertiliser is QUESTION BY MR KARRAN proved, only some, as I have said in a previous answer, 0.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent of the Island's cultivated land The Speaker: We turn to the hon. member for Onchan area would be required annually. Even allowing for various to ask question number 5. exclusions it is clear that there are substantial areas of land potentially available which would be sufficient to sustain Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to ask the a sewage sludge to land operation for centuries into the Minister for the Treasury: future. It is only when the department is satisfied that the safe and beneficial use has been fully demonstrated that it What would be the cost to government of excluding will actively seek to identify specific farmers who would those persons whose weekly income is less than f200.00 want to make use of the product. from paying income tax?

Mr Downie: A supplementary, Mr Speaker. I would The Speaker: The Minister for the Treasury to reply. just like to ask the hon. minister, are landowners to be paid to take sewage sludge? Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, to exclude from income tax persons with a weekly income of up to £199 would cost Mr North: No, Mr Speaker. At this stage it will be given £2.5 million. For this purpose it has been assumed that it free. is the combined income of a married couple that is £199. If, on the other hand, the hon. member has in mind that a Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, to the minister, you are husband and wife could each earn up to £199 per week aware that the people in my constituency of East Douglas and not pay income tax, the cost would then rise to £5.2 have suffered the indignity of having raw sewage on our million. beach for a number of years. Will the system which you are employing on Douglas promenade with these holding Mr Karran: I thank the hon. minister for his reply.

Income Tax — Exclusion of Low Paid — Cost to Government — Question by Mr Karran • HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K499

TV LICENCE (REFUNDS) SCHEME — COST OF be an advantage to them to have the scheme extended to INCLUDING TAX-EXEMPT PENSIONERS - them? QUESTION BY MR KARRAN Mr Gelling: Yes, Mr Speaker, I hear what the hon. The Speaker: We move on to question number 6 and member is saying and of course we are always looking at again I call upon the hon. member for Onchan. this situation along with my colleague, the Minister of Health. Certainly we will look at this direction that the Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to ask the hon. member is pointing in. Minister for the Treasury:

What would be the cost to government of including PENSION SUPPLEMENT SCHEME — COST OF all pensioners who do not pay income tax in the TV Licence INCLUDING ALL MANX-BORN PENSIONERS - (Refunds) Scheme? QUESTION BY MR KARRAN

The Speaker: Again, the Minister for the Treasury to The Speaker: We move on to question number 7. Again reply. I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, there are approximately 5,400 Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to ask the pensioners on our system who have no tax liability. Some Minister for the Treasury: of them will already have their TV licence refunded if they are in receipt of supplementary benefit. I am unable to What would be the cost to government of including identify them within the 5,400 persons. Without, therefore, all Manx-born pensioners in the Pension Supplement investigating every pensioner's income tax position, I Scheme? cannot quantify the cost. Indeed, they may change from year to year as their income changes if, for example, interest The Speaker: And again, the Minister for the Treasury rates increase. The current scheme is well targeted at a to reply. clearly defined low-income group, and one of its advantages is in fact its simplicity. Linking the scheme to Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, the hon. member perhaps non-liability for income tax would introduce administrative should have asked the question of the Minister of Health complications including a need to return to having and Social Security, who has access to information on the supplementary pensioners having to purchase the licence pensioners. However, I am informed by the Department and applying for a refund and delays while enquiries were of Health and Social Security that it is not possible to made to the Income Tax Division. I would like to remind determine the cost of extending the pension supplement hon. members that the Chislett report, which was debated to all Manx-born pensioners without a major exercise. Now in Tynwald in May 1992, recommended that the TV it would not be appropriate to extend the scheme in the Licence (Refunds) Scheme should not in fact be extended. way suggested as this would be against the sound principles of the scheme and would be unfair. Mr Karran: A supplementary, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I The Pension Supplement Scheme is essentially a means would ask that the hon. mover get that information. I of uprating Isle of Man pensions and other benefits by believe it is important that we are aware of the figures reference to the movement of earnings rather than, in fact, involved. We have a budget coming up and I would like prices. The basic principle of entitlement is that a person that information if it is at all possible to get it. has 10 years of contributions as an Isle of Man insured person, as is defined in the scheme. The supplement is Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, every effort will be made but, effectively a return on contributions paid into the Manx as I have explained in the original answer, it will be National Insurance Fund. This is a fair principle which exceedingly difficult because, of course, pensioners fall has been endorsed by Tynwald and the House of Keys in in and out of the income tax net as and when, as I have separate debate. Some people born in the Isle of Man will suggested, their interest on investments increases. So it will be difficult but whatever we can supply, obviously not pay contributions to the Manx National Insurance Fund for good debate at Budget time, we will supply what - for example, a person who went to the UK as a child and statistics we can. returned as a pensioner after 1978. The pension would be funded by the UK even though it was paid in the Isle of Mr Cretney: Mr Speaker, the minister indicated that Man, and some Manx-born pensioners have had their he believed the scheme was clearly targeted, and by that I contributions transferred from the Isle of Man National assume he means it is targeted to those in receipt of Insurance to the UK fund, and they become, of course, supplementary benefit and supplementary pension. Would UK-insured persons. he agree with me that an investigation into the extension of the scheme to include those in receipt of disability Mr Karran: Firstly, Vainstyr Loayreyder, could the pensions and disability allowances may be a worthwhile hon. minister explain to this hon. House how it seems to exercise given that those persons are more restrained in as be a great difficulty to find out any information when we much as they cannot get out their houses, and so it would are dealing with the less well-off in our community? It

TV Licence (Refunds) Scheme — Cost of Including Tax-Exempt Pensioners — Question by Mr Karran Pension Supplement Scheme — Cost of Including All Manx-Born Pensioners — Question by Mr Karran K500 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 seems to be an inconsistency. And why can the priorities a scheme that was developed for a specific purpose, and if of these answers not be found in depth? I am sure, if it was the hon. member is wishing to extend it, the scheme would to do with the finance sector or something else, you would have to be, obviously, altered to accommodate it, but the find out all the implications. statistics, to give the hon. member the information, I have not to hand. The Speaker: Minister, I am ruling that question out of order. PROCEDURAL Mr Karran: A further supplementary, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Would the hon. minister not agree with me The Speaker: That concludes, hon. members, the that many people that left this Island in the '50s and '60s questions for verbal answer today. There remains one because there was no work on this Island and were openly question which we have not managed to deal with, that is encouraged to leave this Island, have always had their question number 8, and I have to ask the hon. member for hearts based in this Island, and does he not agree with me Douglas East, Mr Kermode, as to which of the options he that we are dealing with this section of the community wishes to follow. when we are talking about this question? It is people who have always had a sincere commitment to this Island, been Mr Kermode: I will have it put it on the agenda for Manx-born and bred, who were forced off this Island next week if I may, Mr Speaker. because of the economics at the time, and will he investigate this proposal more seriously than it seems we The Speaker: Thank you. Item number 9 is for written have been given the impression now? answer and I believe the answer has been circulated. Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, first of all I tried to illustrate that the scheme was set up for those who had paid in, for those to get out. Now is the hon. member saying that to NOBLE'S HOSPITAL— STAFF NUMBERS - find every Manx-born person throughout the world is not QUESTION BY MR CANNAN a difficult situation? I can assure him that whatever statistics FOR WRITTEN ANSWER we can collate we do, and we make them available to members whether it be on pensioners or, as his previous Question question which you ruled out of order, Mr Speaker, the finance sector. But what I am saying to the hon. member The hon. member for Michael (Mr Cannan) to ask the is, the scheme was set up in a way as to give to those who Minister for Health and Social Security: had paid into the scheme for 10 years. Now if, as I have already said, the hon. member feels that we can find every As at 31st March 1992 and 31st March 1994, what was person that is Manx-born who has not paid into that scheme the number of - it is a different ball game altogether and something that will have to be reconsidered because, quite honestly, I could (a) qualified medical staff employed (full-time and part- not even put a price on it. It could be along millions and ime) at Noble's Hospital; millions of pounds because I do not know how many people would be involved. (b) non-medical staff employed (full-time and part- ime) at Noble's Hospital? The Speaker. A final supplementary in the name of the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Answer

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, is it not a fact that To take each part of the question: any pensioners who are entitled to the Pension Supplement Scheme, on leaving the Island, are not entitled to this 31.3.92 31.3.94 scheme? So what has that got to do with the fact of talking Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time about Manx people living all over the world? What I am 22 asking for is, why can we not look at the situation in which (a) Medical staff 47 21 50 these people were economic refugees that left the Isle of (b) Non-medical staff 736 152 606 387 Man, they have come back to the Isle of Man, they are Manx-born and bred, so why can they not be entitled to some of the benefits that have come from our prosperity LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL over the last couple of years? — MEMBERS ELECTED

Mr Gelling: The original question, Mr Speaker, is, The Speaker: We therefore turn to item number 10, `What would be the cost to government to include all which is the election of four persons to serve as Members Manx-born pensioners in the Pension Supplement of the Legislative Council. Following previous practice Scheme'? If you are Manx-born and you have moved to on this issue it is my intention to call upon the proposers America, I would say that is another part of the world. It is of the candidates listed on the agenda paper in the order in

Procedural Noble's Hospital — Staff Numbers — Question by Mr Cannan for Written Answer Legislative Council — Members Elected HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K501 which they are listed, and then to seek a seconder for each Man and its people equip him well to become a Member nominee and then invite other members of the House, if of the Legislative Council. I believe that he would be an they so wish, to speak in favour of the nominee that is asset to a revising chamber of Tynwald, not as a politician then before them. So, in following that procedure, could I but as a Manxman who has a sincere belief in doing what first of all call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr is right and will do his duty to his oath of office of the Karran. Legislative Council, which is: 'You shall use your best endeavours to maintain the laws and customs of the Isle Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I had circulated a resolution and shall justly and truly deliver your opinion and do right to suspend standing orders. in all matters which shall be put upon you without favour, affection, affinity or consanguinity, love, fear, reward, gain The Speaker: I was going to bring that at a later stage, and for any hope thereof, but in all things you shall deal sir. Can I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr uprightly, justly and do wrong to no man.' This is why I Karran, to speak in respect of Mr J B Caine. feel that Mr Caine, who is known for being a sound, sensible, hard-working Manxman, would contribute well Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I move John Bernard to the life of the Legislative Council. I beg to move. Caine Esquire, 23 Church Street, Peel, a Manxman, to fill one of the vacancies becoming available on 28th February The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon 1995 because I believe that the Legislative Council, if it is the hon. member for Glenfaba. not to be abolished, should not be an alternative House of Keys. Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, I have great pleasure in seconding the nomination of Mr John Bernard Caine, and The Speaker: Hon. member, before you proceed, I think there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the west of the date was 24th February, wasn't it, not the 28th? The the Island is the only area which is not, or until this election date of your letter, sir, was 24th February, and that is the was not, represented in the Legislative Council. In the past date and indeed it was the last date in which valid it used to be represented by two members, Mr Ian Anderson nominations could be filed. and Mr Willie Quirk. I therefore feel that it is appropriate that someone from the west of the Island should be elected. Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, the point is that he Mr Caine also has a great deal to offer. As the hon. is up for election for the place that becomes vacant from member for Onchan, Mr Karran, has said, he clearly 28th February 1995. That is what I am saying. represents a very important aspect of Manx society, those Manxmen who are fighting by word and deed to maintain The Speaker: Yes, I accept that. Oh, I am sorry, I Manx traditions and the Manx way of life. Mr Caine has apologise. done this in various ways. Firstly, obviously part of the credit for the enormous amount that the Manx Museum Mr Karran: I think you will fmd that on the agenda and National Trust have done in this direction over the last paper. 10 years must be due to his chairmanship during that period. It should be a revising chamber of Tynwald Court Then, as well as the ways described by his hon. proposer, representing all sections of our community. Mr Caine I know for a fact that he actively supports many things represents one of these sections. We see in many countries Manx by his attendance at and participation in such things that they select on this basis in order that all sections of as ploughing matches, ploughing match concerts, society have an input into the legislature. This can only Eisteddfods et cetera. strengthen democracy. Mr Speaker, I believe that Mr Caine has a great deal to Mr Caine was born in Douglas, educated at Murrays offer the Legislative Council as a Manxman representing Road school and won a scholarship to King William's the best aspects of Manx traditions and culture and I College. He has worked most of his life on the Island, therefore have much pleasure in seconding him. spending many years in Noble's Hospital. Married with two grown-up children, Mr Caine has both the experience The Speaker: Before I call upon the proposer of the and the knowledge in all things Manx and is an active next nominee, does any member wish to speak to this member of the Isle of Man community. He has been very nomination? If that is the case, I now call upon the hon. active in the preservation of the cultural identity of Mann. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill, to speak in respect of Mr As members will know, he has been Chairman of Manx Delaney's nomination. National Heritage for the last 10 years and a member of the trustees for many years before that. One of his many Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to roles is President of Yn Cheshaght Ghailckagh. He has make a lengthy introduction. The reason is that by also got membership of a number of other committees. nominating Mr Dominic Delaney MHK I do not believe Mr Caine has a Fainey Airhey and is recognised as one of an introduction is necessary. He is very well known and I the leaders of the more responsible side of the Manx have observed him in this hon. House as a person who language movement within the Island. fights for the rights of individuals, and I have pleasure in Bernard's experience of life and work through nominating him today, sir. government departments over many years and most of all Mr Delaney was born in 1943. He was educated at St his sincere commitment to the well-being of the Isle of Mary's School and he is married with four children. He

