.1 (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, .

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF

DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 8th November, 1988 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruish, O.B.E.)(); Hon. A.R. Bell and Brig. N.A. Butler, C. B. E. (Ramsey); Mr. R.E. Quine (); Hon. J.D.Q. Cannan (Michacl); Mrs. H. Hannan (Peel); Mr. W.A. Gilbey (Gienfaba); Mr. D. North (): Messrs. P. Karran, R.C. Leventhorpe and L.R. Cretney (); Hon. B. May and Mrs. J. Delaney (); Messrs. A.C. Duggan and D.C. Cretney (); Hon. D.F.K. Delaney and Mr. P.W. Kermode (): Mr. J.C. Cain and Hon. G.V.H. Kneale (Douglas West); Hon. J.A. Brown (Castletown); Hon. D.J. Gelling ( and ); Hon. M.R. Walker, Dr. J.R. Orme and Mr. J. Corrin (); with Prof. T. St.J. N. Bates, Secretary of the House.

The Chaplain took the prayers.

WELCOME TO FRENCH VISITORS

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is a pleasure to welcome to our Gallery this morning three young visitors from France who are here studying Manx affairs, and we hope their visit will prove a happy one.

Members: Hear, hear.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE - ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT COMMITTEE OF - APPROVED

The Speaker: First on the Agenda, hon. members, I call upon the hon. member for , Mr. Gilbey.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, amongst the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on Ballacarmel Cottages, it was on page 69 of that report, recommendation number 7 .2, we suggested that appropriate action be taken , to constitute a Standing Order Committee of the Council and the Keys, a joint '

Welcome to French Visitors Standing Orders Committee - Establishment of a Joint Committee of Tynwald -Approved K72 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

committee in l\CCordance with Standing Order 119 of Tynwald to draw u appropriate guidelines for members where there is a conflict between private ana public interests. Now this recommendation was passed unanimously in another place. In view of that, I do not think there is any need for me to make a detailed speech about it; I am sure that everyone will understand the purpose of the recommendation. However, I am advised by the learned Secretary and the Assistant Clerk of Tynwald that if one just left the recommendation as having been approved by another place, nothing would happen, and therefore it is necessary to move, and hopefully have passed, the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper, and it is solely for that.purpose that this resolution is on the Order Paper in order that the action approved in principle in another place can be put into effect. I beg to move.

Brig. Butler: Mr. Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: Does any hon. member wish to speak to the resolution? If not, I will put the question to the House. Those in favour of the resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Glenfaba, item number 1 on the Agenda, please say aye, against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

A BILL CONCERNING DRIVING AFTER THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS - LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Item 2, the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Karran.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker. I seek to introduce a Bill to make new provisions in respect of persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol or drugs. After the defeat of the Road Traffic Bill, many hon. members in this hon. House said they would have preferred to have seen the Bill in separate Bills. Now I have separated these Bills so I hope that hon. members will support leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I must say I shall certainly vote against these proposals to introduce all these Bills for a very simple reason: I admire my hon. friend's tenacity in going on and on like a dog after a bone. However, one must remember that all ·the proposals covered by these Bills were defeated in this hon. House within the current calendar year - indeed earlier this summer - and it seems to me that is is wrong that things keep coming back when we have a great deal of other business to attend to. This will delay more important matters. I think there is the further point that to devise these relatively simple things into no less than six different Bills is taking up an unnecessary amount of time of this hon. House because they will each have to have a first reading, a second reading a clauses and a third reading.

The Speaker: I take it, sir, you are speaking to item number 2 on the Agenda?

Mr. Gilbey: I am indeed, speaking to that one and any similiar ones that might come in the future.

A Bill Concerning Driving After the Consumption of Alcohol or Drugs - Leave to Introduce Granted HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K73

fhe Speaker: Well, I would rule you out of order if you are speaking to the Aher proposals.

Mr. Gilbey: Well, I will speak to the first one, Mr. Speaker, but I think my remarks are clear to hon. members of this House, and for the reasons that I have said, I shall certainly vote against this leave to introduce, although I admire the hon. member for his tenacity.

Mr. Delaney: I hope the House will support the hon. member's move, not that I will be supporting the majority of what is down here, Mr. Speaker, but the member has the right; that is what he was sent here for, that is what we were all sent here for, and I hope that members will give the member the opportunity to lay down those points he wishes to raise in this hon. House into legislation, given that opportunity, and then we will all see what parts we can support and what parts we cannot support.

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, given the considerable amount of effort on a number of persons who are going to be involved in this process, could the proposer suggest if he has any new evidence to present to this Court in comparison with the evidence that he presented to support his arguments on the last occasion?

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, the first speaker placed great store on the fact of the importance of legislation that is coming before this hon. Court. Whereas I will be supporting the member to introduce this particular Bill and subsequent Bills, could you clarify to this Court, Mr. Speaker - you yourself give the authority for these Bills to come into this hon. Court, or is there other directions that ask you to put these Bills at a certain time? And could you not give this Court the assurance that the more important legislation will not be out-done by this?

The Speaker: The hon. member is posing a question as to which might be the most important legislation coming before the House. It could be a great division of opinion as to what is important and what is not. The hon. member, I am sure. is presenting this measure regards his proposals as important. Government measures equally might be regarded as important. I think at the time of consideration the Chair will hear representations from any member as to whether a particular measure should be given priority. The hon. member for Peel.

Mrs. Hannan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the introduction of this Bill because I do not believe any one of us would like to see people driving after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, and therefore I think it is important that this Bill is allowed to go on because of the important nature of this legislation.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle, really, mentioned by the hon. member Mr. Delaney, when he said it is a members right to introduce, and I think this House should give the hon. member leave to introduce the legislation. So be it. A number of these measures, certainly as far as I know at this stage, I am not prepared to go along with, and I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member, when he is summing up or introducing perhaps the other

A Bill Concerning Driving After the Consumption of Alcohol or Drugs - Leave to Introduce Granted K74 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 resolution in hi~ name, could give us just a little idea of how he intends to chan, the law from what is the existing. I think it would be useful for us and for the publi, through the Press.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I would say that when we talk about priorities in this House, to my good friend in East Douglas, that if your child has been killed by a drunk driver, you would give priority to a breathalyser Bill. I would say that as far as the new evidence is concerned in this House, there is evidence being compiled that is new. The thing is that the overall weight of the evidence proves that these things help to prevent deaths on our roads and are an answer to saving unnecessary injuries. I thank my good friend, the member for Glenfaba, for his usual support on these things, and I would say to the Chief Minister that this Bill, hon. members, is intended to bring in the infamous breathalyser. I know that it is not a very popular subject, Mr. Speaker, and, as I said the last time that I introduced the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, the whole aim of this Bill and others is to try and prevent and reduce if not prevent, reduce - the number of accidents and serious injuries on our roads, and I believe that this House will show a clear mandate that it does not support drinking and driving and will support the Breathalyser Bill when it comes for second and third readings. I beg leave to introduce, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Those in favour of the resolution please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Messrs. Cannan, Quine, North, Walker, Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney, Gelling and the Speaker -- 22

Against: Mr. Gilbey and Dr. Orme- 2

The Speaker: The resolution carries, hon. members, 22 votes cast in favour and two votes against.

A BILL CONCERNING THE SUPPLY OF UNROADWORTHY VEHICLES­ LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Item 3, the hon. member for Onchan.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to make new provisions relating to the supply of unroadworthy vehicles and defective car parts. I beg to move, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will rise to support the member in what he is trying to do here. Through the Consumer Affairs, Mr. Speaker, we are already dealing with this matter, we are looking into this problem and we will be advising

A Bill Concerning the Supply of Unroadworthy Vehicles­ Leave to Introduce Granted

------HOUSE QF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K75

.! public. Whether or not I support the contents of the Bill when it comes forth Jepends on which form he brings it forward in, but certainly the principle I would agree with. ·

Mr. Corrin: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting one. We do have a Consumer Affairs Board and we have the chairman sitting in this House. I wonder why it is not dealt with with all the full forces and the backing of that board.

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply?

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, this has been an anomaly within the law' since the passing of the 1985- Road Traffic Act. This has been something which I have been concerned about. I have many constituents who have complained to me about the fact that there is little butts to take civil action in order to get recompense for being sold a defective vehicle at the present time. As far as the priorities of the Consumer Affairs is concerned, I cannot answer that; that is a matter for the Consumer Affairs, but this Bill, if it is passed, will reinstate what was in being from the 6th June 1939 to the 31st December 1985, which was over 45 years, and I believe, out of all the Bills, this is the one which even my good friend, the Ipember for Glenfaba, would have to support.

The Speaker: I will put the resolution that leave be given to introduce this measure. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

A BILL CONCERNING THE WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HELMETS AND SEAT BELTS- LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Item 4, the hon. member for Onchan.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the wearing of protective helmets and seat belts, and I believe that this is one Bill which I feel passionate about and I hope that this hon. House will support the leave to introduce.

Mr. Delaney: I would like to question hon. member for his reply: we are all obviously aware of the seat belt legislation.' Could the member indicate in what areas - b~cause we know motor bikes, for instance, are already covered -are the helmets do you wish to see worn?

Mr. D.C. Cretney: I would like to ask the hon. member a question also: is it intended within his Bill to do anything in relation to the law affecting the carrying of young children in motor vehicles?

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I think we know well what helmets he is talking about. He is saying that people on horseback (Laughter) wear helmets, and I may point out that Her Majesty The Queen does not do so; it is rather strange that everyone

A Bill Concerning the Wearing of Protective Helmets and Seat Belts - Leave to Introduce Granted

------K76 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 else should be fQrced to by someone who has probably - (Interruption) She is t. ! -Someone who has never probably ridden a horse in his life .• always wear such a helmet, but in fact the compulsion, I think, it is utterly and entirely wrong. Again I shall certainly vote against the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Kermode: We shall all have to wear helmets shortly!

Mr. Karran: As the hon. member for Glenfaba has already said, the reason that protective helmets are to be worn is on public highways. I believe that if horse riders want to use the public highway they should have a British kitemark helmet on them. We live in days, especially as a member of the D.H.S.S., where we are always under increased pressure as far as trying to keep waiting lists down and if we can help prevent serious injury in order to get down to the more day-to-day complaints that hospitals have to deal with, then I believe that this will be well worth it. I would say to my hon. friend from South Douglas, there is a question mark over whether to bring in the legislation concerning children at the moment but I am seeking legal advice as far as whether it is practical to do it without the United Kingdom having it already in force at the present time. But I will give it serious consideration as far as children are concerned, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move.

The Speaker: Those in favour of leave being given to introduce this measure please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

A BILL CONCERNING DRIVING LICENCE APPLICATIONS - LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Item 5, the hon. member for Onchan.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to enable applicants for a driving licence to be required to take a course of instruction. I feel, like the hon. member, the Chief Minister, asked before, I feel that I should point out what I am basically after in this piece of legislation is a Bill to enable that drivers have to take prescribed driving course as well as a driving test, as a qualification for a driving licence. This is intended to apply to motorcycle licences. What I would like to see, in this Bill, is that before anybody is allowed on the road on a motorcycle they would have to take a course of instruction, something on the lines of the United Kingdom scheme of the star rider. We have a Manx motorcycle training scheme on the Island and I would be looking towards the department to bring in the orders at a later date in order that everybody who takes out a provisional licence to ride a bike has had some sort of training before going on the roads, because I believe everybody in this hon. Court would agree that the amount of traffic that has been on these roads since I was learning to ride a bike has quadrupled. I beg leave to introduce this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D.C. Cretney: Just one question, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member indicate that his only intention would be for those who have to ride motorcycles to take an extra course of instruction? Is that what he is saying? If that is the case,

A Bill Concerning Driving Licence Applications - Leave to Introduce Granted

------HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K77

;ly part of the problem that is caused on our Island's roads is through car drivers .10 do not take adequate care or do not have proper regard for people riding aotorcycles.

Mr. Delaney: Just to clarify one issue on this, Mr. Speaker, which I have been asked about since it was made through the media that this was coming forward, is the hon. member saying, when he talks about this prescribed test as well as the prescribed training course, that is the cost on the person who wishes to gain a licence and therefore the days of people who can learn with their parents or with their friends are going to be finished?

Mr. Walker: I would just like to know a little bit more about the hon. member's thinking, really. If a certain standard of driving is required before you can hold a full driving licence and that standard is in fact approved by a driving test examiner, does it really matter how the skills to pass that test are achieved? I would like to know what the hon. member's thinking is. I think I understand the point he makes about a course of instruction being required for a motorcycle rider before he takes out or at the same time as taking out the provisional licence. I am not certain whether or not the hon. member is requiring a course of instruction before a motor vehicle test is taken.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, this Bill purely, really, affects the motorcyclists. At the present time you can go in, get a provisional licence. As I said in this House not so long ago, when I purchased my motorbike the chap brought it up to my house, ran up the road, ran down the road holding on to me, ran up the road, collapsed into the playing fields and said, 'Well, you are on your own, mate', (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: I hope he put the wheels on it! (Laughter)

Mr. Karran: What I am after Mr. Speaker, is that no potential provisional licence holder goes on the road on a motorcycle without having some sort of ground work. That is what I am after in this Bill. I believe that no one in this House would say there has been little change in the past 50 years as far as the courses to past tests are concerned, but nobody could argue in this House that the amount of traffic and speed that is capable on the roads now is a lot faster and the whole aim of this Bill is to make sure that anybody who wants to take out a motorcycle on the road has had some sort of tuition before he is allowed to set loose on the roads. I think it is imperative, not just for the person that is riding the motorcycle, but also for other people. As I know myself, I only owned my bike four days before I decided that I did not like cars! So I do hope that this hon. House will support this move, because it might sound funny but I think that if people do think about it, it is only logic and it is only fair and yet another safeguard which I believe is needed, especially in these days where we see the state of the roads in the Island has increased in traffic to an extent that one has never seen it before. I beg leave to introduce this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Those in favour of leave being given to introduce this measure,

A Bill Concerning Driving Licence Applications - Leave to Introduce Granted K78 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

A BILL CONCERNING NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS­ LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Item 6, again the hon. member for Onchan.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to enable restrictions to be imposed on certain newly qualified drivers. This is one of the few Bills I would say, in the hon. House, where you could argue that there is a restriction on some people for a period. But, however, I believe in the interests and in the long-term interests of other road users it is well worth the restriction. It compels a newly qualified motorist or rider to display an R-plate, giving them the status recognised as being restricted to a speed of a maximum of 45 m ph for the first year after passing their test. I have heard of and have details of other countries that have this scheme and I believe this will be a step in the right direction as far as the prevention of unnecessary injuries. I beg to move.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, supporting the member's right to introduce, and I will support him there, but the member will just clarify a little more, because I am not quite clear. We are talking now about an 'R' and in reading the media on these particular Bills - and maybe we have not got the whole story yet - but we are talking about people now with an 'R' on to warn other drivers that these people have just gained their right, their civil right, to drive a car on the roads, which they are paying for through their road tax. Now we are going to say to them that they are going to restrict the speed at which they can travel with this 'R' on the back. Has the hon. member given any thought to how we are going to police all this, given in mind unless other bills go through, which we are going to come to, on speed restiction, the police are going to have go around looking for 'R's now in the dark.

Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Corrin: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the member is abusing the right of leave to introduce -

Mr. Gilbey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Corrin: That is what he is doing, and he is bringing this House into disrepute.

Mr. D.C. Cretney: Rubbish!

Mr. Corrin: When he is asked to make an explanation of the reasons for introduction, he is making it up as he is going along; he is not presenting any evidence whatsoever for his reasons for introducing that we should in due course proceed and support any measure - no evidence whatsoever. Even in his plea for his

A Bill Concerning Newly Qualified Drivers - Leave to Introduce Granted

------HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K79

iuction on driving licences, he has gone on about motorbikes here, but it does t say that on the paper and obviously the community at large can be most oncerned about this. He really is abusing the privilege and making a nonsense of this House, and when there are other measures in the pipeline, protecting the environment and so on, that legislative time is being held up and we have got to waste time on this nonsense. If these items are that important - and, let us face it, one or two of what he is trying to introduce are important, I recognise that- . if that is the case then I think they should be a Government-backed Bill and we could have all of the information that goes along with the proposal.

