Management and Members' Standards Committee First Report for the Session 2007-08

PP90/07

MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2007-08

MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Hon D M Anderson MHK Acting Chairman (Glenfaba) Hon A V Craine MHK (Ramsey) Mr T M Crookall MHK (Peel)

The remit of the Committee is stated in Standing Order 6.5

6.5. The Management and Members' Standards Committee shall -

(1) consider and report on any matter which concerns the business, precincts or facilities of the House which is not within the remit of any other Committee of the House or the Speaker alone; (2) represent the House in all matters brought before any chambers of the Legislature other than legislation, and to report thereon from time to time to the House; (3) consider and report upon any matter that may from time to time be referred to the Committee by the House, or by a Member, which relates to the conduct of a Member; (4) consider and report on such standards and such privileges of the House and of Members as have been, or in the future should be, recognised as necessary and desirable for the proper and effective discharge of the duties of the House and its Members.

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

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Secretary of the House of Keys, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM I 3PW.

MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2007-08 Mr Speaker and Manx National Heritage

PART 1 -

BACKGROUND

1.1 This Report relates to events concerning Mr Speaker that took place at a

meeting of the Manx National Heritage (MNH) Trustees on 10th May 2007.

Mr Speaker is a Trustee by virtue of holding the office of Speaker of the

House of Keys.

1.2 A Laxey resident, Mr Skillicorn, wished to purchase a small amount of land

(10 x 19 feet) from MNH to erect a garage extension at Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey.

This matter had been discussed at an earlier meeting in April 2007, at which

Mr Speaker was not present. At that meeting the Lord Bishop had suggested

the land could be leased to Mr Skillicorn, rather than sold to him.

1.3 Mr Speaker indicated in a letter to the Director of MNH (dated 23rd April 2007

and found in Appendix One) that he agreed with the suggestion of the Lord

Bishop.

1.4 The matter was further discussed at a meeting of the Trustees on 10th May

2007. The Chairman of the Trustees ruled that. Mr Speaker should withdraw

from the discussion claiming that he had a conflict of interest being both a

2 Trustee and the constituency Member for Garff, which includes Laxey. This

Mr Speaker most reluctantly agreed to do, in order to permit the matter to be

decided.

1.5 On 26th June 2007 a motion was on the Order Paper of the House of Keys to

refer this whole matter to the Keys Management and Members' Standards

Committee to investigate whether the action of the Chairman of MNH

affected the privileges and duties of a Member of the House of Keys.

1.6 The motion is reproduced below:

In the Keys

26th June 2007

"The Honourable Member for Rashen (Mr Gawne) to move -

That the action of the Chairman of Manx National Heritage (on whose board of

trustees M r Speaker is required to serve ex officio) in demanding that the Speaker

should leave a meeting of the board at which matters affecting his constituency were

discussed, be referred to the Management and Members' Standards Committee to

consider whether that action affects the privileges and duties of Members and of the

House, and to report."

1.7 The motion was not reached at this, the last sitting of the House before the

Recess, and Mr Speaker accordingly referred it himself to your Committee.

Mr Speaker being Chairman of the Keys Management and Members'

Standards Committee withdrew from the Committee whilst it was examining

this matter. The Secretary of the House of Keys (who normally acts as Clerk

to the Committee) also withdrew as he had offered the Speaker advice

concerning this matter prior to it being referred to the Committee. The

3 clerking of the Committee was allocated to another Clerk who had had no

prior involvement in the matter.

1.8 Your Committee invited both Mr Speaker Rodan and Mr Martin Moore

(Chairman of Manx National Heritage) to submit written evidence for its

consideration. The documentation submitted by Mr Speaker Rodan will be

found in Appendix One. Mr Moore declined to provide those papers which

contained legal advice received from the Attorney General's Chambers and

produced only one piece of evidence to your Committee (a letter dated

22rd May 2007) from himself to Mr Speaker Rodan, which was already in your

Committee's possession.

(All correspondence with Mr Martin Moore (or his legal advisor) will be

found in Appendix 4 of this Report)

1.9 Given the extensive and comprehensive nature of the written evidence

received, your Committee determined it was unnecessary in this case to take

oral evidence.

PART 2 -

CHRONOLOGY

2.1 For the ease of understanding the issue and following its development a

chronology is given below which focuses on the main events. Consequently,

not all the correspondence to be found in the appendices wilt be referred to in

the chronology.

2.2 Each of the letters or e-mails referred to in this chronology is to be found in

Appendix One of this Report in date order. 4 2.3 The Government has issued guidelines concerning matters of conflict of

interest/bias. These are principally the 'Corporate Governance Principles

and Code of Conduct - October 2005', the 'Document Approved by the

Council of Ministers for Inclusion Within the Government Code - September

2006', and a letter from the Chief Secretary dated 16th February 2007

concerning perceived Bias in Administrative Decision Making attached to

which were Staff Guidance Notes. It should be noted that only the 2005 Code

has been approved by Tynwald; none of the other documents have been laid

before, or approved by Tynwald. Reference to these three documents will be

made in the chronology.

(Copies of these three documents will be found in Appendix Two of this

Report)

2 A Chronology;

23rd April 2007 -

Mr Speaker wrote to Mr Harrison, the Director of MNH, proposing that tine

suggestion of the Bishop at the Trustees meeting in April 2007 to lease the

land to Mr Skillicorn should be agreed by the Trustees at their next meeting

as a sensible way forward.

27th April 2007 -

Mr Speaker's letter was acknowledged by Mr Harrison without comment,

other than stating the letter would be passed to the Chair of MNH.

10th May 2007-

MNH Trustees met to discuss this matter. The Chairman ruled that Mr

Speaker should withdraw when this matter was discussed since the

5 Chairman felt he had a conflict of interest. Mr Speaker reluctantly did so, but

under strong protest.

The perceived conflict centred around the fact that Mr Speaker was a member

of the MNH Trustees and Mr Skillicorn was a constituent of Mr Speaker, the

implication being that Mr Speaker supported Mr Skillicorn in order to secure

his vote in 2011.

The position of the Speaker, in the view of the Chairman of MNH,

contravened the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance which included part 6 of the 'Document Approved by the Council of Ministers for

Inclusion Within tine Government Code - September 2006' that relates to

Members of Statutory Boards and other Statutory Bodies.

(This Code will be found in Appendix Two of this Report)

In an earlier draft of this Report your Committee referred to the Chairman

"asking" Mr Speaker to withdraw which we were satisfied was, on the part of the Chairman, a categorical demand. Concern was expressed in the legal opinion, which we cite below (see page 18) that this point was not clear and should be put beyond doubt. Examination of the correspondence indeed makes it plain that the Chairman's actions were far more than a polite request, but a ruling, as he himself states on several occasions in his letter to

Mr Speaker dated 22nd May 2007, and we so find.

(A copy of this letter will be found in Appendix One of this Report)

On 14th May 2007 -

Mr Speaker wrote to the Chairman of MNH to express his shock at this allegation. Mr Speaker argued that he had proposed a practical solution to the difficulty as a Trustee and that he was not an advocate for Mr Skillicorn's 6 proposal. Mr Speaker further argued that he had not contravened paragraph

6.31 of the September 2006 document since Mr Skillicorn was not a member of

his family, did not live in the same house or share any business interests with

the Speaker.

22nd May 2007 -

The Chairman of M NH replied to Mr Speaker's letter of 14th May 2007

arguing that as Chairman of MNH it was his responsibility to ensure the

Code of Conduct was correctly applied and that his ruling that there was a

conflict was designed to protect both the position of Mr Speaker and that of

MNH.

The letter informed Mr Speaker that advice had been sought from the

Attorney General's Chambers and that with the benefit of that advice the

Chairman had acted properly.

23rd May 2007 -

The Chairman of MNH circulated a letter to all MNH Trustees outlining his

views concerning the duties and responsibilities of political and non-political

Trustees of MNH with regard to conflict of interest. In this letter he sought to justify the legitimacy of his ruling that Mr Speaker must withdraw and

argued that this action was designed to ensure the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance was strictiy upheld.

Mr Speaker wrote to the Chairman of MNH acknowledging receipt of his letter of 22nd May and requesting a copy of a letter sent by the Chief Secretary to the Chairman of MNH said to have been received on 17th May 2007.

7 24th May 2007 -

Mr Speaker wrote to the Attorney General, enclosing the correspondence

referred to above, seeking assistance in resolving this matter and requesting a

meeting to discuss the matter. A meeting took place in the week beginning 4th

June 2007, between the Attorney General and the Secretary of the House, at

which the Attorney General indicated that he could not become involved in

the allegation of libel, (which Mr Speaker had by then made).

25th May 2007 -

Mr Speaker wrote again to the Chairman of MNH pointing out several errors in the Chairman's letter to all Trustees, and indicating that his comments

amounted to a serious defamation of Mr Speaker, alleging that he had given support to a constituent's request to purchase an area of land for private development, at odds with his duty as a Trustee. Mr Speaker required the

Chairman to correct the factual errors in his letter to the Trustees and to withdraw any assertion or implication that Mr Speaker had tried to abuse his position as a Trustee of MNH by promoting the interests of a constituent for political gain.

31st May 2007 -

The Chairman of MNH replied to the Speaker's letter of 25th May 2007 denying he had accused Mr Speaker of abusing his position and indicating that he intended to take further advice from the Attorney General before making any further comment.

7th June 2007 -

The Secretary of the House wrote to the Attorney General, following the meeting referred to above (see 24th May 2007), with a suggested analysis of

8 die relevant passages in the 'Code of Conduct' which are designed to avoid

conflicts of interest.

The Secretary argued that it was for the individual Member, and not the

Chairman, to decide whether participation in a discussion of a matter could

raise the issue of bias, and that such consideration rested upon paragraph 6.31

which he believed did not apply in this case, with the consequence that there

was no requirement for the Speaker to withdraw from discussion of the

matter.

The Attorney General wrote to the Chief Secretary in response to an e-mail

from the Chief Secretary dated 29th May 2007, indicating that he did not feel

able to comment on this specific case since one of his staff had already been

advising the Chairman of MNH; because Mr Speaker had intimated that he

might take proceedings for defamation against the Chairman, that aspect of

the matter had become one of private rather than public law, and therefore

outside the scope of the Attorney General's Chambers.

12th June 2007 -

The Chairman of MNH wrote to Mr Speaker having taken further advice and

concluded that his ruling that Mr Speaker must withdraw was entirely

appropriate and in accordance with the "Code of Conduct'.

14th June 2007 -

Mr Speaker wrote to the Chairman of MNH seeking clarification as to

whether the Chairman was or was not withdrawing the allegations of bias made in his letter of 23rd May to the MNH Trustees.

9 19th-21st June 2007 Tynwald Court -

Mr Speaker asked the Chief Minister a question (Question 17) concerning the

'Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct' and the appendage

to it 'Document Approved by the Council of Ministers for Inclusion within

the Government Code - September 2006'. (The appendage had not been approved by, or laid before, Tynwald).

The Chief Minister confirmed that this appendage did apply to Members of

Tynwald when acting as members of a Department or Board; that it was binding on all Members in the sense that it was the standard of conduct expected by the Council of Ministers; that it did not automatically debar

Members from participating in discussions concerning a matter that related to their constituency; and that the application of the Document would require the individual Member to exercise a degree of self-policing. The Chief

Minister added that the Minister or Chairman would have the general duty to ensure good governance, and if the Minister or Chairman felt there was a potential conflict and the Member did not, the matter should be deferred until there had been a resolution of the disagreement.

(The Question and a copy of its answer will be found in Appendix One of this Report immediately following the letter dated 14th June 2007)

21s* June 2007-

The Chairman of MNH wrote to Mr Speaker responding to his letter of 14th

June 2007 and entirely denying the accusation of defamation. He indicated he would make no further comment pending legal advice.

10 25th June 2007 -

The Director of MNH e-mailed the Attorney General regarding a motion on

the House of Keys Order Paper for 26th June 2007, which sought to refer the

actions of the Chairman of MNH in excluding Mr Speaker from the

discussions, to the Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee to

consider whether that action affected the privileges and duties of a Member.

The Director of MNH wished to know whether the Attorney General felt such

a motion might be prejudicial to any Court action that might be pursued by

Mr Speaker, particularly in the light of the fact that Mr Speaker was Chairman

of that Keys Committee.

26th June 2007 -

The Attorney General replied to the e-mail from the Director of MNH

indicating that he was not aware that any legal action had commenced, that

his Chambers could not be involved in such legal action since it would be a

matter of private law, and that the motion before the Keys would not

prejudice any such action. The Attorney also indicated that if Mr Speaker

considered it inappropriate for him to Chair the Keys Committee

investigating this matter he would act accordingly.

The motion on the Keys Order Paper was not reached and Mr Speaker,

therefore, referred the matter to your Committee himself.

9th July 2007 -

Your Committee commenced its investigations.

11 PART 3 -

EXAMINATION

3.1 The motion, which was referred to your Committee in the manner indicated

above, requires consideration of whether the Chairman of MNH acted in a

way that affected the privileges and duties of a Member of the House of Keys.

In practice this requires an examination of whether his action was appropriate

and consistent with the constitutional position of a Member of the House, and

whether he acted correctly in applying the various guidelines he cited as

justification for his ruling that Mr Speaker should leave the meeting. Each of

these issues will be examined in turn:

3.2 Was the Position Taken by the Chairman of MNH Appropriate and

Consistent with the Constitutional Position of a Member of the House?

1. It is the view of your Committee that the action taken by the Chairman of

MNH in excluding Mr Speaker was neither appropriate nor consistent with

the constitutional position of a Member of the House of Keys serving on a

public body. It did amount to adversely affecting the ability of a Member of

the Keys to discharge his functions.

2. In general terms, Members of the House of Keys have two constitutional roles

that are relevant in this matter:

(a) To represent the interests of his/her constituency/constituents. The Member

is elected to represent the interests of his/her constituency/constituents. The

electorate have mandated that Member to speak for them.

1 2 (b) To participate in policy making as a mandated representative of the people.

A Member is elected to serve not only the interests of his/her constituency,

but also the whole Island and participate in policy making.

3. It is inappropriate that Members should always be debarred from

participating in discussion of a matter for the reason only that the interests of

their constituents/constituency may be involved when they are making

policy as members of a public body. ; v

4. On some occasions participation in policy making and representing the

interests of a constituency/constituent will be appropriate whilst in others,

particularly if the Member is seeking to promote the interests of a particular

constituent or group within the constituency, it may not be. In circumstances

where a Member is seeking to promote the interests of a constituent or groups

in the constituency, the Member may choose to speak during the discussions

but not to vote. It would be constitutionally inappropriate to prevent a

Member from speaking. The decision as to whether to speak and vote or only

to speak must rest with the Member.

5. In this dual role, there can be the potential for a conflict of interest or for bias.

In such a case, Members should not seek to use their position as a Member to

influence public policy making for their own benefit, or to favour one

constituent or a group of constituents with whom they may have some

family, close personal or business links or to win the political support from

such people.

To assist all those who sit on public bodies in maintaining the highest

standards of propriety, impartiality, integrity and objectivity, the Government

13 has drawn up two documents. The first of these is the 'Corporate

Governance Principles and Code of Conduct - October 2005' and the second is

the "Document Approved by the Council of Ministers for Inclusion Within the

Government Code - September 2006'. The former was approved by Tynwald,

but the latter was neither laid before, nor approved by, Tynwald.

This may be particularly necessary in a small jurisdiction, such as the isle of

Man, where conflicts of interest may be more likely to arise because of its size.

This Code clearly identifies that it is the responsibility of the individual

Member to determine whether a conflict of interest does exist. Paragraph 6.31

of the 'Document Approved by the Council of Ministers for Inclusion Within

the Government Code - September 2006' states:

"Members should consider whether participation in discussion or

determination of a matter would suggest ci real danger of bias....members

should assess whether they, a close family member, a person living in the same

household as the Board member, or a firm business or organisation which the

Board member is connected with are likely to be affected more than the

generality of those affected by the decision in question."