Legislative Council — Members Elected K502 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

has been away from the Island in the 1960s. He was in the of Man. He was first elected to the Laxey Commissioners British Army in the Parachute Regiment. He returned to in 1974 and consequent upon that, the people of Laxey, the Isle of Man in 1969 and he was very well known in the the people of Garff saw fit to return him to this hon. House • Scaffolding Contractors Limited company, which was the in 1976. As a consequence of his membership of this House, Island's first tubular scaffolding and form-cast company. Dr Mann has served the Isle of Man as a previous Chairman But in 1972 he was elected to Douglas Corporation as of Executive Council, the equivalent of today's Chief councillor for Derby ward and his political career stems Minister, he has served, effectively, as Chairman of the from that time. In 1976 he was elected to the House of Finance Board, the equivalent of Treasury Minister, and Keys for Douglas East and he has been a full-time member served as Chairman of the Board of Agriculture, Minister since then, re-elected in 1981, 1986 and 1991. I think that of Agriculture - major and important jobs in the life of the is a creditable performance and, going on to the function, parliament of the Isle of Man. as I see someone in the Legislative Council, I see the main There is no question that he has a remarkable record as role of the Legislative Council as being a parliamentary a parliamentarian, and I list in the letter of nomination quite body which scrutinises legislation, and the legislation a number of them but by no means all and I think one of surfaces from this hon. House, and I can think on no-one the marks of respect which has been had and I am sure this better than Mr Delaney to do this vital function. His House House will pay tribute to this afternoon is the fact that of Keys experience and his natural ability to seek out and they have on a regular basis elected Edgar Mann to serve scrutinise legislation will, I think, be in the interests of the on more than 20 parliamentary committees. Now, if we Isle of Man. are considering, in nominating someone for the post of a Whilst a member of this hon. House, he has been Legislative Council Member, that post where we would Chairman of the Civil Defence Commission, the Manx anticipate that they would be acting in a revising chamber Electric Railway Board, Isle of Man Passenger Transport for revising work, what better person could we put there Board, the Board of Social Security. He was at one time than a person who repeatedly has earned the respect of a Minister for Local Government and the Environment. He number of Houses of Keys in their election to a wide variety has been Vice-Chairman of Isle of Man Health Services of parliamentary committees? Board, Tourist Board and the Airport Board and he has I am totally confident that if this House this afternoon also been a member of the Tourist Board, Forestry Board, will elect Edgar Mann to the position of Member of the Assessment Board and the Freeport Authority. Legislative Council, as the House of Keys in 1985 did, we As I say, Mr Speaker, the name Dominic Delaney is will certainly be electing a man who has the breadth and well known in Manx politics and so I have no more to width of experience, and his sound reasoning will be such add, but I have pleasure in nominating him to the that he will make an excellent contribution to the Isle of Legislative Council. Man in the forthcoming five years, and I am totally confident in placing the name of Edgar Mann in front of The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Do I have a this House this afternoon. seconder? The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon Mr Groves: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Kniveton. to second this nomination, not because the hon. member, Mr Delaney was trained as a steeplejack and he has to Mr Kniveton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to climb to the higher reaches of our parliamentary system second the nomination. I believe that the hon. member for but more really for the last points which the hon. proposer Rushen, Mr Cringle, in putting forward the nomination of has made. Whilst all of us in this House from time to time Dr Mann, has covered all the ideal qualities I believe are have probably strongly disagreed with some of the views required for a Member of the Legislative Council. I am that the hon. member takes, and he likewise no doubt, no- therefore pleased, Mr Speaker, to second that nomination. one can deny the width and breadth of his parliamentary experience and in view of the fact that primarily, as the The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any hon. proposer has said, the task in the upper House is to member wish to speak to Dr Mann's nomination? If not, I revise legislation and look at what we propose and dispose, will turn to the hon. member for Ayre to speak to the I have great pleasure in seconding the nomination to add nomination of Mr Radcliffe. the hon. member's wisdom to the Legislative Council. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have pleasure in The Speaker: Does any member wish to speak to this nominating Mr John Norman Radcliffe as a candidate for nomination? If not, I call upon the hon. member for Rushen, election to the Legislative Council. Mr Cringle, to speak to the nomination of Dr Mann. Mr Radcliffe was born and educated in the north of the Island and of course he presently resides in the north of Mr Cringle: Mr Speaker, I have very great pleasure the Island. He is a very well-known local farmer and this afternoon in nominating Dr Edgar Mann as a candidate nurseryman and, of course, an immediate past member of for election to the Legislative Council. the Legislative Council. Mr Radcliffe served on the Dr Mann, of course, equally as in relation to the others Andreas Parish Commissioners for a number of years and needs very little introduction to this particular House. He was the chairman of the commissioners at one stage. He is needs very little introduction to the political life of the Isle a member and trustee of the Andreas Benevolent Society, Legislative Council — Members Elected • HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K503

Chairman of the Andreas Endowments Committee, again call upon the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Cringle, Chairman of the Ramsey Cottage Hospital Welfare to speak in respect of the nomination for Mr G H Waft. Committee, President of the Andreas Rifle Club, president of numerous other charitable and recreational organisations Mr Cringle: Mr Speaker, again I have pleasure in in the north of the Island and elsewhere - very much putting forward the name of Mr George Waft to the involved in community affairs and has been for many years. Legislative Council this afternoon. It is only in January of In 1976 he was elected to the House of Keys as a last year that the House of Keys elected George Waft to member for Ayre and continued in that capacity unti11985, the Legislative Council. when he was elected to the Legislative Council and, during He started his political life in 1971 by becoming a his time in the legislature, Mr Radcliffe has been Chairman member of the Onchan Commissioners and he served of the Highway and Transport Board, Chairman of the Onchan in that role for 20 years. Then, on his election to Agriculture and Fisheries Board and Chairman of the the House of Keys I think most of us in this particular Planning Appeals Tribunal. Additionally, Mr Radcliffe has House came to recognise the sound common sense, the served as a member of the Health Services Board, the basics which George Waft was bringing to the legislative Forestry, Mines and Lands Board, Assessment Board, work particularly of this House. I think that we can say Water and Gas Authority and Manx Museum. He has also that during his year as a serving member of the Legislative served on numerous committees of both Tynwald and the Council his contributions to Tynwald have equally been Keys. For the last eight years, Mr Radcliffe has been a as sound in that body, and I am satisfied that his member of the Treasury, where his responsibilities have departmental duties have been carried out with vigour and included the duties of the Chairman of the Insurance with enthusiasm. Authority and Chairman of the Value for Money I believe that George Waft will continue to bring balance Committee. and good judgement to the duties of the Legislative Council I suggest and I submit that Mr Radcliffe has a long and and again I have much pleasure in putting forward the name creditable record of public service both inside and outside of George Waft this afternoon. of the legislature. His common sense, mature judgement The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Do I have a and natural ability have stood him in good stead, and there seconder, please? is wide recognition of the very considerable contribution he has made to the good of the Island. He has acquired a Mr North: Mr North, our late colleague, David Corlett, very wide knowledge of the working of the legislature and would have liked to second this nomination, and I have executive government which puts him in very good stead great pleasure in taking over that task and I would just like to continue as a Member of the Legislative Council. I feel to commend to members certainly the short time that the sure that Mr Radcliffe's nomination will find favour with hon. member was in this House but he has been, as the the great majority of members of this hon. House and that hon. proposer has said, an enthusiastic member certainly they will recognise the need to retain his valuable services. of my department. He is hard working, conscientious and I have pleasure, therefore, in nominating Mr John Norman he has been a good Member of Tynwald and I have no Radcliffe. hesitation in commending him to hon. members for the vote. The Speaker Thank you, hon. member. I call upon the member for Malew and Santon. The Speaker: Before I call upon the hon. member for Glenfaba to move the suspension of standing orders in Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to terms of the motion that has been circulated, there are two second the nomination of Norman Radcliffe, a man who points that I wish to seek agreement on. the hon. member for Ayre has described in the area as very well known. There is hardly an event in the north that you Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, may I be allowed to speak would attend without Norman Radcliffe being present. So to this nomination? he represents the north of the Island still exceedingly well. But as a member of the Treasury I think his value certainly The Speaker: Yes, of course you may, yes. is what I would wish to speak upon. He is a staunch member of the Treasury, he has been there for, as the hon. member Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, hon. members will be well for Ayre has said, eight years, and he brings a common- aware of the protest I made at the time of the election of sense view to the Treasury. Some might think that that Mr Waft. Can I just say I have made my protest and sometimes is required! (Members: Hear, hear.) But I can members will know the reasons why. I also think Mr Waft assure you, Mr Speaker, he speaks very straight to the point, has equipped himself well as a Member of the Legislative usually with a little bit of amusement as we have heard in Council and I feel, as a member of the department, he has his contributions to Tynwald. A valuable member of done the job and all that is expected of him and I intend on Treasury, a man who has given great service to the this occasion to support him. government and the people of the Island, and it does give me great pleasure to second his nomination. Mr Groves: Well said!

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak member wish to speak to that nomination? If not, I will to that nomination? Let me revert to the issues that I was

Legislative Council — Members Elected K504 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 seeking to address the House on. First of all, I would seek feel today that it would be wrong to suspend standing orders the agreement of the House to use specially prepared ballot in this particular case. (Members: Hear, hear.) The papers on which are printed the names of all properly standing order has been on the standing orders for some nominated candidates. Is that agreed to by the House? (It considerable time now. We have certainly known that there was agreed) Thank you, hon. members. Now, before I would be an election to the Legislative Council today for call upon the hon. member for Glenfaba, I must formally a considerable number of years, not months, so there has announce the names of the candidates and they are as been plenty of time to have raised this matter previously, follows: Mr J B Caine, Mr D F K Delaney, Dr E J Mann, and equally, if we go through the relevant standing order, Mr J N Radcliffe and Mr G H Waft. All those nominees it is further complicated by the procedures. Whilst the hon. have been properly proposed and seconded, and I would member is commenting about the election to the House of now call upon the hon. member for Glenfaba to move the Keys, there is a subtle difference in an election here because motion which I understand has been circulated in his name. if the individual members do not get the 13 votes but get a considerable number of votes, well then, those who are Mr Gilbey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move: elected are knocked out and we reballot. We have a system of moving on step by step from one ballot to the next ballot That in the election of persons to fill the vacancies and voting again, so there is a subtle difference in the for elected members of the Legislative Council at this procedure and certainly, I think at this stage, just to, as it sitting, standing order 209(1)(g) be suspended were, come in now to suspend standing orders I feel would be wrong. That standing order states, and I quote, 'Each member of the House must vote for as many candidates as there Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, like the hon. member who are vacancies to be filled, and any paper carrying a lesser has just resumed his seat, I think that it is wrong when we number of votes shall be disallowed.' Accordingly, if there actually are here at an election to move that we suspend are four vacancies, hon. members have to vote for four standing orders on something that we all know, and well candidates even if they do not wish to support one or more know and I can say, as a member of the Standing Orders of those four candidates. As a matter of principle, surely Committee, I do not recollect this issue being brought to this is an absurd situation as it can clearly mean that their attention formally and the hon. mover, while I candidates are elected who do not truly have the support understand his intention, said it is a matter of principle but of a majority of members of this hon. House but who are I have to say if it is that important - and it may or may not only elected as a result of hon. members having to vote for four members on their ballot papers. Under the terms of be - just to pluck it out and say 'Let's suspend that standing the standing order, the only way in which hon. members order to deal with this election' - I would first say, 'What's could not vote for all the candidates if there were, say, the difference about this election from the last time we only four candidates and they did not want to support one elected four members to the Legislative Council?' And if or more of them would be by spoiling their papers. This, the whole procedure is wrong, then it is a matter the however, would prevent them from voting for other Standing Orders Committee should look at or this House candidates who they did support and might even have should look at, and therefore I would hope members would proposed or seconded. Considering that in Keys general oppose the resolution before us. elections, quite rightly the public are not forced to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies, I regard it as Mr Corkill: Mr Speaker, I would also concur with the extraordinary that a standing order should force members previous two speakers. I think it is wrong to move the goal of this hon. House to do just that. posts on election day and, adding to that, we have two Then, from the point of view of any candidates candidates who have been nominated who are actually in themselves, surely it must be highly unsatisfactory to be their seats in this House at the moment, so it is the wrong elected to the Legislative Council under the terms of this time and place to debate such a change in rules. (Members: standing order because they never know whether they were Hear, hear.) Therefore I will oppose the motion. truly receiving the support of the majority of members of this hon. House or they only received votes because hon. The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak members had to vote for a sufficient number of people to to the motion? The hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. cover the number of vacancies that existed. Accordingly, I beg to move the resolution standing in my name that Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I cannot see how it standing orders be suspended in respect of standing order can be right and proper if members wish to only vote for 209(1)(g). one, two or three out of the four candidates, that their votes are being made void because they do not have the Mr Bell: I beg to second, Mr Speaker. confidence that out of the five candidates there are four that they feel they would want to see in the Legislative The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Now, does any Council. We know what happened the last time where we member wish to speak to the motion? The hon. member had the pantomime of weeks and weeks of trying to get for Rushen, Mr Cringle. people elected to the Legislative Council. I think that the people like my hon. colleague and the hon. member for Mr Cringle: Yes, Mr Speaker, I take the point which Castletown are quite right, that it does seem a shame that the hon. mover of the resolution is making, but I honestly it has come up again, but then I remember last time when