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, I cannot support that it is nonsense because it has already worked successfully in parts of Ireland; this R-plate has been well policed ior some time and, in view of the many young people who have been killed in road accidents over the last few years, I cannot see how it is a nonsense. If it helps to save a life then I am going to support it.

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, as a point of fact, I did ask on the last occasion that this matter was brought forward about any evidence a member could propose for Northern Ireland and he was somewhat abashed to not propose any information; in fact, the information which I obtained myself shows no evidence that the R-scheme saves lives whatsoever.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am brought to my feet, really, from the comments from the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Corrin, and just to say really that I cannot support the views he stated with regards to abusing the House. Every member of this House, if this House is to mean anything, has to have the right (Members: Hear, hear.) to introduce a Bill as a private member. That does not mean this hon. House giving that support, and I am certainly clear in giving my support to the introduction, there are Bills here, that, when they come forward, I will not even supporting second reading, and that is the time when this House will sort out whether or not it wishes to have these Bills progressed as law and members should not be the position where they feel apprehensive of introducing any legislation; that is their right. Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important that the hon. member should make clear - and I think it is regrettable that he has not made it clear - whether or not in all these stages he has held discussions with the departments of Government, or department of Government responsible, to try and progress this legislation through the departmental system, through the Government system before, he came here as a· private member to introduce a Bill. Now if the member has done that and he can clarify that for us, which I think he should have done at every stage, then fine, we know why he has felt he should bring it here as a private member. But I think it should go out clearly that the right of an individual member to introduce a private member's Bill is sacrosanct to the House and that is something we as members should always protect.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the last hon. speaker to say everyone has a right to introduce a Bill about anything. If they had that right, there would be no point in having this process of leave to introduce. It is quite obvious that those that introduced the system of leave to introduce had it as a way of filtering

A Bill Concerning Newly Qualified Drivers - Leave to Introduce Granted K80 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

Bills that were.desirable and not desirable for coming to this House. Therefo although I fully accept any hon. member has a right to ask leave to introduce Bill, the very fact that he has to ask that right shows that the House has an equa: right to not grant the leave, and I do not see why, in certain circumstances, they should not refuse to introduce that leave at all, because that is the very purpose of people having to ask for the leave and I cannot accept that people have an absolute right as a matter of principle to introduce Bills and that in fact asking for leave is just a formality which we should rubber stamp on every occasion, and I think the time has now come, certainly with one member introducing so many bills, to say enough is enough, particularly as each one seems to me to have less and less justification.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague referred to the restricted plates situation in Northern Ireland, and, just following on the same theme, can I ask the hon. member, has he any evidence at all that newly qualified drivers in the Isle of Man are the cause of more accidents than any other category of driver?

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, to the last speaker, the position is that we are at last getting a suitable scheme as far as the data of road traffic accidents are concerned for the first time. I would like to go back to the member for Rushen, and he outbursts about abusing the situation. This hon. member, when you are talking about wasting time, went and saw the Chief Minister to see about the re-sale of electricity and, through his intervention, saved you another bill, I would tell you. This hon. member, where it was possible, used the Statute Law Revision Bill to bring in the law so that youngsters who were abusing themselves with alcohol - the police will have the power. This hon. n;ember, where it is possible, uses all other ways and whatever channels, just like the population control which I remember that the hon. member supported, where I asked Executive Government. There are times when individual members are forced into a position where they have to do things as individual members. Now if he does not feel strong enough or does not have the inclination in order to do things as a Private Member's Bill, I do feel that this hon. House must protect the ones who have got the inclination in order to do the work that is involved. The easy answer is just to grunt and groan and do nothing. Well this hon. member will not do that, Mr. Corrin, it might be your policy. As far as he says about the statistics I would have to become a heavyweight...

Mr. Kermode: Wrestler?

Mr. Karran: No, no! (Laughter) One is quite sufficient in this House! (Laughter) - a weightlifter in order to bring in all of the skltistics that are in. I know that my good friend from Rushen, who was on about the Northern Irish R-plate system - I will bring in the statistics and I have got some papers on the statistics as far as that is concerned. I am glad that the member for East Rushen supports - (Laughter)

A Member: We have not got 24 seats yet!

A Bill Concerning Newly Qualified Drivers - Leave to Introduce Granted HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K81

.r. Karran: -from East Douglas. I am glad that the member for East Douglas )ports the principle of allowing it to go forward, because I do believe that it is .::cessary. Like I said not so long ago in this hon. House, when I passed my test J. had an A35; I would be lucky to do 0 to 60 going over the Marine Drive. Nowadays you are putting youngsters behind the wheel of a car that can do 0 to 70 - and that is the norm, you know - within a matter of four or five seconds. These are potential death traps if they have not got the experience and the knowledge of the road and I feel that this piece of legislation will help to save lives and unnecessary injuries and my good friend from Castletown should be supporting any moves that will help keep down unnecessary accidents so that we can keep down the waiting lists in hospitals.

Mr. Brown: Ban cars!

Mr. Karran: As far as he is concerned getting consultation with different Government departments, I was the chairman of the Road Safety Committee when I was first elected to this hon. House; I have the full support of the police, I have the full support, as far as I am aware, of the Road Safety Officer - I had it then; I do not know whether there has been a change of management, whether there is any change of policy, but I know that as far as the Department of Ports, Properties and Harbours is concerned, there are ones who are fiercely against it within the department - admittedly there is a new member of it; I do not know what his viewpoint is. When I talked to the minister he is not over-enamoured with any of my proposals. (Laughter) So I have been forced into this position of bringing these private member's Bills because I believe that these Bills will save unnecessary injuries, unnecessary deaths and if it saves one it is worth it, and I hope that this hon. House will support the leave to introduce this Bill.

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, could I just cla~ify something before we carry on?

The Speaker: The hon. member has replied and do not think it would be in order for you to clarify any point at this stage. Those in favour of leave being given to introduce this measure please say aye; against, no. A divison was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Messrs. Cannan, Quine, North, Walker, Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Delaney, Kermode, Cain, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Mr. Bell, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney, Gelling and the Speaker - 22

Against: Mr. Gilbey and Or. Orme - 2

The Speaker: The resolution carries, hon. members, 22 votes being cast in favour and two votes against.

A Bill Concerning Newly Qualified Drivers - Leave to Introduce Granted K82 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

A BILL TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT - LEAVE TO INTRODUCE GRANTED

The Speaker: Finally, hon. member, item 7.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to provide for a maximum speed limit on the Island throughout the Island's roads. As has already been pointed out, there is a question mark over the Department of Ports, Properties .and Harbours bringing in - (Laughter)

Mr. Kermode: Highways, Ports and Properties!

Mr. Karran: Whatever it is!- bringing in a maximum speed limit. The position is, I will withdraw my Bill when they come up with their order, because, as I say, as far as the seat belt legislation is concerned, they have the power vested in them at the present time to bring in the compulsory wearing of seat belts and have chosen not to do so, so if they come up with a 70 mph speed limit, then I shall withdraw my Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, I should clarify here that, as the hon. member has said, the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties has the power to designate by order a maximum limit, but I have the assurance of the Minister of Highways, Ports and Properties that under no circumstances would our department make such an order until this matter has been discussed by Executive Council.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, up until now the hon. member who was proposing this lot was doing very well, but now, when he tells me he wants me to support a resolution which is a matter for a department which he might withdraw at a future date if they come up with what he says, Mr. Speaker, we are getting a little bit confused now. We are wasting the time of the House because that is not the way, Mr. Speaker, because, as I understand it, quite clearly there is a difference in the level of speed at which are going to be proposed by the department and which the hon. member has made public and I have in my own view, and other members have, so in actual fact either the member wants to put that Bill in front of this House or he does not want to put that Bill in front of this House. That is where we start getting astray, Mr. Speaker, in my honest opinion. The member has to be clear what he is doing in relation to this legislation. This is the place of legislation; the department is the place for orders and, as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member now is confused in relation as to what is going on in this hon. House. I cannot support on what he said, this piece of legislation be moved further in this House.

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, in view of my colleague's comments I am rather surprised at those comments because, when you consider that it is a department's job to make the decisions and then go to Executive Council with their decision and not for Executive Council to tell a department what they should do, I really feel quite ... I wish he had discussed it with me before we came to this hon. Court, but in relation to this Bill, yes, a department does have the powers to bring in an order A Bill to Provide a Maximum Speed Limit - Leave to Introduce Granted HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K83 ior an all-Island speed limit and the Road Safety Committee, I can assure this hon. Court, supports the introduction of a 60 mph speed limit in the Isle of Man. Now we are only a subsidiary committee of the Highways, Ports and Properties, and if the minister and my colleague decide not to support that, that is up to them, and may I also make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, in the past, as the mover of the Bill suggested that the Road Safety Committee were in favour of these moves, that I made that quite clear at the introduction of his last Bill that the Road Safety were totally in favour of what he was trying to do. I, as an individual member, have that right not to do so as a member of Highways, Ports and Properties but my Road Safety Committee were unanimous in support of what he was trying to do and I must make that quite clear.

Mr. Walker: May I just say, Mr. Speaker, that there are times when I am very much in favour of private member's Bills and this is one of them!

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member proposing these Bills how he feels now, having all but achieved the leave to introduce six private member's Bills, about his ideas as to the time and resources and allocation thereof of this House in the future. He has relied very much upon a traditional privilege of a member to bring in private member's Bills and in that respect I have to say I very largely agree with my colleague, Mr. Corrin, in the fact that I do feel this is all but an abuse; perhaps 'abuse' is slightly too strong a word but it is all but an abuse. It is very simple to work out that in this House there are 15 non-Executive Council members, and if they were to each bring forward six private member's Bills, that would be 90 bills, and since we manage about 13 per year that would certainly clog up the system and therefore it cannot be considered to be a practical use of this House's time to allow such a process in such profusion. Now he has also ... and other members seem to reinforce this view- a very, in my opinion, casual use of the draftsman's time. This House possesses two Legal draftsmen, men of unusual abilities whose time is very, very much in demand. Now the difference between rejecting a Bill at this stage, rejecting the leave to introduce, and rejecting it the first reading stage is that a Bill has got to be drafted and a considerable amount of work in draftsmen's time and in fact administration time has got to be vested in this Bill. Furthermore, we have got to put work at a subsequent stage into the first reading, if only that. Now, I do not see that all of that effort is justified based on the presentation that the member has put forward today. He has not suggested he has any new evidence to present in comparison with the last time he brought most of these measures before us. He does not seem to have even a clear idea of the Bills' features. When questioned, it seems to me that the Bill's features are very much up in the air at the moment, and he seems to have even less idea as to how to effect or enforce the ideas that he has, and I put it to the member that this is a very, very poor use of the time and resources of this House and its support.

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply sir?

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in one of the previous Bills as far as wasting time is concerned, I take great exception to being told that I waste

A Bill to Provide a Maximum Speed Limit - Leave to Introduce Granted K84 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 this House's ti~e. This hon. member wrote to the Speaker not so long ago, asking that there would be enough time allocated so that I could bring private member's Bills because I was asking for two days a week instead of sitting one day a week as far as the House is concerned, and I have had assurances that there was plenty of time in order that individual members can have the right to introduce Bills that they feel they want. What concerns me when I hear around this House today is that we have seen so much power given up with the ministerial government system and here we are, giving up our rights as parliamentarians to introduce Bills that we want, and it concerns me when I hear members within this House saying that they should all have to have Government approval. Well, I can assure you that if my good friends over in Rush en want a one-party state, that is one of the best ways of getting a one-party state, when you have a situation where parliament is not free from the Government, from the Executive, and the parliament must always remain independent and be able to flex its muscles from time to time to show what it wants. I am firstly a member for Onchan; I am a member of the Department of Health and Social Security secondly. I would say, as far as wasting the time of this Bill as my good friend from East Douglas was saying, these Bills have had a lot of thought put into them; I have thought long and hard of whether to continue with them and I would say that anybody who says that I am trying to waste time is quite wrong, because if they look at my record, wherever possible I try to get things done in other ways because bringing private member's Bills inflicts a lot of hard work on the member that does it. I would say, as far as this Bill is concerned and Mr. Delaney saying whether you want to proceed with it -

Mr. Delaney: Just procedure, that is all.

Mr. Karran: I would say that if, as far as I was concerned, the Department of Ports, Harbours and Properties will proceed with their maximum speed limit I would support that. I feel that it would be wrong of me to withdraw it and then the momentum from the department for the doing something would have gone once again. This is why I originally left the seat belts for so long because I was hoping that we could get that through ..

The Speaker: Hon. members, those in favour of leave being given to introduce this measure please say aye; against, no. A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Messrs. Cannan, Quine, Walker, Corrin, Brown, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, D.C. Cretney, Cain, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Karran, Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney and the Speaker - 17

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, North, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Delaney, Kermode, Bell and Mr. Gelling - 7

The Speaker: With seventeen votes being cast in favour and seven votes against, the resolution carries.

A Bill to Provide a Maximum Speed Limit - Leave to Introduce Granted HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K85

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL- THIRD READING APPROVED

The Speaker: We turn now, hon. members, to item 8 on the Agenda, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and I call upon the hon. member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, to take the third reading.

Mr. Leventhorpe: Mr. Speaker, in moving the third reading of this Bill I feel it would be advisable for me to run through what we have done in this Bill because it bears very little resemblance at all to the original as printed and not a great deal to the revised version after it had been to a committee of this hon. House. The Bill covers the abolition of censorship of saucy postcards, and if I may digress, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your good offices to ensure that these are procured for the Manx Museum and perhaps become a regular exhibit there either in whole or in part; I feel it would be quite a draw. Going on, Mr. Speaker, the Bill covered regulations covering architecture and professional conduct. It covered bringing 18-year-olds to be allowed to vote in the year in which they reach that age; regulations on resale of electricity to tenants without an Electricity Board meter; provided for written contracts of employment to be issued to anyone who has not already got one wJ.thin the expiry of two months from the date of this Bill passing into law; some exemptions under the Control of Employment Act; provisions to prohibit the carrying or possession of alcohol by people under 18; the repeal of a number of Acts in whole or in part; regulations to allow for the employment of a meat inspector instead of an environmental health officer at the abattoir; extension of parking regulations to various departments; new treatment for borrowing and other petitions at Tynwald; some minor emendations in the Agricultural Wages Act and the provision for expenses to be paid for the return of the body of anyone dying in the U.K. when in the care of the Department of Health and Social Services. The thing it does not deal with, Mr. Speaker, was the Sunday opening hours for which the committee is still in fact in being. It has also, surprisingly, not dealt with any of the last six items on this Agenda, but we will no doubt come to them at another stage! Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the third reading.

Mr. Walker: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker, and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the third reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill. As I have already said, I have been, I believe criticised unjustly as far as wasting the time of this hon. House is concerned over my private member's Bills but this Bill is an example where uncontroversial items that I have supported have been able to be put in, such as the ability of the police to be able to take alcohol off persons under age in public places and I would like to say that I thank the Chief Minister for his intervention in order to save this House's time with a Bill to do with the resale of electricity, which saves both the hon. Houses's time and myself from having to do it through a private member's Bill. This Bill is a useful parliamentary device and wherever it is possible for things that are uncontroversial or contentious, one could always use this Bill and that is one reason why I have not put amendments to my colleagues, Statute Law Revision Bill, because I believe it would be quite wrong to do so because these items that I have are controversial.

Statute Law Revision Bill - Third Reading Approved K86 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

Mr. D.C. Cretney: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the unfortunate parts about the Statute Revision Bill 1987 was ... and that in itself indicates how long it has taken now because of the controversial items that were included in the original Statute Law Revision Bill, and I think that care must be taken in the future as to when we are filtering or putting in pieces into the Statute Law Revision Bills of the future that controversial items are not tried to be slipped in through the back door as I know the hon. member, Mr. Gilbey, was one person who did make representation on this, but I do think it is something we should be very careful about in the future because there are a number of items in the Statute Law Revision Bill which should have been in law now and were held up because of the controversial items that were tried to be slipped in.

