Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011 For Second Reading Debate commenced

5.2. Mr Brown to move:

That the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011 be read the second time.

The Speaker: We turn now to the next of our Bills for Second Reading, the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill and I call on the Hon. Member for Castletown, Mr Brown.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to put before the House today the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011. The Bill comprises eight clauses and one schedule and focuses on two new provisions. The first provision deals with donations received by candidates in elections, whilst the second will limit the amount each candidate may spend on their election campaign. Mr Speaker, the Bill follows a 2010 independent review, initiated by the Council of Ministers, of the Representation of the People Act and the election rules. The independent review arrived at 18 recommendations, many of which are reflected in the provisions contained in this Bill. On 31st December 2010, the Council of Ministers published the independent panel’s recommendations as part of a public consultation, which also included the responses given by the Council of Ministers’ Governance Committee. The Bill before the House today reflects the results of both the independent review and the public consultation. Mr Speaker, the Bill includes provisions that will require all candidates in House of Keys elections to disclose donations that are equal to or greater than the specified minimum amount, which has, within the Bill, been set at £50. There is provision within the Bill to enable the amount to be amended by regulation, which will be subject to the approval of Tynwald Court. The Bill also covers a situation where a candidate receives an anonymous donation. In such a case, the candidate is not permitted to keep the donation. Instead, the candidate must ensure that the funds received are sent in full to the Chief Financial Officer, who in turn will then pay the amount to the Manx Lottery Trust. There is provision within the Bill to enable other charitable trusts to be prescribed in regulations, again subject to the approval of Tynwald Court. Further provisions are included to prevent avoidance. If a number of donations are given by the same person or by connected persons, the amount must be aggregated in order to establish whether the £50 limit has been exceeded. Mr Speaker, a candidate must make a declaration of all donations that exceed the defined amount to the Chief Registrar no later than five working days before the election day. The Chief Registrar must then make all declarations available to the public through the General Registry during normal working hours. There will be no charge for this service. Mr Speaker, the second new provision contained in the Bill will limit the amount a candidate can spend on his or her election campaign. The limit will be calculated using the formula as set out in the Bill, that is £2,000 plus 50 pence for every person registered to vote in the candidate’s constituency. Under the provisions of the Bill, a candidate in the election is not required to automatically submit a statement of expenses. Such a statement is only required if the Chief Registrar receives a complaint, which must be received within three months of the election, and the Chief Registrar requests the production of invoices, receipts, or other proof of the candidate’s election expenses. Therefore candidates will have to retain a schedule of their expenses including proof of the expenditure, so that, if required, such can be provided to the Chief Registrar. The schedule sets out the meaning of ‘election expenses’, which includes expenses incurred to promote or procure the candidate’s election to the House of Keys, or expenses incurred to prejudice the electoral prospects of another candidate. Mr Speaker, looking at both donations and expenses, the Bill deals with those amounts that are in cash as well as amounts that result from provision of goods or services given freely or at less than market value. Provision is also included to deal with donations or expenses links to loans which are offered on a non- commercial basis. The Bill seeks the introduction of new offences relating to the receipt and declaration of donations and to the submission of a statement of expenses to the Chief Registrar. In each case, a candidate who is found guilty of an offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5,000. Finally, Mr Speaker, due to the short period available to enable this Bill to pass through the legislature and receive Royal Assent, I would advise the House that it is my intention to seek to progress the Bill as a matter of urgency by seeking support from the House to enable the Third Reading to be taken immediately at the same sitting at the House that the clauses stage is being dealt with, which is scheduled for 10th May, sir.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011 be read a second time.

The Speaker: Mr Houghton.

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

The Speaker: Mr Watterson.

Mr Watterson: Mr Speaker, I rise to raise some concerns with this Bill and ask that it be referred to a committee for some consideration. Many politicians have been involved in the consultation process that preceded this Bill and perhaps hoped that it would look a little bit different, but not least of all if a draft Bill had been circulated for consultation. As such, there are a number of changes which I, for one, would like to see and have prepared amendments to the Bill, should it go to clauses. However, these are substantive issues and deserving of far wider input than can be generated within a week and then a clauses debate. I say this because the impact of the Bill will impact on every candidate for the forthcoming General Election just five months away. It must be stated that, thus far, for all the consultation there has been, there has not been a draft Bill before now. That is the most helpful thing for a consultation and that is why Government Departments provide them when they go out to consultation, yet that opportunity has not been afforded to us. There is no provision in the current Bill for the registration of political parties. I have had some amendments drafted to allow this, but it will require a change to the long title. It is also worthy of wider consultation as to how this should be implemented, and there are potential advantages to being a member of a party than there are campaigning as an independent Member. I do believe that political parties on the Island should be registered. If they are to play a part in the Manx political system, they should be regulated to ensure that they are conducted appropriately. We also need to look closely at pseudo-political parties, a point that really came to the fore in the by-election, with the blind trust that supported a candidate in that election. That particular body raised the issue as to whether a candidate who is the recipient of advertising by the trust or other body could have stopped it if they had wanted to, and I do not think they could, even if they had wanted to. This is an issue that I feel should have further scrutiny. To what extent should the candidate be the master of his own destiny, his own image? Should another person be able to campaign for or against me, without my permission, but using my name and my photographs? These are not issues that ought to be decided quickly or without proper debate or discussion. Registration of political parties itself covers a number of areas that need scrutiny, including who should be the registrar? What should be the length and type of name that can be used by the party and what is a political party? For example, is still a political party, despite not having contested recent general elections? The requirement for office-holders, a constitution, proper governance and audit and accounting requirements, listing and delisting requirements and other issues – and there are bound to be issues I have not thought about. They will also cover any spending already committed by candidates over the last few months, in the 12 months leading up to the election and I know that some people have already started campaigning and incurring expenditure. I must admit that I have not yet, but it is possible, perhaps not likely, that an individual would have planned their campaign differently over the last 12 months if they had known that these spending limits were being brought in. I am also concerned at the present wording of some of the provisions of the Bill. At present, the declaration in writing to spending is provided five days before the poll. Why? It does not then seemingly prevent the significant spending in the last four days, a time which could potentially make or break an election. As such, I would ask that the declaration be handed to the returning officer on polling day, made up to that date for onward transmission to the Chief Registrar. I also see potential difficulties with fundraising for individuals and political parties and the transparency of those donations. If I held a bucket collection at a supporters’ meeting and someone puts £1,000 into the bucket, it cannot be proved to be an anonymous donation from one person, but could theoretically be £50 donation from 20 people or £25 donations from 40 people. You can see the difficulty. The best way of negating this problem is to consider making every pound received declarable for the purpose of the election. A further problem relates to the use of agents to receive and convey donations. If I say to give donations to my campaign manager, brother, auntie, or whoever, and they will give me a cheque at the end, I end up with one declarable donation from someone close to the campaign – not the reality; a number of donations from others which should, in reality, be disclosed.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, I hope I have given you a flavour of some of the complicated issues that really face us in this Bill. I do have suggested solutions, which I will circulate, but to move these clauses provides only one solution, where there may be better alternatives that can come forward after debate and discussion. Unfortunately, the lack of consultation on a draft Bill has precluded this and hence, I feel, the need for a Bill committee. To those of you who were away for it, I just want to re-pose some of those questions. Should this Bill apply, effectively, retrospectively to expenditure already incurred in association with the election this year? Should political parties remain outside of election law and spending limits, when they will be imposed on independent individual candidates? Should there be a governance and transparency around political parties that is not presently imposed? Should anybody be able to campaign for or against you, using your name and image without your consent? If you feel that these issues are worthy of further debate, rather than a rushed response and, as has been indicated by the Chief Minister, of taking two stages of the Bill in one day potentially, then I urge you to vote in favour of the referral of this Bill to a committee and to that end, Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill and its clauses be referred to a committee of three Members of the House.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I want to clarify the position to the House. Standing Orders provide that reference to a committee may be made after the motion for Second Reading has been carried – after the motion for Second Reading has been carried. I take your contribution, to what is the Second Reading debate, to be notice of intent to move reference to a committee, but that can only be done if, in fact, the Second Reading is carried. So we proceed with the debate and the Second Reading and I call the Hon. Member for , Mr Earnshaw.