Legislative Council — Members Elected HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K505

we were going to get rid of the fortnight notice for orders one week for something that is going to be debated candidates and nobody has done anything about it. on a later week. It has been suggested that therefore, instead of suspending standing orders, we should have - I should Mr Brown: It is in the pipeline. have, or someone should have - moved a resolution to alter this standing order, but we all know what would have Mr Karran: I believe that the hon. member for happened then; it would have been referred, and probably Glenfaba is quite right. I think it is quite wrong that rightly, to the Standing Orders Committee which would members have to either compulsorily vote for candidates have then said that they were reluctant to consider that they do not feel they want to see in the legislature or they alone because, being a member of that committee, I know do not feel are up to being on the Legislative Council, or that they are considering altering all standing orders and they have to spoil their vote. That seems to be quite wrong bringing them into line with the change of standing orders as well, and I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. member of another place, so in fact nothing would have happened for Glenfaba and I think that the suspension of standing at all, as is the case with a number of matters that are orders should be allowed. referred to the Standing Orders Committee. As to the suggestion it is political gerrymandering, I do Mr Cannan: Just a short contribution, Mr Speaker, but not think it makes any difference, probably, to who is I would like to just point out to the hon. member for elected except it forces people perhaps today, if this is not Glenfaba that he, like all other members of this House, passed, just to spoil their ballot papers, and if there are received a letter from the Clerk dated 25th January and it spoilt ballot papers everyone will know why that is, and stated, 'The election of four members to the Legislative there will be a very good reason for it. I think that is rather Council will be placed on the agenda of the House of Keys a pity because it will remove from people who are elected for the sitting of Tuesday, 7th March.' If the hon. member support which they might otherwise have got, and therefore for Glenfaba, following that notice, had determined that I think there is every reason for supporting the suspension the election was wrong and had brought forward a of standing orders and I hope it will happen, Mr Speaker. resolution to amend the standing order before nominations had been received, I think he would have had a proper The Speaker: Hon. members, I will put the motion in hearing, but to do it on election day, minutes before the the name of the hon. member for Glenfaba to suspend election is to take place, is political gerrymandering of the standing orders in respect of standing order 209(1)(g). Will worst sort. (Interjections) all those in favour of the motion, which has been circulated, please say aye; to the contrary say no. The noes have it. Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, I think there is perhaps just one more point that can be made. The suggestion has been A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: made that we should suspend standing orders because there may not be four candidates we feel we can support. I would In the Keys - submit that that is a matter that members should have taken into account before nomination day, and if they were For: Messrs Gilbey, Corrin, Cretney, Duggan, Bell and feeling unhappy that there were not four members they Karran - 6 could support they should have been endeavouring to put forward names of people they could support (Members: Against: Messrs Cannan, Quine, Dr. Mann, Messrs North, Hear, hear.) rather than leaving that issue to be sorted out Walker, Cringle, Brown, May, Delaney, Kermode, today, sir. Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Groves, Corkill, Kniveton, Gelling and the Speaker - 17 The Speaker: May I call upon the mover of the motion to reply. (Members: Hear, hear.) The hon. member for The Speaker Hon. members, the motion fails to carry Glenfaba. with 6 votes in favour and 17 against. Now, hon. members, I have to advise you, that issue Mr Gilbey: First of all would like to thank those who having been decided, that each member of the House is supported my views on this matter of who spoke and also required to vote for as many candidates as there are for my seconder. Indeed, in answer to Mr Cringle, Mr vacancies to be filled - that is, four vacancies. Any paper Brown and Mr Corkill, we perhaps many of us overlooked carrying a lesser number of votes must be disallowed and, this matter because these elections only come periodically, following the normal practice of the House, I will also and I think many people would admit that the whole system disallow a ballot paper carrying a greater number of votes is totally archaic and totally absurd, frankly, and needs than there are vacancies to be filled. Now, having made altering, but if you feel that, as clearly I am not alone in that statement I wish to appoint two scrutineers and, whilst • feeling it, it is better to try and improve it than to leave it those scrutineers are being appointed, perhaps the ballot and do nothing. papers can be distributed. The two scrutineers will be the The next point that was made was that we should not hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell, and - I have to be fairly try and suspend standing orders today. I must point out the careful here - the hon. member for Douglas East, Mr standing orders are usually amended at the session at which Kermode. they would apply and not at sessions in advance. I have seldom heard of anyone ask for a suspension of standing A ballot took place.

Legislative Council — Members Elected K506 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have to advise you that moment a very high grade Down's syndrome case who the number of votes cast for each of the candidates is as could have a good quality of life, as good as any hon. follows: Mr J B Caine, 7 votes; Mr D F K Delaney, 13 member in this hon. House, could be terminated under this votes; Dr. E J Mann, 19 votes; Mr J M Radcliffe, 19 votes; clause simply because they will never improve through and Mr G H Waft, 18 votes. Accordingly, I have to declare the passage of time. I do not believe that because of this that the following four nominees are duly elected from 1st simple fact we have the right to terminate a life as far as March 1995 to serve as members of the Legislative Council being classed as a serious handicap is concerned. Whilst I for a period expiring on 28th February 2000, subject of do recognise the parents who feel this burden was too great course to their respective agreements Mr D F K Delaney, would be allowed to terminate on grounds of - Dr E J Mann, Mr J M Radcliffe and Mr G H Waft, and I would congratulate on behalf of the House the four people Mr May: A point of order, Mr Speaker. What on earth who have been successful. (Members: Hear, hear.) Now has this got to do with the terms of the amendment that the that concludes consideration of item number 10 on the hon. member has down on the piece of paper? agenda. Members: Hear, hear.

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY (MEDICAL The Speaker: Yes, I think, hon. member, that a valid DEFENCES) BILL THIRD READING APPROVED point is being made. I think the essential point is that at the present time you are not seeking to move the The Speaker: We accordingly move to consideration amendment to clause 5, which is before us, what you are of item number 11, which is the third reading of the seeking to do is to move the suspension of standing orders, Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill, which and I would ask you to confine your remarks to that point. is in the hands of the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr May. Mr Karran: I wish to suspend standing orders. If we are to allow terminations to be carried out privately within Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, a point of order? the Health Service the argument would be very strong if there should be a private hospital established in the Island The Speaker Yes, certainly. why they should be treated any differently. What concerns me is that I think this hon. House would find it difficult to Mr Karran: I wish to suspend standing orders as far justify this to discriminate against private hospitals. If this as this is concerned. Do you want me to move it before the House sincerely believes that this should not be done on a third reading, or..? financial basis -

The Speaker: Now, first of all, have you got the motion The Speaker: Hon. member, I am sorry, yet again I am in writing? going to have to call you to order. I can understand that you wish to seek the suspension of standing orders. After Mr Karran: Yes, I have. you have been successful, if indeed you are successful, in moving that motion, then you can speak to your The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Yes, would amendment, but at the present time you are confusing the two issues. Please confine your remarks accordingly. you please proceed, hon. member for Onchan, to move the suspension of standing orders? Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I beg to move the suspension of standing orders in order to move my Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, hon. members, I amendment to clause 5 of this Bill. I believe that move the suspension of standing orders because even at terminations should not be allowed to be done. Finance this late stage of the Bill it has become more apparent to should not be part of any equation as far as this is me that there should be no question of money being concerned. I hope this hon. House will support the involved in any termination of pregnancy. I recognise the suspension of standing orders in order that my amendment statesmanlike way the mover of the Bill has handled this can be debated. I beg to move: difficult piece of legislation and I do hope that he and his supporters will not see this as an attempt to kill off his That Standing Orders be suspended to enable a Bill. further amendment to be moved to the Termination of What deeply concerns me is not so much the Bill as we Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill at this sitting. see it today but how it will be interpreted in the future and whether the standards as far as the clauses are concerned The Speaker: Do I have a seconder to that motion, will be allowed to drop as the years come. I know that I please? did try to amend clause 3, sub-clause (b) (iii) concerning `seriously handicapped' at the clauses stage, but it is simply Mr Gilbey: I would certainly second it, Mr Speaker, because I fear that in years to come the price of everything because I think a number of us had not thought it through will rule what our society does and obviously we tend to enough when we read that a pregnancy must be terminated follow the standards of the United Kingdom. At the in a National Health hospital and therefore on this very

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K507 important point, where it is now clear that although it be a National Health hospital the termination could be done by Against: Messrs North, Walker, Cringle, Brown, May, means of a private arrangement for money, I think this Downie, Mrs Hannan, Messrs Bell, Groves, Corkin, should be considered and that we should suspend standing Kniveton, Gelling and the Speaker - 13 orders at least so it should be discussed. That does not mean necessarily the further amendment will be supported, The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion to suspend but at least I think, on this matter of life or death, that to standing orders fails to carry with 6 votes in favour and 13 spend a few minutes in discussing it is right and it would against. be quite wrong for the opportunity not to be afforded. We now move on to the third reading of the Bill and I call upon the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr May. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon the hon. member for Douglas North, Mr May. Mr May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This, the third reading of the Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Mr May: Yes, I rise to oppose the suspension, Mr Defences) Bill, brings to a conclusion, within this chamber Speaker. This matter has been raised on every occasion in anyway, an exercise which began some three years ago which this subject has been debated both in this hon. House when the Social Issues Committee were charged with the and in another place. The matter was raised by the hon. responsibility of considering and duly reporting on the member Mr Bell; it has been raised by the hon. member findings of the Liverpool University Health Planning for Onchan, Mr Corkin; it has also been raised by the hon. Consortium who, in their review of the Island's Health member for Onchan, Mr Karran. Had procedure which I Services, had concluded 'that Tynwald introduces assumed to be the case had taken the correct order, Mr legislation to permit abortion in appropriate Speaker - and I am not questioning your judgement - I circumstances'. would have thought that perhaps I could have moved the During our consideration of this most difficult and third reading prior to any attempted suspension of standing emotive of issues we gave wide publicity to this exercise, orders and, had that been the case, I would have dealt with receiving 175 responses from members of the general this specific point whilst moving the third reading. public, and we consulted both with members of the medical I do not believe a case has been made. It has been profession and with those members of the public who subjected to continual discussion. This Bill has been expressed the wish to elaborate on their written views. subjected to three years of scrutiny. It was subjected to a Resulting from our discussions we have particular regard whole day of scrutiny during the clauses stage last week for two points: namely, the present legal position in the and I do not believe that a further suspension of standing Isle of Man in this respect and the views expressed by the orders is called for. This matter will be fmally clarified Isle of Man Medical Society. when I move the third reading, but I would draw hon. I have no intention of restating that which has already members' attention to clause 5(1)(b), which makes it quite been said on numerous occasions. Suffice it to say that all specific and the fact of the matter is that nothing can take of the various issues surrounding this subject were clearly place under the terms of this Bill which are not covered identified within the Social Issues Committee's report to within the terms of the Bill, sir. Tynwald on abortion in the Isle of Man, which was fully debated in February of last year. Following acceptance of The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any other the committee report, we spent some considerable time in member wish to speak? Do you wish to reply, sir? conjunction with the Attorney-General's chambers and with consultant obstetricians in drafting the legislation Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I hope this hon. which is before the House today for its third reading. House will support my suspension of standing orders in During this process, I think it is fair to say that a number order to have this clause debated. of relevant suggestions were made both by hon. members of this House and by members of the public, and a number The Speaker: Hon. members, just for the sake of of them were incorporated within the Bill. The current legal clarification, because I think I am the only person with the situation within the Island has been clearly spelled out on written amendment in front of him - (Interjections) - no, many occasions and basically is founded on the case law the amendment in terms of the suspension of standing precedence arising from the Bourne judgment of 1938, orders. I do not think anybody apart from myself has got which determined that in any prosecution on a charge of the amendment in front of them and it reads as follows: unlawful abortion, unless the prosecution could prove that That standing orders be suspended to enable a further an abortion had not been carried out in good faith for the amendment to be moved to the Termination of Pregnancy purpose only of preserving the life of the mother, then the (Medical Defences) Bill at this sitting. Now, that is the doctor was entitled to be acquitted. It also clearly motion that is before you. Will all those in favour please established that preserving the life of the mother meant say aye; to the contrary say no. The noes have it. more than saving her from death; it includes the prospect of the mother becoming a physical or mental wreck had A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: the pregnancy continued. The Bill in the first instance, in clause 1, rationalises by For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Corrin, Cretney, Duggan and putting into statute those defences which are based on that Karran - 6 judgment and details the circumstances in which it is to be