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member would consider recommending that perhaps there might be cut-off point for amendments to this Bill, because it seems to me it has become a sort of dustbin for amendments into which people throw all and sundry, and that has led to a progress which must be a record in my experience, in that the first reading occurred on the 26th May, 1987 and we are now dealing with the third reading on the 8th November, 1988. I gather from the original briefing that we all received from the Attorney-General that these were originally necessary measures of law reform that were a matter that should have passed easily and without controversy, and I would like to identify myself with the words of the previous speaker - surely there must be some other mechanism identified to allow the speedy passage of a yearly, I assume, Statute Law Revision Bill rather more than allow it to become a dustbin for endless amendments.

Mr. Walker: May I just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the point has been well made about the use of the Statute Law Revision Bill and it should be for minor amendments, repeals and that sort of thing. I would take issue with the hon. members who have suggested that it was a matter of trying to slip things in by the back door. I certainly do not see it that way at all. It would seem as a convenient vehicle - and I would readily admit that- to try and make changes in the law. Mr. Speaker, I think the point is well made and of course the answer is in the hands of hon. members in this House. If they do not think that a matter in the Statute Law Revision Bill is one that ought to be there it is very easy to vote that particular clause out. The Speaker: Would you care to reply, sir?

Mr. Leventhorpe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take my colleague's points that some of his amendments might have been controversial. On that subject of controversial I think it is extremely difficult to say what is and what is not; there are certain things that members of this hon. House might feel very strongly about and will make a passionate defence or attack on, no matter how simple they may appear at the first stage, but perhaps that is something for the Standing Orders Committee rather than for me to judge on. The same applies, Mr. Speaker, I think, to the cut-off point - what or what not should be included and at what date, but that is again not a matter which I feel confident to advise on. I will now move the third reading.

Statute Law Revision Bill - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K87

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that the Statute Law Revision Bill be now read a third time. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Bill read a third time.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (N0.2) BILL - THIRD READING DEBATE COMMENCED

The Speaker: We turn next to the Representation of the People (No.2) Bill and I call upon the hon. member for Michael to move the third reading.

Mr. Cannan: Mr. Speaker, sir, hon. members, I have pleasure in moving the third reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which has been debated and discussed at length both within this hon. House and indeed outside, and to date it has received support. I will not go in, at this third reading stage, to the arguments for and against; they have been, as I have already said, well debated but it does create a fundamental democratic principle, the provision of 'one man, one vote, one seat', and create those 24 constituencies and there is provision for an independent boundary committee and it also returns to the traditional method of voting in House of Keys elections. I want to emphasise at this point it is only in the House of Keys elections that we have the single transferable vote. The local authority elections and all other elections, indeed elections in this hon. House, are done on X and there be no request from the local authorities to go to the S. T.V., and indeed there has been no public request at all for to remain on S.T.V. The Bill has wide public support and I ask this hon. House today to support the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Leventhorpe: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, I have opposed this Bill all the way through and I still oppose it; in fact I totally oppose now what we have before us. What started out as an exercise which the hon. member who has just spoken moved to get rid of, what he saw as the S.T.V., which was an unfair voting system, in his words, has now become a major shift in the future of the Island's politics. Mr. Speaker, it was stated on television last night that only one in four people in America will elect the U.S. President today. The most powerful man in the world will be elected by a quarter of its population, and they also have a first-past-the-post; that tells something. Mr. Speaker, the S.T. V. system, I think - it is a sad day if this Bill gets its third reading but I also think that the situation has been made worse by the creation of 24 single seats, something which hon. members themselves seem to have got carried away on in what they were trying to achieve, which was to get rid of the S.T.V. I get a feeling that hon. members have convinced themselves this is the way to go forward, this is going to get us Utopia, this is going to be the greatest thing that will happen to the Isle of Man. Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I do not believe that and I shall have no hesitation at all in voting against the third reading of this Bill because I cannot support it in its form which has now been amended, and I urge hon. members of this House, before they vote, to seriously consider the effects that this Bill will have, if it is passed, on the Isle of Man and I hope they will recognise that even at this late stage

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K88 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 and vote against this Bill. If, however, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is successful here today at its third reading, then I would urge the upper House who are not elected by the people to do their job with regards to this legislation very, very seriously. They could look very carefully at this without the pressures of the voters. If they are to mean anything, then they are there to look at legislation at a second stage without having the pressures that this hon. House has. They can step back from the position that the members of this hon. House are in and look at what is best for the Isle of Man and best for the voters of the Isle of Man and not necessarily what is best for the House as maybe is seen by certain members. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is going to have an effect which I think is going to be quite dramatic. It has to be remembered also in any consideration that the voting of Clause · l and Clause 2, which were really the main guts of the Bill - that a substantial number of hon. members of this hon. House voted against those two clauses, not just one or two, a substantial number, and in that number some very long standing hon. members of this House. Mr. Speaker, finally I would just say that I shall, as I say, vote against the third reading and just make it absolutely clear that even if this Bill is successful in another place I certainly shall not sign it.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must again briefly touch on the history of this Bill. During the last general election there was widespread dissatisfaction with the S.T.V. or single transferable vote system of voting. As a result, a number of hon. members decided -indeed, pledged, themselves - to do away with that system and return to the simple first-past-the-post system. As a result of this the hon. member for Michael moved a Bill for that purpose and that purpose alone, and that was supported by a number of members including myself. Unfortunately, in my view, this Bill was referred to a committee and that committee presented a report suggesting not only a return to first-past-the-post voting but also the introduction at the same time of 24 one-member seats. In addition the committee proposed the boundaries for those 24 seats. As hon. members will remember, in the clauses stages of the Bill it was amended so that, rather than the 24 one-member seats proposed in the original Bill, a boundary commission should be set up to propose what these 24 seats should be and how their boundaries should lie. The rest of the Bill, dealing with the replacement of S. T.V. by first-past-the-post voting was approved. A Accordingly, today, we have before us the third reading of a Bill which contains W two very, very major constitutional proposals. The first is the setting up of a boundary commission with a view to providing 24 single-member seats. The second is that the system of S.T.V. voting should be replaced by first-past-the-post. Now, like very many hon. members, Mr. Speaker, I have always regarded the S.T.V. system as objectionable for many reasons. Firstly, I have no doubt that the majority of the public are against it and, unlike some hon. members, I feel that unless there are overriding reasons for not doing so, our duty is to legislate and govern in accordance with the wishes of the public and not contrary to those wishes. The public's main objection is that with S.T.V. they have to put a mark - admittedly, in some cases, only showing a very reduced level of support or preference - against someone who they do not wish to support in any circumstances whatever. Then there are the complications of the S. T.V. system which, in my view, are totally

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K89 unnecessary. Against all these objections, there are no advantages in the S. T.V. system at all, because I believe that even its most avid supporters have admitted that the results in the last general election under S.T.V. were exactly the same as they would have been in a straight-past-the-post-system. (A Member: Nonsense!) For this very reason S.T. V. made no difference to the outcome and is unlikely to do so on many occasions. Therefore, for this reason in particular - because I do not actually think it will make a great deal of difference although I object to it - I regard S.T.V. as infinitely less objectionable than a further boundary revision. Now, of course Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have to revise our boundaries to take account of changes in population and other factors. However, in most countries this is only done every seven or ten years. We now have a proposal before us to revise our boundaries only three or four years after this was last done. Such a short time for another boundary review is totally unnecessary and totally undesirable. It will cause complete uncertainty for many months if not many years. All our constituencies and sheadings will be thrown into the melting pot, for once the bandwaggon of redistribution has started who can say how far it will go? Judging by past commissions, we may well have a recommendation not for 24 one-member seats but 12 two-member seats. Will it end up with town and country constituencies instead of being separate, being joined together? Who can tell? Above all, the proposals themselves are subject to the approval of Tynwald and, knowing the record of Tynwald and the Keys on boundary revisions, who can be sure that they will be approved at all even after all the work has been spent that will be involved? As I have said, this would involve work and expense on behalf of the commission, time taken up by ourselves and others and perhaps, most important of all, attention being directed to constitutional reform once more instead of being directed for the things that really matter, and I am certain that most of the people in this Island are heartily tired of continual boundary changes and constitutiortal reforms. They want us to get on with the things that really matter to them and affect them in their everyday lives. Now I cannot accept the arguments of some hon. members that those who object to 24 single seats, if they are in a single seat themselves, are being outrageously unfair to those who have the misfortune, as they put it, of sharing a seat at the moment - far from it; I believe, and a recent public meeting showed that the electors of Glenfaba believe that it is preferable to have multi-member seats than single-member seats, so I would say to those who claim that I may be stopping them having a single seat that they have already stopped me being part of a two­ member seat, so there really is no argument on these grounds. Whichever way you look at it, you can complain that someone is not getting what they want. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I shall join those who are supporters of maintaining the S. T.V. system in voting against the third reading of this Bill, not because I believe in S. T.V. - I do not believe in S. T.V. - but because I believe the maintenance of S. T.V. is the lesser of two evils, the worst being yet another boundary revision with all the expense, uncertainty and problems that that will cause, and I hope that I shall be joined by others who deplore such another boundary review after such a short space of time. If I am so joined by them, I am certain that, together with those who genuinely support S. T.V. - and I respect their reasons though I cannot agree with them - I believe we should be able to throw out this Bill and then, hopefully, most important of all, we shall have a period until the next election without more attempts to amend our constitution or amend the boundaries of our

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K90 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 constituencies.

Mr. Bell: Mr. Speaker, there are obviously very strong feelings on both sides of this argument for reform both of the voting system and the constituency boundaries. As far as l am concerned, I have always been in favour of single-seat contituencies and I remain convinced that that is the way forward now. I can see ' the argument that has been put forward particularly by the Chief Minister that being I a member of a multi-seat constituency does give you perhaps a more balanced view of things; you have to consider both town and country rather than just your own particular area. That may be the case. Nevertheless, I think the success or failure of a single-seat arrangement does not depend on whether it straddles town and country or anything else; it depends at the end of the day on the quality of the member that is elected. 1t is very easy to say that the introduction of single-seat constituencies will lead to an increase in parochialism. I cannot accept that as a matter of principle; it can happen, perhaps, where we have weak candidates being elected, but by and large, I believe, if there is a good standard of member re-elected then I do not believe it will introduce parochialism into the House any more than there is existing at the moment. So, in that respect, Mr. Speaker, I support the recommendations of the Bill. What I am very unhappy about, though and which will probably lead me to vote against this third reading, is the decision which has been taken over S.T.V. Now I have to admit I have changed my mind on this, that to begin with I was not happy with the idea of S.T. V. However, on reflection and considering the comments which have been made to me during the last election and subsequently, I am absolutely convinced that the majority of people who have expressed a view on S. T.V. are not against S.T.V. on principle; they were simply against their inability to plump for one person. If that had been allowed to them at the time I think we would have heard very little in the way of complaints about that system, and I am very disappointed, in fact, that the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Castletown last week did not in fact go ahead, because I think if that had been accepted we would have had a system that would have been acceptable to everyone. We hear, Mr. Speaker, in the argument that the majority of the public are against S.T.V. I do not accept that but there is, Mr. Speaker, a majority amongst our people who are very strong in their desire to preserve the manxness of the House of Keys and the manxness of Tynwald and policies to further the interests of the Manx people, and I would ask hon. members to reflect, perhaps, at this time that there are rapid changes taking place in the nature of our population, that there is rapid immigration - many thousands of people have come in in the last two or three years; this rate of immigration, though it may well slow down, will still continue, and this is leading to a complete change in outlook amongst our population. We have - and I mean it in no way disrespectful - a large and growing number of people in our community whose attitude to life is alien to the traditional Manx way of things. What we are going to achieve, Mr. Speaker, by returning to the first­ past-the-post system is, certainly in the great majority of cases, the election of minority candidates in single-seat constituencies, and I believe, with the way the changing in population is growing that those minority candidates are increasingly going to reflect the views of the new residents coming into the Isle of Man and not the Manx people themselves and, as Mr. Brown has quite rightly said, I think what

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K91

we are embarking on today in approving this legislation is going to lead to fundamental changes over these next few years in the policies ahd attitudes put forward by the elected members of Government. I do not believe the changes will be for the benefit of the Manx people and certainly to the Manx cultural identity. Without doubt, whilst there may be dissatisfaction with the voting system, the great majority of people on this Island are demanding that the Manx Government preserve their Manx way of life, and I think, by voting for this proposal today to scrap S.T. V., \ we are taking the first step to eradicate Manx influence in the Government of this Isle of Man, and I think it is a decision that hon. members should not take lightly \ today and they should reflect on. This, without doubt, is going to have far-reaching \ effects on the future policies of the Government of the Isle of Man. \ As I said, Mr. Speaker, initially I was against S.T.V. but I have been convinced over these last few months, talking to people, talking to my constituents and considering the developments which are taking place in the Isle of Man, and I have changed my mind and I believe that S.T.V. should have been kept in, albeit with the proviso that the public, the voters, have the right to plump for the one candidate they want. So, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the third reading today, albeit I do support the single seat constituencies, but I think the effects now of losing S. T.V. are going to be so dramatic over this next ten years that I cannot go along with it, so I will be voting against.

Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, priorities in this House- I believe that we should view them in the lines of housing, population, monitoring and control, protection of the environment, social legislation including redundancy pay, helping the disabled and the handicapped, road safety, to name just a few items.

The Speaker: Having named those, sir, will you come back to the matter under discussion? (Laughter)

Mr. Karran: In reality, what have we got? Constitutional matters and more constitutional matters, redrawing boundaries, l, 2, 3, or an X, or plump or not to plump- what a waste of time, in my opinion, hon. members! People out there in the street ask me, are we living in the same Island? Sometimes I wonder whether some members are living on the same planet! Single seats, first-past-the-post - it is all so academic to them out there. I share the majority view outside that if we have not got anything better to do than discuss our own internal arrangements once again, then we should have extended the summer recess to Christmas. f' Single seats will, in my view, seriously injure the national view of this Island's i i Government. There will be greater emphasis on the parochial issues, the local issues f: will overwhelmingly come into it, and this will injure central government. Single seats will improve the service of members given in their localities so they say. I will be interested to see what evidence there is that by being a single member you do a better job than if you are in a twin or three-seat constituency. Single seats will give everyone the equality in voting. It appears to me that we are tempting to build a formula that is not mechanically correct. I believe that we should seriously look at this again. To create a system that is right for the people we represent, I come

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K92 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

back to my certain beliefs that people out there in the street do not want more change on top of what we have already inflicted on them in recent years. The main thing which concerns me is political stability. It is very important, and a great selling point for the Island, and I hope that the hon. minister for Treasury notes this, that especially for the finance sector, that it is even more important than low taxation attractions. And here we are at our own prompting, demolishing, rubbishing the local political scene, and the very system that has produced the golden eggs which my good friend is always telling us about. I know I am only a simple lad from Spring Valley, representing the best district on the Island, (Mr. D.C. Cretney: Spring Valley?) Onchan, but even I know, before you pull something down and destroy it that you have to at least have something as good as, if not better, to put in its place. Can hon. members honestly believe that this Bill does that? I believe that this Bill has got many flaws, in my opinion. Look at the number of amendments that have had to be drawn up from the original Bill, and I hope that the Legislative Council will do something about this Bill if it gets upstairs. It is clear from the original Bill that the change of boundaries that were included were a crude attempt to buy support, and I am glad that this hon. House has at least scuttled that. We have a constitutional committee of Tynwald - have they considered these proposals. If not, why not? Surely they should be introducing this legislation dealing with the constitution, or giving us considered alternatives or otherwise why we should have it. Hon. members, even at this eleventh hour, throw out these dangerous proposals. They will not achieve the objectives the author hopes for. It will at least create uncertainty outside and injure the confidence and stability image of the Island. We should refer the whole matter to the appropriate Tynwald Committee to carefully consider and report in due course. Members, I know that this is going to sound like a stuck record, but I have said in this House regularly about contemplating your navels. I am saying today, I am telling you that you are in quicksand and you are passed your navels, and your passed struggling. Stop, throw out this Bill, and give the Manx people and yourself at least a chance, because what you hope to pass today, I believe, will not be a legacy that will be of benefit; it will be a dubious benefit, and I believe the Manx people in the Island will not thank you for it.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should undersell the particular issue that is in front of this House today. The hon. member says that it is a unimportant, that it is untimely and that people are fed up with change, and so W on. Maybe untimely; people maybe fed up with change, but I would suggest there can be no more important a subject to a nation than the proper representation of its people (Members: Hear, hear.) in their governmental assembly, and, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should lose sight of that. I said last week that·( believe that this House was in danger of doing the Isle of Man a disservice, and, Mr. Speaker, I have reflected on that over this last week, and I am convinced, absolutely convinced, sir, that that is the case. I believe in my own mind, and I think it is supported by a number of journals, that first-past-the-post, single-seat constituencies gives the worst possible representation of the people in a governmental assembly. I think that that is a matter of fact, it is a matter of mathematical fact, and it is practically flawed, and, Mr. Speaker if this assembly is recommending it to the people of the Isle of Man, then I do not want to be part of that. I believe that we should face