(The Code will be found in Appendix Two of this Report)

It is evident from this extract that the emphasis is on the individual Board member to determine the situation, and whilst the Chairman may offer guidance or raise the matter for the member to consider, ultimately the Code indicates it is the responsibility of the member in qtiestion.

In this particular case, the Speaker was, as a Trustee of MNH, involved in taking a decision which related to the interests of one of his constituents (Mr

Skillicorn), but there is no evidence that his role in the process was motivated 14 by a desire to achieve a satisfactory outcome for the constituent or gain

political support from him.

Indeed, Mr Speaker was proposing that the land in question be leased to the

constituent rather than sold, which was the request of the constituent This

compromise meant that MNH would still retain ownership of the land and

that Mr Ski Hi corn would simply be allowed to lease it, which from his point

of view, would not have been as preferable an outcome as being able to

purchase it from MNH.

With regard to the issue of political support, the next General Election is over

four years away and the implication that Mr Speaker may have acted in the

way he did to gain the vote of Mr Skillicorn is most unfortunate. Neither was

Mr Speaker related to Mr Skillicorn, living in the same household as Mr

Skillicorn or engaged in any business with him. No other members of Mr

Speaker's family were involved in such relationships with Mr Skillicorn. It

seems, therefore, perfectly reasonably that Mr Speaker should have

participated in the discussion and to exclude him amounts to undermining

the constitutional role of a Member of the House of Keys to participate in

public policy making.

/ 8. The logical conclusion of excluding Mr Speaker from this discussion is that

any Member should be excluded from being involved in making policy on

any matter that affects his or her constituency/constituents. To exclude a

Member from involvement in public policy making on the grounds that the

Member has a constituency interest and role is to deny the basic function of a

Member. Members must be able to be involved in both public policy making

and to bring to bear on that decision making their knowledge of

15 circumstances in their constituencies. It is up to the individual Members'

judgement to determine when it is appropriate not to vote on a matter

because of constituency interests.

3.3 Did the Chairman of MNH correctly interpret the Guidelines?

1. It is the view of your Committee that the Chairman did not correctly interpret

the various guidelines in this situation. His failure to properly interpret these

guidelines hindered a Member of the House of Keys from properly

discharging his duties.

2. Paragraph 6.31 of the 'Document Approved by the Council of Ministers for

Inclusion Within the Government Code - September 2006' which forms part

of the MNH 'Code of Conduct and Corporate Governance' states that:

"Members should not participate in discussions or determination of matters in

which they have a direct pecuniary interest."

(The Code will be found in Appendix Two of this Report)

There is no evidence that this was the case in this situation and therefore it

was unnecessary for the Speaker to withdraw.

Furthermore, Paragraph 6.31 establishes criteria for determining whether

there is a real danger of bias or perceived bias. These are that when a

Member is involved in a public body seeking to consider a matter that

Member, or a close relative, should not be a close family member, living in the

same house or involved in a firm, business or organisation with a constituent

whose interests are involved in the decision. In this case none of these criteria

applied.

1 6 3. The Code requires that The Member might be expected to:

"consider whether participation in the discussion or determination of a

matter would suggest a real danger of bias."

(The Code will be found in Appendix Two of this Report)

It does not impose upon the Chairman this role, and the role of the Chairman

would be simply to ask the Member to consider the matter should the

Chairman feel there may be a problem.

4. Finally, in a judgement on 12th February 2007, Deemster Kerruish indicated

that the test which will be applied by the Courts to determine perceived bias

in relation to administrative decisions is that set out in the judgement of the

House of Lords in Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited (2003) which is:

"whether the ascertained relevant circumstances luould lead a fair-minded and

informed obsewer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the decision

maker was biased."

In this case, there was, in our judgment, no such possibility and therefore the

action of the Chairman of MNH seems to us to have been unjustified.

(An extract from this Judgement is located on page 2 of the letter issued by

the Chief Secretary dated 16th February 2007, which will be found in

Appendix Two)

5. The Chairman of MNH seeks to justify his actions by arguing it is his

responsibility, as Chairman, to ensure correct governance is applied within

MNH. Paragraphs 6.12 & 6.15 of the 'Document Approved by the Council of

Ministers for Inclusion Within the Government Code - September 2006' do

indicate the Chairman has a responsibility for ensuring the highest standards

of propriety within the organisation, but this does not require the Chairman

to decide that Members should be excluded from discussions because of potential bias or conflict of interest. It is plain from Paragraph 6.31 that the

responsibility lies with the individual Member.

PART 4 -

CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Your Committee concludes that the action taken by the Chairman of MNH to

exclude Mr Speaker from the item relating to the possible sale of land did

affect the privileges and duties of a Member of tine House by Keys.

4.2 The action was neither appropriate nor consistent with the rôle of a Member

of the House of Keys serving on a public body. Members of the House of

Keys are elected to represent the views of their constituents and participate in

public policy making. Guidelines exist to assist the Member in determining

when conflicts of interest may arise and it is up to the individual Member to

apply these. The exclusion by the Chairman of MNH of Mr Speaker in this

instance prevented the Member from properly being able to discharge his

duties both with regard to his constituency and public policy making.

4.3 Your Committee further concludes that the Chairman of MNH did not

correctly interpret the various guidelines when he did exclude Mr Speaker.

The various guidelines plainly indicate that it is for the Member of a public

body to determine whether a conflict exists, and the Chairman's rôle is to do

no more than request that a Member should consider the matter in order to

ensure good governance of the particular public body.

4.4 Given the fact that the Secretary of the House of Keys was unable to provide a

legal opinion concerning the conclusions reached by this Report, your

18 Committee determined to seek legal advise from an Advocate. Mr Alan

Gough, of Gough and Company, was retained to provide an opinion. He

concluded that:

"In all the circumstances, 1 think the Report reaches the correct legal

conclusion for the correct reasons."

(A copy of Mr Gough's Opinion may be found in Appendix 3 of this Report)

D M Anderson (Acting Chairman) A V Craine October 2007 T M Crookall

1 9 J MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2007-08

APPENDIX 1

^köu'i % y-'-vt-Kj YS )

LHGISLATIYL BUILDINGS DOUGLAS. ISLE OF MAN IM I 3PW

The Hon Stephen C Rodan BSc (Hons), MR Pharm S SHK Speaker of the House of Keys Lonyrcydtr y Ciiiare-ns-Fccd Member of the House of Keys for Garff

Our Ref: SCR/ecw

23 April 2007

Stephen Harrison MBE Director Manx National Heritage Douglas

Dear Stephen

Re: Proposed Garage Extension at Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey

You will recall that the proposals to make minor extensions to Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey, were discussed briefly at the last meeting of the Trustees of Manx National Heritage. I had intended to view the plans, but I regret that I had to leave the meeting early.

Tony Pass and I have subsequently had the opportunity to examine the proposals, and to inspect the site. It is our understanding that all the land surrounding Cronk-e-Chule has recently been acquired for Manx National Heritage, and that Mr Skillicom had approached the previous owner just before sale with the offer to buy enough land for a 10 ft x 19 ft (approx) single bay extension to his existing garage block.

This is, in our view, a very small adjustment of the landholding. The impact of the garage extension would be negligible, and there would be no loss of landscape quality or interpretative potential. Early photographs indicate no significant industrial remains on the proposal site. The design of the extension is simple, self-effacing and sympathetic, if all walls were to be faced in local stone.

When the matter was discussed at the April meeting, the Bishop made the helpful suggestion that the site should be leased, thus preserving the integrity of the recent land acquisition by MNH, and retaining the principle of not selling land once acquired. I believe that if this course were to be adopted, there could be no reasonable objection to the proposals, and I would intend to move that the site be leased to Cronk-e-fchule for the purpose of the extension, at the next meeting of the Trust.

Cont hone: 01624 0Si"t!50U P,- n i ;.i i!: i1 n q (.i i r i e s r l v n \v u! c 1. o rg. i n Fax: U{«’A (i.SoiSCi-J \ -2-

I should add that to grant Mr Skillicom's request, at no real cost to Manx National Heritage, might well help secure much needed support and co-operation in our future plans for the Laxey Wheel site, and thus be in the Trust's long term interests.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rod an Presenters of the Award-winning Story of¿f^lann

Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man 1MI 3LY. Eiraght As/wonagh Vattnin, Doolish, EUan Vannin IM l 3L Y. Manx Telephone: +44(0)1624 648000 Fax:+44 (0)1624 648001 National Website: www.gov.im/mnh E-mail: [email protected],im £ Heritage Director / Stiitreyder: Stephen Harrison B.A.. F.S.A., K.M.A., F.s.A.(Scot.). M.i.Mgt. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vaimin

Our Ref: SH/jw Your Ref: SCR/ecw

27 April 2007

The Hon. S C Rodan BSc (Hons), MR Pharm S SHK Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

Dear Mr Rodan

Proposed Garage Extension at Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey

Thank you for your letter of 23 April 2007 which I have passed on to the Chairman for his consideration.

Director

^VSH/.V Ut'lFfNKIAN / ///Muswm OfThtftar ' > \ * V IBB] Ml'JFl'M iB ISftlMAlVp ? MUSEWI ' ANP CALUR* Interpret V BfM OF THE « ran AWARD Britain J % YEAR ^ Virgin Htfldiys V GAry fnardhnce. Awart Ambwt'UMta

Manx National Heritage is the Registered Business Name of the Manx Museum & National Trust which operates under its own Act of Tynwald and is RccistereH nj« «11 »i... i-i- - f “ - Port-e-Chee Packhorse Lane Baldrine Me of Man IM4 6EA 29th April 2007

Dear Stephen, Plans for Laxey

/ have received a copy of the letter to you, dated 23rd April, from Mr Speaker about Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey, Following on from this relatively minor matter, I think it would be opportune for the Trustees to have a briefing about the implications of the recent land acquisition by MNH and to discuss the options for the future development of this and other sites around the valley.

I spent part of last weekend with Andrew Scarffe looking at the future possibilities for the Laxey Mines Railway. These were further discussed at the meeting of the Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust which I chaired last Thursday. Apartfrom the need to keep MNH Trustees up to date on the general plans, I think there would be benefits at this point in some *joined up thinking9 in detail . about the future as it affects MNH, L&LHT and also possibly the Laxey Village Commissioners. Thefirst stage would be a discussion at the MNH Trustees meeting.

It is possible that some of these matters have already been raised at past Trustee meetings. Even so, I think it would be beneficial to the new board to debate the policy issues and to be aware of any progress which could affect future action. Could you therefore make the necessary arrangements.

On a separate, but related matter, can I make a gentle request for the Agenda information to be sent out earlierj, and ifpossible in a more compact form. To receive 142 pages less than three days before the April meeting was more than I, or my printer, could cope with!

With good wishes,

A.J.B.Pass / trust that the foregoing disposes o f any doubts that you, or the Chairman and Vice Chairman might have. J return once again to my original request that the issue of Laxey, its Present and Future is placed on the Agenda of the full Trust in the nearfuture, when Mr Rodan and I will expect to take a full part in the discussion.

Your letter was copied to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, so lam taking the liberty of sending copies of my reply to Mr Moore and Mr Downie

Yours sincerely,

A.J.B.Pass Port-e-Chee, Packhorse Lane, Baldrine, Isle of Man IM4 6EA F* May2007-05-02 Dear Stephen, Plans for Laxey

I refer to your letter of the 30thApril in reply to mine of the 2&h.

My purpose in writing was to make what I believed to be a reasonable request for the new board of Trustees to be briefed about the Laxey heritage sites. However, your letter raises the suggestion that there may be a *clear conflict o f interest’ in a number of areas, to which / respond, as follows.

Mr Rodan and I are members o f the Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust committee by virtue of the political offices that we hold. These were known and declared at the time of our appointment as trustees of MNH. Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust is not a rival organisation: its aims are broadly the same as those of MNH, with which it has worked to achieve major heritage projects in the Laxey area. There is no conflict, as defined in the Code: rather it is a common interest For the Speaker and I to be excluded from *discussions on such a matter within formal Trustee meetings* on the grounds that we are board members of L&LHT would be ridiculous in the extreme.

On the question of the extension of Cronk-e-Chule, you ask, rather pointedly, whether I have been involved in discussion or preparation of the proposals recently made by Mr Skillicorn \ In fact the first I knew of the proposals was when you referred to them at the April 2007 meting. I have never had business dealings with Mr Skillicorn, and seldom have I exchanged more than a greeting with him since we were first acquainted. I do not hold any brief for his project, though I agree fully with the Mr Rodan’s opinion on it. So, the inference in your letter is completely unfounded and wrong.

Relating to Eary Cushlin, I was approached by the operating committee (chaired by Mr Dunnett) before mv appointment as a Trustee. I was asked to progress plans for the outbuildings. To this I expressed some reluctance as I generally do not undertake smalt work, but I agreed to bring the survey and cost information up to date to help the Eary Cushlin committee. This work took two days and was completed at no fee. before my appointment to MNH When, last month, Mr Dunnett told me of the intention of his committee to ask me to progress the work, I demurred, referring the matter to MNH for an opinion. I further putforward a way for them to do the work without my involvement / suggest that this was the correct way to avoid any accusation that a Trustee was undertaking work for tenants of MNH which might amount to a conflict of interest 1 hope and expect that ail other Trustees would do the same. / trust that the foregoing disposes of any doubts that you, or the Chairman and Vice Chairman nught have. I return once again to my original request that the issue of Laxey, its Present and Future is placed on the Agenda of the full Trust in the nearfuture, when Mr Rodan and I will expect to take a full part in the discussion.

Your letter was copied to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, so I am taking the liberty of sending copies of my reply to Mr Moore and Mr Downie

Yours sincerely,

A.J.B.Pass VHOijOt.v-■? . i Il‘"> . •y^ . J ,:V

LLG!SL/\Tl\ L iU'II.DINGS ) I' G LAS. IS LI:! OF MAN I \ 11 3 P W

The Hon Stephen C Rodnn 35c (Hons), MR PJinan 3 SHK Speaker ut the I luuse o.i Kevs I.omiin/,icr i/ .\ IciTiL'^r ol (.he l iC’i.i.'U ir !\.evs ¡'or Garii O ur Ref: SCR / ecw

14 May 2007

G R M Moore Esq LLB Chairman, Manx National Heritage Dickinson, Cruickshank 33 Athol Street Douglas IM11LB

Dear Chairman

At the meeting of the Trustees on 10 May it was suggested that I had at least a ''perceived" conflict of interest in relation to the item concerning the proposed garage extension at Cronk-e-Chule, Laxey, and you sought to exclude me from the meeting.

After quite some debate about that claim, in which I was pressed I may say in a considerably partisan manner by you from the Chair, I left the meeting in the interests of the Trust in order that the business should at least be dealt with without further delay. As I stated to the meeting, I do not accept that I had any actual or "perceived" conflict of interest in relation to this item, and I wish to have that clearly recorded.

When I wrote to the Director on 23 April about this matter, I put forward a suggestion with regard to the leasing of the site which I believed merited consideration as satisfactorily accounting for the needs both of the Trust and of Mr Skillicom. It is now alleged that, because Mr Skillicom is a constituent of mine, and because it is felt I might receive a vote from him in 2011 if this question is settled to his satisfaction, I ought to recuse myself from taking part in any decision upon it. Moreover, it is said that that conclusion follows from the terms of the Government approved Code for Members of Statutory Boards dated September 2006.

I have to say that I am quite shocked by the allegation of conflict and I have taken time to give it further consideration and to take advice. My conclusion affirms the view I took at the meeting that the allegation is, in the circumstances, fanciful and extravagant. A reading of my letter of 23 April makes it clear that, as is my duty as a Trustee, I sought to put forward a practical solution to a difficulty with one of my constituents which respected the position of the Trust, and it is quite gratuitous to suggest that in doing so I was appearing to act as the advocate of Mr Skillicom.