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K508 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

presumed that the termination is necessary to preserve the provide balanced and impartial counselling services for life of the woman in clause 2. any pregnant woman who has to consider the termination A new clause moved by Mr Cringle was added to the of her pregnancy. Bill at this stage which will impose a duty on a hospital The final major provision is contained within clause 7, surgeon who carries out a termination under the terms of which makes it clear that nothing in the Bill will impose a clauses 1 and 2 or in accordance with the proviso to section duty on anyone who has a conscientious objection to 3 of the Infanticide and Infant Life (Preservation) Act of participate in any treatment authorised by the Bill. A further 1938, and, where the pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks, amendment successfully moved by Mr Corrin will ensure then the duty is to make every endeavour to save the life that the department shall neither terminate any person's of the child whilst not overriding the basic duty of employment for such a refusal, nor will it refuse to employ preserving the life of the woman. any person on the sole grounds that they might refuse to Clause 3 as is printed in the Bill introduces a new participate. defence to a charge of unlawful abortion or child An enormous amount of consideration has been given destruction which will exist where a termination is to the preparation of this Bill. The Social Issues Committee undertaken by a hospital surgeon if he and an independent has at all stages listened to the various comments and medical practitioner are of the opinion formed in good faith criticisms from both inside and outside of this hon. House that, because of physical or mental abnormalities, the child and, where it is appropriate to do so, we have responded is unlikely to either survive birth or to be capable of living in a positive way. The various amendments which have following birth, or will be seriously handicapped. Under been approved will, I believe, in many ways strengthen the terms of amendments successfully moved by the hon. and clarify the Bill, and I would take the opportunity of members for Rushen, Mr Corrin and Mr Cringle, a clearer once more expressing my appreciation to the movers of definition of the term 'seriously handicapped' is those amendments for the constructive manner in which introduced, and it is made clear that no termination shall they have approached this highly delicate issue. When take place under this provision if the pregnancy has lasted dealing with such sensitive legislation of this nature, it is beyond 24 weeks. in everyone's best interest that the fullest consideration be Clause 4 also introduces a further new defence where a given to each proposed amendment, and by the process of termination is carried out by a hospital surgeon if he and consultation that they have adopted in this particular an independent medical practitioner are of the opinion, method, we have produced a Bill which, whilst I agree formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not lasted and I think we would all agree will not satisfy everyone, beyond 12 weeks and that the pregnant woman has will provide a proper legislative framework which will produced evidence in the manner prescribed that the encompass current common law provisions and provide pregnancy was caused by rape, incest or indecent assault. what was last week most appropriately referred to by the The pregnant woman must also have made a complaint to hon. member for Garff, Dr. Mann, as being the ultimate the police concerning the alleged incident as soon as was legislative compassion by affording women finding reasonable in all the circumstances, and there must be no themselves faced with extremely difficult and distressing medical indications which are inconsistent with that circumstances the right to make their own choice, assisted allegation. by the professional support. Clause 5 provides that a defence under clauses 1 to 4 Just before I close, Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify will only apply if the woman is ordinarily resident in the further a point raised by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Isle of Man and where the pregnancy is terminated in a Karran, both at last week's sitting of the House and earlier National Health hospital. This clause also provides for the this afternoon, and that is in relation to his expressing some need of a second opinion to be excluded in circumstances concern that any treatment under the terms of the Bill may which are immediately necessary to save the life of the be available on a private basis. Now, as I said earlier, this pregnant woman. A further provision regarding saving the matter has been covered before but I would just like to mental health of the woman was removed from this clause make it clear again, and I would advise hon. members that, consequent to an amendment which was suggested by the as with any other form of surgical treatment, doctor's hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr Gilbey. A further contracts do permit for private work to be undertaken amendment from Mr Cringle resulted in the inclusion of a outside of normal health services contract, and indeed, new sub-clause which will ensure that, should a child be without this availability, I think we should recognise that born alive following a termination, then the hospital this Island would certainly not be in the position that it is surgeon will be under a duty to take all reasonable steps to in today of being able to offer the extensive range of preserve the life of the child and that, if there is no live treatments that it can for the people of this Island if we did birth, the foetus shall be disposed of in accordance with not have that facility. I would point out to hon. members the wishes of the pregnant woman or, should no such that the very basis of this Bill, the fundamental point, is to direction be given, then in accordance with normal hospital provide medical defences in circumstances which are both practice. In any event, the foetus or any part of it shall not limited and specific. No treatment can be given to any be used for any experimental purposes without the written person which is not covered under the terms of this Bill. consent of the mother. Neither can it take place anywhere other than in a National The provisions of clause 6 relate to empowering the Health hospital. The concern has been that private clinics department to make regulations which amongst other may be set up; that is not the case, neither is it possible things, by way of further amendment from Mr Gilbey, shall under the terms of this Bill, so I would make it absolutely

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K509 plain to hon. members that no treatment could be afforded The Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to any person under the terms of the Bill, which are not to the third reading? The hon. member for Ayre. covered, whether it be privately undertaken or whether it be undertaken as a National Health Service patient. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I made it clear at Finally, in moving this, the third reading, can I express the outset that I had a number of concerns with this Bill. my thanks to my colleagues on the Social Issues They relate largely to clauses 3 and 4. In terms of the other Committee, and I know they would want me to particularly provisions in the Bill I have been able to go along with note the contribution of our late colleague Mr Corlett those, and indeed I think I have to recognise that, even in (Members: Hear, hear.) to this debate. It has been a long, terms of clauses 3 and 4, we have seen in the course of the difficult road and at one stage we never thought we would debate in the clauses stage a number of amendments moved reach the third reading stage, but nevertheless we are here. which have considerably strengthened the position from I would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues my perspective in relation to clauses 3 and 4, but I do wish and on their behalf I would express our appreciation to to spend a little time in putting on record my concerns those officers of the Chief Ministers Office, my own about clauses 3 and 4; I think this is very important to me. department and the Attorney-General and his chambers If we turn first of all to clause 3, this, hon. members for the valuable assistance, advice and support that they will immediately recognise, is the provision that provides have given us throughout this process I think the finished that if we can have a hospital surgeon and independent product has proven well worth it. Mr Speaker, I beg to medical practitioner and if they are of the opinion that there move the Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) is a substantial risk if born at full term that there would be Bill be now read a third time. physical or mental abnormalities - it has to be one of three things: firstly, unlikely to survive birth, secondly, unlikely The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I call upon to be capable of maintaining vital functions after birth, the hon. member for Peel. and thirdly, seriously handicapped - in those circumstances a termination of pregnancy could be carried out, and I think Mrs Hannan: I rise to second the third reading and of course it is because of Mr Cringle's amendment that reserve my remarks. now that is subject to the 24-week cut-off period. Now, my concerns with that are as follows. 'Substantial The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Does any risk' - that is a term which I think, even in the hands of member wish to speak to the third reading of the Bill? The legal people, perhaps more so in the hands of legal people, hon. member for Rushen, Mr Corrin. is going to be difficult to define. When we are asking Mr Corrin: Mr Speaker, I do not wish to go over any medical people to take that decision, that is asking a lot. of the issues. I do believe that this Bill has had thorough So that is the first point. discussion over a long period of time. I would just like to The second point is 'unlikely to be capable of finish off my remarks and involvement in the Bill and say maintaining vital functions after birth'. The mover of the that I do feel that a large number of people on this Island Bill tried very hard to explain this to me at the clauses felt threatened and intimidated by the Bill because perhaps stage but I remain unconvinced, unclear is probably the it is the nature of the Bill that it had appeared to have a lot best way to put it, as to precisely what this will mean in of support and, irrespective of what a number of people terms of the extent and the form of mechanical support were saying, their voice was not being heard, and that in which could be construed as being part and parcel of this itself concerned me. provision, or, if you wish, the withdrawal of certain So, what I would like to say it that, through the mechanical scientific aids. discussions that I and a number of members of this House But the third part of it causes me the greatest concern - had with the mover of this Bill, I have to put it on record 'serious handicap'. I really have the deepest of concern as that the mover, the hon. member for North Douglas, Mr to what that is going to mean in practical terms. I recognise May, did listen, he went away, and I do know that he did we have, in this day and age, very modern scientific his utmost to put our views to a greater number again, and devices. We are able to quantify the problems associated he came back to us, and what he was able to say to us and with a pregnancy much more specifically than we were how he was able to assist - he kept his word and, able to hitherto. But to have a term 'seriously handicapped', notwithstanding those who feel very strongly on this issue a term as blunt as that in this clause, to me, I am afraid, and I do not ask them to change their views because of the could be a recipe for abuse, and in judging that I have to nature of the issue and what it means to them, I hope that bear in mind that in terms of the casting of this clause, it is they feel they get some comfort that their views really were not one that we have culled, if you wish, drawn heavily on taken on board by the members and, as I say, in particular UK legislation, because of course, unless I am mistaken, the mover, and arising from that I hope that they can feel there is no such provision in the comparable UK legislation, that they did achieve something in the political process so there is no question of being able to draw on precise and the representation that they made, and that, I think, is wording or wording that has been tested over a period of the comfort that I get out of now in feeling honour-bound, time. We are into, I suspect, somewhat unchartered territory as indeed the hon. member Mr May was honourable in in the casting of this provision and the terminology used this, to support him now in this third reading. I think that here, and also my own fear is that we are placing those words perhaps inadequately nevertheless express unreasonable demands on the medical profession when we how I feel right now. Thank you. are asking them to determine these matters. So I really do

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K510 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

have a great deal of difficulty with clause 3. If it was a them to such a point where they could make a false clause that simply provided that where there was a allegation. You could have a willing act during the first or substantial risk, that because of the physical or mental the second week of that three-month period and abnormalities the child was unlikely to survive birth, to relationships could change, and yet it would be within the that point perhaps I could live with such a provision, but three-month period in terms of the evidence required to as it is cast here I find it very difficult indeed. support a termination of pregnancy, and of course it goes So my concerns there evolve around just the nature of on to say 'no contradictory evidence'. the wording and the openness of that provision and what I I really do believe that this is bad law and that again it would suggest is the unreasonable burden we would be is law where, certainly as far as I am aware, we have not placing upon the medical people taking those decisions. been in a position to follow provisions that have been tested Now, clause 4, my concerns there are somewhat difficult over time, for example in the United Kingdom or because, quite frankly, the longer and the more often I look elsewhere. We are sort of treading new ground in putting at clause 4 the more convinced I am that this is bad law. I these provisions together. really do believe that clause 4 is bad law. I take nothing I arrive at a situation where I have to ask myself, having away in any way and I recognise the great trauma and all regard to the advantages that are in the Bill as a whole, the problems associated with the victim of a rape who finds whether those advantages outweigh my concerns in terms herself pregnant. I recognise all that. But what I am of clauses 3 and 4. That is what it boils down to as far as I commenting on here today is the nature of the provision: I am concerned, and I have come to the conclusion that what do believe it is bad law. is in the Bill as a whole is not sufficient to influence me to Hon. members will recollect that we are talking of three support clauses 3 and 4 as presently cast, and I say that for situations. We are talking of rape, we are talking of incest this simple reason - the main strength of the Bill, the and we are talking of indecent assault. Now, of course in problem that we were seeking to address in the Bill, is in the case of rape that is slightly more clear-cut because with clauses 1 and 2, and that is essentially case and common rape we normally are referring to an act which is law now: the Bourne judgement. That situation is to a perpetrated either by force, fear or fraud, or at least that certain extent already covered, and no doubt the way that was the definition when I was a young policeman: force, it was to be provided for within this legislation would fear or fraud. No doubt we have something more provide better coverage, better provision, but that situation sophisticated today. But the nature of that is quite different is dealt with under existing common and case law from a situation arising from incest or a situation arising provision, and against that I have to say, 'Right, would the from indecent assault. In an incest situation there is not improvement of the situation by taking the Bourne necessarily any act of force or coercion attached to the judgement and putting it into statute be sufficient for to situation which has arisen. It may have arisen in offset my concerns in terms of clauses 3 and 4?', and the circumstances where both parties were, if you wish, willing answer I arrive at is they do not. I am afraid clauses 3 and partners - quite possible, not infrequently the case, and 4 are two clauses which I feel remain heavily flawed and then if we take indecent assault, a pregnancy arising from represent in my view bad law and will ultimately, I suspect, a situation where it is an indecent assault, what we are result in bad practice and therefore I cannot support the talking about of course is where a young person, a 13 or third reading today. 14-year-old person, becomes pregnant as a result of a sexual act when she is under age and below the age of Mr Kaman: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think from the consent, and in those circumstances the charge would be inputs up to now what does concern me from the hon. indecent assault. mover is he talks about normal practice as far as health Now, just take that on board as a starting platform and care is concerned. Let us be perfectly frank. This is not then look at the standards of proof, the standards of normal practice, this is something that should be recognised evidence. What we are saying in this clause is that there as special. This is not under the normal oaths that doctors has to be an affidavit. Right, now an affidavit of course take as far as having to try and preserve life. certainly carries a penalty if one makes out a false affidavit, What concerns me is the fact of the financial aspect but it is not a document that is attested under proof. It has towards this. In my opinion I believe it is a special case. not been tested in the way that evidence is normally tested Money should not come into the equation as far as a before the courts. It is a statement which may be and should termination is concerned and I am disappointed about that be true but can be and is, on occasions, false. So that is an because I think that at the end of the day this is going to be affidavit. Now, in the case of a rape victim, that is one the case. I look at two of the clauses that give me great situation, but apply that to the indecent assault situation concern and I feel that the financial aspect involved could where we are talking of a 13 or 14-year-old girl. Apply it cloud the issue considerably. to the incest situation where you have got parties that may I have no problems with 'the preservation of the life of have been quite willing partners to whatever actually took the pregnant woman' or `necessary to prevent grave place. So that affidavit aspect concerns me. permanent injury to the physical health of the woman' or `Early complaint' is the second part of this. They say `unlikely to survive birth' or 'unlikely to be capable of not only must there be an affidavit, there must be early maintaining vital functions after birth'. But the pregnancy complaint. But early complaint within the context of this caused through rape, incest, indecent assault - I think that section is three months. Now, a lot can happen in terms of any fair-minded person could not vote against these relationships between people in three months to change principles as far as this is concerned.