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K93 up to the issue and that this Bill should be dismissed at this third reading. Mr. Speaker, single or multi-seat constituencies is one of the principles in the Bill, and the majority of people have come down in the belief that single-seat constituencies are the way forward. I think that that view has been promoted by those representatives of single-seat constituencies in the main, who see an unfairness as far as their constituents arc concerned as compared to the constituents in a multi­ seats constituency. I accept that argument where we have a first-past-the-post system of voting. I think, where we have a system of proportional representation, a single transferable vote, that that argument in fact cannot be upheld, and we should all know in our own minds that the single transferable vote system gives everybody in the Isle of Man. 'One man. one vote', and I think that is a very important principle. I do not believe that that could have been said prior to the last election when the people in Rushen had in fact three votes for their three members; that is now not the case, and I think we should recognise that. I think, as far as single-seat constituencies are concerned, where only one candidate is elected from a constituency, the result of that election can only be satisfactory to the supporters of the winning candidate, because everybody else who has voted for all the other candidates must be disappointed. With a system of proportional representation, that argument is in fact not valid, because with a system of proportional representation you get the most supported candidate elected, and I think that that is a situation, Mr. Speaker, that we should recognise. Mr. Delaney, I think it was, last week said, 'Please can you not give to his c8tlstituents the same right as those persons who are represented by one member in this House of Keys?', or words to that effect. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any representatives of a multi-seat constituency are suggesting that their constituents will be better off in a single-seat constituency than they are in a multi-seat constituency, I would have to say that I disagree and I believe that that argument is flawed. It was suggested last week that the multi-seat constituency, the three-seat constituency of Rushen was a historical accident, and that suggestion was made by the hon. member, Mr. Cain, the hon. member for West Douglas, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not true. The multi-seat constituency of Rushen, the multi-seat constituency of Onchan, the two-member constituencies were recommended by a commission appointed by Tynwald to look into the future representation of the people, and it was a conscious approval of their recommendations, albeit after quite a lot of debating; in fact that supported the system as it is today, so there is absolutely no historical accident as far as Rushen and the multi-seat constituencies are concerned. The hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Gilbey, said earlier on that he thought that the representatives of the people ought to do as the people wished, and, Mr. Speaker, I suppose in broad terms, we have to accept that and accept that a good electoral method will give elected bodies that are likely to reach the same decision as the majority of you of the constituents if those constituents had had access to the same sort of information. I can agree with that point of view, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot agree that a first-past-the-post single-seat constituency type of election will give the right mix of elected people to make those decisions. I would suggest that it just cannot be the case, and over and over again we have had example to us of situations in single-seat constituencies of members being elected with a minority of votes, and the defence of that is, 'Well, we got more votes than any of the other candidates'.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K94 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

Again, Mr. Speaker, that argument is flawed; you have to add up the number of voters who voted against the person who is elected and then try and make an argument of why that system is fair, and I do not believe that there is an argument there. But Mr. Speaker, if the House in bound and intent on single-seat. constituencies, then I do believe we ought to do whatever we can to retain the single transferable vote, and I believe of the two issues contained in this Bill that the single transferable vote is in fact the most important, because it ensures a majority of support for the elected member and, Mr. Speaker, I can only say to those members who have some doubts about this Bill: please do not support it; if we are thinking of ourselves, then perhaps small, single-seat constituencies are compact and easy to handle, but again I would suggest that if we are thinking about the voters and the people of the Isle of Man, then the worst possible type of representation we can give them is a first-past-the-post in single-seat constituencies, I really believe we are in danger of doing the Isle of Man a great disservice.

Mr. Corrin: Mr. Speaker, I think the charm of the Government of the Isle of Man has, perhaps through history, been one where it has been non-adversarial in the sense that it is basically non-party-political, and I think, if you look at the United Kingdom and see what is going on there, democracy is going bit too far in the sense that the opposing party to Government or, if at no doubt, be fair, if it were the other way around, if the present opposition were in Government, then presumably - and I would not doubt - the same would happen, that they would just be Opposition for opposition's sake, and I hope that does not come around in the Isle of Man. Mr. Speaker, earlier on I was questioning the hon. member for Onchan, his wisdom as to whether or not he was abusing the right of leave to introduce it to the House. I was not questioning his right to introduce; I was questioning whether or not, with the numbers he was bringing, he was abusing that; that is what I was doing. So I was disagreeing with him. But when he made his address on this subject, he did give part of his case, which started off by saying that many of his constituents in his opinion are more interested in their housing and conditions than many other things, similar to what we are spending a lot of time on now, which brought some guidance from you, or reprimand whichever you way you want to look at it. But, nevertheless, he is right, because I think the general public are more interested in things that affect them than listening for us to continue what went on in the last administration, that so much time and effort and thought that goes into arguments on this subject when in fact that time and that effort could be better spent in attending to matters affecting the Island and its future prosperity. Mr. Speaker, in principle, I think that at any time changing the constitution should be something that first of all should not happen very often in principle, and the hon. member for Glenfaba made that point. Also, I feel that if there is a growing feeling at any time that it should be looked at, the constitution, then I think there should be a lot of discussion goes on before anything is introduced so that within the society, within the elected members, there is hopefully a wide measure of support as to which direction we should be going, because, as has been demonstrated here this morning, Mr. Speaker, what one member may start off with as a Bill, by the time it has been through the machinery and been to committees and all the rest, what eventually may well be approved is very, very different from what the intention

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K95 was of perhaps the person who introduced the Bill, certainly very different from what the House as- a whole ever thought would come of it, and yet it seems unstoppable that it goes rolling on, comes out the other side and we have to live with it, and then we have to try and sell that to the electorate in due course. Now, Mr. Speaker, without going over the many points that have been made, I think that we certainly should stop and think; there is no question about it. Major changes were made in the last administration. Many of the arguments against S.T. V. - personally I do not care which method is adopted as long as I know the rules, as I stood last time for election. If I stand the next time, as long as I know what those rules are before we kick off, then I can live with them, because if you do not want to accept the rules before you start playing the game, then do not start playing the game. So I can live with that. Now if you then look at the people, the electors, there is no question about it, there was a lot of discussion. There was nearly as much discussion went on about the system as about a certain member who tried to, or did in fact, put posters around Douglas and so on. That was the level of the debate about the issues at the last election. It was all rather regrettable because there was so much distraction going on. But if you ask and you analyse, did the people understand the system? Well, I think you were given some wrong advice in the lead-up to it anyway, because a notice came out to say, the same people, if there are more ... take a multi-seat constituency, and if there are more than three people standing, and if you have got three seats, you need only nominate three, but in fact, if you had 10 or 11 standing, it is in fact better if you go on and put them right in the order, right through, and then the system can follow on. Now in actual practice there was very, very little confusion in the technicalities of the vote, as we witnessed in our constituency; there was no problem at all, certainly no problem for the officers who actually do the count and so on. There were so very few papers spoilt; that clearly demonstrated that the electors understood how to do it, no question of that. Of course it was new, and anything that is new is going to have a certain amount of resistance to it, but that is not necessarily a reason for diving in straight away to change it whatsoever, not at all, so I personally do not mind what system we have - there are arguments - although on principle I am inclined to say that, seeing we have changed then we should stick with it for another while to let it settle down, because clearly the next time the elector will be much more familiar with it. There is no question, they will. If nothing else, you could say the last time was a trial run, and we went through it, and this time they will be able to sit back and understand it in more detail, think about it, and hopefully, perhaps, think more of the issues thlJn the system. Now, last week, Mr. Speaker, we heard of many technicalities as to how the system will operate up until, if it is, as was proposed, to change again. That in itself is going to cause confusion, so that is on the down side. On the question - because here again, we have got mixed up in it - on the question of the seats and should they be single or not, there are many arguments for that. If you have a single seat, and bearing in mind we do not have the party system in the U.K.; we try to have compromise. We are always saying that that is the strength, well, if that is the case, then I think that there is every argument that at the minimum you should have two seats in a constituency if it is compromise, and, if it is deemed to have more, so be it, so that, as the Chief Minister pointed out, if someone has very strong feelings

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K96 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

- and bearing in mind that we are having a system of compromise, then if someone as with a single seat in our small Island takes a strong stand on one issue, then others may find it very difficult to relate to that member either on that issue, or on other issues, and that is not good for compromise, and I know - I could say of the hon. member for Peel, she is entitled to take a strong line on certain issues, but she has been making the case that she feels that others have a right to their view too, and in a multi-seat then that could come true, and of course, at the end of the day, it is cancelled out in the vote anyway. So I think, Mr. Speaker, we should really - and I would advocate and I have been consistent with the view I have taken anyway on this, vote against this third reading today and we can stop and think, because I would go back - here again it is compromise and understanding which I think is the essence of the future of the Island - I go back, I disagreed with the question the member for Onchan on what I said on this leave to introduce, but equally, I would agree with what he was saying, just as part of making out his case. It was not out of order with the subject under discussion. He was making out the case of the relevance of changing our system with what people perceive as the matters affecting their Island, and I quite agree with him that when members are dealing -and I am sure housing is a priority, pressure on members, I am sure that is the case, then I would entirely agree with him. Now to me this is compromise. I do not disagree with him for ever and a day just on principle because he believes in one other issue, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this House today will throw out this third reading, this Bill; it will give us time to think and perhaps then matters will settle down. Now, it may well be that we should have a commission looking at the constituencies or whatever, because of course times are changing. There are people coming in, and they are settling in different areas and so on. Perhaps this should be kind of an on-going thing. They could issue a report so that we could study that report and discuss it, but discuss it in a calm atmosphere and not up against an immediate deadline that at some point you are going to have to vote on it, but you could discuss it calmly. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members, the majority- and with respect to some of those who have genuinely and honestly supported it, will reconsider these points today, and say, 'Well, there is always some time in the future, and of course there is. But at least, when you come into constitutional measures, you should not be changing every five minutes a bit like a banana republic. That to me, is not the history of the Isle of Man. It is stability and also, I feel, that is the way people want, because there is some comfort in 'stop and think' before making rash decisions, because, as one or two members have already pointed out and I am sure some others will reinforce it, the consequences of loss of confidence in the Island- you know, could be more than we have bargained for.

Mr. Kneale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in charge of the Bill, when introducing the third reading, said this Bill has wide public support and then he said there was no request from local authorities for the change. Now, I do not know where he gets the idea there is wide public support, because in the very committee that he was chairman of, when they advertised and asked for observations, they had 38 responses to their advert, and 22 of them were from local authorities who said they did not want a change in the local authority voting system, so that leaves you with 16 responses. When you knocked off the number of members who had

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K97 responded, you will find that the public did not rcpond at all, and I think that we should realise that making a noise does not make a majority. Now, I believe it was a mistake to even introduce this Bill. To give it the third reading would be the most retrograde step the House of Keys has ever made since it became a properly elected body in 1866. Since that time the House has fought for more and more independence and for a more democratic body. It is well to remember what the definition of democracy is, as some members seem to be unsure: 'Democracy is a form of Government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them, or by their elected representatives'. Now to be a truly electedrepresentative a person must have the support of a majority of the electorate, but under the first-past-the-post voting system the evidence of the past clearly indicates that on numerous occasions the person declared elected only had the support of a minority of the voters in his or her constituency, and on several occasions this minority support was a very small one indeed. While considering the S.T.V. system, it is well to look at the reasons for its introduction, and to do this we have to go back to the 20th June, 1979, when Tynwald debated the resolution in the name of the then member for Peel, Roy MacDonald, and approved the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate and report on how the principle of 'one man, one vote' could be implemented. This debate had been brought about by the constant criticism of the first-past-the-post voting system, which has over and over again allowed candidates to be elected to represent a constituency when the majority of electors in the area had voted against him or her. Although numerous examples can be quoted to prove this point, the most obvious one, and one I keep repeating- I think people should take note - was the by-election in Peel in 1964, when the successful candidate received 477 votes, only two ahead of the next candidate. There were seven candidates, and the total votes of the six unsuccessful candidates amounted to I, 192, which meant that a person was declared elected to serve the people of Peel when over 71 per cent. of those who had voted had voted against him. By no stretch of the imagination can that be claimed as democracy. And looking at a multi-scat constituency, the 1976 General Election result at Ramsey gives a perfect example. There were ten candidates for two seats; there was an 81.66 per cent. turnout. The leading candidate received I ,520 votes, but the next four were only seperated by 49 votes, they having received 853 votes, 834 votes, 812 votes and 804 votes. The hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, will remember this well, because he was one of those four, and under the S. T.V. system any one of them could have been elected, but under the first-past-the-post system the candidate with 853 votes was declared elected, even though there were thousand of votes recorded against him. Now as a result of the 1979 debate and vote in Tynwald, a commission was appointed by His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the 1st November, 1979, with the following terms of reference: 'To investigate and report within one year on how the principle of ensuring that the Manx electorate had absolute equality in choosing their representatives they seek, can be implemented and thus reflect the wishes and desires of the majority of the electorate'. The commission again, to remind hon. members, was Dr. David Butler, the well-known expert on electoral matters, Mr. Henry Kelly, a well-known advocate, and Dr. Douglas Tea re. a distinguished resident of Ramsey. They received written

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K98 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

submissions from 43 individuals or organisations and oral evidence from 18, and after five months deliberation produced a report which was laid before Tynwald on the 22nd April, 1980, with a recommendation that it be received. In submitting their report, sir, the commission stated that the number of written submissions they received, reinforced by the clarity and vigour of the oral evidence, and widespread Press and radio comment, showed that they were dealing with a matter of genuine public interest. They further stated that they were aware that there can be no perfect electoral system and no perfect elimination of boundaries. Every solution has it snags and absolute equality can never be achieved. As they saw it, their problem was to choose an answer with the fewest disadvantages: (I) in inequality of numbers, (2) In violatlo·n of traditionii.i ilnks;·and.(3) l"n actual or potentiai Injustices either for candidates or for voters. They work on the firm assumption that the House of Keys should continue to have 24 members. There were two main objections to the then existing constituency structure: first, constituencies varied in electorate from I ,094 to 3,072 voters in single-seat constituencies and, secondly, some Manx voters had three votes, some had two votes whilst others had only one. Although the commission's report made reference to many aspects of electoral practice, I am only going to refer to two which are included in the Representation of the People Bill which last week received its second reading: these are the proposals to introduce 24 single-member constituencies and to scrap the S.T.V. system of voting. On the question of single-member constituencies the commission had this to say: 'there is a nice simplicity and compactness about a single-member constituency, especially when it need contain no more than an average of I ,907 electors', but they then ~ent on to say that such small constituencies 'would be likely not only to foster excessive parochialism but also to lead to pressure on members to act as delegates rather than representatives'. Because of this they came down strongly against single-member constituencies. As regards multi-member constituencies the commission commented that the opposition to them was directed more at the lack of uniformity in the number of representatives per constituency than at the principle of multi-member constituencies. The commission pointed out that an advantage was that an elector with a problem could turn to the representative of his choice and, if he is not available, to another. They then turned their attention to various electoral systems commenting that the first-past-the-post system, which required the voters merely to put a cross against the name of their favoured candidate and allots the victory to the candidate who received the most crosses, is regarded as the oldest and simplest of voting systems, but it is a well-known fact that this system was introduced at a time when the majority of the population could neither read nor write and put their mark, as a cross, on all documents. Now that the vast majority of the population are educated, we should be able to progress beyond that primitive method of voting. The commission then pointed out that under the first-past-the-post system, if there is a multiplicity of candidates in a one-member-constituency, the position can easily arise where the elected member has more votes cast against him than for him - in other words, the voting indicates that, even though elected, he has not got the support of the majority of those going to the polls and I have given two perfect examples of this earlier on, and that is why there is such a clamour for change. Now that some members of the House of Keys are trying to revert to that old discredited voting system and have recommended 24 single-member constituencies, the chance of this