Mr Earnshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can understand the thrust that is behind this, and the Hon. Member for who has just resumed his seat referred to the East Douglas by-election, which is surely the genesis of what we are debating today. As Minister for Home Affairs, I do not intend to refer to that again. I do not think it would be right and proper to do that, other than to say that something of a messy situation arose from that and I am a bit concerned that the Bill we have before us today does not really help a lot in resolving that situation. (Interjection) I can understand the unease that there is with some people, but I do think this is something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. (Interjection) I am probably going to be out on a limb with this, and I am probably going to be on a hiding to nothing at the end of the day – I will probably get a bit of a battering for this – but I do want to put my point of view. I made a contribution prior to this Bill being drawn up. It was in answer to the consultation process. My own position, I am sure, is not dissimilar to many other Hon. Members’. I am a 100% independent Member of the House of Keys. I have never had any funding from anywhere, and I am sure most people are in the same boat as me. (Mr Watterson: Hear, hear.) I never sought any funding from anywhere, I do not expect any funding from anywhere, and quite frankly, I do not want any funding from anywhere. I am not in anybody’s pocket; I am an independent Member and I can act appropriately. I have got a band of helpers, the same as everybody else, who assist with an election campaign, delivering things, putting things in envelopes and all the rest of it, but I have never had any financial support. I try to run a neat and tidy campaign, and the cost is usually in the region of £1,500 to £2,000, and I would anticipate that if I stand again this year, it will be something very similar. Onchan is the biggest constituency on the Island, and if this legislation is approved, I think it would give a (Interjection) candidate standing for Onchan a potential budget of round about £5,500. My concern is that having this figure in mind may raise the bar and I do question that potential new Members of the House of Keys may be deterred from standing, if they get this figure in their head. So I think it is unhealthy in that respect. They may well believe that £5,500 is the figure they will be expected to find. There will be an expectation there. I do think, if that is the case, it will be an own goal for the Manx electoral system, because most people would find £5,500 to put down for an election, especially if they may not succeed… it would be a difficult figure to find. I am also most concerned regarding the control and the policing and the governance of the system. I think it will lead to a lot of challenges and I started off by referring to something of a messy situation. I accept at the moment it may well be argued that there is no limit on the amount that can be spent, so control on an upper limit does not arise, but I do believe, in the small close-knit communities that we have in the , the public are a very good barometer of whether Members of the House of Keys are getting above themselves. Word soon gets round our communities. The public appreciates a candidate who works hard, somebody who is uninfluenced by others and somebody who runs a thrifty and tidy campaign.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 I would like to summarise, Mr Speaker, by saying the Manx public generally choose independent candidates. This has stood the test of time. The public seek a candidate who they know, who they can feel comfortable with in respect to the candidate’s views and personality. Public representatives can therefore be said to already be well regulated by the public that they serve, and the public will soon reject a candidate who they feel they are not comfortable with or who is getting above their station. The great majority of existing Members, Mr Speaker, are self-funded, a handful are possibly not, and the public will gauge their level of tolerance as to who is or who is not in their comfort zone. News does travel fast in the Isle of Man and electors and other candidates will quickly identify those who overstep the mark and who are not playing the game. Mr Speaker, I do question whether this legislation is necessary and a step forwards or a step backwards. I would prefer to leave things as they are and let the public do the deciding.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for , Mr Cretney.

Mr Cretney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I obviously rise to support this legislation as I see it as a step in the right direction in terms of improving things regarding elections. Can I say on behalf of the that I did write and we participated in each of the stages of consultation and made our points known there, and I thank the various bodies for that opportunity. There was a point made by the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson, as to whether Mec Vannin constituted a political party. Far be it from me to answer – I am sure they can answer that question themselves – but I would say they are. They clearly have policies, they clearly meet, they clearly make statements about issues, so despite the fact that they did not contest the last General Election of the House of Keys, I would say they are clearly a bona fide political party. On that basis, can I say again, as I did when I made my comment on behalf of the Manx Labour Party, that we will be quite content with any registration process. We did make that quite clear. I have got a couple of points that I would like to make, and again the point has been raised whether this legislation being introduced today becomes retrospective, because I know I am not the only one who has distributed literature this year to my constituents. I have done that on the basis that it is my 23rd newsletter, I have been elected 25 years. Since the average is just less than one year, and I have had six elections, so I do not believe – and I stand to be corrected – that because I have continued to issue a newsletter over that period of time, now this new legislation is coming forward which will have a 12-month clause in it, I should be affected as a result of that. I stand to be corrected, but that was certainly the position I have taken. It was not election material as such; it was an update to my constituents. I would like to take this opportunity, though, and it is slightly outside of the parameters of the legislation, but I would, if I can, Mr Speaker, take this opportunity in relation to the voters’ lists. I would like to ask the media if they have an opportunity to please try and encourage the electorate out there in all the constituencies to make sure that they are on the voters’ list. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) I have checked my constituency and there are people who were on the voters’ list in houses that had been demolished, a number of people, and I went back and I informed the Treasury officer about that and so I presume that, in the future, they will be taken off; but then I came across the next problem was that these were local authority houses that had been demolished and the people who lived in those houses, who were on the list previously, have moved elsewhere, clearly. So I contacted the local authority and asked, ‘Are you able to tell me where these people have moved to?’ No, they could not tell me, because this is data protection, their information is… So we have got potentially people out there, even in this small example I am putting forward today – I am sure there are others, but even on a small example – who are not on the voters’ list and presumably in the past have made the decision they wished to be on the voters’ list. If the media could please take the opportunity to make sure everyone around the Island is on the voters’ list for this important occasion, I think democracy will be best served. Thank you, Mr President.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I think that would be an appropriate moment to take our lunch break. The House will stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m.