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K511

However, two areas cause me great concern. 'Serious because if I am to accept that serious handicaps can be handicap' - what does it really mean? When we see in aborted and that there is a clause for the grave permanent society that financial aspects are increasingly allowed to injury of the mental health of the woman, that concerns affect issues, what society thinks is not a serious handicap me. But the fact of the matter is when terminations can be might become one tomorrow. You can take the highest done privately, then I can see this piece of legislation being levels of Down's syndrome. They may have a better quality abused, because that is what used to happen in the adjacent of life than us, lead full active lives in the community, island before the Act came into force in the adjacent island. work, even in some cases have a driving licence. I am sure that most in this House would conclude that this person is Mr Groves: Mr Speaker, the philosophical and moral not seriously handicapped, but the bottom line is they are values that this Bill has brought into focus for many of us still Down's syndrome, they will never improve through are extremely difficult to weigh up, to determine, to bring the passage of time. Is this a reason why they should be into some form of balance. I only wish, as in most other allowed to be killed off because of this? areas of my life, I was more certain about what I knew `Grave permanent injury to the mental health of the was the right decision to make. This is probably an area woman' - I have to say that as I am concerned about where I have found it the most single difficult thing I have preventing grave permanent injury to the mental health of ever had to determine - the woman this area does give me concern. If after counselling the woman feels that she cannot cope with a Mr Kermode: Snap! seriously handicapped person I believe this would affect the mental health. Who am I, or anyone else, to inflict our Mr Groves: - and I wish I had the clear determination will onto the individual? But if we are to understand this or clear point of view of those who are quite definitely for termination it should be carried out on these grounds and or against, because then it would be quite easy, and it is should be carried out on the Island with persons having not. the support of their families around them and not be As hon. members will know, I had to leave the sitting isolated, shipped off the Island. of the hon. House last week at the beginning of the clauses But I think, whilst I believe that the hon. mover and the stage in order to attend an unavoidable appointment with hon. supporters say they believe there will be three to six a neurosurgeon in the UK and so I was not able to contribute terminations each year at the very most, I am much more to the debate on the clauses stage as I would have wished cynical as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. We to. But I have studied the results of the debate and what will see in a couple of years' time the figures escalate out was said by hon. members and what amendments were of proportion and there will be more terminations carried approved by the House at that time. At the outset I would out on the Island. Even though the mover does not think say that it is very clear that this hon. House has debated this, and I believe that his supporters sincerely believe this, this issue both in principle and detail after nothing other in my opinion the only way that this can be assured is that than deep and serious consideration, and this same attitude these two clauses are not abused and not seen as termination has obviously led the approach of the Social Issues virtually on demand, and finances are not allowed to be Committee and I do not believe that anyone could say that involved. the way in which the matter has been handled and that has I am sure that the mental health clause will be abused led in fact to this Bill coming forward to this point, this greatly, in fact I know that this is one of the clauses that is historic point of seeking a third reading, can in any way be abused greatly in the UK. What aggravates my concern faulted. over this piece of legislation, should a private hospital be For myself I am, as other members who have spoken established on this Island, is that there would be a legitimate so far have said, still very concerned about allowing for argument to the proposal that if you can pay privately for the opportunity for termination in circumstances which a termination in a national health service hospital, why would prevent grave permanent injury to the mental health can a termination not be carried out in a private hospital? of a woman, and similarly the defence which is afforded If we accept the principle of fmance being involved in under clause 3 regarding 'seriously handicapped'. I know terminations, then I believe that the criteria will change. the arguments have been well and truly put on these two I hope that this House does consider this third reading points by both sides, if you wish, and I do not intend to because in these two areas I sincerely believe that repeat them. My concerns, perhaps like others, are terminations of pregnancies should be minimised to the strengthened by personal experience and knowledge over bare minimum. The fact that there is a financial aspect as a number of years and, despite all of our best intentions, far as this concerned I believe could well cloud the issue not wishing to see abortion on demand, and worries over as far as these two important clauses are concerned in this certain handicapped births, these are clauses that could be Bill, and I feel that it would be very difficult for me to more widely interpreted at some point in the future, more support the third reading of this Bill unless the hon. mover widely than perhaps we today intend. can make it quite clear there is a way of showing that no Against these worries I must offset what is good in the financial aspects will come into this Bill, because I believe Bill, the well-argued amendments that have been approved at the end of the day there will be pressure on, and I believe that do improve the Bill, and I must consider what would that if we believe that terminations should be carried out happen if this Bill were to fail at this stage after all that in the Isle of Man, I believe finance should not be an aspect has been said and done by so many individuals, as far as it is concerned, and this gives me grave concern, organisations, authorities, Church councils and this hon.

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K512 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

House. I suppose the narrowly focused, if the Bill should I have to say that I will support the Bill but it would not fail, would claim a victory, genuinely believing this to be be honest of me if I did not say that I do so with a heavy so, for the sanctity of life and for moral values. If only it heart and a degree of foreboding. It is a very difficult were that cut and dried or that simple, which it is not. If decision, but then that is really, I suppose, what we are the Bill fails there will be no defence for medical here for, is it not? Thank you, sir. practitioners other than 56-year-old common law of England. There will be no defence for grave permanent Mr Delaney: Mr Speaker, members here rightly will injury to the physical health of a woman. There will be no vote on their own individuality and principle and it is defence where a baby is unlikely to survive birth or unlikely pointless having a lot of rhetoric when you are trying to to be capable of sustaining and maintaining vital functions change somebody's principle. He will stick by them if he after birth. There will be no provision of a much-needed has got any principles at all. Therefore rhetoric or counselling service and 250 women a year will continue regurgitating what has been said at the previous readings to leave the Isle of Man. To add to their agony and trauma is pointless. But I think it is right and proper because this in that particular action, the aspect of having to travel to Bill has had so much attention, rightly, from members, somewhere strange and unknown, they will continue to and would it be that all legislation going from here has the do that anyway because the Manx statute law will not exist, same attention, but we are voting on the principle as and I do not believe that that is right. individuals and I think it is only fair to the member who A great deal has been achieved in this Bill in bringing it has worked hard, the minister, on this Bill, and the work to this stage which should not be lost, taking into account, that has been put in by all the people concerned, that as it has, the whole breadth of opinion that has been given everyone who is going to vote for or against it should over three years, as the hon. mover has said, and the realities declare in short why. of the matter. We do have to live in real time, and I say that I made it clear that I had to consider not on anything with sincerity, not with any degree of cynicism. Sometimes other than when I thought that life started and I made it it is easy to forget that when we, perhaps unconsciously, clear in this House, and on that principle I then have to go theorise. I would not want this Bill to fail only to see with my conscience if I believe that to be true, and I do, perhaps a more liberal Bill come into this hon. House and therefore I have to follow that belief and I will vote perhaps in the next parliament which might perhaps adopt against this Bill, not because I do not believe, as I said, the more liberal views of the United Kingdom that that the doctors should not be protected. I believe they apparently exist there. should and I said so. It is for the simple reason, do not ask In view of the point I put forward at the second reading someone else to do something you would not do yourself, when I said, amongst other things, that I could not support and if they have the unfortunate job of having to decide in that part of clause 3 that included at (3) 'seriously the case of a mother and child, which cases do arise, handicapped', clearly today, as the hon. member for Ayre whether the mother should live or the child should live, is, I have to weight up the pros and cons of what is in this because of the necessity of the mother in the family, that Bill, perhaps also taking the lesson that it is very difficult decision, that dreadful decision, has to be taken, and far to ever say 'Never.' I still fear that we may be wrong to be it for me to see somebody in any way prosecuted for allow that part of clause 3 to go forward. What views will having to take that dreadful decision and therefore I could develop in the future, both professionally and in our courts, support the first clause of the Bill. in this area we can only surmise, but on the balance of I have to vote against the Bill because the other clauses, probability the prognosis, even with the amendments, I do as has been said by other speakers, do conflict with my not believe is good. basic belief and I have to support the idea that the sanctity It would be very easy today to vote against this third of life is all-important. I have to believe in the importance reading on this one point of genuinely held concern and that there will be no perfect society. There never has been worry and possibly politically expedient to do so also, a perfect society and those despots in the world who have because I do believe that the vote is relatively certain. I tried to achieve it have been shown to be despots. If we would ask whether the Department of Health and Social are asked that question as an individual, 'Should I take the Security will watch the way in which the clauses of this place of someone greater than me to make that decision?', Bill, should it pass into law, are applied. Perhaps the hon. I would refuse it, and I think that in my own personal belief mover could indicate in his summing up if a monitoring - and I push this forward: in my personal belief - that is system of some sort will be put in place that would audit why I cannot support it. But I do appreciate the attention or police terminations carried out under the provisions of and the work that has been put into it, the amendments the Bill. I believe this should be done. that have been thought out, the debate that has taken place Like the hon. member for Ayre, I have had to weigh up and I do appreciate the fact that members have been given in the balance, which is what we are here for, those points an individual vote on this Bill. I do appreciate that. in favour and those against, and I have decided that, unlike I only hope, whatever happens, with all the good the hon. member for Ayre, I think on balance there is more intentions that members have put forward, for those who good in this Bill than there is that I have worries and fears support it or do not support it, that the Bill will operate as about. We do have to have confidence and belief in the was intended by the minister and the people who have institutions of the state and in those of us in this parliament compiled it. The fears by the hon. member for Ramsey I and outside professionally who are put here to act in a am sure strike us all, whether in support of it or not. Those professional and responsible manner. fears must be there. We are not answerable for the future.

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K513

We cannot say what other people will do in the future. We Mr Walker: Mr Speaker, it seems to be that throughout can only, as he has pointed out, make the decision today. I the deliberations we have had on this particular subject, hope that the House has, and I am sure they have, given on the report to Tynwald, and on the Bill when it has come this careful consideration. At the end of the day a decision forward for its readings there has been a thread of thinking has to be taken - we are sent here to vote. With due respect somewhere that if we approve this legislation, then when to the minister and to the members, I will be voting against these circumstances arise there will be a termination, and this particular Bill because of my disagreement with certain I have to say I do not believe that that is the case at all. contents in the clauses. (Mr Downie: Hear, hear.) Member after member has got to their feet, and I join them, and said that the sort of Mr Gelling: Mr Speaker, I think every member that decisions we are asked to make as legislators when dealing has contributed to the clauses stage and the third reading, with this sort of legislation are not easy and few of us, whether they are for or against, has made one thing in hopefully, have to make these sorts of decisions on regular common and that is their contribution as to the way in occasions. Nevertheless, as the hon. member for Ramsey which the mover and the Social Issues Committee, and has said, we are the legislators and it is our job, it is our particularly the secretary, has treated their concerns, and I duty in fact to our Island community, to address some of too would wish to add my appreciation to the mover and the more difficult issues that come along from time to time. secretary for their co-operation during the time of this Bill So I have found the deliberations on this Bill no easier in consultation, which is obviously so very different now than any of my colleagues. I would submit to this hon. to when it began three years ago. House that those same difficult deliberations will arise in However, I have listened very carefully to some of the the few unfortunate occurrences when the conditions are contributions today which have hinged round clauses 3 arrived at by individuals that are in fact covered by this and 4, but the one clause that I would hope the mover Bill, and I think that it would be good for us just to bear would actually address in his summing up is the one clause that in mind, that when the circumstances arise with which gives me a lot of personal concern and that is clause individuals, with families, perhaps with girls who have no 6, because I feel, in consideration of this Bill, we do so family support, that when those rare circumstances arise with a backdrop of over 200 young ladies leaving the Island that are covered by this Bill the decisions that have to be to go to the adjacent isle, and it is somewhat easier, I would made by those involved are more difficult than the decision suggest, for us to sit considering legislation. It is just like that we are being asked to take today, and I do not believe saying, 'We have made it hard for you to get on the bus, at all that when these circumstances will arise it will but there is a train leaving any moment now', and I would automatically lead to a termination. But I am of the belief feel a lot more comfortable if the mover could stress that that in these awful circumstances from time to time there that clause having been amended to say 'the Department should be an element of choice for those people who are shall', he could perhaps give us some information as to involved, given the support of the medics, and the the persons that would be appropriate to make the bodies counselling, and the advice they receive from their families, which they would consult, in actually making available to their friends and for those who have to continue to live in these people the counselling which, I am sure, would save a family circle, and I am supporting the provisions of this more lives, because as far as I am concerned whether the Bill, not because I like particularly the result of it, but life is lost in the UK or the Isle of Man it is to preserve life because I do believe that we would be wrong if we denied we set out to do. that element of choice for those people that end up in those So therefore for myself the counselling is of paramount terribly unfortunate situations, and we all know, do we importance in this Bill and to me without the counselling not, and it has been mentioned before during this debate, the Bill is flawed and therefore I would request or ask the that the vast majority of terminations, whether we like it mover would he address clause 6 and the way in which he or not, will continue to take place by people going off across would envisage this counselling actually being introduced. the water, and perhaps that is appropriate in those I think that is so important, because if we can save some circumstances, but the very fine area that we are being of the trauma of these young ladies and perhaps not so asked to legislate for, I have to say that I have no doubts in young ladies leaving the Island and then be giving my mind that to support this Bill is the right thing to do. independent advice as to there are other ways other than I would just add my appreciation to those who have just going away and having a termination, I think that would already expressed it to the mover and his colleagues on be extremely valuable to us in the Isle of Man. the Social Issues Committee for the way that they have handled this Bill, that they have responded to the queries The other points have been covered and well aired and and the criticisms, sometimes difficult. I think that they I think the mover will be able to address those points, and have done a good job and I think the senior officers who I think the Bill has now reached the stage where we all can have supported them have done a good job as well, and I say we have had three years of consultation and certainly know the hon. member Mr May made mention of them in I do not recall in my time in the Keys having had such co- his contribution to the debate but I would like to add my operation from a mover or a committee with a Bill which appreciation also. certainly has caused, I think, everyone in this House a great deal of concern. So that is the only point I wish to raise, as Mr Brown: Mr Speaker, like other members who have the other points have been covered, and I would await the spoken and like most members, I think we all have concerns mover in his summing up. and differing views regarding this Bill, and like the hon.