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K99

happening in the future is increased tremendously. To emphasise this I will quote an extreme case where you have ten candidates contesting a single seat with a total electorate of I ,900, the present average. If the support for all candidates was pretty even you could get a candidate elected with 191 votes, assuming that there was 100 per cent. turnout. If the turnout was only 75 per cent., which is more likely, in those circumstances someone could be elected with 143 votes- that is 7Yz per cent. of the electorate. Now, that is the extreme case but it could happen, because we are getting more and more candidates coming out and there were nine candidates in the Peel single-seat constituency, there have been ten at previous single seats. Because of this possibility the commission suggested that the time had come to consider some form of preferential voting which would be suitable for single or multi-seat constituencies, and they concluded that without the existence of strong political parties there was only one system of proportional representation which is appropriate to the situation where most of the candidates are genuinely independent, and that was the single transferable vote. A large part of the commission's report was devoted to explaining the S.T.V. system, but the main points in support of this are: it introduces the principle of 'one man, one vote', as each elector has only a single transferable vote; it can be used in single or multi- . seat constituencies without deviating from that principle; it gave an elector the chance to participate in the election of another candidate if his first choice was rejected and thus avoid the complete waste of his vote; it generally ensured that the candidates who remained at the end of the count had the support of the majority of the electorate; it also did away with plumping, and I think it is as well for people to realise that, with the single transferable vote, whether you are only allowed to give one preference or a dozen preferences there is no plumping. If you have only got one vote that is it, and even if the hon. member for Castletown's amendment had been carried through last week that would have been the position. This system is 'one man, one vote' - absolutely clear. Several people who have been used to plumping under the old first-past-the-post system could not appreciate that under the S.T.V. system plumping did not give any tactical advantage to their preferred candidate. The important thing to remember - that only the first preference indicated on a ballot paper was a vote; the second and later preferences were are an indication of where the voter wants his vote to be transferred if his first choice is eliminated. In no way can the indication of further preferences beyond the first damage the chances of the most favoured candidate, and that is why, if the amendment moved by the hon. member had been carried, it would still not have affected the system one iota; it would not have mattered at all. When the commission's report was presented to Tynwald in Aprill980 the original resolution to simply receive it was altered by an amendment moved by the then member for Castletown, Mrs. Qmiyle, and seconded by Dr. Moore, the then member for Peel. The amendment read as follows - 'that the following words be added and that the recommendation providing for the establishment of a preferential system of voting using the single transferable vote be adopted.' This amendment was approved by both branches of Tynwald and the final vote in support of the resolution, as amended, was 20 votes in the Keys and nine in the Council. There were four votes against in the Keys and none in the Council. That was a decisive vote in support of S.T.V. by Tynwald. It is claimed by some that I am the author of the S.T. V. system. Now I cannot

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K100 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 claim that distinction. The distinguished commission recommended it, 29 members of Tynwald supported and I simply introduced a Bill into the Keys to implement the wishes of Tynwald, and that Bill was approved by 17 votes to seven in the Keys and, on receiving the approval of the Legislative Council, it was confirmed as Government policy. Now I have gone into it in some detail over this issue to show that the S. T.V. system was not something that had been plucked out of the air on the spur of the moment. It had been recommended by a distinguished commission after a thorough investigation into the Island's electoral system. It had been fully debated by Tynwald and the branches and approved by a large majority at every stage. Now, sir, compare this with the steps leading up to the introduction of the present Bill to get rid of it and to revert to the undemocratic first-past-the-post system. Some candidates for the 1986 general election, despite the simplicity of the S. T.V. system, could not understand it, and did not even try to understand it, and were therefore incapable of explaining the benefits derived from it when questioned by the electorate. Instead they chose to attack it and predicted all sorts of things. They decided that the electorate would be too stupid to understand it and they predicted there would be large numbers of spoilt papers. They predicted there would be a low poll because the voters were opposed to the system. They predicted that the count would go on all night. They predicted that candidates whose names appeared at the top of the ballot paper would have a distinct advantage over those at the bottom, and so on. The fact that none of these things happened indicates that the electorate have more wisdom than some candidates give them credit for. There were no more spoilt papers than in previous elections. The percentage turnout over the Island was slightly higher than in the 1981 General Election. The counts were carried out in an expeditious way, one multi-seat constituency's count being completed in one-and-a-quarter hours, and the candidates at the bottom of the lists were doing just as well as those at the top. For example, the hon. member for Rushen, Miles Walker, at the bottom of a list of 11 candidates, easily topped the poll. Despite being proved wrong with these predictions, a Bill was introduced into the Keys with the sole purpose of gettin~ rid of the S.T.V. system. The Keys decided to send the Bill to a committee of ttie House for examination and report. Of the committee of five who were elected, four had already expressed strong opposition to the S.T.V. system both at election time and afterwards, so they were biased from the outset and that bias was reflected in their report. In their report they gave a summary of the views of candidates and returning officers involved in the 1986 General Election, but they failed to give any indication of the identity of the people whose views they were publishing. They did identify those who submitted evidence in response to their adverts but, despite the fact that it was nearly eight months since they were set up, they made no effort at all to take oral evidence from anyone. Having failed to do this, they concluded that from the evidence there appears to be an overwhelming balance of opinion in favour of a return to the first-past-the­ post system of voting. Could anything be more ridiculous? Having examined the committee's reports and appendices I can find no evidence to support the view that there was or is an overwhelming balance of opinion as stated - just the opposite. Despite being told that the majority of the electorate were opposed to the S.T. V. system, only four letters were received from the general public and only two of them were opposed to the S. T.V. system, both of which

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KIOI proved that the writers did not understand the system. One talked about proportional representation and the other talked about his first vote being nullified by his other votes, not appreciating that he only had one vote to start with and his other preference had no effect on his first preference as no-one looked at the second preference until the person he had voted for had been either eliminated or elected with a surplus of votes. Of the two letters received, the Conservative Party of Mann expressed strong opposition to the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Michael, whilst the other letter, written by the Deputy Returning Officer for Rushen contained the most important evidence submitted to the committee but it seems to have been completely ignored by them in preparing their final report. Those who were in the last House will remember the doubts expressed by the returning officers prior to the 1986 General Election; they were predicting all sorts of problems and delays with the S.T.V. system. This particular officer admitted that when the Act was passed in 1982 he had grave doubts about it and these doubts increased when the returning officers met in 1985 and 1986 to discuss the draft regulations and, after the seminars organised by Government Office, he considered the system would be wholly unworkable and felt that it would impose a very great strain on returning officers and their staffs but, he tells us, as election day approached and following a further seminar and a dummy count he became happier with the provisions of the Act and the operation of the counting system but still had doubts as to whether the electorate would understand the system, and he expected a large number of spoilt ballot papers. It is worth reading from his report what actually happened on election day. He reports there were very few problems with voters not understanding the system. This was borne out by the very few queries encountered by my staff who were all able to give assistance if required. I myself travelled to each polling station in my constituency on seven or eight occasions during the election period, and at only one polling station on one occasion did I find anyone expressing an opinion against the new voting system and at only one other polling station, again on only one occasion, did I find someone who was completely unable to understand the system and insisted on using X 's. He further reports that from personal experience in previous years 'as Polling Clerk and Deputy Returning Officer I have found that there were numerous complaints about the old voting system and that people had not understood how many votes they had in a multi-member constituency and other technical aspects of the voting. At the count there were very few spoilt papers. There were in fact 49 out of 4,058, which is only 1.2 per cent. The greatest worry prior to the commencement of the count had been the length of time the count would take. Rushen, being a large constituency with the largest number of candidates standing in the general election, had many unique problems. It looked as though more stages would be required in Rush en than in any other constituency. The count, when it was commenced, with my staff adequately trained, proceeded very smoothly and very swiftly and we had a result out only three-quarters of an hour later than the result at the last general election'. Now, it is worth remembering, hon. members, that in the 1981 General Election there were only four candidates for three seats in Rushen, so the total number of variations of one, two or three X's was 14. At the 1986 General Election there were 11 candidates for three seats and under the old system there would have been 176 variations of votings to count, and that certainly would have taken all night. As it was, under the S.T. V. system the result

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced KI02 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

was achieved after only eight stages. The other major prediction prior to the election was that many people would not go to vote because they objected to the system. The turnout for Rushen was 72.71 per cent. compared to a 66.6 per cent. turnout for the 1981 General Election. The actual counting proved comparatively easy. The transfers and the calculations of the transfer values and the calculation of quotas presented no problem at all and it was obvious that all the candidates understood the process that we were applying. From being a doubter and critic of the S. T.V . . system prior to the election this returning officer reports that, 'having had the practical experience at the general election on the system, I can heartily endorse the system'. Now, this is an outstanding testimonial and worth more than all the other comments that were submitted to the committee. The reason that things went so smoothly in Rushen was because the majority of the candidates were themselves aufait with the S.T. V. system and did not spread the confusion that some candidates in other constituencies spread through ignorance of the system, and even since the election, when the candidates who stood were asked, including the defeated candidates, only one said that he was not in favour of the S. T.V. system. I believe that the committee who looked at this should have taken a lot more note of that evidence but they concentrated more on the evidence, the very little evidence that they had, in support of abolishing the S.T.V. system. Now, one of the things that concerns me about this Bill is the way that so much has been lumped together in one Bill, and there are at least three things that worry me: one is the Board of Education elections; they should never have been mixed up with this Bill, they should be dealt with as a separate issue, and I believe this is a fundamental error to get it involved in this Bill. Single seats -again, we have got the parish pump politics that have been suggested when you have got single seats. Now, I, claimed by some people as being the architect of this S.T.V. system, should have expected a shoal of letters in opposition. The truth is that during the election and since the election and during all the debates here, I have had only one letter and that did not come from one of my constituents, it came from a person living in Castletown, and this is all they had to say: 'Dear sir, I envy the electors who live in multi-seat constituencies.

Mr. Brown: Shall I go out? (Laughter)

Mr. Kneale: They have a bigger choice of candidates at election time and can choose the member most sympathetic to their cause with any problems. I think that all constituencies should be multi-seat'. That is the total correspondence from this widespread opposition to S. T.V.

A Member: Castletown Conservative Club! (Laughter).

Mr. Kneale: Now the member that I am really surprised at up to now in this debate- I hope that that surprise will be removed before we finish the third round -was actually the hon. member for East Douglas, Mr. Delaney, because he had been one of the strongest supporters at the introduction of the S. T.V. system and I believe he still believes in it and I hope that he will indicate today that this is not

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KIOJ the way to deal with the problems of single seat constituencies: by mixing all these things together. This is the way to confuse the full issue completely. Now if the S.T. V. system- which is what I think I should point out -is used to its full potential then we will have a voting system which will ensure that the candidates elected to represent the people will really represent the majority of the voters in his or her constituency. The Bill before you today will not achieve this but will ensure that we revert to government by the minority in a much worse form than it ever was before because with single-seat constituencies this will really bring it down to government by a small minority and what we should all remember is that every member in this House today was elected under the S.T.V. system; you may not be so lucky under any other system! (Laughter)

Mr. Leventhorpe: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all well acquainted with Manx kippers but I have never known so many red herrings as have been offered us this morning! The S.T.V. system has come in for much support and much criticism. My constituents understood it perfectly well.

Mr. Karran: That is why they put me top of the poll! (Laughter)

Mr. Leventhorpe: They did not like it. They may have made mistakes with it, Mr. Speaker, but they did understand, it and it would have been understandable if they had not liked it because they did not understand it. We all mistrust things we do not understand, but if we understand them and we dislike them there is a reason for it, and the reason, I think, stems from a Manx tradition and I will come to that in a minute. I think S.T. V. is eminently suitable to a system where you have political parties and where in fact you vote for the party in preference to the candidate, so if you are a true blue, like my colleague here, you will vote Conservative first, Social Democrat second, Liberal third and end up with the Communist. If your persuasions are otherwise you reverse the order, but it is for a political system that I think S.T. V. comes into its own. The tradition here is to vote for the personality and to plump for the personality, and I think that that is why it was so objected to by so many people and, whatever the voting figures show, many felt strongly enough about it not to turn out on the day. They were effectively disfranchised; they were deprived of their vote. I think that is wrong. I do not think anyone refuses to vote on the X principle. They may not think it the best system but it is time­ honoured and tried. Now, another point that the hon. member for Rushen made- that the first­ past-the-post system leads to the worst sort of representation and worst sort of Government. I regret to inform this hon. House that we are all here under that system; it may have been dressed up as S.T.V., but virtually every single member here got in because he was first past the post. He may have achieved his majority either at the first count or at a subsequent count but he topped the poll along the way. We then come to the red herring about 'the single-seat constituencies will lead to parochialism'. Now I ask hon. members to look around this House. There are eight members sitting for single-seat constituencies, there are ten sitting for two­ seat and six for three-seat- two constituencies and five two-member ones. Now, under that theory, the eight single-seat members will be the most dedicated and tied up in their own parochial affairs and those who represent the large constituencies

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced KI04 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 such as my own would, of course, be the most statesmanlike and Olympian of all the members of this hon. House. I preen myself on that, Mr. Speaker! The logical extension of that is to have, as was suggested, a single 24-seat constituency I think it would be very difficult to get people elected to that because I regret to say that the general public do not know who an awful lot of us are. (Interruptions) Another red herring that has been put forward today, Mr. Speaker, is that this House is liable to be swamped by new residents.

Members: Hear, hear. (Laughter)

Mr. Leventhorpe: Now I am on delicate ground here, Mr. Speaker, I speak as a new resident but I believe that most of the people who have come to this Island recently have come here to work in a climate where they can prosper and do well. They are not interested in political office or political ambition. Many of them are not here for long terms; they are here for relatively short periods in transit between jobs and moving to another field. Some, certainly, will settle here but I think that they are working in their chosen field and, provided that we provide them with good government and a stable community they will be perfectly happy to leave the conduct of affairs to local people. The hon. member for Glenfaba said there were two constitutional issues raised by this and then mentioned three. He mentioned S.T.V., which is already covered; he mentioned the boundary commission and came up with a surprising view that when it was told to sort out 24 single-seat constituencies it would come back in a perverse way with 12 two-seat constituencies, but I think we can discount that; if their instructions are to produce 24 single-seat constituencies, that is what they will achieve. We have also had two views of whether or not there is public concern; one says there is overwhelming public concern about our activities in this constitutional navel-searching, as we are told, and the other says there is no public concern at all. Well, which is right? I do not believe the public concern is very great. I believe that we as political animals, which is why we are here, are concerned about it; rightly, I think we need to get this issue correctly done and it was for that reason that, when the Bill was originally brought in, a committee was formed and asked to report on it. And for all the long spiel we have had about its errors and blunders and shortsightedness, I would remind the House that that committee's report was accepted and it was the basis on which this Bill was drawn up. A Mr. Speaker, I believe that S. T.V. is and was an aberration in Manx politics and W I believe that democracy demands that we have single-seat constituencies.