Cont The question has also arisen that my letter, if it was written in my capacity as a Trustee and not as Mr Skillicom's MHK as I submitted, should not have been written on my official headed notepaper. Might I remind you that I am a Trustee ex officio as Speaker of the House of Keys. By definition this also means I am bound to have constituents, and it was therefore not inappropriate to write using official letterhead. From your reading out to the meeting the precise text of my letterhead, it would appear that the offending words, after my name and title as Speaker, are "Member of the House of Keys for Garff" - evidently this further supports the contention that I am acting primarily for a constituent and therefore bound to have a conflict of interest. By this point we have descended further into absurdity, (incidentally, since receiving an acknowledgement to the letter from the Director, who said it was being passed to you for consideration I have not had the courtesy of a reply. To then unexpectedly find the letter to be the centre of controversy when I arrived at the Trustees meeting I found surprising and irregular).

Looking at the Code to which you constantly referred at the meeting, it is also clear that this matter does not fall within any of the heads given in paragraph 6.31: Mr Skillicom is not a member of my family, dose or otherwise, and he does not live in the same household, or share any business interests with me. These things are what the Code refers to as presenting "a real danger of bias/' There is no warrant for going beyond these sorts of circumstances and inventing improbable grounds upon which bias might conceivably be suspected.

That paragraph makes it clear that it is for the Member in question to consider by himself the possibility of actual or perceived conflict, and it is emphatically not a matter for the Board to debate or determine. In this case, I considered the matter, concluded that no conflict existed, and therefore complied with the Code.

I wish you to be clear that in future I shall insist on a correct application of this text, and shall not be so ready to ease matters forward as I was on 10 May.

May I say that to have had the conduct of my responsibilities as Speaker, Member of the House of Keys and Trustee called into question publicly and in the manner you permitted does the Chair no credit, and causes much offence. Other Trustees certainly found this episode embarrassing.

In such circumstances I reserve the right to have in attendance with me the Secretary to the House, in his capacity as Counsel to the Speaker, at future meetings of the Trust.

Yours faithfully

Steve Rodan tprcsentc&s of the Award-winning StoryofgWann

Manx National Heritage, Dougins, Isle of Man IM1 3LY. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin, Doolish, El/an Vannin IMI 3LY. Manx Telephone: +44 (0)1624 648000 Fax:+44(0)1624 648001 National Website: www.gov.im/irmh E-mail: [email protected] m Heritage ■Director / Stiurcyifcr: Stephen Harrison m.b.l.. U.a.. k.S.a..f.m.a.. f.s.a.

Our Ref: GRMM/jw

22 May 2007

The Hon. S C Rodan BSc (Hons), MR Pharm S SHK Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

Dear Mr Rodan

Duties of Political Members of the Trustees of MNH: Conflict of Interest

I am in receipt of your letter of 14th May. I regret the antagonistic tone of your letter which is unnecessary and does not address the main issue to which you refer.

As you are well aware, there is a strong impetus from central Government to provide for strict governance in relation to real or perceived conflicts of interest within public organizations such as Manx National Heritage. While you were a member of the Council of Ministers you approved a new and much stronger code for corporate governance the principles of which were approved by Tynwald. You were also a strong critic of MNH and supporter of last July's Tynwald motion requiring more accountability and transparency from the operation of MNH.

Subsequently, the Trustees of MNH carefully considered the implications of this requirement for stricter control of potential conflicts of interest and the Trust has formally adopted its own Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance, incorporating part six of the Government Code,, relating to Statutory Boards, and, on the advice of the Attorney General, best practice guidelines from the Charity Commission.

As you are also aware, the Trustees have also endorsed the letter of 16th February 2007 from the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Council of Ministers providing a further strong emphasis upon strict attention to the governance of potential conflicts of interest. A further letter from the Chief Secretary to this end was received on 17th May 2007 again emphasising the requirement for strict governance of potential conflicts in the decision making process for public bodies.

As you will be aware, because of the large number of national politicians, local authority politicians, local society nominees, and Departmental nominees, issues of perceived or actual conflict of interest require to be very carefully governed. As Chairman, under the Code, it is my responsibility to ensure correct governance is applied within the organization. I had explained this at the meeting to the Trustees who were present but you were late arriving so missed the introduction.

MiiKtun (Il'l PfNKIAN BE .vii'srtw OfTT.r V ir ? MISKIM ' CIVIC ANP i-’A U fC Y iB M'H'IAI WIRD i OF THE « Sltua/d j'oy- □ 0 fnu-rpti’il iTRUST A'.VARI' % YEAR ^ Vi/gut Ha I ¡<¡3*1 1! rii.i .ii I Award \ mil;» oil is A«..rll cc

Mint* Nulional 1 l-.-ritaye is tho Registered business Name o f the M anx M useum Nation;:! Trust which operates under its own Aet of Tyinvald ami is Keyislereil Charity No. in the Isle of Man. W National M Heritage EiraglU Asltooiiagh V(vmin

It was quite wrong therefore for you to aggressively challenge my ruling as Chairman at the last Trust meeting in relation to your potential conflicted position, following your letter of support with regard to the request to purchase Trust land from one of your constituents. My ruling was clearly designed to protect your own position and the integrity of the organization. As an experienced Chairman yourself, and in view of the strenuous attempts you know the Trustees have made to adhere strictly to the new rules of governance within Government, I would have expected you to graciously withdraw from the meeting, in accordance with the approved Code. I felt sure you would accept that the remaining body of thirteen Trustees were perfectly capable of considering the matter carefully and coming to an appropriate decision To characterize my ruling in the meeting as "ridiculous" was both incorrect and simply discourteous from someone in your position.

Having taken further advice from the Attorney General's chambers on this matter, I can confirm to you that, as Chairman, I acted entirely appropriately in asking you to withdraw from the meeting. I can also confirm, with the benefit of advice, the following:

1. The Chairman has a duty to ensure good corporate governance in accordance with the Code and is the arbiter of whether there might be a perceived conflict of interest for any member of the Trust, who should then act strictly in accordance with the Code of Governance and withdraw from consideration of the matter.

2. That the Speaker is "ex-officio" a member of the Trust, but having taken up his seat on the Trust, he does not act as Speaker, but as an ordinary Trustee with the duties and responsibilities as laid down in law and in the Trust's Code of Governance. He certainly cannot, and should not, consider himself as acting in any capacity as regards his constituents. Unquestionably, he is conflicted in a case involving/touching upon the interests of one of his constituents and should take no part therein.

3. In accordance with the Trustees' adopted Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance, and in accordance with the Trust's statutory constitution as outlined in Section 3 of the Act, that a "nominative Trustee" (such as Mr Speaker or the House of Keys representative or the Legislative Council representative) have no special status within the Trustee body and have equal status with all other Trustees.

4. The only constitutional exceptions to this equality of Trustees are the Chairman and Vice Chairman who are specifically mentioned in the Act as needing to be elected annually. The Chairman, in accordance with the Code of Governance, has additional duties and responsibilities.

5. No politician who is a member of the Trust could be said to be acting properly in accordance with his duties and responsibilities if he allowed a constituency interest to conflict, or for there to be a perception of conflict, with the remit, role and policies of the MNH Trust. National Heritage >1 / Ei night Aslioaragli Vunnin

6. That any such "nominative Trustees" should ensure that their actions and behaviour are in accordance with the Charity Commission guideline, incorporated within the MNH Code, which reads as follows:

" Trustees must act reasonably and prudently in all matters relating to the charity and must always bear in mind that their prime concern is the charity's interests. They must not let any personal views or prejudices affect their conduct as Trustees."

For "norpinative Trustees" the. guidance is'clear: "Nominative or representative trustees Trustees appointed by another organization, such as by a local authority, (sometimes referred to as nominative or representative trustees) have exactly the same duties and responsibilities as other trustees. They must act independently o f the organization which appointed them and act only in the best interests o f the charity. There may well be occasions where such trustees will have to act in a way which conflicts with the interests o f the organization appointing them. In such circumstances the best interests o f the charity must come first; this duty overrides all other considerations. Failure to act in the best interests o f the charity could constitute a breach o f trust for which a personal liability (financial or otherwise) could arise."

7. The only people entitled to attend Trustee meetings are the individual members of the statutory body of Trustees, the senior officers of MNH, and any others specifically invited to attend a meeting by the Trustees. There is no right existing for the Speaker to insist that he is accompanied at Trust meetings by the Clerk of Tynwald as "counsel to the Speaker". When sitting as an MNH Trustee, the Speaker is not acting in his Parliamentary capacity so there is no basis on which it would be appropriate for the Clerk of Tynwald to be involved.

8. That in addition to the requirements of Manx law, the codes and guidelines of the UK Charity Commission should be considered as best-practice for the operation of a charity such as MNH in relation to its Trustees.

1 trust that this clarifies the position for the future. I will also ensure that all Trustees are aware of the advice I have received and the legitimacy of my actions in ensuring that the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance is strictly upheld.

cinrnroK/

G R M Moore Chairman cc: Mr Stephen Harrison Mr Alex Downie MLC Presenters of the Award-winning Storyof^Jiiann

Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man 1M1 3LY. Eiraghi Ashoonagh Vannin, Doolisit, Elian Vannin ¡Ml 3LY. Manx Telephone: +44 (0)1624 648000 Fax: +44 (0)1624 648001 ( National O \ Website: www.gov.im/mnh L E-mail: [email protected] SÉ Heritage Director / Stiureyder: Stephen Harrison M.B.E., B.A., F.S.A., F.M.A.. F.s.a.(Scoi.), M.l.Mgt. V I / Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin

Our Ref: SH/jw

22 May 2007

Mr A J B Pass Port-e-Chee Packhorse Lane Baldrine Isle of Man IM4 6EA

Dear Tony

Thank you for your last letter which was received on the 11th May.

In advance of my receipt of this letter, you raised the issue of the Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust's work in Laxey for discussion by the Trustees at their last meeting.

I am interested to see your interpretation of potential conflict of interest. However, this is not the interpretation outlined in the Code which has been adopted. I would refer you again to the advice I provided in my last letter to you on this matter of 30th April.

In the meantime, the matter has been further clarified by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Council of Ministers. Those in positions of trust within the public service must demonstrate the highest standards of propriety, involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity, in relation to the stewardship of public funds, property, their decision making, and the management of all related activities. This means that any private, voluntary, charitable or political interest which might be material and relevant to the work of the Department, Board or Office concerned, must always be declared. A conflict of interest arises when an individual might reasonably be perceived by a member of the public to be likely to be biased, partial, or otherwise personally interested in the outcome of dealings between citizen, business or organisation and the Government.

There is always the possibility for real or perceived conflicts of interest to arise. Both are potentially a problem, as the perceived inference of a conflict may, on occasions, be as damaging as the existence of a real conflict. It is important, therefore, that you consider your circumstances and identify any potential conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived.

/ Misnim \ liH (I Van ¡l’IPf NMAN \ Oisawi ot ~2mur. Sffl i SfKnU.WAjp i iNP (*Alt£RY ÌB £ Interpret S4

Munx National Heritage is the Registered Business Name of the M anx Museum &. National Trust Manx National ^ Heritage

Finally, the Attorney General's advice confirms that it is the duty of the Chairman of the Trust to act as the arbiter if there is any doubt as to whether real or perceived conflict exists. If for any reason, in accordance with the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance you are required to withdraw from consideration of a particular matter, I am sure you can be confident that the large body of competent Trustees who will remain to consider the matter will come to an appropriate decision.

I hope this clarification is helpful.

Yours sincerely

St______Director

Cc: G R M Moore LL.B - Chairman, Manx National Heritage Mr A F Downie MLC - Vice-Chairman, Manx National Heritage The Hon. S C Rodan SHK, Chairman, Laxey and Lo'nan Heritage Trust Presenters of the Award-winning Story of¿fidann

.Manx National Heritage, Douglas, isle of Man IM1 3LY. EirttghtAshoonagh Vamwt, Doolish, Elhin Vannin ¡Ml 3LY, Manx Telephone: +44(0)1624 648000 Fax:+44 (0)1624 648001 i "'Vi ,/ M.t National Website: www.gov.im/mnh V. E-mail: [email protected] M Heritage Director / Sdureyder: Stephen Harrison M.B.n.. b.a., f.s.a.. f.m.a.. f.s.a.(Scpi.). M.i.Mgt. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin

Our Ref: GRMM/jw

23 May 2007

Mr B Beattie 22 Brookhill Road Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 2HU

Dear Mr Beattie

Duties and Responsibilities of Political and non-political Members of the Trustees of MNH: Conflict of Interest

As you know, the Trustees of Manx National Heritage (MNH) are composed of a number of individuals from Manx society, as defined in the Constitution Section (3) of the MMNT Act, 1959. As you will be aware, because of the large number of national politicians, local authority politicians, local society nominees, and Departmental nominees, issues of perceived or actual conflict of interest require to be very carefully governed.

To this end, the MNH Trustees have formally adopted a Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance which incorporates Part 6 of the Government Code which relates to Statutory Boards (even though MNH is not technically a Statutory Board of Government). This Code makes a number of references to the importance of avoiding a real or perceived conflict of interest.

As you will remember, at the last Trust meeting, as Chairman, I drew attention to the relevant sections of the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance, as I am obliged by the Code to do, in relation to two areas of potential conflict for the future relating to myself and Mr Corlett, and in relation to a potential real or perceived conflict of interest in relation to Mr Rodan's support for a Laxey constituent's request to*purchase an area of Trust land for private development. In accordance with the Trustees' and Government's Code of Conduct, I asked Mr Rodan to withdraw for the discussion of this agenda item. Mr Rodan strongly contested this ruling, but did eventually retire from the meeting. However, he has subsequently contested this matter again in writing and has insisted that at future meetings he is accompanied by the Clerk of Tynwald "as counsel to the Speaker".

, Award Sl'I.CI.M. AW ARD

Manx National Heritage is the Registered Business Name of the Manx Museum & National Trusl which operates under its own Act o f Tvmvald and is Rc«isten»H rimrJiv m<* /.n j it.~ i t . ..r w .... «s W m Manx if? ' National Heritage Vi/ Eiraghl Axhoonagh tannin

As Chairman, under the Code, it is my responsibility to ensure our collective care with regard to the integrity and transparency of the Trust's operation. As you are well aware, there is a strong impetus from central Government to provide for strict governance in relation to real or perceived conflicts of interest within public organizations such as Manx National Heritage. The Council of Minsters has approved a new and much stronger code for corporate governance within public organizations, the principles of which were approved by Tynwald. You will also remember that there w3s seme political criticism of MNH in last Jul/s Tynwald motion requiring more accountability and transparency from the operation of MNH.

In view of these facts and the questioning of my authority and actions as Chairman of the Trust by Mr Rodan, I therefore felt it would be appropriate to seek further clarification from the Attorney General's chambers as to the validity of my actions and responsibilities from the Chair, and the implications in practice for the operation of the MNH and Government Code by the Trustees for the future. The summary of the Attorney General's advice on these matters is listed below for your information.

2. The Speaker is "ex-officio" a member of the Trust, but having taken up his seat on the Trust, he does not act as Speaker, but as an ordinary Trustee with the duties and responsibilities as laid down in law and in the Trust's Code of Governance. He certainly cannot, and should not, consider himself as acting in any capacity as regards his constituents. Unquestionably, he is conflicted in a case involving/touching upon the interests of one of his constituents and should take no part therein.

5. No politician who is a member of the Trust could be said to be acting properly In accordance with his duties and responsibilities as a Trustee if he allowed a constituency interest to conflict, or for there to be a perception of conflict, with the remit; role and policies of the MNH Trust

"Trustees must act reasonably and prudently in all matters relating to the charity and must always bear in mind that their prime concern is the charity's interests. They must not let any personal views or prejudices affect their conduct as Trustees."