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

Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011 Debate concluded Second Reading approved

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011

The Speaker: Hon. Members, we are in our consideration of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, and as no-one else has caught… Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a few points I would like to make to Hon. Members, by way of my membership on the Governance Committee, which has put this Bill together, of course, before Members today. I would like, for the assistance of Members, to explain the reasons where we are up to and what parts of that the Chief Minister will adequately cover, but as a Member of the Governance Committee, I thought it was right and proper that I put a contribution together, in order to ease Members’ concerns and in particular, the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson’s concerns, where he is looking forward to, on receipt of the Second Reading of this Bill, moving to a committee. Can I help to assure the Hon. Member, and any other Members who may have similar concerns that, actually, the Bill is being put together by a Committee already. That Committee’s work is by no means finished, it is only partially done, as far as putting this Bill together. So the way I would look at this Bill is as an interim measure to assist to deal with some measures, but not all measures arising from the concerns coming out of the East Douglas by-election. The Hon. Member, Mr Watterson, said he hoped the Bill would look different and he had some substantive amendments to clauses and so on and he outlined certain areas about pseudo-political parties and the registration of political parties and so on. Can I assure the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson, that a lot of this has been looked at in great detail, but the Committee felt it required even further detail and, further to that consideration, a long period of consultation would be required, in order to cover all the areas that are right and proper before the Bill is put before this Hon. House. We simply did not have the time to do that, so rather than put a rushed Bill together, we have dealt with only some areas, so that is why I ask Hon. Members to support this Bill. The areas that the Committee felt were appropriate in this Bill were only the areas we felt, at this point in time, that we were satisfied had been fully and properly covered, not all these other areas that covered these political parties. If the Hon. Member, Mr Watterson, would take due diligence with the issues, the Governance Committee have got much, much more work to do, whoever is on it.

Mr Watterson: Put it all together and come out with a package.

Mr Houghton: The Hon. Member is saying to put it together as a package. That is – he is ahead of me – entirely what the Governance Committee wish to do on the other side of the General Election. What is planned to take forward is all these other issues that have been spoken of thus far in this debate, the issues that will arise and concerns and issues that will arise from the General Election – that inevitably do, anyway – and then all of that put together in a successive Bill in the future, after it has had time for proper consultation and advice to be taken. That is the area in which I thought that I could, if at all possible, assist Hon. Members, where going to a Committee would be futile. It is with a Committee now, and anything further to be added by way of clauses to it would not have had the appropriate measure of time that the Governance Committee required for consultation. I think it is only right and proper that a lot of these issues here are consulted, and especially when we are dealing with political parties, that those parties are consulted. To do that you require time – time we did not have – so that was not put in the Bill. (Interjection by Mr Watterson) Turning to the Hon. Member, Mr Earnshaw, saying, of course, in his constituency – a three-seat constituency – it may take £5,500 – or that is the expected maximum figure – I understand his concerns were that that is quite an awful lot for a candidate to afford. The Governance Committee spent an awful lot of time deliberating, in view of what has happened in East Douglas, how to set a maximum figure to be expended by candidates in that way, and after a lot of consideration it was agreed at £2,000 plus 50 pence per voter, which means that, in a two- seat constituency like North Douglas, it will be considerably less – the limitation – than in Onchan. Some people say, ‘Well, why may that be two?’ That is a very good point. That could be tidied up in the future, along with all the other considerations, after the General Election blows up, when we get down to the business on the other side of the General Election, whoever is sitting on that Governance Committee. There is a mass of paperwork already and an awful lot of advice that the Committee has taken, but in order to move forward with this issue to a certain extent, we have brought this Bill as an interim measure. I do hope that is of assistance, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not think I could make a more compelling argument against this Bill than the previous speaker has just made, quite frankly. (A Member: Hear, hear.) What is he telling us? It is only part of the package: that is the

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 first we have heard of this. It has been brought together by a Committee, (Interjection) there is lots more work to do, lots more consulting. So why is the Bill before us? The Bill is before us in response to the events that occurred during the by- election in Douglas East. I think – and I stand to be corrected – that they were absolutely exceptional. They were unprecedented, (Two Members: Hear, hear.) the allegations. I do not want to dwell on the detail, of course, but they were unprecedented and we are reacting to something which, in all likelihood, I would contend, is so unlikely to re-occur as to make this legislation unnecessary. It is rules for rules’ sake, I have to say, if for no other reason than the person whose reputation has been harmed most, who also failed to win the by-election, nobody would want to emulate that, I dare say. But we have this Bill, which as Mr Houghton has said, is only part of the story, it is just… It is rushed. We know it is rushed, because the mover, Mr Brown, is saying he wants to suspend Standing Orders in order to push it through the branches. That is rushed. That is evidence of being rushed.

The Chief Minister: You’re from Rushen!

Mr Watterson: A cogent argument.

Mr Gill: Sorry, Mr Speaker. We know from the support of the seconder of the Bill that it is rushed, we know it is partial and, actually, I would contend it is not necessary. The provisions, as are before us, I doubt if they will make any impact on my election costs. I do not think I am going to think in terms of spending anything like the amounts that are listed here, even if I had that money, which I do not –

A Member: What about Mr Gawne?