Brig. Butler: Mr. Speaker, I notice that apart from the proposer and seconder no-one yet has spoken in favour of the Bill. I am about to redress the balance a little bit because I am definitely in favour of the Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Chief Minister about the importance of the issue; I do not think any of us would pooh-pooh that. It is a most significant issue; it is not a question of- once again, the hon. member for Onchan's phrase - examining your own navels, it is something totally fundamental to the existence of parliamentary democracy and that is what we are talking about. I would also say that we have got two sides- indeed we have really got four sides, because there are two separate issues and people have not necessarily taken the same sides on

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KIOS both issues- in which there have been many views expressed, and I think we should not be dismissive on either side of the other side's views. It is quite obvious that there is very good argument for both of the cases in both the instances. The hon. member for West Douglas, Mr. Kneale, has spoken, I think, four times now in the course of this Bill and he has spoken at considerable length, and while I disagree with much of what he said one has to also recognise that a lot of what he said has merit. I think he has examined and studied the subject in great detail and what we are really doing now is trying to wait to make an objective judgment to place the emphasis on the advantages and the disadvantages of the two issues we are looking at. I have to say, by the way, that I could not agree with the hon. member for Castletown that the thing can go to be totally upturned in the other House. If that other body started to upturn what we are passing, I think a very dangerous situation would emerge. I think revision, yes, upturning, no. I think we have to make the decision here and I think it is the decision that we make today which will be the one that will stand. I said there were two issues but really both issues have a 'yes' and a 'no' situation and people have not necessarily gone together. You have had, let us say, A and Band C and D, and people have gone A,C and A,D and B,C and B,D and we have already had two speakers who have got up and said they will vote against the Bill although they favour one half of it because they are not in favour of the other half. There may be others who split in that way who are yet to come and take the same line- we will see. I would ask people in that situation to think very carefully before they take the destructive element of voting th1: Bill out. They must feel strongly enough about the single issue, and the hon. member for Glenfaba and my hon. colleague for Ramscy have made it clear that they do feel strong enough about the single issue to destroy both, and that is what you arc doing when you vote against the Bill, because if this Bill fails, I do not think we arc going to see it emerge again in the life of this House. (Memhers: Hear, hear.) The two issues that we are look­ ing at: first of all that of the 24 single seats, and we have been through the arguments often enough. I think as far as the arguments against having 24 single seats, it really seems to rest mainly in maintaining the status quo and the allegation of parochialism. I think that the status quo- I do not like changing things for the sake of changing them but I believe that with the question of boundaries of constituencies the changes are inevitable, that we do have to have a mechanism in making those changes, but the changes of population on the Island right now are making it necessary to be reviewing our boundaries in the near future. For instance, in Douglas we see Anagh Coar becoming a major new factor- 700 or 800 new people moving into that area. This sort of thing will upset our boundaries and it is time to think about the advantages of having single-seat constituencies or the present mix of singles, doubles and trebles. My view is quite clear, that the single seat is the best way. It is because it is simple and we should not pooh-pooh simplicity in this argument. I think the thing about parliamentary democracy is that the perception that the thing ... rather like justice, perception is the thing that the system is fair depends a great deal on people being able to understand the nature of the system; I think the more simple you can make it the better. I do accept that you cannot have everything in black and white, and sometimes things have to be complex but, if you can avoid it, so much the better. I think in this case, by upgrading single constituencies which are going to be

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced K 106 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

something in the order of, say, 2,000 voters, you create something in which the member elected is very visible and very accountable. I do not agree he will be a delegate rather than a representative; I hope he would have the character to resist pressures, and in any case I do not think those 2,000 people are likely to speak with a single voice on many issues. He is going to have to listen to a whole range of voices, so I do not accept that he will be in a position of delegate. What I do feel is that he would have a totally manageable electorate which he could be in touch with on an individual basis. I know many of us have very good individual communications with our constituents even in two and three seat constituencies, but it must be a lot easier in a single-seat constituency, and I honestly believe that is something which is very, very valuable, because I think Manx democracy in the whole - and I am very proud to be serving in it, even if I am a new resident - has something very precious; really you can get to grass roots in the Isle of Man, which you cannot do in England -

Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: So why change it?

Brig. Butler: The hon. member for Castletown says, 'Why change it?' Well, in one area he wants to change; and in another area he does not want to change; you cannot have it both ways. I feel that this is not a change, it is putting the situation ... When you look back historically at the way in which the allocation of the boundaries are growing, you will see a tremendous number of changes. We are no longer, really and truly, representing the old sheadings. I would hope that what will come out of this boundary committee will have some historical basis; I would hope that it will not be a major change from what we have at the moment, but it will simply be taking the twos and threes and dividing them into single-seat constituencies. But I do believe the communications horizons and the ability to .manage to meet and see and to walk around the people in your own constituency is something very valuable and very important, and I do not accept for one minute the argument that parochialism ... I honestly do not think that there is any difference in parochialism between the members of the single-seat constituencies and the member of the multi-seat constituencies; they all seem equally parochial in this House, and I think it something that happens on the Island. (Laughter) If I may proceed to the question of S.T.V. which is the other issue and, I think, a very complex issue indeed, there is a very good argument for S. T.V. and I think everything depends on the circumstances in which you are trying to apply it. What it tries to achieve is to try to solve the business of where you have a number of candidates, a number of parties standing, most inevitably you have what looks like a minority election, and the theory is, of course that by giving people a second vote, you can right this wrong, or at least appear to try to right this wrong. It depends where you are applying. The hon. member for West Douglas in his last speech asked us, particularly those who had just been there, to think of Australia. Well, you could not find anywhere more different from the Isle of Man than Australia, in size the constituencies of 100,000 or more than 100,000, and of course a party system, essentially a two-party system with some small fractional parties on top, very much party politics- quite different to us in every way. I did study

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KI07 it, I did speak, as far as I could, to people in Australia, and they are fairly divided about it, but I personally, if! were an Australian, would vote for S.T.V. My view would be that S.T.V. is exactly right and does achieve the result in Australia. But I do not think the same thing applies to the Isle of Man. I think the system is complex; it is all very well to say it is not complex and that it is only a few hon. idiots in this House who cannot understand the system, but quite honestly, that is disregarding the views of many of our constituents, and they still feel this way; many of them, not all of them but many of them, do think that the thing is complex. You may say 'It is easy; all you have got to do is put 1,2,3,4,5,6,' but they really have found it difficult to comprehend. I know some part of that difficulty, Mr. Speaker, has arisen from the fact that it is something new, and one must accept that. Perhaps second time around they may find it easier. But I think there is something inherently wrong, as far as they are concerned in small constituencies, in putting 'I ,2,3,4'. I think it is not just a question of plumping; they want just to put an X. I do not believe that in the last election it did make a much difference, and I do not believe, if you are looking at a 24 seat constituencies of 2,000, it will make much difference. I know the hon. member for West Douglas again has produced some perfectly good examples where it may have made a difference - may, but you cannot tell- but I do not think that justifies the complexities of the system. I think probably in most cases, when you are dealing with just 2,000 people, it will not make a difference. After you have finished all the counting, it may show, it may underline that the first result was fair; I can see that, but I think it goes too far, it takes too much time. If I may take the Ramsey election for this parliament, it has been referred to several times by the hon. member for West Douglas, who was mentioned by myself as having originally claimed that mathematically I could prove after the first count that it made no difference and subsequently acknowledged to him that he was right. Well the truth of that matter - and he certainly would never distort the truth, and I mean that - is that if I put the first count, I meant the second count, and certainly I conceded to the hon. member, if I put the first count, I certainly meant the second count. But I believe - well, I know - that could prove mathematically that after the second count the subsequent counts did not matter. I am not going to go through the figures -

Mr. Kneale: I can prove ot~erwise!

Brig. Butler: Well, I can prove - not with arithmetic, but with other sons of mathematics (Laughter)

Mr. Brown: He is in favour of the Bill!

Brig. Butler: The point is, Mr. Speaker, we did finish the the first count at about a quarter to ten and with something like I ,200 votes for my hon. colleague and something approaching 800- 750 for myself; the next runner was something like 400-odd votes behind me, and when we had reapportioned the 1,200 votes, he was even farther behind, and the chances of him making up votes on what remained were so remote as to be nil. To prove it mathematically you have to use syllogisms which I think can be properly used it can be done, but I do not want to go into

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Third Reading Debate Commenced KI08 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

detail. The thing is we sat there from a quarter to ten until one o'clock in the morning, and meanwhile part of Manx democracy is this lovely thing of the excitement of being outside - there was quite a big crowd when we started, outside waiting for the result. Well, they got it because someone passed the count on the first count; and what happened then was that they gradually drifted away, losing their enthusiasm. I think this is a sad loss in Manx politics. I am very much in favour of doing away with the S.T.V. vote. I do not do it with joy; I see some merit in the argument, but I do not think it applies to us, and I do not think that the ordinary people of the Island in the majority want it. I do not think ... I think it is an arrogant view to think we are here to dictate to ordinary people in things like this; I think in some thing we are here to make a decision based on facts which everyone does not have, and I equally support that. You do not just go along with a referendum situation every time that we make a decision. But I think, when it comes to deciding how ordinary people appoint us, then I think we very definitely have to take the views of ordinary people into consideration and we should not be dismissive or scornful of them. They are the people who put us here in the first place.

A Member: Good speech, Norman!

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is an appropriate time to adjourn. The House will now stand adjourned until 2.30. Thank you.

The House adjourned at /.08 p.m.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (N0.2) BILL­ DEBATE CONCLUDED - THIRD READING APPROVED

The Speaker: Hon. members, the debate continues on the Representation of the People Bill. Hon. member.

Mr. Deianey: I get the feeling, having listened to the second reading, clauses, and this now third reading, that members feel we are making a final decision once and for all and for ever, amen. Of course nothing is further from the truth. There is virtually no House gone through here that at some time during its life has not debated the representation of the people and I have no doubt that in Houses to come that will continue. I have been asked by my hon. friend the member for West Douglas, how is it that a man who could support the single transferable vote so vehemently as I did can now go to 24 single seats without the single transferable vote? The answer in political terms, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. Some 20 years ago, before join.ing this hon. House, I realised there was something dreadfully wrong in relation to the representation of people. It was very unfair in the number of people who were represented by individual members. That particular matter has been somewhat rectified in my time here. It was certainly unfair in the only race you can have where you can come third and still be a winner, and that is the system we have at the moment, which I disagree with and always have.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KI09

I was able to support the hon. member's single transferable vote because to me it was a means to an end. The end I wanted to reach was one man, one vote and, my first manifesto: one representative. I could not achieve the third but the other two, the single transferable vote did give me that. I got somewhere near to equality of voting rights, but I never got near to equality of representation, and I have a choice to make and the choice is on what is in front of me, and what is in front of me is 24 single seats. I have not got the choices at this moment in time, if I want to see this go through, my true political aim of one seat, single seats, by voting for having at the same time the single transferable vote. There has been some talk and I listened on the radio to my hon. friend about, 'Ah well, in ten years' time they will be crying to get back the single transferable vote'. If I am here, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be the one that will be moving it, because that is my ultimate objective: 24 single seats with the transferable vote. That is as near to perfect representation as you can get, and I make no bones about it, that is what I will do if I am still here, and if I am not here I hope somebody else will. But at this moment in time I am looking at my objective: 24 single seats, one man, one vote, one representative. Mr. Speaker, I can say to hon. members, because it has not been mentioned here this morning, how can you be true to the representation of the people when at this moment in time we have two systems of elections in the Isle of Man, two systems of voting? We have 25 local authorities who are elected under the X system and no transferable vote for them, and yet we, the masters, as they call us, 'those up the hill', 'those up the road', we have given ourselves a different system altogether. If this Bill was to fall today, I will have the order in so fast, Mr. Speaker, to at least be true to myself and true to the people outside, to allow local authorities and the people who elect them to have the same privilege as the privilege the hon. members have given themselves here. (Mr. Brown: Hear, hear.) As you know and I know, the biggest opponents to the single transferable vote are probably not contained in this Court, this hon. House, Mr. Speaker; there are those groups of people outside, rightly or wrongly, who are against having it for them and their areas: the local authorities. So when members vote today they will be making that decision also, because I will not be party, in any shape or form, to having two sets of democratic rules: one for us and one for them. The rules that apply in law outside also apply to us in this House and for the other place. That is the thing I keep hearing mentioned by some of the people who have spoke on this particular debate. If that is true, also the means of being elected must be the same. So the members who would prefer to see this Bill die, it will be their job to explain to the local authorities outside, if the media does not carry it, why it is we are enforcing on them the single transferable vote, not those members who are prepared to go back to their system for one man, one vote, one constituency. Mr. Speaker, the Chief Minister quoted me from the last debate and he quoted me fairly accurately, but I hope what I just said explains to him my feeling. It is nothing new to me. This is not something I want to see played with. This is something that has been built into me in my political life since I first decided ever to even think about standing for a local authority. An unfair system is an injustice and you cannot get away from that. You cannot get away from the fact in this Island we have a system which is unfair and if you take it one way or the other, that is

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved KilO HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

what you are doing. But at the end of the day small steps have to be taken, if necessary, to get to the end of the road which will get us to a fair representative system for everyone's benefit, not just the individual members who would prefer to have that one privilege of being the only representative in their constituency and to see others having to compete to get two or three seats, and the people who vote for them to have, regardless of what is said, Mr. Speaker, to have three voices in this House or two voices against the one sole representative, and in Tynwald Court when it comes to a vote on parochial issues, which unfortunately but nevertheless is a reality in our situation, to have three votes or two votes against one vote on parochial issues. That is parish pump politics and it is built into the system and it is my endeavour, and, I believe, the hon. member for West Douglas, we are pursuing the same cause: to get away from the parochial politics which is created by the very system which put us in this House. If you want to talk about parish pump politics and you say it will happen if you get 24 single seats, let me assure hon. members who have not had the same privilege ·as I have had of representing a two-seat constituency that there is nothing more parochial than having one member- and this does not go for the hon. gentleman who represents the same constituency now, but it has done and I am sure in other constituencies - where one member is pulling the other member down or forcing the issue, the parish pump, and saying, 'I will paint it this colour but he wants to paint it that colour', and that is parochialism of the worst kind. Where members are set against each other to try and support to get a vote they spend their time trying to hold onto the votes they have got or take the votes off the other member, whereas the privileged members who have one seat are judged on their performance as a whole, and that is a truism, Mr. Speaker, that is true; that brings parochialism in, the multi-seat constituency, and I watch it and I still watch it in this hon. House now. There is nothing more parochial than the multi-seats, and you have only got to listen to the last two years' debates and to see how the votes have gone to know that that is true. So do not kid ourselves that single seats will bring parochialism back: it is already here, alive and kicking in this hon. House. If that is the system we are in, let us make it a fair parish pump system for everybody. (Mrs. Delaney: Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that the member for West Douglas could have caught me out on this one if I had not done the explanation. If he is not satisfied with that, I cannot give him more than that, Mr. Speaker. We both are aiming for the same thing: fair representation. But I want to make it clear that the system that we are putting in front here will apply to everyone who is democratically elected in this Island, not just us. So the order, if this Bill falls, will go through, and I will hear the arguments and I will read the Hansards and listen to what has been said and those members who wish to keep the parish pump primed by saying to their local council and their commissioners, 'Oh well, I do not like this either', that will be no longer true because it has been said here they want the system that they are going to bring in. Mr. Speaker, I have cleared it up. As far as I am concerned I do not believe I have the privilege or any member has the privilege to try and make rules for those that come after us. In my 12 years here, there are only four of us left of the House I joined: your goodself, Mr. Speaker, the Chief Minister and myself and my hon.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kill friend from West Douglas. Twelve - all new faces nearly. In ten years' time, 12 years time and no doubt the same thing is going to be here; they might want another system and I cannot say that the system you are going to bring in, or not going to bring will still be in operation in 12 years' time. But all I know is that I, as part of this House, will have done my damnedest to have got in a fair system for the people who put them here. Mr. Speaker, I hope there is no backtracking. It is easy to find a reason not to do anything. If I turn round now and say in the last week that I have changed my mind, Mr. Speaker, you either believe in a democratic system, you believe in what you are doing or you do not. The easiest method here is to change each week and never vote for anything or, better still, avoid the vote and stay outside. Mr. Speaker, let us get it over with for this term, but I believe anyhow three years is a long time in politics if a week is, and I believe that if this Bill falls there will be another Bill here for either 12 two-seats; we could have three seats, all three­ seats; we could have all four seats; we could have all six-seats, if we want, four groups of six, and it would not make a ha'porth of difference if you had the single transferable vote. The ultimate of course is 20 seats. In America today they are voting for their President and when they go into the voting booths they do not only vote for who is going to be the President, they vote for everyone including the local sheriff, and they pull an arm and a lever and that is their vote recorded. I do not see any difficulty, Mr. Speaker, if you want arguments about how to run elections, why the 24, the hundred candidates, could not be put down and you go in and you put 'l' to '24' down, because if the people can understand the single transferable vote - as I know they can; you have only got to look at the limit of the number of spoiled papers there was- to prove that, if you want that system, that is just as easy to operate as the ones you have now. But the one you have at this moment in time. I have no doubt and I will argue with any member on any platform, is unjust, is unfair to somebody in this Island, and our job is to be fair to everybody. Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. North: Mr. speaker, hon. members, I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma with this one, I am afraid, trying to decide which is the fairest, because we have got two alteratives ·and they are not simple alternatives at all. I am in favour of single-seat constituency or 12 two-scat constituencies; I think it is a fairer system. I am against S. T.V. as it stands. My constituents, many of them, when I went round, as I said at the second reading, are expecting, I feel, this House to alter the existing S. T.V. system to one which is fairer and is not a case of S. T.V.; it is a case of people outside, the electorate, think when they arc marking' l' and '2' that they are giving two votes. I know that is not so but they do believe that; they think if they are giving a second that it is, and I certainly experienced a lot of opposition to that and my constituents, certainly in large numbers, do not agree with that. I think it would be a good idea to introduce a very simple Bill based on Mr. Brown's amendment. To me that was the common-sense approach and this House, I feel, Mr. Speaker, should have voted for that amendment because it is certainly what my electorate wanted. There have been some very valid points made in this debate and, as I have said, I find a great dilemma on this on which way to vote and I am afraid I am going