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K514 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

member for Ramsey, Mr Groves, I have concerns regarding have expressed concern about the change in the law, or the provision re 'grave permanent injury to mental health', certainly the vast majority who have expressed concern, `seriously handicapped' and the rape issue, and those are have done it in a manner which has not been offensive, the areas that I do find difficult. However, I do believe that we majority of them have done it in what I would say is a must as legislators of this Island provide within the law of positive, serious concern for their beliefs, and that is the land, and I think that is the important bit, provide within something we should respect and I am sure we do. But at the law of the land, that no pregnant woman has her life the end of the day the only people who have the right either put at risk where her life is at substantial risk due to the to change the law or not are the members of this House, pregnancy. I have to say that I have weighed up the pros and I believe that if we are honest and we weigh up all the and cons of how we now have the Bill before us, but I do components and accept there are bits in there that we are believe it would be wrong in such traumatic and difficult not happy with, it would be wrong to throw it out and say, times for us not to provide a choice, the choice that would as it would be easier to do, 'Well, I really want that, but I be made in most cases by the pregnant woman, for her to do not want the other bits, so I will throw the whole lot determine, due to the risks, that there should be a out.' To do that would set us back years and I believe would termination. The Chief Minister said that the hardest be wrong and I believe puts both potential patient and the decision will come from the pregnant woman and her medical staff in a totally invidious position which we as family, and interestingly I had that scribbled down, that an Island should not allow to happen, and therefore I will that was a point I was going to make. It may be difficult be supporting the third reading as I believe we have now for us here today, but in some way it could be said we are come to the stage where a decision finally has to be made doing it cold because it is not an actual circumstance before on this. us and we are making a decision which, when it is cold, I would just add my congratulations to all those who can be quite easy whichever way you look at it, but I think have been involved on all sides, and to the hon. member we have to consider what would our view be if it was our for Douglas North, Mr May, who I know has spent a long family or a member of our family directly and this provision time, to use a term, living with this one, which is a was not available here in the Isle of Man and we as considerable amount of work, not just taking the Bill members of this House were responsible for allowing that through but all the work in committee, dealing with people to continue? individually, and I think we should not underestimate what I do believe it is fundamentally wrong for legislators, has been involved from his point of view and I just place whether it be here in the Isle of Man or anywhere else, to on record my thanks, as well as others', for the work he rely on or pass the buck, whichever way you wish to look has put into this. at it, to rely on common law, because if we do not pass this Bill today, with its mixture of concerns that we might all Mr Cringle: Mr Speaker, standing on the floor of the have, we will be saying, 'Leave it with common law', and House of Keys when dealing with legislation and the hon. member Mr Quine made the point about 'Ah, but attempting to move the House the way you wish it to move there is common law.' But, what is it? My understanding in so far as either an amendment, a motion or a particular is that if there was a requirement today, actually today, for piece of legislation I think is always a difficult task and a termination because the life of the woman was at serious there are many times when dealing with legislation and I risk and the medical people knew that unless they have personally had a go at trying to move amendments terminated that pregnancy the woman would definitely die, and failed that when I have got home in the evening I have then they would commit an offence and they would have been perfectly content and have slept very easy because in to be taken to court and the courts would have to determine fact it is the parliamentary will of the majority and it has under common law that that doctor or surgeon, in fact never caused me any problem. within common law, did not commit an offence, and I have Now, the hon. member for Ramsey this afternoon said to say if we allow that to happen, whatever the difficulties, that he wished that he was seeing things black and white I believe we would be abrogating our responsibilities to so that he knew exactly where he was going on one side or the people of this Island whoever they maybe, and I believe the other, he said, so that he could make an easy decision. that is unacceptable. Now, I am in the reverse position to the hon. member for So the options before us are vote out the third reading Ramsey. As far as I am concerned I can see this very plainly, and avoid some of the other bits that we find difficult or very cleanly, with no difficulty and I faced this difficulty support it and accept that within the legislation, while there because, as I said at second reading stage, I could very are some bits we have serious concerns about, one matter easily vote against this particular piece of legislation, and to me is fundamental over the rest, and I do not believe as it was quite some time ago when I knew that this legislation a legislator that I have the right to determine that any was about that I faced the problem. Oh yes, as many pregnant woman whose life is at grave, serious risk of being members do, I supposedly went round the House and did lost should be put in that position because I do not believe my own head count and decided 'Well, he will go that or whatever, that I feel uneasy about passing the law. I way' and he will go that way and tried to think of how any believe quite clearly that our people do not expect us to do particular piece of legislation would come down, and on that and that we should not do it. this particular piece of legislation this decision which I I believe also, and I think it has happened, as was said unfortunately came to was that it would go through, it before by one of the speakers, that there has been very would be passed in its green form. careful consideration of this legislation, that those who Now, I was at that stage faced with the challenge of do

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K515

I stand in my place and vehemently oppose the piece of done that, unfortunately today in many regards, and I say legislation or should I even consider looking at that piece that quite sincerely, many, many regards, I would like to of legislation in total? I have listened to the debate this vote and have this Bill dispatched entirely, but I think in afternoon and I can tell you that at the present time I am all fairness that it is possibly right that today we should still no wiser, I am really no wiser in my place here this support the third reading of this particular piece of afternoon. Would I honestly have been better to have stood legislation and I certainly will be doing that. in this my place and fought this particular piece of legislation and tried to persuade members to have put this Dr Mann: Mr Speaker, I think it is important for piece of legislation behind us and out? Would I have members to realise that we are now looking at the third actually been able to persuade enough members to do that? reading, we are not looking at the clauses, and individual Something I will never know because I took the view early members have had the opportunity, first of all at the second on that it was going to get passed no matter how strongly reading, to debate the general principles of the Bill and I was able to put forward a particular case. they passed that second reading. They have now had the So, having taken that view early on, I then took the opportunity of dealing with this Bill clause by clause. Each view that the logical step as a legislator was to try to move clause has been considered in detail, some have been that particular piece of legislation so that we were trying amended, some have been added. We are now at the third to at least come to some sort of movement within the green reading and I think at this stage we should not be bill that possibly could be acceptable and probably would regurgitating or trying to go back on the decisions made stand the test of time for a number of years, and that was a on the individual clauses. very important factor as far as I was concerned, that it I would pose the question, have we, in principle, met would stand the test of time. So I was very pleased when the reason for the Bill, have we met the demands of the in fact amendments were able to be moved to this particular Bill? And in my view there are two main things that we piece of legislation and give an element of protection, put have to look at. First of all, is it giving a medical defence, a duty firmly onto the doctors, put a time limit factor, albeit an adequate medical defence as the title of the Bill sets at 24 weeks, into the legislation, and a piece that would out? In fact we are replacing case law with statute law to mean that the foetus, that living being, would at least be protect the actions of medical practitioners. I would suggest properly dealt with in the event of any termination: very that this Bill, when it was introduced, was set quite firmly important. to just set out the existing case law. It was modified, after Other members have commented on the business of consultations, to perhaps be a little more limiting than the counselling and the questions as to whether we should existing case law. I think what we can say is as a result of make that statutory, make it more important. All those sorts approaching this clause by clause we have actually of things we have discussed almost, one could say, ad restricted the case law further. Therefore I just want to ask nauseam. The hon. member for Onchan this afternoon tried the question, are we actually giving the adequate medical to suspend standing orders on what many can see, even at defence? Now, from that point of view I accept that this this stage, possibly a strong point, and I sat here again in Bill is an adequate medical defence. I say that quite my seat this afternoon and wondered should I support the sincerely. There have been alterations and additions. Those suspension of standing orders relative to that and I had to alterations have been slightly more limiting in some areas balance that against the fact that I knew it had been raised but acceptably so and there have been new concepts at second reading, I knew it had been raised at the Social brought in which have actually made this Bill more up to Issues Committee, I knew it had been discussed, albeit date in terms of professional opinion. So I think from the briefly last week at the clause stage. So, yes, I know that medical defence point of view the general principle has with this particular piece of legislation now we are faced been met and in my view should most definitely be with coming down on third reading or not, and the supported. Legislative Council presumably will be, if they so wish, Just one comment on case law. The case law of course able to revise, amend, bring back to us. We have seen it all mainly goes back a considerable number of years but it happen before; the opportunities are there. started, that case law, actually dealing with things like rape As I said at the start, as far as this one goes, it was very and did represent, as I have said before, a quite amazing clean-cut and very easy for me to make a decision in that action on the part of the surgeon concerned at the time. So regard, that I did not want to see the Termination of there is firm case law supporting most of the things that Pregnancy Bill become an Act, become law of the Isle of we have discussed. Man and so unfortunately, whether I like it or not, what is But what worries me is the other issue which we really going to happen in the future is that I am not going to ought to be considering as well. We have answered the sleep particularly easy in relation to this particular piece need for the medical defence. Are we answering the needs of legislation because I will always feel uncomfortable of the Manx people? Are we answering the needs of the about it. I cannot help that, it is something which I will 250 young people or, anyway, certainly in reproductive just have to live with in the future. No matter what the age, women who leave this Island every year? I know the majority wish of a parliamentary forum, I personally will Bill did not set out to do that, but the fact is those 250 never be able to live a comfortable existence with it. women are Manx people, are Manx women. They are part Nevertheless I did make that decision early on and I did of the electorate that we represent. Is this Bill going to make it my business to be a party to bringing forward provide the answer to their problem? In many ways it will. amendments to the particular piece of legislation. Having As some people have said, it will never ever answer all

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K516 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 because of course many will leave purely as a matter of they could still be done under private practice for payment. confidentiality. But I think we do have to bear those 250 Now, I share part of the blame for not recognising this. It women in mind at this stage and when you think of 250 may be true that other members pointed it out. I am sorry women who have actually made a positive effort, with if I missed it. But basically on such a vital issue I think it almost no help at all, to go from this Island to another should only be done as a state service by the state. If anyone jurisdiction to seek their treatment, we are talking about is going to take life it should only be the state, not for one person for every working day of the year. Just think private gain. As Mr Karran pointed out, this is not a matter that every day we have sat here one woman has gone from of normal medical work where the aim is to save a life, here, positively gone from here, without very much help, this is a question of undoubtedly taking away the life of and are we really answering the problems of those women? the baby. I think to a large extent we will and this is why we have As the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Groves, said it is got to get the balance right and I think if we have got the very difficult to decide and he went on to say if the Bill balance of medical defence right, we have started to get does not pass 250 women will still go to the UK each year, the balance right for those women. They need the and Dr Mann said the same. However, I would argue that confidence that we mean to help them. if it does go through most of those people, and I think this Now, I think with the additional modifications of this has been omitted by the mover, will still go to the UK Bill, as the hon. member sitting beside me has said, if we because (1) the Bill does not cover their situations and (2) can provide the extra services, if this Bill has been a point because they do not want to risk people knowing about of generation of new services, we will have answered at their situation. least some of the needs of those individuals. Only time I agree with the hon. member Mr Groves that the will tell. All I know is that if we discard or reject this Bill prognosis if the Bill goes through is not good, and this has today we will have helped nobody. In fact we will have been confirmed to me by the words of the last speaker, the made the situation very much worse. So let us stop arguing hon. member for Garff, and to me his remarks make it about the bits and pieces in here. Everybody has had an perfectly clear that he just regards this as the thin end of opportunity of debating them. Everybody has voted on the wedge, a wedge which will get bigger and bigger. them. Let us just look at the general principle and get on The hon. member Mr Groves then says that the vote is with the job. certain, the Bill will go through. I would say to him, no. If those with genuine doubts in this hon. House vote against Mr Gilbey: Mr Speaker, the hon. member for Rushen, it, it will not go through and therefore I hope he and those Mr Corrin, paid tribute to the hon. mover of the Bill, Mr others with genuine doubts will change their minds if they May, and this is perhaps the only thing that I think all of us have said they will vote for it, as I have, and will vote can agree about. I do not think that anyone, whatever their against it. views about this Bill, can deny that he has handled it with The hon. member for Castletown says that a termination the greatest sensitivity, understanding and statesmanship, should be allowed to save the life of the pregnant woman. and all credit is due to him for this, and as one of those Now, I agree with that. I do not think there is a hon. member who moved various amendments which he accepted I feel who would not. But this is clearly covered by the present in many ways almost honour-bound to support the Bill common law. Many things in our law are covered by because of the way he has received those amendments and common law and not by statute law and that does not mean because of the way he has behaved generally. Indeed when that because a thing is covered by the precedents of I came into this hon. House I told those at the backdoor common law that thing is indefensible, and it is not just that I should be supporting the third reading. However, I true to say that every doctor in the Isle of Man who carries fear that although it means letting down in particular the out an abortion has to be charged and prove the justification hon. mover, for which I apologise to him personally, the of that abortion in the courts. As I said in an earlier debate, arguments put forward in the last hour by other hon. I know for a fact of a case where a lady had an abortion to members are such that I feel the overwhelming case is to save her life and the doctor was certainly not charged in vote against the third reading because, awful as it is to let the courts. down a colleague, I think it is even worse to vote for No-one seems happy with this Bill, or virtually no-one. something that clearly on the balance of argument is wrong There has hardly been a person who has got up and said and basically wrong and unsatisfactory. what an excellent Bill this is, even after the amendments I would just like to touch on some of the arguments put that have gone through. Surely if none of us are happy this forward that bring me to this conclusion, first of all the is a reason for voting against it. concern of the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, about The hon. member for Rushen, Mr Cringle, says he has clauses 3 and 4. I certainly share them, and also the fact faced a problem. Would he have been better to have fought that we still have a totally unsatisfactory definition for the legislation from start to finish? He decided to amend it terminations in respect of clause 2 where we talk about to enable it to stand what he calls 'the test of time'. The `grave permanent injury' which, as many of us have said, amendments have certainly made it better. However, even can mean all things to all men. he has said after those amendments that he will not be Again, I am bound to say I am very supportive of the happy with it, he will not sleep easy. I would urge him to points made by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Karran. vote against it so that he can sleep easy. We should perhaps all have realised that although we limit The risks of innocent children being killed are surely terminations under this Bill to national health hospitals, still too great despite the amendments and if those who