For "nominative Trustees", the guidance Is clear: , "Nominative or representative trustees Trustees appointed by another organization, such as by a local authority, (sometimes referred to as nominative or representative trustees) have exactly the same duties and responsibilities as other trustees. They must act independently of the organization which appointed them and act only in the best interests of the charity. There may well be occasions where such trustees will have to act in a way which conflicts with the interests of the organization appointing them. In such circumstances the best interests of the charity must come first; this duty overrides all other considerations. Failure to act in the best interests of the charity could constitute a breach of trust for which a personal liability (financial or otherwise) could arise."

In addition, a further letter recently received from the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Council of Ministers provides further dear guidance that those in positions of trust within the public service must demonstrate the highest standards of propriety, involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity, in relation to the stewardship of public funds, property, their decision making, and the management of all related activities. This means that any private, voluntary, charitable or political interest which might be material and relevant to the work of the Department, Board or Office concerned, must always be declared. A conflict of interest arises when an individual might reasonably be perceived by a member of the public to be likely to be biased, partial, or otherwise personally interested in the outcome of dealings between citizen, business or organisation and the Government.

There Is always the possibility for real or perceived conflicts of interest to arise. Both are potentially a problem, as the perceived inference of a conflict may, on occasions, be as damaging as the existence of a real conflict. It is important, therefore, that you consider your circumstances and identify any potential conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived.

I hope that this clarifies the position for the future and also clarifies the legitimacy of the ruling I gave at the last Trust meeting in an effort to ensure that the MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance is strictly upheld. To this end, I would also again encourage you ail to try and attend the Government seminar on Corporate Governance on the afternoon of Monday 18th June, details of which have previously been circulated to you.

With kind regards

Yours sincerely

r GRM Moore Chairman cc: All Trustees O ur Ref: SCR/jw

23 May 2007

G R M Moore Esq LLB Chairman Manx National Heritage Douglas IM1 3LY

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your letter of 22 May 2007, to which I will give careful consideration.

Meanwhile, I shall be grateful if you will let me have a copy of the letter from the Chief Secretary you say was received on 17 May, which is clearly relevant to the issues I must consider.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rodan Our Ref: SCR/jw

24 May 2007

Mr W J H Corlett Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers 3rd Floor St Mary's Court Hill Street Douglas

Dear Mr Attorney

I would be grateful for your assistance in dealing with a problem that has arisen in my capacity as ex-officio Trustee of Manx National Heritage.

I enclose a letter of 23 April to the Director, which resulted in an attempt by the Chairman at the Trustees meeting of 10 May, to exclude me from discussion over a matter concerning a constituent on grounds of "conflict of interest".

I dispute that any such conflict has arisen, and my letter to the Chairman of 14 May refers (copy enclosed). You will note from the enclosed reply of 22 May 2007 that the Chairman is adamant about this and advice from the Attorney General is dted in support of this position. The Director's letter of 22 May 2007 to fellow Trustee, Tony Pass, copied to me on this and related matters, makes reference to advice on conflict of interest which has been given by the Attorney General.

I believe this matter needs to be resolved and it would be of great assistance to me if you were to meet with the Counsel to the Speaker, Mr Comwell-Kelly to identify the way forward..

I would be most grateful for your agreement to doing this.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rodan

Enc. Our ref: SCR/ elm

25th May 2007

Mr G R M Moore Chairman Manx National Heritage 5 The Castleward Green Douglas IM4 5EJ

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL - ADDRESSEE ONLY

Dear Mr Moore

I have received a copy of your letter of 23rd May to Mr B Beattie apparently sent to all trustees, which is no doubt how it came to me.

If you read the letter you have sent again, you will see that the third paragraph on the first page contains two incorrect statements. They are: (i) that I, in my capacity as a trustee, have given "support for a Laxey constituents request to purchase an area of Trust land for private development" and (ii) that I had "insisted that at future meetings [I should be] accompanied by the Clerk of Tynwald as 'counsel to the Speaker'."

At numbered paragraph 2 on the second page of your letter, you say in relation to me that "He certainly cannot, and should not, consider himself as acting in any capacity as regards his constituents."

Your letter, taking these extracts together with your statement that you had asked me to withdraw from the meeting, clearly conveys the message that I had tried to abuse my position as a trustee to promote the interests of a constituent for political gain. That is the natural and probable meaning of the words you have used and as such it is, equally clearly, seriously defamatory of me. The libel has, moreover, now been published to a large number of persons. I require that, no later than 1st June coming, you send a letter to all those who have received your letter correcting the two factually incorrect statements to which I have drawn attention, and stating unequivocally that you withdraw any assertion or implication in your letter that I had tried to abuse my position as a trustee of Manx National Heritage to promote the interests of a constituent for political gain.

As a separate matter, please send me a copy of the advice from the Attorney General which you cite as the basis for your remarks.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rodan Presenters of the Award-winning Story ofc/Mann |^ j | Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 3LY. Eiraghl Ashoonagh Vann in, Doolish, Eflan Vannin ¡Ml 3L K Manx Telephone:+44 (0)1624 648000 Fax:+44 (0)1624 64800) National Website: www.gov.im/mnh Kjft TLT^fi f q E-mail: [email protected] QyQ JTldJlvClViC

Director / Sfiureytfer: Stephen Harrison m.b.e.. u.a.. f.s.a.. f.m.a.. f.s.a.(Scot.), M.i.Mgi. V I / Eiraght Ashoonagh Vanititi

Our Ref: GRMM/jw Your Ref: SCR/c)m

31 May 2007

Without Prejudice

The Hon. S C Rodan BSc (Hons), MR Pharm S SHK Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

Dear Mr Rodan

I am in receipt of your letter of 25th May in which you appear to be accusing me of libel.

Your justification for this accusation is your claim that I have accused you of abusing your position in relation to the matter of a request from one of your constituents to acquire Trust land, as considered at the last Trustee meeting. You are dearly wrong in this. I have never accused you of abusing your position or made any such suggestion verbally or in writing. Rather, as Chairman of the Trust, I have strenuously sought to protect your position by ensuring that the approved MNH Code for Conduct and Corporate Governance, in accordance with the additional advice I have received and in accordance with the Chief Secretary's letter of 16th February 2007 (adopted by the Trust as part of the Code), is properly enforced. This, as you know from my ruling at the last Trust meeting, in my view, required you to withdraw from discussion of the specific item on the agenda involving the application from your constituent and about which you had formally written in support. The Code provides that such withdrawals from discussion of items by members is specifically to ensure that there can be no public perception of a conflict of interest and, by implication therefore, that all members acted properly in dealing with the matter.

My attempt to protect your position in this way is entirely appropriate. However, in view of the serious accusations made against me in your letter of 25th May 2007,1 am taking further legal advice from the Attorney General on this matter before making any further response.

Yours sincerely

*------“ * 7 G R M Moore Chairman

/ Mtnwm bfeoJlb'i lU'tPINKlAN tatf&tfefìòuiun 0 ® MIWIM i OfThi Yrjf f MLSELM^ ANP u/ULÌRV 111 sgMwAìù); -} OF THE i Sdwovdfor 13E9 A WARP Interpret %, YEAR ^ Vlrnln Holidays H ritirili ■ - Gitey "> (rATsJJf.ncr, Award AfliHtmnrinr Aw *rrt SI'I I') \1. AW 1KI •

Manx National Heritage is (ho Registered Business Name of the Manx Museum & National Trust which operates under its own Act of Tynwald and is Reuistered Chnriiv Nn AM ¡n th,- 2gisfative Buildings Oikyn Slattyssagh ouglas Doolish le of Man Elian Vannin /I13PW IMI 3PW •itish Isles Ny Ellanyn Goaldagh ilephone: 01624 685510 Chellvane: 01624 685510 tx: 01624 685504 Clerk of Tynwald Facs: 01624 685504 Cleragh Tinvaal Malachy Cornwell-Kelly

Mr W.J.H. Corlett QC H M Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers Douglas IM1 3PP PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

7th June 2007

Dear Mr Attorney,

Following our meeting this week, I wondered if it would be helpful if I were to put to you a suggested analysis of the document issued by the Council of Ministers in the kind of circumstances we discussed. I attach a copy of the relevant pages for ease of reference. It would be as follows.

Paragraph 6.32 provides for Members of a board not to participate in discussion or determination of a matter under discussion, to declare an interest and withdraw from the meeting. That action is called for "in accordance with the above", i.e. when paragraph 6.31 applies.

As I read paragraph 6.31, it does not impose upon the Chairman of the meeting any duties at all, but it does clearly require that "Members should consider whether participation in the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias." (My emphasis) The duty is stated to be that of the Member, and not that of the Chairman.

Guidance is then given as to when the Member might be expected "consider whether participation in the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias". The instances then given for consideration are that the Member, someone in the Member's family or household, or belonging to a firm, business or organisation with which the board Member is connected, is likely to be affected.

If the person whose interest is being said to give rise to a conflict is none of these, I do not see how it can be argued that paragraph 6.31 applies at all. The instances cited are not examples of a broader principle: they constitute a list of what it is considered may give rise to a perception of conflict. If none of them is applicable, it would then follow that paragraph 6.32, about withdrawing from the meeting etc., is not in point.

E-mail: [email protected] Post Lectraanagh: m.cornwell'[email protected]^ The significance of this is that, in the case we had in mind, it was if my analysis is correct (a) not for the Chairman to do any more than to ask the Member to "consider" the matter, and (b) there is no prima facie case for saying that, in the circumstances, this guidance required a withdrawal from the meeting.

I believe that if a correct analysis of these two paragraphs in the Council of Ministers' document can be established, the rest will follow.

Yours sincerely,

Malachy Comwell-Kelly Telephone: (01624)685452 ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS Fa*: (01624) 629162 3rt FLOOR. ST MARY'S COURT HILL STREET, DOUGLAS RECEIVED ISLE OF MAN IM1 1EU Your ref: M W /LW 437 (32) 1 * JUN 2007 Our ref: 29/105 OFFICE OF THE 7 June 2007 Mrs M Williams CIHRX 0F7VMW4I n Cliief Secretary Chief Secretary’s Of£cc Government Office Bucks Road DOUGLAS COPY IM1 3PG

Dear Chief Secretary

re: Manx National Heritage

I wnte farther to your e-mail to me of 29 May 2007 and my acknowledgment thereof ci) 5 June.

Although the Speaker’s appointment as; a Trustee of the Manx Museum and National Trust is by virtue of his position as Speaker, in acting as a Trustee, he is not carrying out his functions a5 Speaker, nor as a constituency MHK. Accordingly, as 'with any other Trustee, he mus: he careful that he is seen uo be acting in an impartial manner and that his prime concern is the interests of the Trust. Thus, 'while he may well be able to give background information which, assists the Trustees in their deliberations, as could any Trustee who had rdcvant experience/information concerning a topic under discussion, he should be careful to avoid any suggestion that he is becoming closely involved in a matter of Trast business within his constituency, whether it be in relation ro a. particular individual or the residents at large. It has also to be borne in mind that, as an dec tea representative t the Speaker, or any other Trustee who is also a politician, may be purccivtd by the worid at large as representing the interests of his constituency and, accordingly, would need to guard carefully against die possibility of that perception giving rise to allegations o f bias. It is not necessary that there be actual bias, just the appearance of it.

I do not think that I should comment on the specific facts leading to the dispute between the Speaker and the Chairman of the Trustees. Miss Norman of Chambers who hfcs been advising the Chairman has, at my request, written to him to say that the potential dispute (in respect of which Mr Speaker has intimated that he is considering proceedings for defamation) is now a matter o f private, rather than public» law and that Cham ben; cannot adrise either party.

I should make it clear that I have not advised either party but I did have a meeting with the - Clerk of Tynwald, 2t Mr Speaker’s request, to confirm that I could not become involved in this matter. 1 have expressed the hope nhat the matter might: be resolved amicably without . recourse to formal court proceedings.

In the circumRtanccs, I am copying this letter to the Clerk for his information.

Yours sincerely

■ o t t /

H M Attorney Genera]

TOTAl. P . 03 To: Mr Speaker From: Secretary of the House of Keys & Counsel to the Speaker

Manx Museum and National Trust

A question of interpretation has arisen in connection with the document issued by the Council of Ministers in September 2006, which has not been laid before or approved by Tynwald, but which MNH are seeking to argue has the effect of preventing any Member of the Keys from taking part in the discussion of business which touches upon his or her constituency.

The matter has presently arisen in the context of a request by one of your constituents to MNH to buy land from the Trust, on which you picked up a suggestion that a way of dealing with the matter might be by way of a lease instead. As I see it, the position is as follows.

Paragraph 6.32 of the document provides for the case where Members of a board should not participate in discussion or determination of a matter, but declare an interest and withdraw from the meeting. That action is called for "in accordance with the above", i.e. when paragraph 6.31 applies - and not otherwise.

Guidance is then given as to when the Member might be expected "consider whether participation in the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias". The instances given for consideration are that the Member, someone in the Member's family or household, or belonging to a firm, business or organisation with which the board Member is connected, is likely to be affected.

If the person whose interest is being said to give rise to a conflict is none of these, I do not see how it can be argued that paragraph 6.31 applies at all. The instances dted are not examples of a broader principle: they constitute a list of what it is considered may give rise to a perception of conflict. If none of them is applicable, it would then follow that paragraph 6.32, about withdrawing from the meeting etc., is not in point

The significance of this is that it is (a) not for the Chairman to do any more than to ask the Member to "consider" the matter, and (b) there is no prima facie case for saying that, in the circumstances, this guidance required a withdrawal from the meeting.

MCK l l 'h June 2007 Presenters of the Award-winning S to fy o f ¿/W ann

Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man !M1 3LY. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin, Doolish, Elian Vatutin 1M1 3LY. , ; Manx Telephone: +44 (0)1624 648000 Fax:+44(0)1624 648001 fgf National Website: www.gov.im/mnh E-mail: [email protected] p i Heritage Director / Siiureyder: Stephen Harrison ».A., p.s.a.. f.m.a.. f.s.a.(Scoi ), M.i.Mgt. V I / Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin

Our Ref: GRMM/jw Your Ref SRC/clm

12 June 2007

The Hon. S C Rodan 3Sc (Hons), MR Pharm 3 SHK. Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

Dear Mr Rodan

I write in further response to your letters to me of 23rd and 25th May 2007, having taken further advice.

Firstly, I would reiterate the main point of my letter to you of 31st May 2007 that my action as Chairman in asking you to withdraw from the discussion of the item on the Trust agenda relating to a request by one of your constituents was in the interests of protecting your and the Trust's position against any possible perception of a conflict of interest. I believe this decision was fully in accord with principles of the Trust's Code of Conduct and Governance, and fully in accord with the further advice I have received in relation to this matter.

Secondly, I have been advised, as you are perhaps aware, that it is not the policy of the Attorney General's Chambers, nor of Government, to provide copies of legal advice received. However, I can confirm that the letter I sent to all Trustees dated 23rd May 2007 accurately presents the advice I have received on this matter.

Finally, I attach to this note the letters of advice from the Chief Secretary's Office dated 16th February and 17th May referred to in my letter to you of 22nd May 2007.

Yours sincerely

Encs

'.r, (IKMUNKMN Mist in > V KtdUAl MUSÍ PM ¡ Of TI* Vear_ \ ? MUSELM ' E® ANPii/ULfRV ÌB , SHttM AHAM ’ A 0FTHE ¿ Interpret vBÑAithMter/ A WA KP Britain * YEAR ^ Virgin HflHdjyi \ Gíllcrv y föxcpJJjmca A wird SMCIM.AWAKIl

Manx National Heritage is the Registered Business N:iinc of the Manx Museum & National Trust which operates under its own Act of Tynwald and is Registered Charily No. 603 in the Isle of Mnn /

\h ÖU'S iS? f/..K 'EV/7

1.1XI ! SI. ATI VH Bl.ì II .1)1 NC ¡S DOlTiLAS. ISLE O f MAN fM I 3t’W

The Hon Stephen C Rodan BSc (Hons), MR Pharm S SHK Speaker of the House oi Keys Lomjrtydi’r y Chinre-ns-Fccrf Member of the House of Kevs for Garff

Our ref: SCR/dm

14th June 2007

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr G R M Moore Chairman, Manx National Heritage Manx Museum Douglas IM1 3LY

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your further letter of 12th June.