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kll2 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 to have to vote. against this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, before I actually deliver what I wanted to say I have to comment on some of the supporters of this Bill's comments that have been made during the early part of this debate. Particularly I feel that we must try and discipline ourselves in this House to be more examiners of evidence rather more than perpetually promoting our own opinions. I feel a very, very important demonstration of this problem was given by the member who seconded this third reading, the member for Onchan, Mr. Leventhorpe, who stood up and accused the opponents of this Bill of putting red herrings in front of the other members to try and deter them from supporting the Bill, and yet I listed the assertions that he made and the first assertion he made was that S.T.V. was really intended for political systems which involved parties and that it was not suitable for such a system as ours. Now he stopped at that, he did not offer any evidence for that whatsoever - and certainly I have not read any evidence; the Butler Commission did not see any evidence; there has been, as far as I can remember no evidence presented to this House during the whole of the process of this Bill that that is the case- and yet he put forward that proposition at this very late stage. His second assertion was that so many voters felt strong enough not to turn out. Now this is another extraordinary statement that keeps coming out over and over again and to my mind the member for West Douglas has exhaustively examined this issue, and it would appear, although it cannot be conclusively proven one way or the other, there was certainly not a downturn in turnout between the election before non-S.T.V. and this S.T.V. election in 1986. So another opinion without any evidence put before this House to substantiate it. He then went on to suggest that members were occupying their present seats because they topped the poll rather more than S.T.V. having elected them- to counter the assertion that I believe the member for West Douglas made that members were elected here by S. T.V. - and yet once again· that cannot be supported by any evidence beyond opinion. The system of voting alters the voting and no-one can suggest what the voting would have been like had there been one man, one vote in the last election, it is an impossible position to argue, and yet this assertion was put forward. He refuted the argument that one member per constituency would encourage parochialism and yet was prepared to accept, as I was interested to see a number of other members have done so, that perhaps 24 members elected from one giant constituency, the Island, by S.T.V. might be an ideal. He then went on to propose one of the more extraordinary things, I felt, in response to the member for Ramsey, Mr. Bell, that perhaps many of the new residents were perfectly happy to leave the conduct of affairs to local people and only work here, and I find this most objectionable. For a start it is patronising; for a second it reduces a whole section of our community to a status of immigrant workers, and that surely is not anything to do with the principles of democracy, after all democracy is government by the people, and I certainly hope that he is very wrong and I would hope the opposite. To consider that a section of the community should be disenfranchised. I would regard as a very, very basic error in considering how democracy should work.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 KIIJ

He then concluded by proposing that S.T. V. i~ an aberration and that democracy demands a return to first-past-the-post, all of which are opinions to which each member is, of course, entitled and I would never argue against that. But where is the evidence to support these opinions? What facts or factors can anyone put forward to support any of those assertions? And I suggest that there is not such evidence, since we have not had any presented to us in the long process of this Bill. Another member who spoke in support of the Bill, the hon. member for Ramsey, Brigadier Butler, seemed to attempt to outflank the opposition by proposing that it was the opposition to this Bill who were being destructive, rather more than accepting that perhaps by destroying S. T.V. and the present balance in constituencies, perhaps it is this Bill that is being destructive in real terms. He suggested that the constituency boundaries were going to be only altered along the lines of demographic changes, and I do not think that is going to be the case. But the two most interesting assertions that he made, in my view, were that he proposed single-seat constituencies are desirable because they are simple, and S. T.V. as undesirable because it is too complex. Now I also support the principle that if a simple system can be used as a substitute for a complicated system then the simple system should be chosen, but that would depend upon the relative merits of those two systems, and I do not think that anyone argues S. T.V. is in many respects more complex than one man, one vote. But that is not the argument here, surely; it is the quality of the system, whether it encourages democracy or not, that is the issue before this House, not whether it is simple ot not, and I cannot really consider that such aspects of either single-seat constituencies or S. T.V. can be considered in isolation of their other relative merits. Now he also went on to claim that he could prove certain assertions that he made about the lack of effect of the S.T.V. system compared with one man, one vote by a syllogism, and I had no idea what he meant, I confess, but I did look it up in the interim and according to the dictionary: "a syllogism is a form of reasoning in which the conclusion is deduced from two premises, major and minor, containing a common or middle term that is absent from the conclusion, e.g. (major premise) 'all men are mortal', (minor premise) 'Socrates is a man', 'therefore (conclusions) Socrates is mortal', - deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning". Now I would assume that, in the absence of any other explanation -

Mr. Delaney: Draw the raffle!

Dr. Orme: -the member is proposing the sort of syllogism that goes, 'S.T. V. is unpopular, popular measures are democratic and therefore S.T.V. is undemocratic'. That is a perfect syllogism and I do not really see that it makes a very coherent argument but, nevertheless, it certainly taught us all something.

Brig. Butler: You cannot do it with just one.

Mr. Kermode: You have just lost me! (Laughter)

Dr. Orme: The other member who spoke in support of the Bill raised, I think, a very legitimate point about the differences between the voting systems in the Island, and I completely accept at this point that there should not be different voting systems.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kll4 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

But I think he.is well aware and it is, I think fairly well known that there was a plan to bring forward S.T.V. voting in local elections and that that plan was forestalled by the appearance of the Bill from the hon. proposer and that in fact he is arguing about an issue which this created rather more than an argument against S.T.V. This Bill has created a situation where we do not have S.T.V in local council elections, so we cannot put that forward as an argument against S.T. V.; that situation exists now because of this Bill, not S. T.V. He correctly said, I think, that he could not be a party to two sets of democratic rules and it was an unfair system. I think, though, that rather his argument came down to the means being justified by the end, and that is a rather dangerous moral grounds to take, I think, in the sense that in his quest for equality in influence on their Government by the voters of the Isle of Man he was prepared to compromise, and I think that that is where I differ from him: not in the principles which he seeks but in the fact that I do not believe that the compromise of losing S. T.V. is acceptable. It will be no surprise to members to know that I cannot support this Bill. I still believe, in spite of all the arguments that have been put forward to the contrary, that it is a retrograde step and a lost opportunity. I share completely the sentiments of the Chief Minister who expressed the view that, whereas single-seat constituencies may or may not be the primary issue, the important loss contained within this Bill is S.T.V. It is a loss which I think will have long-term effects upon the quality of Government and the interests of the people of the Isle of Man and I think that is a very, very grave and very sad loss if that occurs. Now the supporters seem to me to divide crudely into two categories: the ones that assert 'The public do not want S.T.V. and therefore we as a democratic Government cannot support it'. But that is okay, if we accept that as a starting point: they do not want S.T.V. What do they want? Do they want the new constituencies that are going to be proposed by this Boundaries Commission? Because they are not, as I have heard members suggest, just little demographic changes, changes due to population densities moving from one place to another; they are not going to be minor changes. There are going to have to be, I feel, major changes in constituencies in order to effect this Bill. Are they going to want those when we go knocking on their doors in three and a half year's time? Are they going to be complaining endlessly about those constituencies? Because those constituencies are a necessary means of achieving this Bill. That has been clearly established. The member started out in the belief that he could just get rid of S.T.V.; half­ way through he discovered he could not do that, and those changes in the constituencies are the means, and I wonder how popular they are going to be when they come back, because, after all, many of the present constituencies have been established a long time and that change, I do not think, is going to be particularly popular. The second grouping seems to be- in the supporters' Bill -seems to be that S.T.V. did not make much difference and I think we have endlessly examined the evidence of the one election in the Island that has been held using S. T.V. and that does not really provide us with any conclusive evidence. I certainly feel that the short-term effects were uncertain but it was my conviction that there would be long­ term beneficial effects. We are essentially considering today whether to offer to this Island the opportunity of S.T. V. demonstrating those long-term beneficial effects

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kll5 and the arguments that have been put forward so far in the process of this Bill that there are not any long-term beneficial effects I regard as totally insubstantial. The Butler Commission, the report in 1979, clearly identified a route, a recommended route for this Island towards multi-seat constituencies and towards S.T.V., and I believe that was the right advice, it remains the right advice, and it is interesting that once again all we have had has been opinions advanced to push aside the Butler Commission's recommendations. Once again I have not heard anyone refute their arguments and here we are discussing everyone's opinion rather more than the evidence before us. Perhaps I might digress a little and reflect upon the mechanism by which we reached this position, how has this been possible, for us to arrive in this very, very difficult position for a number of members. I wonder by what right members feel they sit here. After all, by what right do we sit here and govern other equal and free men? The principle of democracy is that all men in this land are equal and free.

Mr. Delaney: Till we come to elections.

Dr. Orme: Well I do not believe it is because of election success; that is purely a quirk of fate. (Laughter and interruption)

Mr. Kermode: You have just sealed your fate!

Dr. Orme: One may laugh, but I do not believe that. I do not believe the moral right is held because of election success. The moral right is held by - it is not held by qualifications or credentials either, so these factors are clearly irrelevant - I think the moral right has to be earned over and over again and it is earned by behaviour and an aspect of that behaviour is by earning the right to govern by being better informed, having well informed views and making well-informed decisions, and, most important of all, by being prepared to convince the public of the validity of those views and decisions, and in essence it comes down to a microcosm of leadership - we have talked about leadership here before - is each member prepared to be a leader of public opinion or is he only prepared to be a follower? Because if he is not prepared to take some responsibility for persuasion of the public that something is right, even though it may not be popular, I wonder what his real function here is going to be because he is going to have great difficulty in establishing the majority view on every issue that faces him in here therefore he surely can only decide what he feels is right and be prepared to argue that as a well thought out and well-informed view to those people who would challenge it who are members of his constituency. I wonder how many members treated the last election as an opportunity or a responsibility. I was a new candidate. I had no choice I had to persuade them to vote for me so there was no question of downing the voting system; the most important thing was to persuade them to vote at all. But I believe that many members considered that it was an opportunity to put forward an 'anti' view to S.T.V. and thereby achieve some popularity, and I wonder how many actually had the time or tried to persuade or inform the public of their perception of the benefits of S. T.V., and why Tynwald, after so many hours of discussion and argument, had come to

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kl16 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 this conclusion. It seems to me that we are in danger of abrogating the responsibility of leadership in this House. In the final analysis we have a choice between being leaders or followers. We either lead in the belief that we have well thought out and well­ informed views and we have made the correct decisions and are prepared to persuade people of that, or we follow public opinion as we perceive it, which is a very, very difficult and very uncertain process and one that I would put forward might well lead to government by the lowest common denominator, because we all know that very often our assessment of public opinion can be inaccurate because it depends upon the volume and the intensity rather more than the measurement of the majority view by poll, I suppose. There is an alternative to supporting this Bill. It is not a negative alternative; it is not a destructive alternative. The step of introducing S. T.V. into the voting system on this Island has been taken. I believe it should be given a longer chance to prove its value. The next step, as recommended by the Butler Commission, is to change the constituency boundaries into either all multi-member constituencies of one form or another or one giant constituency, and I think we should have the vision to hold on to the step that has been taken and to be contemplating whether and how and when we take the next step, and I hope members will consider not supporting the Bill.

Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I think much has been said about this Bill during the course of its passage through the House, its initial presentation, the subsequent sending to committee and finally having been brought back, in the form it has been brought back and I am quite sure that most members are, one way or another, made up, apart from the members who apparently at one stage supported the principle of doing away with S. T.V. now feel that perhaps that might not be such a _good thing. I listened with interest to the well researched and informative contribution of my hon. colleague, the member for Douglas West, who went into great detail on the deliberations of the committee that was set up to look at the principles in this Bill, and one of the points made by the hon. member was that very few members of the general public actually submitted evidence to that committee. But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that those members of the general public who may not put pen to paper to submit views to the committee submitted views to each and every hon. member at the time of the general election. (Mr. Cannan: hear, hear.) Can it be coincidental that the local authorities in the Isle of Man definitely came out and said they are not in favour of the S.T.V. system. Now is it unrealistic to assume that the local authority members are in conflict with their constituents, that they know what their constituents desire is? So I find it strange to say that because no members of the public did not actually put pen to paper they did not let their views be known, because I feel they have made their views known. They have made them known to me in my constituency, I am sure to other hon. members in their own constituencies, and, I am sure, to local authority representatives. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. member for Douglas East brought the debate somewhat back into context, because we are coming back now to the basic principle of representation and that is equality. For years the Isle of Man has suffered a system of inequality when it comes down to representation.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl-17

The hon. member that has just resumed his seat was conversing about the principle of equal and free men: a wonderful concept. We are all equal and free men in the Isle of Man except when it comes to constitutional issues. then we are not equal.

Mrs. Delaney: Some more than others.

Mr. May: Some more than others, indeed. What we have today is the chance to redress the balance to give the same level of representation to every person within the Island in every district of the Island, regardless of where they live. Now is some members feel that because the S.T. V. elements no longer forms part of the Bifi, if they feel that because the hon. member who moved the amendment last week which failed to carry was not successful in that amendment, it may well be that in another place that could even yet be introduced, I do not know. But I would hate to see, Mr. Speaker, the principle, the basic principle of equal representation to go out of the window on this one. The Isle of Man has waited a long time for 24 single-seat contituencies. It is a concept that I firmly believe in. If we lose it now do we think, honestly, that this will be the end of constitutional issues for the remainder of our term? I do not think so. Somebody else will come back with something else. By passing this Bill today for once and for all we can set the Island on the right road ahead to equality and that is what it is about. I have heard some of the arguments against todaY., The debate opened with a contribution that said that in America today only a quarter of the American population will vote for the most powerful man on earth. But in America also in the Press I read this morning they only anticipate the turnout will be about 50 per cent., so I would suggest a quarter might be about par for the course. Mr. Speaker I believe in the principle of 24 single-seats and I will be supporting the Bill and I hope hon. members will do the same.

The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? The hon. member for Peel.