Mr Houghton: You might be out of work soon!

Mr Gill: – and I think that it would be a poor tactic to do that, actually, even if there was a very rich candidate or a very wealthy party because, actually, I believe the electorate recoil against candidates they regard as being a bit flashy (A Member: Hear, hear.) or being wasteful with their own money. I do not think they have the confidence to trust public funds to people who would behave in that manner. I may be wrong, but that is my experience. I would echo the words that the Member for Onchan, Mr Earnshaw, made when he said the principles and the provisions of the Bill reflect an own goal and, really, we should let the public decide freely, unencumbered by unnecessary rules. I think that is a very coherent argument. I will not go back over what Mr Houghton said, other than to thank him for what he said because I think anybody who is wavering could fail to have been convinced by anything which he told us: that it is a partial Bill, it is part of a bigger picture, everyone will have to be consulted. They will, but what we are voting on will not just affect us; it will affect other candidates in the forthcoming Election. We do not have an election yet, we do not have prospective candidates yet, of course, Mr Speaker. We have people who have announced that they are willing to stand when an election is called. So we do not have a 12-month candidates’ campaign beforehand, but even if we did, let me put one scenario to you. If, tomorrow, I am in a position to buy a new car and I use that car in the election with posters in it ‘Vote Gill’ and I use it to drive around Rushen and I use it for my election purposes, is that £10,000 I have spent on a car an election expense? I do not know, but where do we draw the line? The Chief Registrar would draw the line. Why do we need any of that? Why do we need it? Put the by-election in Douglas on one side, we would not be having this debate, we would not be having this kind of partial legislation before us to consider, we just wouldn’t. And we do not have to over-react to every scenario. We can treat some situations as one off and absolutely exceptional and we can work on the basis that, in the hugely unlikely event they are repeated, we make a measured response. What we should not do is make a knee-jerk response and then try and push it through with the suspension of Standing Orders, which are there for a very good reason, and there has to be a compelling reason – or there should be a compelling reason – to suspend them. We have not had that put to us –

Mr Brown: I have not asked yet!

Mr Gill: – and Mr Brown says we will do that when we get there, but I say, well, let’s not get there, let’s just vote the Bill down. If that is not the case and if the vote goes in favour of the Bill, then I would give notice that I will be supporting Mr Watterson’s referral to a Committee.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 I believe more and more legislation should be referred to committees, because I think anybody who has been following Hansard activities in the House of Keys would be aware of the value of that process from another situation, so I think the Bill is unnecessary, it is ill-timed. It is ill-conceived in its scope and we do not need it, frankly. Therefore let’s not have legislation for the sake of legislation, let’s just kill it in its tracks and, failing that, let’s put it to some proper scrutiny. I think it would be found wanting, but that would be plan B. Plan A is just stop the Bill. Thank you, sir.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I am coming at it that from the same vein. I think bringing this forward a few months prior to a General Election is premature, (Mr Watterson: Hear, hear.) and certainly now that my colleague and friend has explained that this is just part of a package, then I think really it is premature that we should be just bringing bits and pieces forward, as it were. It is not right, not how we should be doing things at all. (Mr Watterson: Hear, hear.) I have got one or two different concerns, Vainstyr Loayreyder, aimed at the ceiling of how much you cannot pay towards your own election. I always stump up myself, as nearly everyone here does themselves, but the point is our elections now are moving forward into the 21st century. They are a completely different animal to what they were 30 or 40 years ago, so if you want to do a halfway decent election campaign for yourself and present it as some way professional, and some sort of national image that people can go for and vote for, it can be quite expensive, and especially if you want to put a semi-decent manifesto out which has some meat on it and not some of the… I feel, anyway… In the past I have seen sheets of A4 folded into three used as a manifesto. I think that that is derisory and a complete insult to people’s intelligence, shoving a little leaflet through the door for national politics. If somebody wants to beef up their policy document… and people are expecting colour these days, photographs and all the rest of it, that in itself can be a very expensive exercise. There is no doubt about it. The postage that you are allowed is limited, so if you have a semi-decent document you will not get your mailing so you are going to have to pay for that. There is a danger there. So setting a two-grand limit, I think, is a bit false in some ways. (Interjection) Well, yes, the 50p postage on the voters but, nonetheless, the baseline has been drawn and I think there is a danger, too. This is our national General Election we are talking about, and I think we are in danger of dumbing it down to almost a district level committee, if I can put it like that, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I think that the speakers who have alluded to the point, where the public will be the best judge of what turns up on their doorsteps; quite right, if somebody is running round and doing an American-style election and spending lots of – or long thousands on it, they are very wise and fickle and they will choose at the ballot box who they feel is appropriate. They will make their views well and truly known and I think that will take care of itself. What I am worried about, too, is we are making these changes now, just before the Election and we did this last time. Unbeknownst to ourselves, really, the electoral register was completely voided before the last Election, and then we had a Boundary Committee review in the June or July Tynwald prior to the Election, where certain constituencies, including mine, were going to be chopped to pieces and we were going to lose half of North Douglas and gain half of , if I remember rightly. The confusion that in itself would have caused and the voter apathy is what we worried about. Well, if we had done that, I can guarantee to this House that we would have seen the poorest turnout ever in Manx election history. Then we had the electoral register debacle. That in itself was just horrendous, the confusion that caused. People thought they would be… if you are living at the same address, you are on the register and that is it. It necessitated a few of us in here – I know others were involved in it, but for myself and Mr Houghton, at that time, literally meant an additional job for several weeks, trying to sort that out and I know my colleague at South Douglas was put under the same pressure, where whole streets of people disappeared! They thought they were on, but they did not realise they had to re-register. What I am driving at is, the Chief Minister made it quite clear – and I hope he does clarify it in his winding up – but not only is the money put to an election being taken into account, if I have heard this right, it is sort of benefit in kind will be taken into account, too. What sort of additional help you might get, or could be classed as. We need some clarification on that, because, if I were to round up a team of 30 or 40 helpers, we have facilities offered to us, for making boards out. Somebody else said, they will do the waterproofing for the boards and whatever and bits and pieces like that. We need some clarification on that, because that, technically, could be encompassed in what I think the Chief Minister was hinting at, in how we are going to handle this. The first part of the Bill is fine, tidying up this blind trust issue and I feel that is the only point that should have been brought forward here. We could have all gone for that, no problem, but there are a huge amount of question marks in the background of this with the other bits and pieces that I have mentioned, Vainstyr Loayreyder, and for those of us who have started to plan out what their moves are for September, I am afraid if