On the matter of what I say are the defamatory statements in your letter to the trustees of 23rd May, as you will be well aware your motives in writing it are beside the point: it is either defamatory, or it is not I say that it is, and I am told that it is very probable that a jury would say so too. Am I to take it now that you decline to withdraw the innuendoes in that letter, as I requested?

As to the enclosures with your letter, there was none corresponding to your reference to a "letter of advice from the Chief Secretary's Office dated ... 17th May". Are you referring to a Staff Guidance Note, approved by the Council of Ministers dated April 2007, which was enclosed?

If so, that document is clearly designed to assist officers and staff and is drafted with the type of situations they will encounter in mind. As I am not a member of MNH staff, it is far from clear to me why you should think it appropriate to represent this as guidance apt to be applied to trustees' meetings, or to suggest that the Chief Secretary has offered it for that purpose. But maybe I have yet to see the document you are referring to.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rodan ij Presenters of the Award-winning Story of ¿Mann Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man IMI 3LY. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin, Dottiish, Elian Vatwin IM I 3LY. Manx Telephone: +44 (0)1624 648000 Fax: +44 (0)1624 648001 Website: www.gnv.im/rmih Nationa E-mail: [email protected] lj Heritagel Director / Siimvyilcr: Stephen H¡irrisoti B.A.. J-.s.a., km.a.. KS.A.iSaM.i. m.i.m-i. \ i / Eiraght Ashoonatfh Vannin\

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

The Honourable Stephen C Rodan BSc MR PharmS SHK Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man WITHOUT PREJUDICE

21 June 2007

Dear Mr Rodan

I note the contents of your letter of the 14th June 2007.

! deny entirely the accusations you make which are without foundation. I will make.no further comment to you on this matter pending further legal advice.

With- regard to your other comments, you will have no doubt already noted the comments made in the Chief Minister's answer to your question in the June 2007 Tynwald, Answers (2) (c) and 2 (d) of which clearly indicate the correct standards and approach to be applied to such matters for Members of Tynwald, Chairman and Officers.

Yours sincerely

¿UC G R M MOORE Chairman

6ULBitiK>Ati HUCÇUM ? MI SKIM '• * . f- /tU tt i't f ft'S iB AMD f,MICKY -j 0FTHK Inlcrpn-l AW ARP % YEAR ^ ( ' . I f f •//<'>!<'<■ lim a rli sn.OA». wv.wn

Manx National Heiiiage libérales umlcrThe Manx Museum und National Tmsi Aus. Regisicrcil as Charily No. in (Ite Isle of M;1 T h u j u l 12, 2007 07:40

Subject: URGENT - HOUSE OF KEYS AGENDA ITEM 9 - Tuesday 26th June 07 Date: Monday, June 25, 2007 17:40 From: Harrison, Stephen To: "Corlett, John (AGC)" Cc: "Norman, Michelle" , Conversation: URGENT - HOUSE OF KEYS AGENDA ITEM 9 - Tuesday 26th June 07

Dear Mr Attorney,

House of Keys Motion, Tuesday 26th June - Item 9

As you will be aware, on behalf of Manx National Heritage, I have been receiving helpful advice from Michelle Norman in your Chambers regarding a Corporate Governance issue for the Trustees of MNH involving my Chairman Mr Martin Moore, and the Speaker who is an ex-officio member of the Trust. I have been trying to contact Ms Norman for further urgent advice on this matter, but I understand she is currently ill.

You will no doubt be aware of the question put to the Chief Minister at the June sitting of Tynwald in relation to Corporate Governance by Mr Speaker, and the answer given by the Chief Minister.

I know you are also aware of a threat of legal action made by Mr Speaker against the MNH Chairman with regard to this Corporate Governance issue.

My urgent query to you now is in relation to this latter matter, and the motion for leave to introduce in tomorrow’s Keys sitting a very specific item in relation to “privileges of the House” by Mr Gawne (item 9).

I would, on behalf of the MNH Chairman, seek your guidance as to whether this motion and subsequent approval could be seen as potentially prejudicial to any court action that might be pursued by Mr Speaker in relation to the MNH Corporate Governance issue. I understand that Speaker is the Chairman of the Management and Members5 Standards Committee to whom this issue is requested to be referred.

In view of the imminence of this matter, I would appreciate your urgent guidance as to what action if any you feel should be taken to safeguard the potential lega! position in relation to tomorrow’s Keys motion and any subsequent potential legal action.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Stephen.

Stephen Harrison

Page 1 of 2 Director Manx National Heritage Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3LY tel: +44(0) 1624 648000 fax: +44(0) 1624 648001 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.qov.im/mnh

Page 2 of 2 IN TYNWALD

June 2007

FOR WRITTEN ANSWER 17

The Hon Member for Garff (Mr Speaker) to ask the Chief Minister -

(1) In connection with the 'Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct' approved by Tynwald in November 2005 for application to all Departments, Boards and Offices of Government from 1st April 2006, will you confirm that a paper entitled 'Document approved by the Council of Ministers for inclusion within the Government Code - September 2006' was issued, but has not been approved by Tynwald or laid before Tynwald; and

(2) in the case of the 2006 Document, will you state -

(a) whether it is intended to apply to Members of Tynwald when acting as members of Departments or Boards;

(b) if the answer to (a) is 'yes', on what authority is this Document binding on a Member of Tynwald;

(c) whether the Document seeks to debar Members of Tynwald from being present in the Department or Board concerned, when matters are discussed which touch on their constituencies; and

(d) who is to decide whether in terms of the Document an impediment exists to a Member of Tynwald's participation in the business of the Department or Board: the Member concerned, or a person other than a Member of Tynwald?

(1) I can confirm the answer is yes.

(2) (a) Yes.

(b) It is binding in so much as it has been issued by the Council of Ministers as the standard which it expects Government (both Members and Officers) to adhere to. However it is not fegaily binding.

(c) The document seeks to guide Members and Officers with regard to the standards which they must adhere to. This includes Members absenting themselves when there is a conflict of interest, or sometimes a perception of conflict. This does not mean that constituency MHKs would automatically be debarred from discussions which touch on their constituencies, nor does it mean that constituency MHKs should always be present when there is discussion which touches on their constituencies - it would very much depend on the individual circumstances of the discussion.

The document clearly envisages that Hon Members will adhere to the very highest standards of integrity and exercise a degree of self-policing with regard to whether or not their continued presence is appropriate. However there is also a general duty on the Minister or Chairman to ensure good governance. If a disagreement or even a potential disagreement should arise then the matter should be handled both sensibly and sensitively. If the disagreement arises during the course of a meeting then the item should be deferred pending resolution of the disagreement between the Chairman and member concerned; if agreement between the two remains unresolved then it would seem appropriate for each of them to take advice from an appropriate source. Thu, Jul 12, 2007 07:40

Subject: URGENT - House of Keys Motion Item 9 Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 09:52 From: Corlett, John (AGC) To: "Harrison, Stephen" Conversation: URGENT - House of Keys Motion Item 9

Our ref: WJHC/KC/29/105

Dear Mr Harrison

Thank you for your e-mail which I have been able to consider this morning.

You seek my guidance on behalf of Mr Moore, the MNH Chairman, as to whether the Motion at Item 9 on the House of Keys Order Paper for today and its subsequent approval could be seen as being potentially prejudicial to any Court action that might be pursued by Mr Speaker against Mr Moore.

Whilst I am aware that the possibility of legal proceedings by Mr Speaker against Mr Moore has been intimated in correspondence, I am not aware of there having been any development in relation to such proceedings. I have made it clear to Miss Norman, who has been corresponding with Mr Moore, that Chambers can take no part in relation to any such proceedings which, as I understand it, would be in the nature of a private law action for defamation.

In the circumstances I do not consider that the Motion to be moved by the Honourable Member for Rushen could be regarded as being potentially prejudicial to possible legal proceedings for defamation.

I am quite sure that if Mr Speaker considers that it would be inappropriate for him to act as Chairman of the Management and Members’ Standards Committee in relation to this particular matter, he will act accordingly.

I am providing a copy of your e-mail and my response to Mr Cornwell-Kelly, the Secretary of the House.

Page 1 of 2 Yours sincerely

W J H Corlett

Attorney General

Please reply to:-

W J H Corlett

Attorney General

Attorney General's Chambers

3rd Floor

St Mary's Court

Hill Street

Douglas

ISLE OF MAN IM1 1EU

Tel: 01624 685452

E-mail: John.Corlett@ attgen.gov. im

Page 2 of 2

J Tue, Jun 26, 2007 10:30

Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - URGENT - House of Kevs Agenda Item 9 Date: T uesday, lune 26, 2007 09:55 From: Corlett, John (ACC) To: "Cornwell-Kelly, Malachy" Conversation: CONFIDENTIAL - URGENT - House of Keys Agenda Item 9

CONFIDENTIAL

Our ref: WJHC/KC/29/105

Dear Mr Cornwell-Kelly

I enclose herewith, for your information, a copy of an e-mail I have been able to consider this morning as received from Mr Stephen Harrison together with a copy of my reply.

Yours sincerely

W J H Corlett

Attorney General

Please reply to:-

iV J H Corlett

Attorney General

Attorney General's Chambers

Page 1 of 6 I MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2007-08

APPENDIX 2

Isle of M an Government

R f i I y < L II J H Vjiintil

Corporate Governance Principles

and

Code of Conduct

October 2005 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Contents

1 Aims and Objectives

2 Fundamental Principles

3 The Code of Conduct

The Isle of Man Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct apply to all "designated bodies" and”” "departments of Government" within the meaning of the Treasury Act 1985. In this Code they are all referred to as "departments". The following are "designated bodies”:

all departments (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Education, Department of Health &. Social Security, Department of Home Affairs, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Department of Tourism and Leisure, Department of Transport, and Treasury, that is the bodies established by the Government Departments Act 1987);

all Statutory Boards (the Communications Commission, Office of Fair Trading, Financial Supervision Commission, Insurance and Pensions Authority, Isle of Man Post Office, Isle of Man Water Authority and the Manx Electricity Authority, that is the bodies to whom the Statutory Boards Act 1987 applies);

any other body or authority (other than a local authority), for example Manx National Heritage, constituted by any enactment for any purposes involving the expenditure of public moneys or the receipt of public moneys for the purposes of that body or authority or for the public revenue;

any other body designated as such for the purposes of the Treasury Act 1985 by order of the Council 0f Ministers.

For the purposes of this document, the term "department of Government" includes the Chief Secretary's Office, Attorney General's Chambers, General Registry, Personnel Office, Gambling Control Commission, Office of the Data Protection Supervisor, and Industrial Relations Service which are not "designated bod^» _

1 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

1 Aims and Objectives

Corporate Governance in Government

Corporate governance is the system by which Government directs and controis its functions and relates to the Island's community

1.1 Effective government relies on the credibility of, and public confidence in, elected politicians and departmental officials. By making explicit the high standards Government expects itself to meet, it can give confidence to potential partners, the public, private, or voluntary sectors, and to the people of the Isle of Man. Adoption of the principles of corporate governance will assist in maintaining credibility and confidence in the public service

1.2 All Departments should attempt to meet the highest standards and their governance arrangements should not only be sound, but be seen to be sound. To ensure this, governance arrangements need to be clear, effective and reviewed on a regular basis.

1.3 This Code defines the minimum standards of corporategovernance to be applied by Departments, but Departments may wish to further develop the code to take account of their individual circumstances and responsibilities.

1.4 The purpose of this Code is to:

• define the principles that must underpin the governance of each Department; • provide the framework within which each Department can ensure confidence and credibility, minimise risk, and manage change, and; • assist Departments by articulating what is considered to be best practice.

1.5 Each Department will be expected to:

• regularly review its corporate governance arrangements in line with the Code; • establish arrangements for ensuring the Code is put into operation, and;

• report regularly, through Statements of Internal Control, on how the Department is complying with the Code.

1.6 Statements of Internal Control will be required to be produced byDepartments on an annual basis and will contain :

• an explanation of the Department's responsibility for financial probity; • confirmation that the Department complies with the Code, and

• evidence to support compliance with the Code.

1.7 The Chief Financial Officer will report corporately, on an annual basis, providing a Statement of Internal Control for Government as a whole, stating how it is applying and upholding the principles of corporate governance.

2 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

2 Fundamental Principles of Corporate Governance

2.1 The three fundamental principles of corporate governance are:

Openness An open approach is required to ensure ail interested parties are confident in the organisation itself. Being open in the disclosure of information leads to effective and timely action and lends itself to necessary scrutiny.

Integrity This is described as both straightforward dealing and completeness. It should be reflected in the honesty of an organisation's annual report and its portrayal of a balanced view. The integrity of reports depends on the integrity of those who prepare and present them which, in turn, is a reflection of the professional standards within the organisation.

Accountability This is the process whereby individuals are responsible for their actions. It is achieved by all parties having a clear understanding of those responsibilities, and having clearly defined roles through a robust structure.

2.2 These principles are relevant to both public service bodies and private sector entities. They apply equally to all public service bodies, irrespective of whether they are elected or appointed.

2.3 These principles are consistent with the following internationally agreed principles of conduct which should underpin public life:

Selflessness Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends,

Integrity Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might Influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny Is appropriate to their office.

Openness Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and actions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

3 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

3 A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

3.1 The fundamental principles of corporate governance need to be reflected in the different aspects of a Department's functions. These aspects are identified as:

• community focus; • performance management;

• structures and processes; • risk management and internal control;

• standards of conduct.

3.2 The next section considers how the principles of corporate governance can be reflected in the above "aspects" and what that means for Departments in practice. The principles of each aspect are outlined in the boxes. Additional guidance on what each Department will need to do to meet these principles is outlined befow each box.

4 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Aspect 1 - Community Focus

Through carrying out their general and specific duties and responsibilities and their ability to exert wider influence, Departments should work for and with the Island's community and, where appropriate, exercise leadership within the community by maintaining effective arrangements to:

• communicate and engage with relevant members of the Island's community (including business) to encourage active participation;

• demonstrate integrity in building effective relationships and partnerships with other public agencies and the private/voluntary sectors in delivering services appropriate to local needs;

• demonstrate openness through consulting with key stakeholders including service users;

• develop and articulate a clear and up to date vision and corporate strategy in response to community needs.

To meet these principles, a Department will need to:

• put in place arrangements and channels of communications, where appropriate, to encourage individuals and groups from the community to engage with, contribute to and participate in the work of the Department and have processes in place to ensure that these arrangements continue to work in practice; • make an explicit commitment to openness in all of their dealings, subject only to the need to preserve confidentiality in those specific circumstances where it is proper and appropriate to do so, and by their actions and communications, deliver against that commitment; • comply with the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (see extract below).

Code of Practice on Access to Government Information

"Open government is part of an effective democracy. Citizens must have adequate access to the information and analysis on which government business is based. Ministers and public servants have a duty to explain their policies, decisions, and actions to the public. Governments need, however, to keep some information confidential, and have a duty to protect the proper privacy of those with whom they deal."

The above paragraph, which is fully consistent with the underlying governance principles of openness, integrity, and accountability, is the opening statement of the document "Code o f Practice on Access to Government Information" which was approved and issued by the Council of Ministers with effect from 1 September 1996. Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Aspect 2 - Performance Management

A Department should ensure that agreed policies are implemented and decisions are carried out by maintaining arrangements which:

• demonstrate proper accountability for the Department's performance and effectiveness in the delivery of services and the use of resources; • ensure effectiveness through setting targets and measuring performance;

• are flexible so that they are up to date and can be adapted to accommodate change;

• enable work across Departmental boundaries in pursuit of the principles above.