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K517

vote against the Bill because of their doubts which they issue with the member for Glenfaba when he said nobody have honestly expressed do vote against it it will fail. Surely has got up and said they are happy with this piece of • legislation. I do not think it is the sort of legislation that it is wrong to vote for something in which you have doubts. Therefore, although it will let down the hon. mover and I anybody can say they are absolutely thrilled and delighted apologise to him for this, I will most certainly vote against and happy and pleased with, but what I can say is that I am the third reading of this Bill. Indeed certainly I shall do so. comfortable with this most responsible and compassionate Bill. The Speaker: Hon. members, it is just before half past The Social Issues Committee reported to Tynwald and five and I feel bound under standing orders to consult with this Bill has now come before the House and it has been you. I have caught the eye of one other member and discussed, I believe, in a most responsible way, and I assuming that that member is the last person who wishes understand the comments made by a number of people. to speak I would then seek to call upon the mover of the One member said that clause 3 was placing an unreasonable Bill to reply. Can I have a proposal, please? demand on the medical profession when it came to deciding what 'seriously handicapped' means. I would say without Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, I think this Bill has been this legislation we are placing unreasonable demands on going on for quite some time. Hon. members, we have the medical profession (A Member: Hear, hear.) because only been here half a day and I think it would be expedient there are many more tests available now to pregnant for us to get rid of this Bill once and for all rather than women, counselling in the light of these tests is going to have to come back and debate it again next week. I think, be most important, and again I take issue with the member members, I would move that we carry on and finish this for Glenfaba because he says he rejects the Bill. It was the Bill tonight. I beg to move: member for Glenfaba that brought forward an amendment to bring in balanced counselling. Counselling is balanced, That the House adjourn on completion of but the House decided to accept that amendment, and now consideration of the motion that the Termination of he is saying that he is going to vote against the Bill. Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill be now read a third We all have to make difficult decisions when it comes time. to legislation and I believe that this is a difficult piece of legislation, but it is also responsible and it is also Mr Duggan: I would second that, Mr Speaker, sir. compassionate, and when it comes to common law, the very nature of the common law, the case law, that we use, The Speaker: Thank you. Does any member wish to as has already been said this afternoon, is in relation to speak to that motion? rape, but I will repeat it. It is the issue of rape that brought forward the case law, the common law, which many Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I believe that this is members are saying here this afternoon we should continue an important issue, I believe it should not be rushed and I to rely on to protect the medical profession and to look think that we should not rush this Bill and inhibit any hon. after women who are in this very difficult situation. member of this hon. House from speaking. I believe it will I think the Chief Minister said that the decisions that happen if we carry on because people will feel under we have to make this afternoon bear little comparison to pressure not to put their full input in. I think it would be a the decisions that people have to make, even without this wrong move. piece of legislation, and I believe that it is a responsibility that we should not take lightly but should take seriously, The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to but should recognise that we are law-makers. That is what speak? Do you wish to reply? we have come to this House for, this is our primary job, making laws for our people, compassionate laws that take Mr Kermode: Yes, Mr Speaker. The implications for a note of what is happening to our people outside this very debate carrying on do not mean that any member here has closeted House and we are not forcing anyone into abortion to rush his speech and nobody has to speak. We can sit and with this legislation counselling shall be provided and here until 8 o'clock tonight if need be to get this out of the therefore all the issues will be discussed with the families way just to make sure that we get this right, because I that are involved with making this decision. have reservations too. So I think, hon. members, if we Dr Mann asked the question, is this going to provide support my move to go on with this and do not let anybody the answer to the 250 women who go away for abortion? feel inhibited not to speak. I think that is just a little bit of And, no, it will not. This Bill will not affect about 248 of a red herring thrown in. those women, will not affect them at all, not even, I believe, with the extra services of counselling and the extra services The Speaker: The motion before the House is that the that would be needed to be provided should each of those debate be continued. Will all those in favour please say 248 women decide not to have an abortion, should not aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The ayes decide to go away. This Bill will make no difference to have it. I call upon the hon. member for Peel. that at all. What the counselling will do will be to provide couples with other options and maybe they will decide not Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder, I will to go, but this particular piece of legislation will not provide be brief. Quite a number of the points that I would have any service for about 248 women. made have already been made but I would like to take I think those are the main points that I would like to

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K518 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 make tonight. We have worked on this Bill for a long time involved, and I have that opinion myself. and I would like to pay special tribute to the members of As an individual I cannot think of any circumstances in the Social Issues Committee, especially the chair and all my own family life where my wife and I would contemplate the officers that have supported this Social Issues an abortion. It is not something that I think we would wish Committee. We have had many meetings, many discussions to do. But I only have that knowledge because I have never with many bodies, listened to many people and I believe been in that position, so if it did come to that sort of difficult we have got a piece of legislation that will serve our people position I do not, I suppose, what would happen at the end in a limited way and I would hope that members this of the day but I feel that I would not go down that path. afternoon will support this piece of legislation. Thank you, But there are many other people with circumstances very Vainstyr Loayreyder. different from my own, and at the second reading stage I think the hon. member for Garff, Dr Mann, mentioned those Mr Corkin: Mr Speaker, I am one of those members people in quite a lot of detail. who was probably not going to speak today but I have I think as time goes by people will realise that with this seen the debate in the last hour polarise and I am Bill and its great number of restrictions and as they realise disappointed that certain members who at one time had that it will only help, as the hon. member for Peel has said, seen enough amendments to support the Bill are now possibly six women per year, and as has been mentioned finding it difficult. I do not critisise them for it because it several times today, we have 250 women leaving the Island, is a matter for the heart on such a Bill. But I am forced to seek their abortions elsewhere, I think that the disappointed and the reason that I did not speak at the public will realise that where unwanted pregnancy is second reading and the reason I have not spoken today concerned this Bill, fails. Having said that, I understand until now is that I respect that point of view but it is not a that there is the counselling aspect within this Bill and that point of view that I share and I do believe that the vast is one of the reasons why having first decided I would majority of people in the Isle of Man, as Dr Mann, the vote against this Bill because I believe it is pretty ineffectual member for Garff, pointed out, are in fact probably not in as much as we are only legislating for a fraction of 1 per aware of what is in this Bill. cent of women seeking abortion and we are effectively I seriously at one point considered voting against this turning our back on the other 99 per cent. So, like the hon. Bill. At the clauses reading I also considered moving an member for Malew and Santon who is not in his seat at the amendment to allow abortion on demand for up to 12 moment, he was very concerned to see what the counselling weeks. I did not do that. The reason I did not do it was is going to provide. because I am quite convinced there would not have been We are simply relying upon the United Kingdom to look enough support for it in this hon. House and I did not think after our citizens and as an independent community I it would be constructive to do so for the general wellbeing believe it shows a lack of capability and maturity. This of this Bill. I think it probably would have raised the problem will not go away. Now, I have said before I was temperature of the debate at that time and it would not not going to speak, but now that I can see this polarisation have been constructive at all. towards the third reading vote, and I am concerned that But now we have a Bill with amendments that I think certain members are going to vote against this third reading, probably reflects a consensus of opinion of hon. members then I think it should be said that there are other points of within this House, but I do not believe it reflects a view than what have been heard in this hon. House and I consensus of opinion of the general public, and that is a believe that the majority of people in the Isle of Man have dilemma that I am facing up to at this moment, and so I not been represented. I am quite sure that if this hon. House speak today now to try and balance the debate because we had a 50-50 mixture of women and men we would have a have heard much about the Bill as it was printed originally, different Bill before us today. Now, that is a point of view. we have heard much from what I think is a minority view The other reason why I have changed my mind and will that has successfully amended this Bill in several ways, support this Bill, as has been mentioned, is the medical and I have no problem with that - it is democracy, a defences aspect, and I will not go into that in any detail - it substantial amount of lobbying has gone on in a true, proper has been covered quite carefully - and that is why. fashion, and I have no complaints about that, and it has Can I just say that in Jersey they have legalised abortion affected this Bill, but I come back to the point that there in recent times and they now allow abortion on demand are now certain members who are going to vote against for up to 10 weeks. I believe that they have been more the Bill because the consensus is beginning to break apart. honest with their public because they are now dealing with That consensus goes two ways because the Bill does not 99 per cent of their problem because going back to the in many ways do what I had hoped it would because, as I point where I predicted that we would never be able to tie mentioned in another place, in the hon. Court of Tynwald, down the circumstances that permit because of such wide- I thought then that we would never be able to tie down the ranging opinions, all of which I respect, if you allow conditions that would allow terminations of pregnancy, termination, and I realise this is not now part of the Bill because other countries have failed. The 1967 Act in the and I have explained why I did not move my amendment, UK was a failure. In that respect it is an ongoing struggle, but if it had been part of the Bill it would have covered all and so I thought at that time that we were not being honest these difficulties for most people. You would have had with the general public of the Isle of Man, because I am `seriously handicapped', the rape victims, the life of the quite sure that the majority of people think that there should mother, it would have all been under one umbrella and we be some freedom of choice in the matter for the woman would not have had the soul-searching that we have had. I

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved

HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K519 just believe that that would have been more honest. But have an abortion in those cases, and I think a majority of the truth is of course that women in the Isle of Man have people in the Isle of Man would say yes. benefited since 1967 from the UK change in law and as Now, the legislation that is as yet untried in the Isle of long as the UK law benefits our people, then we do not Man, this is new legislation to us, we are told has been in have to pass our own legislation. Just imagine if the UK existence in the United Kingdom. Now, there are factions denied access to Manx residents. I do not believe we would within the United Kingdom who have now found that that be talking about this Bill in the way we are today because legislation has not worked or is not working. That is fact, the silent majority would not put up with it. They would if members want to take notice of it. not have 250 women each year being not allowed abortions. Whether I vote for the third reading or not I want to The fact is we have the UK to look after us, and that has listen to the minister and I am not going to go over all of been mentioned several times, but in my own thinking I the comments that have been made but there have been cannot get away from that. The fact is we can moralise some valid comments made by members in this hon. House because the UK helps us in other ways. today and the minister will have to reply to them, so I will I believe that in the fullness of time there may well be wait. But I can tell you, I do really have some soul- attempts to amend this law. Now, I was not going to say searching before I support the third reading of this Bill, that today, but to the hon. member for Garff the accusation simply because of my own personal experiences, and all has been made by the member for Glenfaba that this is the is not black and white in this matter, it is not just a piece of thin end of the wedge. I think he might be right. But what paper that you are putting through. You are putting through difference does it make? Because we have abortion on here something that could affect people's lives, not now, demand now for Manx citizens it is just that they go to the but in 20, 30 or 40 years' time, if it is not amended, if it United Kingdom, and we have to live up to that, we have does not work, if we go on with this situation, that could to understand that, that is what is happening, and so in ruin their lives for good, whether you like it or not. So years to come I can well imagine this legislation being when you are voting today, as I have to, please take that amended, and I hope I have not been destructive in my into consideration. comments because I was not going to say anything, but As I say, had each individual clause been moved as a when I see the other side beginning to shift their position separate Bill I think there would have been grave and move away from the consensus that the hon. mover of reservations. Unfortunately, we have this clause 1 within this Bill - and I would congratulate him too as everyone this Bill and it is compiled together so that there are else has - has tried to achieve beginning to break down, situations where you are told, 'If you do not vote, that is then I feel as though I had to have my say. Thank you. going to happen and you are going to be stuck with that', but the implications for the other clauses in this Bill, the Mr Kermode: Mr Speaker, unlike the member for implications for people in the situations in this Bill are Glenfaba, I will make no apologies for my comments and grave indeed because they will be even at the time when no apologies which ever way I vote upon this Bill. The they make a decision and at a time when you have got to hon. mover of this Bill has not digressed into personalities, have an abortion, a woman has got to have an abortion, he has given reasoned arguments against members and she is probably mentally distressed, she is unbalanced, she some of their views, and I do hope that that continues. is looking to get advice from people and maybe she does I have heard a number of members speaking here today not get the right advice and she goes ahead and she does and in particular the member for Peel and she said we must it, and I know of somebody, as I have already explained to protect the medical profession, but I would have thought this hon. House before, who is suffering today as a result we also have a duty to protect the unborn child, that also of that particular action. I do know another one who was must have an important impact on all the deliberations going to have an abortion. She did not, the child was born, today. she is grateful, she has now got a grandchild, as I have If we took this Bill in separate clauses, if we were to tried to explain to you before - perfectly happy and glad consider that all these clauses were put in separate Bills that she did not take that decision and yet there were people and we had a separate Bill for each one I doubt very much who were saying to her, 'Look, you have got to do this: it if a majority of these clauses would have got through is unacceptable, you have to do this.' She did not take that individually on their own, as I myself have raised issues advice. within certain clauses - the rape, the disabled - and I am So I would say to hon. members, make no apologies. speaking from personal experience, as I have tried to The far-reaching implications on our society are grave, explain to members, and I was not going to divulge my grave indeed. So I will wait until what the minister has got own personal life here in this hon. House but I can honestly to say before I have to decide whether I will vote for this tell you, hon. members, I have been involved in situations third reading. like this and I doubt very much whether I would be here today if certain decisions had been made before I was born, The Speaker: May I call upon the minister to reply? so I have a personal interest, and from somebody else who is very, very close to me and, yes, you can have counselling. Mr May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a lengthy Counselling does not always work. There are still people afternoon. As expected, I did not anticipate an easy run suffering today as a result of abortion. But nevertheless with the third reading. It has been a difficult Bill to handle the valid point has been made about the medical profession from day one right the way through and indeed no doubt it in the case of somebody, life and limb, whether they should will continue to be so.