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 this goes through, some of us could find ourselves falling foul of the law. That is why I think it is premature: it should be something to be looked at after the Election, so that everyone has got the chance to get on with how they see fit and not break into anything that the Chief Minister has explained this morning. I am quite concerned about that. Once you add everything up to a decent election campaign, it is quite easy to go through that barrier or you keep it cheap and cheerful and do a district committee election and I think that really is dumbing the House down, as it were. We should not be in that business, we should be promoting it as a very important national event and it should be up to individual candidates how they promote themselves and work and how they conduct the campaign and so on. So those are my thoughts. I think it is premature and I am quite in favour of Mr Watterson’s committee idea at the minute, if nothing else.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst I appreciate the good intentions of somebody who might be suggesting it should go off to a committee, should it pass the stage we are currently debating, nevertheless, there is a habit of something going off to a committee before a General Election effectively to have destroyed any chance of getting any of that legislation that has gone to a committee before the House in time for a General Election. I refer, principally, to the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, where a lot of good clauses could have benefited the people of the Island, but will not now have that opportunity ahead of the Election. So this particular one – I know the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, said this is ill-timed – actually, I think it is perfect timing to have something such as this before the General Election and in place will respond to some of the disquiet that was expressed following on, actually, before the East Douglas by-election, as well as concerns that were expressed after. I know some of the forms are being dealt with in other areas: they will be to do with absent voters and proxies and so on. That will be dealt with separately, but for blind trusts and different aspects that are covered in this legislation, I think this is actually half a loaf that is –

A Member: Half baked!

Mr Quayle: – well intentioned to deal with some of the aspects and then the other remaining ones can be given more consultation and consideration, such that another Bill could come forward after the General Election. I would expect that, if there were any amendments that were needing to be undertaken, then they could be incorporated into that Bill, as well, but I think, for the reasons mentioned, I will be very supportive of this Bill. If we do not support something like this, I actually think the public will think we have lost an opportunity ahead of the General Election and that we will be severely criticised for having taken note of all the concerns expressed and then done absolutely nothing about it.

A Member: Hear, hear.

The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Mr Karran.

Mr Karran: Vainstyr Loayreyder, I think the thing is that, obviously, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all and I totally agree with the previous speaker, as far as that is concerned. I do think it is important to remember it is not about just the good bits that are in clauses, like the previous Member said, about the Criminal Justice Bill, what about the bad clauses that were in that piece of legislation? I think that is what you have got to work out. I will be supporting the proposal here. I am concerned that the problem will be that truly independent candidates, which there will be some of, will find it much more difficult with this piece of legislation, because this will mean that they will have to pay people to deliver their leaflets, they will have to pay people to do things, as they will not have the same opportunities and there will be costs, as far as that is concerned, I do think that is an issue that does need to be addressed. So I will support this Bill. I believe it is only half a loaf and I think the Hon. Member for South Douglas, Mr Cretney, is so right to raise the issue of the voters’ list. The voters’ list has not improved, from my experience of the East Douglas by-election. One expected there to be nobody in the ‘flat land’ or ‘room land’ – ‘flat land’ will put it up market – to the ‘room land’ that there are and the fact is that, when you looked around, even in residential parts where people had been there for a generation, you still found a horrendous amount of people that were off the list and, in fact, only for the Liberal Vannin candidate, I always banged on every door, as for the last 30 years as an MHK – as both a candidate and an MHK – and it really came home to me, how appalling the voters’ lists are. If we were anywhere else located in the world, the electoral commission would be looking

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 at the whole election process, because I reckon that there were more people off the list that were entitled to vote in East Douglas than on the list. There were whole houses with 20 or 30 people in, where there was nobody elected and I am sure the Member for East Douglas, who was down off the terraces, could verify those statements. So I do think that there are other issues and I do hope that the Ard-shirveishagh will be getting his staff together to sort out that issue of the Registry. I think the other issue, that does need to be clarified, is to make sure that we do have the Freedom to Flourish for all, because the danger I feel with the amounts that are on at the moment, there is a great danger. I think none of us want to see blind trusts and none of us want to see the absurdity, even if it did backfire, of people paying £20,000 or £30,000 in an election campaign, because it must have been in that sort of sphere if they did pay all the debts off it, so we understand that we must protect democracy, but I do think that there are some concerns that are legitimate, as far as that is concerned. So I will support the Second Reading of the Bill, but we have the opportunity to bring amendments to the Bill at clauses stage, even allowing for the fact that the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Gill, is quite right, I was more concerned after the seconder put his input into this thing. I support the principles of this piece of legislation. I do hope that the Ard-shirveishagh will address the issue of voters’ lists which, in my own constituency last time, went down by several hundred, and yet I ended up with a couple of hundred more houses being built in my area. It might be of some amusement, these sort of statements, but democracy is about ‘one man, one vote’. I think it is important (Interjection by the Chief Minister) – we class everybody the same –

The Chief Minister: We don’t have one man, one vote.

Mr Karran: – the point is that I do think that is something that, maybe, needs a broadening of the remit, as far as this piece of legislation, to find out how we are going to get people back on the voters’ list, instead of having some areas where there was something like 500 houses, it was alleged, that were not on the voters’ list in some constituencies, which would have been alright, Vainstyr Loayreyder, if they were a Westminster parliament with 60,000, but when you are talking about a 2,500 or 3,000 constituency and you find out there are 500 houses that have got no-one registered in that small constituency, that is the seriousness of the situation. I will be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, but I do think that the comments that have been raised by Hon. Members, need to be taken on board.