To meet these principles, Departments will need to:

• publish as part the Government's Corporate Government and Business Planning process an objective and understandable assessment of it's : activities and achievements, and;

- financial position and performance; • ensure that this assessment includes details of the Department's current performance in respect of service delivery and plans to maintain and/or improve service quality; • set performance standards and targets for service delivery that are consistent with :

the Government's corporate aims and objectives, and the Key Performance Indicators established within the Isle of Man Government Plan; • put in place systems for producing management information for performance reporting purposes; • monitor individual and organisational performance and report against agreed standards and targets, and; • establish systems that support collaborative working between Departments in common areas of service delivery. Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Aspect 3 - Structures and Processes

A Department needs to establish effective political and managerial structures and processes to govern decision-making and the exercise of authority within the organisation. A Department should maintain arrangements to:

• define roles and responsibilities of Members and officers to ensure accountability;

• ensure that there is proper scrutiny and review of all aspects of performance and effectiveness; • demonstrate integrity in the decision making process;

• document clearly such structures and processes and to ensure that they are communicated and understood to demonstrate openness; • ensure such structures and processes are flexible so that they can be adapted to. accommodate change and be kept up to date.

To meet these principles, a Department will need to:

• develop and maintain an up to date scheme of delegated or reserved powers, which should include a formal schedule of those matters specifically reserved for the decision of the Department Minister; • put in place arrangements to ensure that Members are properly briefed and assisted for their roles and have access to all such relevant information, advice and resource as is necessary to enable them to carry out their role effectively; • define clearly the roles and responsibilities of all Members (and Committee Members) of the Department; • ensure, where relevant, that Members are remunerated in accordance with The Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1989; • ensure a Chief Officer (Accounting Officer) or equivalent is responsible for all aspects of executive management. He or she Is accountable for the ultimate performance and implementation of policy; • ensure a senior officer (Finance Officer) is made responsible to the Accounting Officer for ensuring that appropriate advice is given on all financial matters, for keeping proper financial records and accounts, and for maintaining an effective system of internal financial control; • ensure the Accounting Officer or a senior officer has clear delegated responsibility for ensuring that agreed procedures are followed and that all applicable statutes and regulations, and other relevant statements of good practice are complied with;

• define clearly the roles and responsibilities of all senior officers, in writing.

7 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Aspect 4 - Risk Management and Internal Control

A Department needs to establish and maintain a systematic strategy, framework and process for managing risk. Together these arrangements should:

• allow for public scrutiny of the Department's risk management strategy, process and framework to demonstrate accountability;

• demonstrate integrity by being based on robust systems; • include mechanisms for monitoring and review;

• display openness by involving all those associated with planning and delivering services;

To meet these principles effectively, a Department will need to:

• develop and maintain sound systems for identifying, evaluating, controlling and monitoring all significant strategic and operational opportunities and risks; • ensure the systems are developed and implemented in consultation with interested parties, and that they are clearly stated and disseminated; • ensure the systems are in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations and other relevant statements of best practice; • ensure that public funds are properly safeguarded, used economically, efficiently and effectively, and in accordance with statutory and other authorities that govern their use;

• ensure that services are delivered by trained and competent people;

• put in place arrangements to allocate resources according to priorities; • put in place effective arrangements for objective review and monitoring of risk management and internal control systems, including internal audit, to ensure effectiveness in practice; • maintain professional and objective standards with their internal auditors, external auditors, and other statutory inspectors;

• provide within its annual Statement of Internal Control, an objective, balanced and understandable statement and assessment of the Department's risk management and internal control mechanisms and their effectiveness in practice;

8 Isle of Man Government Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct

Aspect 5 - Standards of Conduct

The openness, integrity and accountability of individuals within a Department is the cornerstone of effective corporate governance. The reputation of the Department depends on the standards of behaviour of everyone in it, including agents contracted to it.

Therefore the Minister, Members, and senior officers of a Department will need to:

• exercise leadership by conducting themselves as role models for others within the Department to follow;

• ensure compliance with relevant professional and corporate standards of personal behaviour and codes of ethics;

To meet these principles, Departments need to:

• put in place arrangements to ensure : accountability and effectiveness through establishing and monitoring systems for discipline and grievance; that objectivity and impartiality are maintained in all relationships to demonstrate integrity; that agreed complaints procedures are fully complied with. • comply with the formal codes of conduct defining the standards of personal behaviour to which individual Members, officers and agents of the Department should be required to subscribe and put in place arrangements to ensure that they are complied with in practice; • put in place arrangements to ensure that Members and all staff of the Department are not influenced by prejudice, bias, or conflicts of interest in dealing with different interested parties and ensure that these arrangements continue to operate in practice;

• put in place arrangements to ensure that their procedures and operations are designed and monitored in conformity with prescribed Government Policy;

the general framework of financial regulations; - any relevant legislative requirements, and

appropriate ethical standards.

9 DOCUMENT APPROVED BY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS FOR INCLUSION WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT CODE - SEPTEMBER 2006

Part 6: Members of Statutory Boards and other Statutory Bodies

PART A: THE STATUTORY BOARDS

Constitution

6.1 The Statutory Boards are constituted under the Statutory Boards Act 1987 as amended by the Statutory Boards Act 2001.

Corporate Status

6.2 The Statutory Boards are listed in Schedule 1 to the Statutory Boards Act 1987 as follows:

The Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading Tne Financial Supervision Commission The Insurance and Pensions Authority The Isie of Man Post Office The Isle of Man Water Authority The Manx Electricity Authority The Communications Commission

6.3 Every Statutory Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal.

Appointment of Members

6.4 Members are appointed to Statutory Boards by the Council of Ministers subject to Tynwald approval (except for the Financial Supervision Commission and the Insurance Authority whose members are appointed by the Treasury, subject to Tynwaid approval; and Members of The Communications Commission, who are appointed by the Governor in Council, subject to Tynwald approval).

6.5 A Tynwald member (ie a person who, on being appointed a member of the Board, was a member of Tynwald) of a Statutory Board holds office until -

a) the expiry of a period of 2 years and 6 months beginning with the date on which the Keys were last dissolved;

b) the dissolution of the Keys; and

c) if he ceases to be a member of Tynwald or of the Branch of which he was a member at the time of his appointment. 6.6 A non-Tynwald member (¡e a person who on being so appointed was not such a member) of a Statutory Board (with the exception of the Communications Commission) holds office for a period of 5 years from the date of his appointment but he goes out of office if he becomes a member of Tynwald. Members of the Communications Commission other than the Chairman, hold office for a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment Any member of a Statutory Board may be removed from office by a direction of the Council of Ministers or may at any time resign on giving to the Chief Minister notice in writing of his intention to do so.

Payment of Members

6.7 Members of Statutory Boards are eligible to be paid annual sums prescribed by the Treasury under section 2 of the Payment of Members' Expenses Act 1989. They are also entitled to claim, in respect of each meeting of the Board or committee thereof, the travelling allowance prescribed by the Treasury.

Statutory Functions

6.8 The statutory functions of the Statutory Boards are to be found in the various Acts of Tynwaid which constitute the individual Boards and in associated subordinate legislation. The Statutory Boards Act 1987 and the Statutory Boards Act 2001 are also important in relation to the Boards' functions.

Council of Ministers Directions

6.9 Although in practice it is a rarely used power, the Statutory Boards Act 1987 provides that the Council of Ministers may, after consultation with the Board, give to any Board such directions as to the exercise of its functions in relation to any matter which appears to the Council of Ministers to affect the public interest, and the Board shall comply with any such directions.

Exercise of Functions

6.10 A Statutory Board has the following key functions:-

(a) to set the strategic direction of the organisation, within the overall policies and priorities of the Government

(b) to ensure that the organisation is managed with probity and integrity ■

(c) to oversee the delivery of planned results by monitoring performance against objectives, monitoring and managing risks to achieve those objectives and ensuring corrective action is taken when necessary.

(d) to ensure effective financial stewardship through value for money, financial control and financial planning and strategy;

(e) to ensure that the Board operates within the limits of its statutory authority, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds. (f) to ensure that high standards of corporate governance and personal behaviour are maintained in the conduct of the business of the whole organisation

(g) to ensure that there is effective dialogue between the organisation and the community on its plans and performance and that these are responsive to the community's needs

(h) to ensure that effective management arrangements are in place to enable responsibility to be clearly delegated to senior executives for the main programmes of action and for performance against programmes to be monitored and senior executives held to account.

6.11 As a Statutory Board is a body corporate, all the Members share collective corporate responsibility for the decisions of the Board. The Chairman of a Statutory Board is not in the same position as a Minister of a Department in whose name and on whose behalf al! the functions of the Department.are exercised. [The Chairman has no authority to act or take decisions on behalf of the Statutory Board except as provided for in Schedule 2 to the Statutory Boards Act 1987 or in accordance with a delegation approved by the Board.]

The Role of the Chairman

6.12 The Chairman has particular responsibility for providing effective strategic leadership on matters such as:

(a) formulating the Board's strategy for discharging its statutory duties;

(b) encouraging high standards of propriety and promoting the efficient and effective use of staff and other resources throughout the organisation;

(d) representing the views of the Board to Tynwald and the general public; and

(e) providing an assessment of performance of individual Board Members, on request, when they are being considered for re-appointment to the Board or for appointment to the Board of some other public body.

6.13 The Chairman should ensure that the Board meets at regular intervals throughout the year and that the minutes of meetings accurately record the decisions taken, the reasons for those decisions and, where appropriate, the views of individual Board Members.

6.14 Communications between the Board and the Minister of the sponsoring department will normally be through the Chairman except where the Board has agreed that an individual member should act on its behalf. Nevertheless, an individual member has the right of access to Ministers on any matter which he or she believes raises important issues relating to his or her duties as a member of the Board. In such cases the agreement of the rest of the Board should normally be sought. The main point of contact between the body and the sponsor department on day-to-day matters will normally be the Chief Executive or another member of staff who is authorised to act on behalf of the body.

6.15 The Chairman should ensure that all members of the Board, when taking up office, are fully briefed on the terms of their appointment and on their duties, rights and responsibilities. The Chairman and other members of the Board should each have a copy of relevant background material such as its latest Corporate Plan and Annual Reports and Accounts; the Financial Regulations; notes describing the body's organisational structure and statutory basis of operation; and any specific rules and procedures of the Board. The Chairman should encourage new Board members to attend an induction course on the duties of Board members of public bodies, Corporate Governance or some other suitable form of induction

The Rofe of Individual Members

6.16 Board Members share the collective responsibility of the Board for the control and management of its business and are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the organisation

6.17 Members should regard themselves as guardians of the public interest in the Board's activities and in the discharge of its statutory duties. They should adopt a questioning approach to proposals put before the Board and should contribute independent advice and judgment, both to the Board as a whole and as appropriate to the Chairman.

6.18 Within the framework of collective responsibility, Members should take particular interest in seeing that challenging objectives are set and properly monitored. They should also seek to ensure short and medium term plans are considered against alternative strategies to meet the objectives set. It is important for Members to participate in regular reviews of the Board's progress against objectives, monitor and manage the risk to achieving those objectives, and should be aware of the performance of other similar authorities.

6.19 The members should aim to make a full contribution to the work of the Board with particular emphasis on increasing efficiency. They should not be inhibited in taking an interest in areas or aspects of the organisation's activities where they consider they can make a contribution.

Chairman and Chief Executive

6.20 The Chair and Chief Executive share in the leadership role, although there is a clear division of responsibility between the Statutory Board and its Chief Executive (by whatever title he/she is known). The Chairman's role is to lead the governing body, ensuring it makes an effective contribution to the governance of the organisation, and the Chief Executive's is to lead the organisation in implementing strategy and managing the delivery of services. A good working relationship between the two can make a significant contribution to effective governance.

Strategic planning and control

6.21 One of the main tasks of the Board is likely to be oversight of the production of the corporate plan. The process of preparing such a document provides an opportunity for agreeing the policy and resources framework within which the body will discharge its duties; and for determining its key strategic objectives and targets. Such targets should normally cover areas such as the organisation's financial performance; the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations; and the quality of the services it provides. Some public bodies cannot easily measure final outputs. Where this makes it difficult to set suitable performance targets, the Board should aim to agree carefully formulated strategic objectives and milestones.

Delegation

6.22 Responsibility for day-to-day management matters should be delegated to staff, with a clearly understood framework of strategic control. Boards will want to consider internal guidance covering those matters delegated to staff and those reserved for decision by the Board. The latter are likely to include issues of corporate strategy; key strategic objectives and targets; major decisions involving the use of financial and other resources; and personnel issues including key appointments and standards of conduct.

6.23 The Board may decide to delegate, where it has power to do so, responsibility for specified matters to individual members or committees of the Board. Decisions taken by individual members or committees of the board under delegated powers should be recorded in written minutes available to the Board as a whole. .

Financial Regulations

6.24 Statutory Boards must comply with Financial Regulation made from time to time by the Treasury in accordance with section 3 of the Treasury Act 1985. Copies of the Financial Regulations are held in the offices of all the Statutory Boards.

Personnel

6.25 Statutory Boards recruit, train and deal with all aspects of the service of their personnel except that any civil servants who are employed on behalf of any Statutory Board are the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission and the pay and conditions of manual workers employed by the Water Authority are governed by Whitley Council arrangements. Government's Personnel Office is available to provide advice on corporate personnel policies determined by the Council of Ministers and on employee/industrial relations issues generally. Conflicts of Interest

(a) Register of Interests

6.26 Members of Statutory Boards should act impartially and should not be influenced by family, social or business relationships. Board Members should not use their public position to further their private interests.

6.27 The Chairman and other Board Members should declare any personal or business interests which may conflict with their responsibilities as Board Members, and those interests should be declared and recorded in a register.

6.28 The register should list direct or indirect pecuniary interests which members of the public might reasonably think could influence Board members' judgement. Board members are strongly encouraged to register non- pecuniary interests which relate closely to the body's activities, and interests of close family members and persons Jiving in the same household as the Board Member.

6.29 Board Members should notify the Chief Executive if there is any relevant change in their personal situation or connections during the period of appointment, which may result in a conflict of interest. Board Members should in any case update the register of interests as changes occur.

6.30 Registers of interest should be open for inspection by Members of Tynwald, the Council of Ministers, the CEO of the Board, Accounting Officer and other Board members and be available for inspection by the public auditors. Opening the register for public inspection would be a matter for the Board to determine.

(b) Disclosing Interests

6.31 Members of Statutory Boards should not participate in the discussion or determination of matters in which they have a direct pecuniary interest. When an interest is not of a direct pecuniary kind, Members should consider whether participation in the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias. This should be interpreted in the sense that Members might either unwittingly or otherwise unfairly regard with favour or disfavour, the case of a party to the matter under consideration. In considering whether a real danger of bias exists in relation to a particular decision, Members should assess whether they, a dose family member, a person living in the same household as the Board Member, or a firm, business or organisation with which the Board Member is connected are likely to be affected more than the generality of those affected by the decision in question. This would cover, for example, a decision to invite tenders for a contract where a firm with which a member was connected was significantly better placed than others to win it.

6.32 . Where, in accordance with the above, Members do not participate in the discussion or determination of a matter, the interest should be declared and recorded in the minutes and the Member should withdraw from the meeting. This is because the continued presence of someone who had declared an interest might be thought likely to influence the judgement of the other members present.

Acceptance of Gifts, Hospitality and Travel

(a) Gifts

6.33 No Board Member should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation. The same principle applies if gifts, etc., are offered to a member of their family.