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K520 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995

If I can just start, one of the functions of a legislature, and their families should rightly be afforded by a certainly a responsible and adult legislature, is to look at compassionate society the support that will enable them problems, the difficult as well as the simple, the morally to deal with a particular situation in which they find complex as well as the easy, and what we have been looking themselves, a situation which not everybody would find at during the course of the last few weeks is one of those themselves capable of coping with, a situation in which very, very testing issues, an issue which tests hon. members not everybody would turn to termination for a solution. at all levels. Of course it poses questions. It poses ethical This Bill does not, and I have said it before and I will say questions, moral questions, religious questions, all of which it again, does not in any sense, shape or form bring any are of concern to hon. members. I know this. My colleagues suggestion whatsoever of compulsion. It is providing on the committee know this. We have recognised this from people with the right to choose, people who are faced with day one. But nevertheless I think that till today the House a great social dilemma, the right to choose, make an has looked at this issue, they have not run away from it, informed choice, with the guidance and the help of the members have been prepared to stand up and express their medical profession. views, and I think the way in which the whole conduct of The hon. member who resumed his seat just before I the debate has taken place over the process, right through rose said that if each clause was a Bill he doubts if any from the publication of our report, has been in the main clause would have got through. Each clause was mature, it has been sound and it has been responsible, and individually debated at great length, individually analysed, I am appreciative to hon. members for that. taken to pieces. The arguments, the responses were given Nevertheless we come to the third reading, all the issues in this House a week ago and each clause, as a responsible have been raised again, and as we said at the outset, what legislature, came forward with a consensus of opinion. does the Bill actually do, what does it do? First and Amendments were introduced to the clauses which I foremost it puts into statute that which is there already by believe, as I said earlier, helped to clarify and strengthen common law, spoken of in somewhat disparaging terms the Bill in certain areas. by the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr Gilbey, who seems If we go back to the commencement of the debate there to think, 'Well, if common law is there, well what does it have been a number of points made during the course, and matter?' I would suggest that that is not the attitude that I have regard for the hour, but I think they should rightly we should adopt as a responsible legislature. That is be responded to and I know you would expect nothing common law that has never in actual fact been tested and less than that. that provides a protection until the day it is actually tested. So to go back originally to the hon. member Mr Corrin Now, we assume that a Manx court will take an English who spoke, he in fact said the point that I have just made: High Court judgment as precedent. We assume that, but it the Bill has had thorough discussion. It has been discussed has never been tested, and is it right to go on indefinitely both publicly, both in this House and in another place in because an issue does create difficulties for individuals? It great, great detail. The hon. member said a large number has created many difficulties for myself and my colleagues of people did feel threatened and intimidated by the Bill. I on the committee, but we have had to look at them, we think my colleagues and myself have always made the point have had to analyse them, all the questions that have been that we have been prepared to listen, to take heed for the posed during the course of this debate, past debates on fears, the comments that have been expressed by people this subject, all those questions have been thoroughly and where it is practicable to do so we have taken those looked at by the committee, by the officers who have points and comments on board and incorporated them supported the committee, thoroughly looked at, thoroughly within the Bill. We have always made that point, and whilst analysed, and we finally came back with a Bill which the I thank hon. members for their kind remarks regarding the hon. member Mr Corkin refers to as being a Bill that way in which this legislation has been handled, those perhaps does not go as far as he personally would like, remarks, I feel, should also pass to my colleagues on the and I can appreciate that. I recognise the point he is making. committee. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is a Bill, as he correctly says, in which we have attempted The hon. member wished to put on record that I had to get that consensus of opinion from this House because listened to the approaches of himself and his colleagues if we cannot get a consensus of opinion from this House, with regard to the amendments that have been submitted, then nothing goes onto the statute book, we stay with the and indeed that is quite correct and I made the point earlier common law situation that the hon. member for Glenfaba of expressing my appreciation of the way it was done, seems to feel is quite satisfactory, and turn our back on the possibly an innovative way of handling legislation in this very real problems that do happen, the very real situations House, of having very good advance warning of that do face individuals and cause extreme hardship of the amendments, of actually discussing amendments with the worst possible kind. proposers of them, analysing them and seeing how best We ignore the fact that 250 of our female population they could be adapted. There were a couple of the will leave our shores and go across, go away to the UK. Is amendments which were supported by the House which I that a responsible way for us to act or do we look at the personally felt should not have been included within the problems and try and come to some form of solution? What Bill. However, they are within the Bill. That, I believe, is the committee has done is come forward with a Bill which part of the process of consensus of a mature legislature puts into statute first of all the case law, the common law doing the job which it is put here to do by the people. that exists today. Then we have looked with compassion The hon. member Mr Quine again expressed his at those areas where we as a committee believe that women concerns over clauses 3 and 4, and he has been entirely

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 K521 consistent in that, entirely consistent right the way through. Bill actually says is that they must have made a complaint I have every respect for Mr Quine's feelings on this and to the police about the alleged rape, incest or indecent can recognise that these are areas which are the most assault as soon as was reasonable in all the circumstances. sensitive within the terms of the Bill. We recognise that The time limitation is for the actual termination to be these are the areas which cause people to look inwardly carried out. Now, in that situation, in a case of alleged and to do some soul-searching as to whether or not they rape, the question would firstly be posed, certainly by those can support them. But those two areas are areas which receiving an affidavit, as to when the complaint was made were included after a great deal of thought, after a great and was it made in as reasonable a time as was possible? deal of consideration. They were included, as I say, to afford Is three months as reasonable a time as is possible? comfort to the women of the Isle of Man, not all of them - In the case of indecent assault which, as the hon. member a small minority will qualify under the terms of this Bill, says covers young people under age, then of course if they but those people who find themselves faced with the are too young to take an affidavit, then the other evidence dilemma of unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or sexual described by the clause comes into being. attack, of a severely handicapped child can have the The hon. member Mr Karran is again concerned about comfort and the ability to make their own reasoned choice. the private element of this and I have to say I think this is Now, the hon. member Mr Quine was critical of the something which, frankly, is a red herring. Under the terms rape provision and said we have got nothing to take it from, of this Bill the defences for termination are very, very there is nothing comparable in the United Kingdom and limited, very, very specific and would be carried out. It is we have got nothing to take it from. Again can I come not a medical operation or procedure that people can go back to the point of the responsible legislature, because onto a waiting list for. This is something that will be carried the hon. member Mr Quine is one member who is a keen out because of necessity. Today I am advised that it is not advocate of us as an Island legislating for ourselves. This practice for people to go in for normal childbirth privately. is an area in which the Social Issues Committee and the They might go in for gynaecological services, a different Bill suggest that we could and should legislate for thing. If somebody wishes to avail themselves of a private ourselves. room is that leading to abuse of the Bill? The hon. member is concerned at the provision of the The hon. member seemed to suggest that because the affidavit, that an affidavit is not tested in court. But medical contracts allow doctors to operate privately outside nevertheless, as has been explained on previous occasions, the National Health Service this will lead to a rapid increase the requirement for an affidavit - or other evidence, do not in the number of terminations being carried out. Now, I forget that - is a very, very serious thing and if an affidavit cannot accept that. Terminations can only be carried out is subsequently found to be false, then the person who has under the strict limitations imposed by the Bill. The Bill made that affidavit is liable to a term of imprisonment. It will in effect be the law. is a very, very serious thing to make that type of sworn A suggestion has been what scrutiny will there be on statement. the number of terminations? And the regulations do The hon. member is concerned over 'substantial risk', empower the department to make regulations under clause and as I have said consistently, there are times, there are 6 which will require reports to be made to the Director of occasions when we do have to place our faith in the medical Public Health, an annual report, reports on every profession, that some decisions have to be subjective. In termination, so there will be a watchdog body over this this area it is difficult, nigh impossible, to fully quantify legislation. and there has to be that discretion given to the medical He is concerned at the terminology of 'grave permanent profession. We have to have our faith in the medical injury'. That, as has been explained last week, as has been profession that when they take subjective judgements in explained on numerous occasions, is contained in clause 2 respect of our health, whatever it may be, they are making of the Bill. That is common law. That is what is there today. informed, good faith decisions with the interest of the `Grave permanent injury to the mental health' he is patient at heart. concerned about. That is the common law. The provision He did again refer to the fact that with the rape clause regarding mental health in the immediate situation as we are going into uncharted territory and placing contained in clause 5 of the Bill was taken out following unreasonable demands with the 'seriously handicapped' an amendment, and a right amendment, from Mr Gilbey. provision. That is a provision that has been taken from So there is no mental health provision in the clause 5 other areas on advice that we have had. It is an area where immediate threat to the life of the mother situation. the medical profession themselves will say that definitions Mr Groves, who missed the clauses stage of the Bill - I can in fact cloud the issue and make things worse than can again respect his concerns. We have all got these actually appear in the Bill. I believe the amendment that concerns. We have all had to wrestle with them, we have was introduced to clause 3 assists by providing that all had to analyse them and we will all in a few minutes additional description of the situation. have to each arrive at our own conclusions on them. He He is concerned with clause 4 that this is bad law and does not wish to see abortion on demand. recognises the trauma, and there are three definitions: rape, That has been the main philosophy, the main thrust. incest or indecent assault. Now, I have already explained Since we first published our committee report that has been the situation regarding the affidavit. The hon. member the base line, the bottom word, that this legislation will suggested that they have up to three months to make the not lead to the introduction of legislation which will allow complaint to the police. Now, that is not correct. What the for abortion on demand in the Isle of Man. I believe that

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved K522 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 7th MARCH, 1995 with this Bill, helped by the amendments which have been the way in which hon. members have dealt with it. introduced, we have achieved that, and the House Dr Mann again has given us the benefit of his vast collectively, if the Bill is passed, have achieved much in experience, and as he said - and I mentioned this point last doing so. week - we talk about the rape clause which we as an Island But I was pleased that Mr Groves, despite his are providing for where the UK does not, but when you reservations, recognises that to do nothing, to leave things look at it in context this whole business started from a as they are to leave the situation as it is, is no longer rape case in the United Kingdom in 1938. That is where it acceptable. There is no defence for a medical practitioner has come from. save that of case law which has never been tested. He asked has the Bill reached its objective in providing He did ask will the department watch the way in which defences? And the answer is yes. But he also said, and the provisions of the Bill will be applied? Well, I think I Mrs Hannan dealt with this, will it meet the needs of the have just dealt with that by saying that clause 6 does allow 250 who will leave the Island, is it going to answer their for reports to be made to the Director of Public Health and problem? And the answer to that is, no, it is not, but it will as such that will be the watchdog facility. provide very real comfort and support to a small number Mr Delaney has announced his intention of voting of Manx women and their families who find themselves against the Bill, and I respect his reasons for that, that his faced with the most difficult choice of all. decision and if he wishes to vote against, then I would not Mr Gilbey I believe I have responded to. I am sorry try to persuade him otherwise. His mind is made up and I that he has changed his stance. I am not surprised, but I will accept that. am sorry that he has changed his stance. I thought that by He said, 'Don't ask someone to do what you would not discussion and consultation Mr Gilbey could accept that do yourself.' An emotive phrase, but I do not think it is there are elements of the Bill which people will not like, quite as simplistic as that. I think we have to recognise there are elements which, frankly, just put on the statute that there are circumstances which dictate that a proper book that which is there already and it is looking to rectify legal defence for medical practitioners should be available. that anomaly and to provide the legislative comfort that is The hon. member Mr Gelling - I thank him for his provided by clauses 3 and 4. comments, and his personal concern was the clarification I could go on interminably but perhaps I do not think I of clause 6 and the comfort as to the provision of adequate would be too popular if I did. I think hon. members have counselling. The Bill as it is now written, as the clause is each made up their mind. It has been quite a lengthy process now written with 'shall' rather than 'may', means that there taking this Bill through. I thank hon. members for their is a duty on the department to introduce counselling support and all those people who have helped during that services following discussions with those people who the process. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be read a department deems to be appropriate. That process, as I have third time. mentioned before, will be set in play, firstly with discussions with the consultant obstetricians at the hospital. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The motion Any further discussions will follow from those particular that is before the House is that the Termination of talks that we have. Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill be now read a third I believe that there is an obligation on the state to ensure time. Will all those in favour please say aye; to the contrary that a counselling service is provided, that the state provide say no. The ayes have it. it and that it is professionally based, but there will be full discussions and the regulations which will introduce the A division was called for and voting resulted as follows: counselling will be put before Tynwald at the appropriate time. For: Mr Cannan, Dr Mann, Messrs North, Walker, Corrin, The Chief Minister - again the basis of his helpful Cringle, Brown, May, Cretney, Downie, Mrs Hannan, remarks was the fact that the Bill does not impose any Messrs Bell, Groves, Corkill, Kniveton, Gelling and the compulsion on any person. What it does is just give Speaker - 17 individuals the right to determine, their right of choice, and he rightly said that the concerns that have been Against: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Duggan, Delaney, identified during the course of this afternoon will be Kermode and Karran - 6 concerns felt by people, individuals, who find themselves faced with making this type of decision, and I believe that The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is carried, is quite true and correct. with 17 votes in favour and 6 against. Before I call this Mr Brown again says as legislators we must provide proceedings to a close could I, at the risk of being slightly that within the law of the land no pregnant woman should repetitive, add my congratulations to the member in charge have her life endangered by relying on common law, and of the Bill for the fair and comprehensive manner in which it is wrong for us as a legislature to continue to pass the he has discharged his duties (Members: Hear, hear.). buck. A blunt statement but I think a true one because it is Hon. members, that concludes our proceedings for time that we put these things on a proper legislative footing. today. The House will now adjourn to 14th March 1995 at Mr Cringle - I thank him for his comments and I thank 10 o'clock in this chamber. him and the other members for their efforts at consultation rather than confrontation during the course of the passage The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m. of this Bill, not the easiest of Bills to handle, but I respect

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Bill — Third Reading Approved