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

Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been a very interesting debate, before we broke for lunch and subsequently, but I have to say of those Members that stood up in different constituencies saying we do not need this, we do not want change, leave it to the voters, they would not be saying those things had they faced the complications in the Douglas East by- election last year in my constituency. And although I was not standing in the by-election and, in fact, I was still a sitting Member, my constituents were coming to me with all manner of concerns of the nature of one of the candidates and how he was going about his election campaign. So that was a true test for us, really, because it threw up all sorts of problems, for which the House raised concerns at the time. The House had questions to the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister did his best to answer. So, in all fairness, the Bill has come to us, because of the consequences and the grey areas which were highlighted in that by-election in May only of last year. So that is likely to explain why we are faced with the Bill at this juncture in our parliamentary process. I think some of the observations made by the Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Watterson, have a lot of value, but then he did go on to say, during his contribution, Mr Speaker, that he has solutions to the problems that he sees are in the Bill. He also suggested there might be other problems, for which more solutions are required and therefore this is why we need a standing committee of the House, but I agree with the previous speaker, that it is at the clauses stage when we could, in fact, correct what we see as areas that need to be strengthened or inserted within this legislation and I think we should run with that. If we had more time, I would certainly support a committee of the House. The Hon. Member for Middle said what tends to happen is a committee of the House is struck and then the Bill is delayed. In fact, that is not the case with the Bill that is before us, after we have dealt with this and another. In fact, a committee of the House that was called for a very short while ago, has done a lot of work and is coming back in very good time to report to this House and Members have a report in terms of that. I think that comment is a little bit unfair, really, because currently we have two committees of the House and I have the pleasure of being on both: one has worked very swiftly and is reporting and the other one, of course, is going to take more time, because of the extent and the complications of the size of the legislation before the House. This is a relatively simple one.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 There are one or two areas that I feel uncomfortable with. I feel uncomfortable because we are having to legislate in this manner, but I am afraid the time has arrived when we need to do it because, if we do not, then all Hon. Members here, when they go to fight to retain their seats when they go to contest in their constituencies, could be faced with what Douglas East was faced with last year and there was the issue of the blind trust. We did not know who they were, where they came from, what their means were, and neither did the candidate, he so declared, did not know who they were or what they were about, other than they were there and were supporting his campaign. What we did see, visibly, was the expense of an awful lot of money suddenly flying around Douglas East, with huge laminated full-colour posters being erected on lampposts. A significant amount of money had exchanged hands, between whom we do not know and the local authority, for permission to rent that space. So there was a lot of money thrown at that campaign last year by this candidate. To what extent I have no knowledge, but certainly it would outweigh the provisions contained in the Bill here, I would have thought, because I do understand, if my memory serves me right, that the local authority said to rent one lamppost for one week was £100 plus VAT. They appeared weeks and weeks before the by-election campaign. I lost count of how many lampposts had these full-colour, laminated, professionally prepared and erected posters pushing for the one candidate. It was seen by a lot of people as sort of unfair competition, in a way. So this Bill is going some way to addressing that, because it is insisting that each candidate declares if there is any financial means behind them in terms of donations, whether they be from donors who are known or those who are not known. It also covers when a candidate receives an anonymous donation, that that candidate must declare it and return it – and there is provision within there. I can see areas that will require strengthening and I am encouraged by what the Hon. Member for Rushen said, in terms of his observations and his ideas of solutions to that. So I will be supporting Second Reading, because I think it is essential, really, that this is brought in at this time, because if it is not, then other constituencies may well be faced with the same problem. You could, theoretically, have at least half a dozen blind trusts set up to finance and support certain candidates coming from certain quarters without the public having the benefit of knowing who they are, where they are coming from and what their motive is, or indeed the motive of the blind trust. Then our people will turn to us and say, ‘Why didn’t you do something to try and address this problem before the General Election?’ We will have time to reflect – or those of us who are successfully elected here after September – will have time to reflect whether this legislation is completely fit for the purpose, or whether it needs moderation and that House will have time to address it at that time. So I will vote to support.

The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply.

The Chief Minister: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. What comes to mind to me is how short the memories of Members are in this House. My goodness me. I was asked question after question after question. What are you going to do about the situation that happened in Douglas East? We do not want this to happen again. The public are appalled. What are you going to do about it? That was last June and onwards and here we are in a very short time with, without doubt, an urgent piece of legislation, if we are going to do anything, and what we are getting is, why is this being rushed? (Laughter) What are you doing this for? It is unlikely to happen again, you know. What? Sorry, Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, it might be unlikely, but what if it does happen again? We know it happened and the public of the Isle of Man did not like it (Interjection by Mr Houghton) and forget who. They only did not like it, when it actually became public it was happening, but if it had not been made public it was happening, that there was a blind trust and it was going on, it would have happened and nobody would have known, because there is nothing there. Under our present law, Mr Speaker, it can happen again and it is quite legitimate. You cannot have it both ways, Hon. Members, make your mind up; stop jumping round hedges. This brings equality to any candidate, so we are all the same, whether we are a Member in here today, or whether you are somebody new because, when the House is dissolved, we are just back to being ordinary candidates. We are not a Member of the House any more. We are all equal and all the laws that apply under the Representation of the People Act apply to all of us, and rightly so. So do not get carried away that this is Government rushing something in. Do not get over worried, it is not absolutely perfect, of course it is not. Of course it is not absolutely perfect. Mr Speaker, we issued from Government, from the Council of Ministers, in April of this year, 2011, a report on consultation findings on election candidates’ funding. Members have all had this and let me just – pardon?

A Member: Is this a draft Bill, then?

The Chief Minister: I will get back to that.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 Members have had this, Mr Speaker, and what it says in here, and I will just quote a couple of bits. This is my foreword:

‘Conscious that time is now of the essence, it we are to achieve the passage of the Bill through the Branches and allow time for Royal Assent before announcement of the same to Tynwald by no later than July 2011 –’

- that is not far, you know –

‘- Council has decided to promote a Bill which focuses on achieving only the legislative changes. That is key to dealing with transparency issues at this stage. This consultation feedback report proposes that a formal post-General Election review is undertaken to deal with the remaining proposals and any new issues which arise.’