6.34 This is primarily a matter which must be left to the good sense of Members. But any Member in doubt or difficulty over this should seek the guidance of the Accounting Officer. The following rules apply:

(a) Tokens, mementos of official occasions, visits or conferences are not to be regarded as gifts unless they exceed an apparent value of £50;

(b) Receipt of gifts should, in all cases, be reported to the Department's Chief Executive;

(d) Gifts of a higher value should be handed over to the Board for disposal, except that -

(i) The recipient may purchase the gift at its cash value (abated by £100);

(ii) If the recipient wishes to reciprocate with, and pay for, a gift of equivalent value, the gift received may be retained;

(iii) If the Board judges that it would be of interest, the gift may be displayed or used in the Board;

(iv) If the disposal of the gift would cause offence or if it might be appropriate for the recipient to use or display the gift on some future occasion as a mark of politeness, then the gift should be retained in the Board for this purpose.

6.35 Gifts given to Board Members in their capacity as Board Members become the property of the Board unless the Board Member wishes to keep the gift (if it . is below the threshold of £100) or to purchase it.

(b) Hospitality

6.36 Travel within the Island and hospitality provided within normal bounds which is infrequent or reciprocated cause no difficulty (e.g. attendance as a guest at formal dinner, reception, etc.) 6.37 Travel and hospitality, including accommodation, provided off the Island cause no difficulty if the Member is fulfilling an engagement at the request of the donor, which is of promotional or other sufficient value to the Island.

6.38 Attendance at conferences, dinners, exhibitions, etc., off-Island will involve costs of travel and, frequently, costs of accommodation which exceed an apparent value of £140. In general, an offer of such travel and accommodation should not be accepted.

6.39 Off-Island travel by Members should normally be arranged, so far as possible, to avoid absences from Board meetings.

6.40 When Members travel off-Island on official Government business their travel expenses should be borne by the Board. When any expenses are not met in this way, Members must ensure that no undue obligation is involved; recognising that accepting offers of free travel can be misinterpreted.

Confidentiality

6.41 It is Government Policy to be as open as possible in providing information publicly about its activities. There are, nevertheless, circumstances in which, for good reasons, confidentiality requires to be observed. These circumstances are set out in Government's Code of Practice on Access to Information under a number of headings, the principal of which are:

• Privacy of the Individual • Third Party's Commercial Confidences • Effective Management and Operation of the Public Service • Law Enforcement and Legal Proceedings, and • Prematurity

6.42 Whilst Members are encouraged to explain and discuss openly the declared policies of the Board, as appropriate, it is important for the effective working of Boards that information in relation to developing policies or activities is not divulged prematurely so as to pre-empt a determination by the Board. Members should, therefore, be sensitive to the interests of the Board in discussing the work of the Board with others and, in the event of doubt, to discuss with the Chairman whether outside discussion would be premature.

Interaction with the Media

6.43 If a Member is approached by the media for comment on any matter or issue, the Board mèmber should politely decline to make comment at that time and seek the advice of the Chief Executive or Chairman.

6.44 Upon advice, the Member may make specific comment to the media as deemed appropriate based on the advice tendered by the Chairman or Chief Executive. 6.45 The Member may however make appropriate and informed comment, if prior delegated authority has been received from the Chairman, or in the absence of the Chairman the Vice-Chairman. (This may be necessary in circumstances when a Member may be Chairman of a sub-committee of the Board).

Indemnity

6.46 The Statutory Boards Act 1987 includes provision that the Board "may apply any money in its hands for the purpose of indemnifying itself against any costs or damages which it may incur in or in consequence of the exercise of its functions". This is achieved through the purchase of indemnity insurance which, for all Departments, Boards and Offices (except the Manx Electricity Authority, the Post Office and the Water Authority) is provided by the Governments Officials indemnity policy arranged by Treasury.

6.47 This insurance covers claims from third parties which arise from accidental errors or omissions. The cover extends to employees, political members and lay members of Departments, Boards and Offices subject to various conditions including that no indemnity will be provided to persons in respect of their own fraud, dishonesty or criminal act. The cover relates only to action taken by the Member as part of the Board's "business" and does not cover any other actions.

6.48 The Directors and Officers insurance policies taken out by the MEA, Post Office and Water Authority provide the insured with all loss which they are legally liable to pay for a claim against them for a wrongful act. Again, these policies provide certain exclusions including acts of any insured which are found by any court to be fraudulent or dishonest or any personal profit or advantage gained by an insured to which such insured was not legally entitled.

6.49. Both types of policies provide for payment of damages and claimants costs and expenses for the financial loss arising as a result of a negligent act or accidental error or accidental omission. In addition the insurer will pay all costs and expenses incurred, with its written consent, in defending any claim which may be the subject of indemnity.

6.50 The Statutory Boards Act is to be amended to give Members of Statutory Boards the same level of indemnity as that currently provided to officers, whereby:

i) a Board Member will not be personally liable in respect of any act done by him in the performance or purported performance of his functions if he acted reasonably and in the honest belief that his duty required or empowered him to do the relevant act; ii) • where an action has been brought against a Member of a Board in respect of an act done by him in the performance or purported performance of his functions, and the circumstances are such that he is not legally entitled to require the Board to indemnify him, the Board may nevertheless indemnify him against the whole or any part of any damages or costs which he may have been ordered to pay or may have incurred, if the Board is satisfied that he honestly believed that the act complained of was within the scope of his functions and his duty required or empowered him to do it.

General Code of Conduct and Behaviour

6.51 As a member of the Board, a Member is expected at ail times to exercise the highest standards of behaviour in line with the seven principles of public life as set out in annex 2.1 of the Government Code. Members should not enter into any activity or discussion with any third party that may have the potential of bringing the Board into disrepute or compromising the reputation of the Board or the Isle of Man Government.

6.52 Any breach of the provisions of this Code of Conduct may result in removal from office of the Member at the direction of the Council of Ministers, under Section 3 (3) of the Statutory Boards Act 1987.

Application

6.53 The principles and requirements set out above represent minimum standards which must be adhered to by Board members. Individual Boards have the freedom however to introduce more specific standards to meet any specific needs of the boards concerned. CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE Oik yn Ard-scrudeyr

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man. IMI 3PN Direct Une (01624) 685200 Fax No. (01624) 685710 email: ■ [email protected]

A fl Correspondence to be addressed to CHIEF SECRETARY THE CHIEF SECRETARY M. Williams, CPFA

Your reference: Our reference: MW/LW 100.20

16 February 2007

To Chief Executives and Chief Officers: Departments, Statutory Board and Offices

Dear Chief Officers

Re: Applicability of test of Perceived Bias to Administrative Dedsion-Making

I write to advise you of the final Judgment delivered by His Honour Deemster Kerruish on 12 February 2007, in relation to the challenge by the Manx Museum and National Trust to the decision of the DoLGE Minister in relation to PA No 05/00930 for the erection of a two-storey extension at Cregville, Cregneash

The Deemster has made important findings within the Judgment in relation to the applicability of the test of perceived bias to administrative decision-making which should be borne in mind by ali Government Departments, Statutory Boards and Offices.

First, the Deemster having given due consideration to the more detailed arguments and authorities cited in this case by Counsel has concluded that there is no distinction in Manx law between judicial, or quasi-judicial decisions, and administrative decisions and thus the test of perceived or apparent bias has been held to be applicable in this case to the Minister's derision-making process. This does appear to strongly reinforce the principles set out in the Pitting Judgment.

The Deemster further reinforced that the Ministerial Code emphasises that a Minister should take particular care to avoid possible conflicts of interest where ministerial decisions may have an impact on a Minister's constituency and to be mindful that problems may particularly arise over views expressed on planning applications. The Deemster pointed out that the Ministerial Code provides guidance In relation to whether or not the Minister has a conflict of interest or whether the Minister ought to delegate a particular function or duty. Whilst that decision-making process must rest with the Minister it must be taken after careful :onsideration of all relevant circumstances, including in the consideration whether to iefegate a particular function to be carried out by the relevant Minister. However, the >eemster did conclude that whilst exercising care and restraint, a Minister in a compact Jrisdiction such as ours, must also be appropriately robust, and not overly sensitive. Therefore, the correct test which will be applied by the Courts relevant to perceived bias in relation to administrative decisions is set out in the Judgment of the House of Lords in Lawai (Appellant) v Northern Spirit Limited[2003] UKHL 35 and, therefore, the test of apparent bias Acts asks "whether the ascertained relevant circumstances would lead a fair- minded and informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased

Therefore, it is now fair to say that the new formulation in Manx law expresses in clear and simple language a test which Is In harmony with the objective test which the Strasbourg Court applies when it is considering whether the circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in a decision making process. It Is also fair to say that the position in Manx law in relation to bias and administrative decision-making and the imposition of the real possibility test mirrors the European Court of Human Rights, Article 6 requirement for Ha/? independent and impartial tribunal*

My Office is currently reviewing the Government Code to Incorporate further guidance on this issue and, subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers, a revised Code will be issued later this year. In the meantime, however, I believe It Is important that you are made aware of the Deemster's findings in respect of perceived bias, and that you ensure this is made known to ail relevant personnel.

If you wish to have a copy of the full judgement please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Mary Williams Chief Secretary The test which should be applied in relation to a potential case of perceived bias is:

"whether the ascertained reievant circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the decision-maker was biased/'

However, decisions taken in a compact jurisdiction such as ours, whilst being appropriately robust, should not be overly sensitive.

What should I do if I think I have a conflict of interest?

You should make your line manager aware of any potential issue in which you are involved where you could have an actual, or perceived, conflict of interest.

If you are unsure if your circumstances constitute a possible conflict, you should still inform your line manager, in order that it can be addressed if necessary.

You may find it helpful to set your concerns down in writing and to ask your line manager for a meeting to discuss the matter. Your line manager may wish to seek further advice from the Chief Secretary's Office or the Personnel Office.

What happens if I do not declare a known conflict, which isthen discovered later?

If you have a conflict of interest which you do not declare, you are compromising your own integrity and that of the organisation. If the conflict comes to light later, the matter may need to be investigated in accordance with the disciplinary process.

Areas where a conflict could arise

Conflicts of interest could arise in a variety of ways and it is for the officer to be alert to his own situation. It would not be possible to list all the ways in which a conflict of interest might arise however, there are a number of main issues, which could lead to real, or apparent, conflicts of interest. These are:

• Relevant financial or other interests outside of the Department, Board or Office for which you work; • Relationships with parties/organisations which could lead to split loyalties, real or perceived; • Knowledge of emerging Government Policy which could give unfair personal advantage to individuals or groups with allied business interests - for example, access to privileged information eg trade secrets or commercially confidential information; • Perception of rewards in return for favours; • Family relationships; • Area of residence; • Membership of some societies or organisations.

In other words, no one should use, or give the appearance of using, their public position to further the private interests of themselves, their families, or organisations

Chief .Secretary's Office May 2007 in which they may have an interest. This is an area of particular importance* as it is of considerable concern to the public and could receive media or other attention.

The above are examples only, so you should consider carefully your own circumstances to gauge whether or not a real, or perceived, conflict might exist.

Chief Secretary's Office May 2007 MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2007-08

APPENDIX 3

GOUGH & CO Your ref C/HKMan/plb Our ref ALG/jeb117 g ADVOCATES^*NOTARIES- P.UBL’lG

5th Floor Anglo International House Bank Hill, North Quay Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 4QE 1 5 AUG 2007 Telephone +44 (0)1624 623919 Facsimile +44 (0)1624 620230 15th August 2007 OFFICE OF THfi ^ O-T.TYNWUJ) www.goughco.com

Phil Lo Bao Secretary to the Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee House of Keys Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW

Dear Mr. Lo Bao

HOUSE OF KEYS MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

I have now had an opportunity of considering the draft First Report of the Management and Members' Standards Committee regarding the events concerning Mr. Speaker that took place at a meeting of Manx National Heritage ("MNH") trustees on 10th May 2007.

General

Of course it goes without saying that the functions of any public body have to be conducted and seen to be conducted without bias. A failure to recognise and exclude bias can result in the decisions of the ' public body in question being nullified. The Courts have in the past quashed decisions even where the body would have made the decision without the participation of the biased member. Consequently it is in the interests of all public bodies to ensure that the proper principles of corporate governance apply and these principles must have influenced the adoption by Tynwald in October 2005 of the Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct.

The Facts

There is a discrepancy within the report as to the exact circumstances leading to the Speaker withdrawing from the meeting which took place on 10th May 2007. The question is, was,his potential bias drawn to his attention by the Chairman and did the Chairman invite him to leave the meeting or did the Chairman rule that he had potential or actual bias and exclude him from the meeting? I am afraid the Report does not indicate a definitive finding on this point and in my view it is crucial that it should do so.

The Report (paragraph 1.5, chronology of 10th May 2007, chronology of 23rd May 2007 and chronology of 12th June 2007) seems to accept that the Chairman "asked" the Speaker to withdraw. This conflicts with the Motion in the Keys on 26th June 2007 by the Honourable Member of Rushen which indicates that the Chairman demanded that the Speaker should leave the meeting and which Motion now forms the basis of the Committee's remit.

I think it is necessary for the Committee to reach a factual finding on this point. Having said that, I do not think the Committee will find much difficulty in reaching such a finding and as guidance it might refer to the Speaker's letter to the Chairman of the MNH of 14th May 2007 - paragraph 1, wherein he clearly

P a rtn e rs

Alan I. Cough t Paul Korrubll

t"% * TAGIL aw GOUGH & CO 351 /SD'y.QCAT ES-»1NOTA-RI.E5 > f? OBItï G

states "you sought to exclude me from the meeting". In his response to the Speaker of 22nd May 2007 the Chairman does not challenge that allegation and indeed goes further to refer to his "ruling" on the matter on no less than three occasions. Further, at numbered paragraph 1 of page 2 of his letter the Chairman clearly states that he considers himself to be "the Arbiter of whether there might be a perceived conflict of interest".

In these circumstances it should be reasonable for the Committee to find as a fact that, however politely or impolitely it was put, the Chairman ruled that the Speaker be excluded from the meeting. If that factual basis is established then the report will fall into line with the wording of the Motion presented to the Keys.

If the Committee has a difficulty on this point then its remit will become somewhat more complicated. There can be little doubt that the Chairman has a role to play in ensuring that the business of MNH is conducted properly and that its decisions cannot be overturned if challenged in the Courts. It would be perfectly proper, in my view, for the Chairman to point out to any trustee or committee member that there was a perception of bias and to invite that trustee or member to consider his or her position, and even to put the matter quite robustly if circumstances required. Having said that, such a course of action falls far short of the Chairman making a ruling to exclude any particular member.

The Possible Libel

I can see that the correspondence sent by the Chairman to the Trustees on 23rd May 2007 would give the Speaker cause for concern, in particular as it quite clearly misrepresents the facts. A glaring error in that correspondence is the contention that the Speaker supported a Laxey constituent’s request to purchase trust land for private development. Your Committee's Report clearly and correctly concludes that this was not the case. Having said that, I wonder whether the Committee really wishes or needs to get into any matters other than those which occurred on 10th May 2007. Mr. Moore’s letter to the trustees is helpful in that it demonstrates that he may have made his "ruling" on an incorrect understanding of the factual position. Other than that I do not think the subsequent correspondence is all that relevant.

Bias

The Judgment of Deemster Kerruish referred to at paragraph 4 of the conclusion correctly establishes the criteria regarding a perceived bias and undoubtedly any House of Lords decision is highly persuasive in the Isle of Man. Using that criteria and indeed the accepted Corporate Governance Pinciples adopted in October 2005 (clauses 6.31 and 6.32) it can hardly be seriously contested that it is for the member in question to consider and determine whether there is a likelihood or real danger of bias arising from his conflicting Interests, if there are any. It seems to me that the Chairman has no convincing case whatsoever to support his view that he is the Arbiter of questions of bias and can "rule” on whether a particular member is allowed to participate in discussions and/or in the decision making process. I think this would apply to any member, whether it be a statutory appointment or otherwise.