It cannot be clearer, and is there a draft Bill with it? No. Why isn’t there. Simple answer: lack of time, because here we are, Mr Speaker, with a very short period from when we have gone through all our procedures: independent review body; report back to the Governance Committee; out to consultation with the public; feedback from the public reviewed; into Council of Ministers and then move forward to a Bill being published to get into here; and making the decision that what we would have liked is a comprehensive amendment bill to cover all the other issues, but when you have got to be real and practical about this and pragmatic, what are the greatest things that cause the greatest problem? Not registering parties. What mattered to the public was people abusing money to get elected, because then they are not representing them. If you do not believe that could happen, then you are in cuckoo land. Of course, it can happen and why can it happen, because if it can happen in a big democracy with parties, it can certainly happen in a small democracy like ours, where we are all independent and this Bill is to try and bring some form of control into that to give us at least – or give the public, actually, at least – the comfort that there is something there to try to protect their interests. It is not about our interests, it is about their interests and that is what should be uppermost in our minds. It is an interim measure. And, yes, if you want to amend it, fine. Yes, if you want to send it to committee, fine. But the reality is, if you take too long, you will run out of time, because we have to have our Readings here, it has to go to Legislative Council, it then has to go for approval for Royal Assent. It then comes back, it has got to go to Tynwald for Royal Assent or it will not be in place by the time we get to the September General Election. We all know our procedures; the public outside do not. We know them and we know how long that will take and the timescale we have got is a very tight timescale, if we are going to introduce this legislation. If you do not want to do that, throw the Bill out and sell the public, ‘we didn’t want to bring it in before the Election.’ That is your choice. Do not send it to a committee, because you know it has gone. It does not matter how quickly it reports back, unless you suspend all your Standing Order procedures, it cannot get through in time, because we run out of time. Stop messing about on something so important. It is an interim measure, and after the election, whoever is here and – commitment given – Government will review representation of the people legislation, including this part, if it is passed, to see whether it was effective. We do not know how effective it is going to be. We do not know if it will cause problems, but what we do know is it is a reasonable stab, after consulting with the public, after having an inquiry, after considering it as politicians, it is a decent stab to at least have something that might help control some of the ways people are expending money to get elected. I am sorry. I come back to the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mrs Cannell, who was absolutely right. They have, Douglas Corporation – and, personally, I think it is awful: I understand why they did it – said give us £100 for putting it on a pole, but the other candidates could not do it, unless they paid £100. It used to always be free. I can tell you what I would say to a local authority who asked me for money to put election posters on poles that I own, as a ratepayer! That is the problem and that is what happens when people use money to get elected. They abuse their position by finance. They will be as discreet as they can be and if we do not believe that, now it has happened once, it can happen again, then we have got a problem. We really should take this seriously, and the one thing, Mr Speaker, that came out when this was really up in the air, in this House, was Members kept saying to myself and Government, what are you going to do about this and you need to do it quickly. That is exactly what we have done and that is why you have got a Bill here today and that is why, today, I gave notice it is my intention. If not, we will have trouble with time, because of the Easter break, to get the Third Reading, if we get through the clauses at the sitting on 10th May. The Third Reading, let us be clear, is only debating the principle we have just amended, or just agreed to, again to make sure we are content with it. It is not ideal. It is not ideal to suspend Standing Orders, but there are occasions when we have to if we are going to make something happen – and would it not be wonderful if we go

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 through this process and we miss the July deadline and then the legislation is not in place? That is for another day, that is for Members to consider when the Bill comes to that stage. This is an urgent matter, if you want it in place. If you do not want it in place, throw it out today, because we will not achieve the timescale otherwise and therefore just stop wasting our time, but all I can say is, then be ready to answer if somebody abuses the public by spending money to get people elected into this House, who would not normally have got elected. Do not underestimate the power of money. Mr Speaker, if I could just answer some of the issues – and I thank Members for their contributions and what they have said. Most of them are fine. There are a number of issues I would like to clarify for Members. There was an issue raised about a candidate and what is a candidate and that is covered in the 1995 Act, section 55 under interpretation, and I will read it out. It says:

‘ “candidate” means a person who is elected to serve in the Keys at an election, or a person who is nominated as a candidate at an election, or who is declared by himself or by others to be a candidate on or after the day of the issue of the writ for the election, or after the dissolution or vacancy, in consequence of which the writ was issued;’.

So, in other words, as soon as you announce you are a candidate for an election, you are a candidate. Then the rest of the procedures follow, because if you are going to be a candidate in that election, it backdates to when you announced. So the 12 months going back, which is in the Bill, is to ensure that, during this period, if this Bill is passed nobody spent a lot of money 12 months ago anticipating this legislation coming in and, therefore, there is a disadvantage. What is election material is clearly set out in the legislation. What you can do is set out in the schedule. You have got the situation where, in the schedule it makes it clear – to answer a point made by a Member, Mr Henderson, benefit in kind… Clause 8, the schedule, part 1 paragraph 4 (1) states quite clearly:

‘the provision by an individual of his or her own services, which he or she provides voluntarily in his or her own time and without charge is not a donation.’

So, of course, people who are helpers in elections can do that. Of course, if you buy a new car, it is not an election material. How on earth can it be? You have bought the car for other purposes. We can think of all extremes, for goodness’ sake, it is in there, it is logical, the Bill explains all this, as best we can to try and be clear what we are doing. It is not premature, this piece of legislation, it is to try and do the very thing that Members are actually saying: what are you going to do about this abuse of this election? Postage: to clarify postage, it is not going to be part of those expenses, because postage can be claimed back under section 31 of the 1995 Act. So you pay it and you claim it back. Therefore, it is a neutral expenditure. If you go over the limit, that is different, of course it is an extra expenditure. Do not go over the weight. (A Member: Size.) Do not go over the size or whatever it is. Can I just say, Mr Speaker, you can have a big manifesto. I have seen some really big, thick manifestoes before and they have not got elected. It is the quality, not the quantity that matters. So, let us keep it realistic: that is a judgement for the candidate, it is not a judgement for the law. That is your determination. Is the level of £2,050 a candidate correct? Who knows? We have allowed for it in the Bill and if it is not right after this Election, then the House can amend it through Tynwald Court. So we are trying to be as fair as we can to make that provision there. So, Mr Speaker, I hope I have answered most of these. Please, Hon. Members, do not forget where you were last May. Do not forget our primary interest is the public interest; we are here to protect the public. We are here to ensure they are not abused. This legislation is trying to do that and if it is not perfect, then the House will review it, Government will review it, after the General Election. All I can say is that, if you send this to committee, in fact, my advice to Hon. Members, Mr Speaker, if you are minded to send it to committee, vote against Second Reading because that is more honest. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill be read for the second time. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call Mr Watterson.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 2011 Referral to committee Motion lost

Mr Watterson: Oh!

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 The Speaker: You did notice, sir. You wish to move.

Mr Watterson: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I presumed from that you meant it would be next week. I do not honestly believe that the Chief Minister has responded to all the criticisms and I do believe that a committee to consider at least the amendments that are already drafted would probably be of benefit. There is a reasonable length of time in here because of the Easter break: that means that members of the committee could reflect on the clauses. I have to say, the concerns that I raised initially I do not think have been answered. I think that half a loaf – as I say, it is more like a whole loaf half baked. It does not sit together. I do not think it works without the element including political parties because, without that, you end up with political… those people who are in political parties ending up with an unnatural advantage over independent candidates, is the way I see it. I also do not see that it does what it was intended to do, which was to prevent blind trusts campaigning for or against a candidate. It stops you accepting donations from blind trusts, but it does not stop blind trusts campaigning and that is something that can only be achieved by the registration of political parties, pseudo- political parties and issues like that. So I do not think it does what the Chief Minister intends it to do and that is why I do think that a spell in committee, with Members discussing some amendments to this, would be of value. Hence, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

The Speaker: Mr Gill.

Mr Gill: Mr Speaker, as I indicated, I am more than happy to second the referral for the reasons Mr Watterson has outlined. I do recognise that the Chief Minister, as mover of this Bill, is in an invidious position. There were people demanding to know what he was going to do about this. Something has to be done and this is the something. Whether it is something that is necessary or fit for purpose, or is appropriate for the situation we have, with respect, I remain unconvinced. My conviction about the… to support that is based on the fact that, as I look towards the East Douglas bench, I see Mr Robertshaw, and we congratulate him on his victory in the by-election. I think it is fair to say that the individual who was expending lots and lots of money, wherever it came from, that was as much responsible for his failure to be elected as Mr Robershaw’s endeavours were for his success and I do not take anything away from Mr Robertshaw’s success in saying that. I do not think, in all honesty – let me finish with two things – that anybody who allows a blind trust to be set up – and the only difference between something that is confidential and top secret in the Isle of Man is about ten minutes… That will come out and that is the death knell of any candidate and deservedly so. It is a different thing about having a party political system; I am sorry the leader of the Liberal Vannin Party is not with us, but whatever their funding mechanisms are, at least they are their own business: as long as they are upfront and open about that, that is fair enough. Those issues are not covered in this Bill. So, the last point I would make is very much to reiterate the benefit of a committee, or the downside of it. The mover has said, Mr Brown has said, this will be less honest than voting against the Bill. I take his point. It is still an honest outcome. Minister Quayle was bemoaning the fact that legislation goes to a committee, then he made a very unfortunate allegation that it is the long grass and it does not come back. He only has to read the Order Paper today to know that he is factually incorrect in stating that. (Interjections) It refers now to the Criminal Justice Bill: he is incorrect that referral to a committee does not mean it does not come back. It does, if the Bill is inappropriately too long and cannot be reported on in a limited timescale, but maybe that is a matter of anticipation that he and his colleagues should have thought through a little bit more seriously. However, the point before us is, should this go to a committee for consideration? Should it allow Members who are not in this House, but are intending to stand in the forthcoming Election the opportunity to have their say on the Bill in advance of it being enacted? This is the first occasion that they have actually had the opportunity to see the green Bill and the Chief Minister… well, it is; the Chief Minister says it is not. It had its First Reading at the last sitting so it is the first opportunity that has come after the report that the Chief Minister read from earlier. So, in terms of opportunity to speak on it, they have not been given that opportunity to be consulted. A committee would afford them that, if that was the will of the committee. I think that is the most transparent way to move forward. If that means that the Bill cannot be enacted before the Election, so be it, because we should not be doing something just to be seen to be doing something and I know that is an awkward position for the Chief Minister, not a position of his making or any adverse reflection on him or his Council of Ministers but, nonetheless, do not let us knee-jerk react to this. Let us take it in a measured way and I think referral to a committee would achieve that.

The Speaker: Hon. Members – Chief Minister.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 The Chief Minister: Very briefly, Mr Speaker, really the House will decide what it wants. The reality is that I suspect, unless the House is willing, or unless the committee is able, to report back at the next sitting and the House is willing to suspend Standing Orders for all the stages at that stage, I think there will be a difficulty. I think I can only say it like that. I have explained why and it is clearly in the hands of Members. I do believe that the Bill does cover blind trusts because, in fact, an anonymous donation would be such and an expenditure like that from a person… in fact, the candidate is responsible for any expenditure to his election, if he has allowed it to happen.

The Speaker: Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Mr Speaker, I was not going to address this particular Bill, because I was so closely associated with the whole process, but I just want to say a few words on my own behalf and that of the other candidates who were not successful. It was not a pleasant experience and we knew, weeks before it became public, that there was something fundamentally wrong. We could not say anything on the doorstep and it was only because, latterly, it did come out that the truth dawned and it gave people the opportunity to think again but, up to that point, it was not clear. Mr Speaker, I put it to Hon. Members that something similar could happen again, perhaps more subtly the next time, than was the case in the May by-election.

The Speaker: Hon. Member, would you resume your seat one moment? I just wish to caution about extended reference to issues which are shortly to be before the courts.

Mr Robertshaw: I am sorry.

The Speaker: If you could discontinue any reference to that. Thank you, Hon. Member.

Mr Robertshaw: I have nearly finished, Mr Speaker, anyway. Just to say that I welcome this Bill. It is not perhaps everything that we all want it to be, but it is a step forward. I do hope that it enjoys the support of the House.

The Speaker: Mr Watterson, do you wish to… You have the right of reply if you wish.

Mr Watterson: Briefly, I just want to say that I do not accept the concept that the Chief Minister was saying that it would rule out blind trusts. I believe that the Bill, as written, leaves it that if someone else wants to start campaigning for or against a candidate without their consent, that would seem to be a big campaign for somebody, they would be seen to be spending their campaign allowance, because it would be an advertisement in benefit of the candidate and that might not be exactly what the candidate wants. I think there is still more to do on this and we brushed over the fact about registration of political parties, which I think is key, because the Bill, as written, gives an advantage to political parties over independent candidates. I will not go over some of the more minor points that I mentioned, but I do think that those were flawed and I think it would benefit from a co-ordinated approach by the House to ensure we have got it right over the next couple of weeks, there were people to look over the amendments, rather than a number of people chipping in from different directions to try and co-ordinate this. I hope that Members will support a committee.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion has been made that the Bill be referred to a committee of three Members for consideration and report. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

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

FOR AGAINST Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Crookall Mr Karran Mr Cannan Mr Brown Mr Cregeen Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Quayle Mr Corkish Mr Teare Mr Watterson Mr Houghton Mr Gill Mr Malarkey The Speaker Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Shimmin

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011 Mr Cretney Mr Gawne

The Speaker: With 9 votes for, 13 votes against, that motion therefore fails to carry.

House of Keys 19 Apr 2011