Conclusion

In all the circumstances, I think the Report reaches the correct legal conclusions for the correct reasons. Nevertheless, the fundamental flaw is the failure to categorically make a finding of fact early in the report regarding the actual exclusion of the Speaker from the meeting, rather than the Chairman simply asking him to consider his position. As I have said, I think this can be remedied quite easily and the Report would then be based on a solid finding of fact. I assume there is no recording of the meeting in question such that the Committee could ascertain the true position other than from subsequent correspondence. If there is such a recording perhaps someone should listen to it. GOUGH & CO mm A¡D V'O'G ATE S ^ ’N;0!TA'R.I,ES-;P lì' B ITI C

If I can be of any further help please let me know and if you require any guidance on the drafting of appropriate wording for the finding of fact I have suggested then I will be happy to do that also.

Yours sincerely

v \_A a Alan L. Gough [email protected]

MANAGEMENT AND MEMBERS' STANDARDS COMMITTEE

FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2006-07

APPENDIX 4

12th September 2007

Our ref: C/HKMan/plb

Mr M Moore Chairman Manx National Heritage Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3LY

Dear Mr Moore

House of Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee

I am writing to you at the request of the above Committee in connection with the Committee's investigation of the matter relating to Mr Speaker and the MNH Trust meeting on 10th May 2007.

The Committee has, today, received a letter from Mr Speaker informing it that certain papers have come into his possession as a trustee of MNH which may be relevant to the Committee's work since they concern advice given to yourself about the conduct of the meeting in question. Mr Speaker has informed the Committee that he is unable to disclose these papers since they were given on a confidential basis.

I am therefore writing to request that you make these papers available to the Committee at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lo Bao Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee Presenters of the Award-winning StoryofçÿW ann

Manx National Heritage, Douglas, Isle of Man 1MI 3LY. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin, Dnoltsh, Eltan Vann in I MI SLY. Manx Telephone: +44 (0)1624 648000 Fax: +44(0)1624 648001 National Website: w\vw.gov.im/mnh E-mail: [email protected] Heritage D ircclor/ Stiureyder: Stephen Harrison m.b.e.. b.A., f.s.a., k.m.a., F.S.A.(Scot.). M.t.Mgt. Eiraght Ashoonagh Vann in

Our Kef: GRMM/sr Your Ref: C/HKMan/plb

17 September 2007

Mr P Lo Bao Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and Members’ Standards Committee House of Keys Legislative Buildings Douglas IMI 3PW

Dear Mr Lo Bao

• Re: House of Keys Standards Committee

Thank you for your letter of 12th September enquiring about correspondence mentioned to you by Mr Speaker.

I assume the correspondence you are referring to comprises the letters and notes of confidential advice to the Manx National Heritage Trustees (MNH) provided through the Attorney General’s Chambers. As Mr Speaker has rightly indicated, this advice was provided to the Trustees of MNH by permission of the Attorney General on a confidential basis. As you will also be aware, there is a rule of procedure within Government that the Attorney General’s advice is not copied to third parties. I am not therefore in a position to act as you request. I suggest that the Committee refers this matter to the Attorney General directly.

I understand that the Committse is considering the Motion tabled by Mr Gawne at the House of Keys sitting of 26th June 2007. As this Motion specifically refers to myself as Chairman of MNH, I am very surprised that I have not been contacted by the Committee in this matter. Could you please confirm whether the Committee will be requesting a statement or. evidence from me on this mattér. Could you also please confirm the membership and Chairmanship of the Committee considering this issue.

Yours sincerely, Ï p i p p w v F ' n 1 8 SFP 2307

G R M Moore OFF! Or: OF 7!?.H C hairm an CLERIC GV7 TYi ■ vïA LD

WafilMjn tWlPfNKMN /' Minnim "\ Crprtsart of Tcviw q ® Altari',m ! OfTlw Ymt_\ f MUSEUM^ CIVIC i B JsmMAVMD! S4atavd jh* ANPWUIRr IniLTpier -j OF THE « TRUST A WARP * YEAR ^ Virgin Holiday« [Iriuin $>xcAh'.ncA Award Aroha&uriitf- A*»rri

Manx National Heritage is the Registered Business Name o i the Manx Museum & National Trust which operates under its own Act ofTymvaid and is Registered Charity No. 603 in the Isle of Man. Legislative Buildings Oikyn Slattyssagh Douglas Doolish Isle of Man Ellan Vannin IM I 3PW IM I 3 P W British Isles Ny EUanyn Goaldagh

Telephone: 01624 686303 Chellvane: 01624 686303 Fax: 01624 685504 Deputy Clerk of Tynwald Facs: 01624 685504 Lhiass Cleragh Tinvaal Jonathan King

Our ref: C/HKManSt/01/02/elm

Your ref: GRMM/sr

26th September 2007

Mr G R M Moore Chairman Manx National Heritage Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3LY

Dear Mr Moore

Thank you for your letter of 17th September addressed to Phil Lo Bao as Acting Secretary of the Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee. Mr Lo Bao is currently on annual leave so in his absence I have discussed your letter with members of the Committee.

I can confirm that Mr Lo Bao's letter of 12th September related to the motion tabled by Mr Gawne at the sitting of the House of Keys on 26th June. The motion was not reached and Mr Speaker accordingly referred the matter himself to the Management and Members' Standards Committee. Mr Speaker is normally Chairman of that Committee but for present purposes he has withdrawn. The Committee is being chaired by Mr Anderson and the other members are Mrs Craine and Mr Crookall.

The Committee has decided not to hear evidence in public on this matter but to proceed on the basis of written evidence alone. If you wish to submit any written evidence to the Committee, the Committee will be glad to consider it. The same opportunity is being given to the other parties concerned.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan King

E-mail: [email protected] Post Lectraanagh: [email protected]:im DICKINSON CRUICKSHANK ADVOCATES AND NOTARIES Your Ref: C/HKManSt/01/02/clm

Our Ref: M0159.071/PM/jec www.dc.im

33 Athol Street ■^7 Kl U Bxo Douglas Mt^King Isle of Man IMI 1 LB Deputy Clerk of Tynwald T 01624 647647 Legislative Buildings F 01624 620992 DOUGLAS E [email protected] IM1 3PW

10 October 2007 RECEIVED 1 1 OCT 2007

Dear Mr King OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYKVVALD Keys Management and Members Standards Committee - Motion oF~TOr üawné" 1i l~l 11Ï ■■■ MHK tabled at the sitting of the House of Keys on 26 June 2007

We are writing to-advise you that we have been consulted by Mr G R M Moore in his capacity as Chairman of Manx National Heritage in relation to the above matter and Mr Moore has asked us to respond to your letter dated 26 September 2007.

Mr Moore has instructed us to refer you to a copy of his letter dated 22 May 2007 addressed to Mr Speaker. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Mr Moore is of the view that this letter clearly sets out his position in relation to the matter which has been referred to the Committee.

On behalf of Mr Moore, we should be grateful to receive copies of all other written evidence submitted to the Committee in advance of its consideration.

Yours faithfully

DICKINSON CRUICKSHANK Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Direct dial: +44 1624 647620 Direct fax: +44 1624 626381

Enc

Partners: P D Morris, R A Long, S T H Cain. N B A Veraidt, M S Humphrey. J M W Rimmer, C D B Cope. S J Harding. F P M Resident Ramsey Partners: R A E Jelski. S C Watson. Consultants: C R M Moore, S Rc A Full list of qualified lawyers is available from the above -iddi ess or from www

Also «it: Churrti Ro.irl Pori Erin Tel: 01624 835225 F,ix: 01624 235543. W.iter Street. R.unsey. let: 01624 812107 Fax: 01624 S14275. 107-110 Beet Strix-t. London RC4A 2AD. Tel 0207 ')V 16th October 2007

Our ref: C/HKMan/plb Your ref: MO 159.071/PM/jec

Mr P Morris Dickenson Cruickshank 33 Athol Street Douglas IM 1 1LB

Dear Mr Morris

House of Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee

With reference to your letter of 10th October 2007 requesting copies of the written evidence supplied to the Committee, I am instructed by the Committee to send to you the attached three documents. These are the only papers that Mr Moore will not have seen. All other evidence relating to the Committee's investigations are either letters or other documents sent by Mr Moore or sent to Mr Moore, or public documents such as Codes of Practice.

The Committee request that if he intends to make any comment on these documents that he should do so within seven days of receipt of this letter.

Once a report has been finalised, I will ensure that a copy is sent to you for Mr Moore as soon as the document becomes public.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lo Bao Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and Members7 Standards Committee enc M emorandum To; Mr Speaker From: Secretary of the House of Keys & Counsel to the Speaker Manx Museum and National Trust

A question ot interpretation has arisen in connection with the document issued by the Council of Ministers in September 2006, which has not been laid before or approved by Tynwald, but which MNH are seeking to argue has the effect of preventing any Member of the Keys from taking part in the discussion of business which touches upon his or her constituency.

The matter has presently arisen in the context of a request by one of your constituents to MNH to buy land front the Trust; on which you picked up a suggestion that a way of dealing with the matter might be by way of a lease instead. As I see itv the position is as follows.

Paragraph 6.32 of the document provides for the case where Members of a board should not participate in discussion or determination of a matter, but dedare an interest and withdraw from the meeting. That action is called for "in accordance with the above", i.e. when paragraph 6.31 applies - and not otherwise. As I read paragraph 6.31, it does not impose upon the Chairman of the meeting any duties at all, but it does dearly require that "Members should consider whether partidpation In the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias." (My emphasis) The duty is stated to be that of the Member, and not that of the Chairman.

Guidance is then given as to when the Member might be expected "consider whether partidpation in the discussion or determination of a matter would suggest a real danger of bias". The instances given for consideration are that the Member, someone in the Member's family or household, or belonging to a firm, business or organisation with which the board Member is connected, is likely to be affected. If the person whose interest is being said to give rise to a conflict is none of these, I do not see how it can be argued that paragraph 6.31 applies at all. The instances dted are not examples of a broader principle: they constitute a list of what it is considered may give rise to a perception of conflict. If none of them is applicable, it would then follow that paragraph 6.32, about withdrawing from the meeting etc., is not in point.

The significance of this is that it is (a) not for the Chairman to do any more than to ask the Member to "consider" the matter, and (b) there is no prima facie case for saying that, in the drcumstances, this guidance required a withdrawal from the meeting.

MCK 11* June 2007

TGTPL P . 01 O ur Ref: SCR/jw

24 May 2007

Mr W J H Corlett Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers 3* Floor St Mary's Court Hill Street Douglas

Dear Mr Attorney

I would be grateful for your assistance in dealing with a problem that has arisen in my capacity as ex-officio Trustee of Manx National Heritage.

I believe this matter needs to be resolved and it would be of great assistance to me if you were to meet with the Counsel to the Speaker, Mr Comwell-Kelly to identify the way forward.

I would be most grateful for your agreement to doing this.

Yours sincerely

Steve Rod an

Enc. ?gisfative Buildings Oikyn Slattyssagh ouglas Doolish le of Man Ellati Vannin 41 3PW M l 3PW itish Isles Ny Ellanyn Goaldagh ilephone: 01624 685510 Chellvane: 01624 6855 ix: 01624 685504 Clerk of Tynwald Facs: 01624 6855 Cleragh Tinvaal Malachy Cornwell-Kelly

Mr W.J.H. Corlett QC H M Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers Douglas IM1 3PP PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

7* June 2007

Dear Mr Attorney,

E-mail: [email protected] Post Lectrnanagh: [email protected]. The significance of this is that, in the case we had in mind, it was if my analysis is correct (a) not for the Chairman to do any more than to ask the Member to "consider'' the matter, and (b) there is no prima fa d e case for saying that, in the circumstances, this guidance required a withdrawal from the meeting.

I believe that if a correct analysis of these two paragraphs in the Council of Ministers' document can be established, the rest will follow.

Yours sincerely,

Malachy Comwell-Kelly DICKINSON CRUICKSHANK ADVOCATES AND NOTARIES Your Ref: C/HKMan/plb

Our Ref: M0159.071/PM/jec www.dc.im

33 Athol Street Douglas Mr P Lo Bao Isle o f M an IM I 1 LB

Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and T 01624 647647 Members' Standard Committee F 01624 620992 House of Keys E [email protected] Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS IM1 3PW

18 October 2007

Dear Mr Lo Bao

House of Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee

Thank you for your letter of 16 October with enclosures. I will endeavour to revert to you as soon as possible although I should mention that Mr Moore is currently on vacation returning only on Wednesday 24 October which is outside the 7 day period referred to in your letter. I therefore request a short extension of time to, say, Friday 26 October to enable us to take instructions and refer further comments on behalf of Mr Moore, if any.

PAUL D MORRIS DICKINSON CRUICKSHANK Email: [email protected] or [email protected] 1 9 OCT 2057 Direct dial: +44 1624 647620 Direct fax: +44 1624 626381

IVuln.’iV t> lì M onk, k A l.fiivi, s r H M m , N B A Vcuirrli, M S Hum phry, I M W (•'imnvr. C D ß (.“.»i*;. S I H . . i- I ! M ijl JV'klL'Mt P.. in 7 P.ii if io* f\ A H It-lîki. S C W.ilOfi. luiv.i ili.inl^: C R M Mmu-.- •> Roi»

A II il! llM <»l (lltüllïkV! IrtwytïS IS dV.Vl.iiyi; th 'tit i l v JVr- ,,ric lt-;v . il III it I .WAVÀ il 19“’ October 2007

Our ref: C/HKMan/pIb Your ref: M0159.071/PM/jec

Mr P Morris Dickenson Cruickshank 33 Athol Street Douglas IM 1 1LB

Dear Mr Morris

House of Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee

Thank you for your letter of 18th October 2007. I can confirm that the deadline for submissions by Mr Moore will be extended until Friday 26th October, but I would ask that any comments he wishes to make are received by 2.30pm that day.

Yours sincerely

Phil Lo Bao Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and Members' Standards Committee < £ > DICKINSON CRUICKSHANK ADVOCATES AND NOTARIES Your Ref: C/HKMan/plb

Our Ref: M0159.Q71/PM/jec W W W .d C .llT i

33 Aïhol Street Douglas Mr P Lo Bao isle of Man IMHLB Acting Secretary to the Keys Management and t 01624 64764? Members' Standard Committee f 01624 620992 House Of Keys E [email protected] Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS IM1 3PW

26 October 2007 LETTER BY FAX AND POST 685504 Dear Mr Lo Bao

House of Keys Management and Members’ Standards Committee

Thank you for your letter dated 19 October. I have now had the opportunity of discussing the additional documentation with Mr Moore and I am instructed that Mr Moore has no further comments to make in relation to this additional material.

Yours sincerely

PAUL D MORRIS DICKINSON CRUICKSjJAffK Email: [email protected] or jenniö[email protected] Direct dial: +44 1624 647620 Direct fax +44 1624 626381

Parrneri: P D Worm, fi A Long, S T H G tii’i, N B A Vafarai, M S HuiYif)(viy, J M W RimiTiet', C D B Cop*!, i' J H.vding, > 9 Mi Resident Ramsey Parcners: R a E ieisk., i c watwn. Consdcarri: c K M Maote, 5 to A full list, of quAliii«! lavgyecs is available from the aBO/C address or from «w *

AJto «: Cnurai Ho.in, fTXT tnn. Td: Q162* 835225 fee 01624 825503.ucter Street. Ramsoy. 16«: 01624 6)2107 Fax: 01624 SM275. )07-110 Fleet Street. LapOon £C4A 2A£ 7«( QZCi? ?>6

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IMI 3PVV British Isles October 2007 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail [email protected]. im Price: £10.00 Classic DfS> 6 nr? for 31-6C sheets ?oe yys¿. bindoi’iat ic. con