Mrs. Hannan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to this third reading because I am very concerned about democracy, I am concerned about representation of the people and I am concerned about some of the points that have been raised today during this debate and in debates leading up to this third reading, because I believe democracy is representation of the people by the people to create a Government. Now in the past we have not had proper representation; until two years ago and then I believe we did have representation; we had, albeit different sized constituencies, we had one person, one vote, and I think that is the most important thing that we have to remember. Now it has been said by members that have spoken in support of this Bill that this. Bill will create one man, one vote, one seat. I think what we should be looking for is majority support for that one person in that one seat and we can get that through the single transferable voting system. Many speakers have spoken this morning and this afternoon on this Bill and I really cannot better the speeches that have been made by Mr. Bell, the member for Ramsey, and the Chief Minister, and also the member for West Douglas who spoke

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved KII8 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 on this. It is so important that we do not lose sight of what is ahead of us. We have talk.ed about parish pump politics and how multi-seat constituencies provide for that. Now during debates which we have had before in this hon. House I have been told by members that I do not represent certain people in my constituency because my constituents have gone outside my constituency and put their views to another member of this hon. House. I accept that; that is their right. For the simple reason that the hundred per cent. of the population did not vote for me even under the single transferable voting system we cannot get away from that. There are people within this Court who will represent the views of the people that I do not represent and I see that as being important. We were talking about 24 single-seats and I think it was the member for Onchar who said - I cannot remember exactly what he did say now - that it was 24 an that was the way ahead because people would get elected, they would be known by the people and they were the ones that would be elected. Now we should try to move away from that, Mr. Speaker. We should move away towards politics, the political representation in this House. There are plenty of people within the community who arc nice people, but get them into the House of Keys and would they stand the strain or not? I do not know. But I do not think that electing 24 nice people to the House of Keys is the way ahead for my country. I think that today we should be putting forward the points in the national interest, we should be putting the national interest over constituency problems, over our own position when it comes to the next election. We have three years; it is almost two years to the day that we were elected to this House. We have not given the single transferable voting system a chance to work. I do not think it has even been investigated as to how it did work whether it served the purpose, and I would prefer to see it work at least another couple of times before I would like to say that it did not work, even although we have heard all the semantics this morning about how it did and how it did not. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the single transferable vote gives the power to the people. Now where else should the power be than with the people? The whole point of being elected is that you have the support of the people to be elected. Having a small percentage of that vote does not give you the mandate to vote. Now one of the members who have spoken said that to come third and still be a winner. Now I cannot agree with that. That was the case prior to this last election when everyone in that constituency had three votes. Then that person that came third was elected. However under the single transferable voting system we have someone who came first because they had the vote, somebody who came second but it was second with their vote.

Mr. Delaney: You do not understand the system, obviously.

Mrs. Hannan: I understand the system perfectly. Each person within the constituency came first because there was only one vote to give. The votes transferred and then the person had the majority support. I understand the situation, the single transferable voting system precisely, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it gives the power to the people and to go back to first-past-the-post I believe takes away that

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kll9 power from the people. Now we have heard that local authorities are against the single transferable voting system. Could I just say that Douglas, although they have an election every year and they have three members of each ward, they do have first-past-the-post but they only elect one person at each of those elections. Now the other local authorities do not. In my local authority we elect three every year. We go to the poll and we put our three X's. We are electing three members to that local authority and in the same way as other local authorities go once every three years and elect the whole of that membership. I would have thought that the local authority would be against a change because they would have to work harder to get the votes. As long as you present a case, and in most areas, I think, in local authorities the electorate arc not canvassed, they go by a popular vote and you do not need to canvass that hard because you are guaranteed a certain number of votes.

Mr. Delaney: Nobody guarantees you anything in this game!

Mrs. Hannan: You only have to canvass a few people, a few people, to get the number of votes that are needed to be elected in local authority areas outside Douglas. Mr. Speaker, when we vote in this House we need a majority, to pass Bills and I would like to pose a question. Why is it suitable to have a majority in this House and yet have members elected to this House on a minority vote? Because that is what we are moving to with 24 single-seat constituencies and first-past-the-post. Now I think there only England and Scotland and Wales where they use the X system still. The rest of Western Europe uses proportional representation, and I believe that in England, Scotland and Wales the single transferable proportional representation vote will be introduced in the not-too-distant future simply because it is part of the European scene and I think that people in England and Wales and Scotland will look for a majority support for their Government. We have heard today about crowds waiting outside for results and that is a sign of democracy. I put it to this hon. Court that I do not think that is. I think people will wait whatever hour it is whether they support whatever system and the people did come out and vote in this general election two years ago, Mr. Speaker; in most cases the turnout was increased. I believe that to return to the 24 single-seat constituencies will do a dishonour to our country and I think when we are trying to improve the democratic scene in Mann, then I think it is important that we in this House put the national interest first and that we vote against this Bill today, that we ask Executive Council to come back with either two or three-seat constituencies with the single transferable vote to give the equal representation that many members in this Court wish.

Mr. Quine: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been debated and debated again and yet further debated and as far as I am concerned my views are already on record and, unlike certain members, I have heard nothing since that time to require me to change them. I do not welcome this Bill. As far as I am concerned, I think it is untimely and to a large extent it is unwanted, and I think it is undesirable as a Bill because we have two issues being pulled together in the one Bill, if not three issues pulled together

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kl20 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 in the one Bill. But it is before us. The hon. member for Michael has exercised his right to bring forward this issue, and that is perfectly correct. It is before us and we have no option. I feel we must stand judgement on the issue and I certainly would not want to vote it out in the expectation that the matter will go away; it will not go away. As I said, my views are straightforward. I support the cancellation of the S. T.V. system and I have given my reasons for that previously. I do not support the concept of 24 seats. So I end up in something of Hobson's choice with this Bill. It is a matter of value judgement: do I run away from it and just vote the Bill out or do I take a more clinical position and decide which, having regard to my constituents and my position, is best for my constituents? Well, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel sufficiently strong on this subject to support the removal of S.T.V. because I believe that that is more fundamental, that is the more fundamental issue. S.T. V.- we have, as I have said, heard much detailed argument. We have heard the pros, we have heard the cons, and some of it has been unbelievably academic and, I am certain, not well received by the public. In fact the public are not here to receive it at all, I do not think, just a handfull. (Laughter and interruptions) I do not think the public are concerned with that sort of finite democracy; that is not what they are looking for. They are looking for a system which they can follow, which they can see how it works, they can understand it. They are not looking for finite degrees of democracy. I do not think that is really what they are expecting from us. They want something that they can work to, work to with confidence, and they have had a system which worked with which they were, as far as I am aware, perfectly happily, and we, at least members of the previous House, in its better judgment decided that they should not have that system. But rather than deal with the specific points I would just make three points on this as regards my position in holding that the S.T.V. issue is the more important and that it should go. Firstly, as far as I am aware, as far as I can deduce from listening to the arguments here, it has not, and with the possible odd exception that may occur in the future, it will not change the outcome of elections. We have seen what happened on the last occasion. We have got the same faces here that we would have had under the other system. The make-up of our Legislature remains the same as it would have been. The second point I would make is this. It is perceived, whether it is, I contend it is, but it is at least perceived to be too complicated, and for that reason amongst others it is unwanted by the electorate, and, thirdly, and I think importantly, the retention of S.T.V. is going to leave us in a situation where we are going to have a mixture of voting systems, and, as the hon. member for East Douglas has said, it is going to bring about a continuation of this debate of S. T.V. versus first-past­ the-post because it is going to be carried through to local elections and are we again then going to turn round and say to our local authorities and to our voters who say 'We do not want S. T.V.', say 'You have got to have it because we have opted for it, we have made this decision for you'? I do not think that this is an issue where we can do that. When it comes to the public determining how they place their representatives in this Chamber, in any elected body, they are the people we should be listening to,

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl21 they are the people to tell us how and to what system they should work. The wisdom that we may or may not have should not prevail in regard to that issue. We should be listening, listening carefully, and following their wishes in that respect because that is how fundamental the issue is. (Mr. Cannan: Hear, hear.) Other matters are quite different. You can take other issues which are complex, upon which decisions have to be made, on a wealth of information, detailed information, and that is where we are going to have to take a value judgement. But when it is a matter as fundamental as this, as basic as this, we should not be telling them what is good for them. They tell us what they want, Mr. Speaker, and we should follow their wishes in that respect. As regards the 24 single seats, there is not a great deal that I would wish to say about it. I can see that it is superficially attractive, bringing about uniformity, pinpointing responsibility perhaps but I do not think it goes much further than that. This adjustment, this breaking down of the few multi-seat constituencies, it does not fundamentally change the make-up, I do not see that at all, and it is for that reason that on the scale I place a higher value on the S.T. V. issue than on this issue. But what matters more to me is not the 24 seat issue. It is this really, that by bringing in 24 single seats does it enhance the ability or would it enhance the ability of this Legislature to provide a more effective national Government? For as far as I am concerned it is only that sort of consideration which would move me to make changes of this nature and I cannot see that this change will make one iota of difference in enhancing or in strengthening the abilities, changing the make-up of the Legislature to bring about a stronger national Government. I do not think it will; I am sure it will not. Our problems, Mr. Speaker, the problems with our Legislature and with the operation of a workable system of Government are much more fundamental than the issues which are broached in this particular Bill, and I think we are better advised to stop tinkering until and unless we are prepared to take a deep breath and go to the real fundamental issues, and I have spoken on them in this House before; I will not repeat them. I am sure hon. members know what my views on this issue; are. I have spelt them out very clearly before. But unless we are prepared to take a deep breath and go to the real root cause of our problems, then leave it alone, do not tinker with it. I regret, Mr. Speaker, I regret very sincerely that we have a Bill with these issues coupled together. I regret that vero¥ much. I feel that this matter would have been better left alone or, if we felt so compelled to do something about it, to at least have kept the issues separate. But it is before us. I must exercise my Hobson's choice and, that being the case, I feel that I will support this Bill but not without the expression of considerable and very serious reservations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cain: Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this Bill but I must, in trying to develop the logic of any argument that I think may exist, first of all start my thinking process by agreeing with the remarks just made by the member for Ayre, that it is, on reflection, perhaps unfortunate that the two issues that are before us are linked in together in this one Bill and I accept that. But, as has been said, we have no option but to accept that the situatiot\ is as it is. So what it comes down to is very simple: do we think, no matter which of the two factors that we are talking about, which of them we might prefer and which

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kl22 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

we may not prefer, do we think that by voting for the Bill in its present form we are going to be better than the situation that exists at the present time? Are we going to make a little bit of progress along the road towards what we might each ideally think and accept as being, in the ultimate, desirable? Now in my view if you examine that issue I have no doubt one should support the Bill. Now if we were to put each one of us on the rack and look at the two principal factors that are before us. Each one of us could separately place one or other of the issues as being of more importance than the other. The member for Ayre stated that he thought the cancellation of S.T.V. was of more importance to him than single-seat constituencies. At this moment of time, if I were put on the rack, I would go the other way round. Having said that, for the reasons that were advanced by the member for East Douglas, that this is a means of progressing towards the ideal, because I have been put on the rack in this way, as indeed we all have, I intend to support the Bill in the hope that as the years go by perhaps a more ideal situation might be found.

The Speaker: The hon. member to reply.

Mr. Cannan: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, this has been a Bill which has been treated with a great deal of seriousness, as indeed it should be, and members have expressed their views. As it has been said, possibly the same views have been said now on four occasions. Members hold very firm views on this. There are fundamental issues. I too, as a member said, have concern for democracy. I believe every person in this hon. House has concern for democracy. There are two distinct parts of this Bill, as I said, maybe three: the single seats, one man, one vote, one constituency, and that, I believe, is a very firm·and proper way of representation. It is representation within the United Kingdom to which we are most closely aligned. I believe that that is a principle which many members of this House have fought for. I say to those that hold dearly to that course that if that is your principal guiding force, then hold to this Bill because to lose it now would be unfortunate to say the least. Then we come to the single transferable vote and we have had speeches strongly in favour and strongly against. But there is one fundamental issue that was spelt clearly out this afternoon and that was by the hon. Minister for Local Government and the Environment whose responsibility it is for the conduct of local authority elections, and he said you cannot with honour and integrity have two different systems of voting in this Island; you cannot say to the people out there 'Well of course you are going to voteS. T.V. here and it is going to be X first-past-the-post out there' ,.and if this Bill were to fail the minister has clearly indicated to everybody he would do the right and proper and honourable thing and he would immediately and forthwith sign the order bringing in the single transferable vote for the local authorities.

Mr. Brown: That is the right way forward.

Mr. Cannan: And yet I say to each and everyone of you: you will be accountable because every single local government authority has firmly and unequivocally, in writing, stated that it is against it, (Interruptions) and we are accountable to the

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl23 people and they are -

Mrs. Hannan: But the people are not local authority.

Mr. Cannan: I am sorry, Mrs. Hannan, you have had your speech, I listened in silence. Would you care to do the courtesy to me? Thank you. But the authorities outside wilt not thank"you for imposing on them something which they vehemently oppose, every single authority. The Corporation and Borough of Douglas, they state quite clearly, 'The Council supports the abolition of the single transferable vote system and the re-introduction of the conventional system of voting where the voters place an X', and the Parish Commissioners of German likewise and they say that 'There should be some re-organisation of constituencies so that all can be single­ seat representation. In this way representation is equalised', and that parish is represented by the hon. member for Glenfaba, and the commissioners on the South of the Island, each and every one of them, are very firm: Port Erin, Port St. Mary, Castletown, they certainly do not want the introduction of the single transferable vote.

Mr. Brown: They have had elections since then.

Mr. Cannan: Those elections were on the X first-past-the-post. This Bill, hon. members, came into this House as the wish - as it is printed - as the wish of a committee, the report of a committee, which was supported by the majority of this House and I would ask this House, because I am not going to go over all the arguments again this afternoon, it would be entirely repetitive. Members, I believe, have made firmly in their minds what they want. It is priorities, it is single-seat constituencies and the abolition of the single transferable vote, and I ask you to treat this matter in seriousness, to do what you know to be the best and what is right and honourable - one man, one vote, one constituency, and, the wish of the people: there should be first-past-the-post. Mr. Speaker, I move the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Karran: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I asked a specific question about the Constitutional Committee of Tynwald and have they considered this and, if they have not, why haven't they?

The Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Karran: That is my point of order.

The Speaker: Unhappily it does not conform with the Standing Orders. Hon. members, the resolution before the House is that the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill be now read a third time. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Messrs. Cannan, Quine, May, Mrs. Delaney, Messrs. Duggan, Delaney, Cain, Brig. Butler, Messrs. Leventhorpe, L.R. Cretney, Gelling and the Speaker- 12

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved Kl24 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, North, Walker, Dr. Orme, Messrs. Corrin, Brown, D.C. Cretney, Kermode, Kneale, Mrs. Hannan, Messrs. Bell and Karran - 12

The Speaker: Hon. members, 12 votes have been cast in favour of the Bill, 12 votes have been cast against the Bill. There is provision for the Speaker to give a casting vote and my casting vote is in favour of the Bill. (Interruption) The Bill therefore carries.

Mr. Kneale: Mr. Speaker, can you quote the Standing Order? This is the third reading and surely it needs 13 votes.

Mr. Delaney: Or the majority of those present.

The Speaker: I quote you the Standing Order, sir, which provides that in an equality of a division in the House with 12 votes each way the Speaker has a casting vote. You are well aware of that provision. Therefore the casting vote becomes the thirteenth vote, and, learned counsel, is that correct?

Dr.Orme: Could you tell us which Standing Order says that, please?

The Speaker: Standing Order 105, and, hon. members, with -

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker -

The Speaker: - a casting vote being cast in favour the resolution carries and the Bill is read a third time, and any question in respect of Standing Orders cannot be raised at this sitting of the House, in keeping with Standing Orders, but must be a matter for the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Corrln: Incredible.

The Speal,er: Now, hon. members, we go on to the next business before the House and that is the Road Traffic Bill and I call upon the hon. member for Middle to take the second reading.

Mr. Kneale: Mr. Speaker, I give notice now that I will challenge this decision at the next meeting of the House.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Hannan: And I will support that decision.

A Member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kneale: Under Standing Order 158.

The Speaker: I have taken note of the comments of the hon. members.

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill - Debate Concluded - Third Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl25

Mr. Corrin: Mr. Speaker, is it not a tradition in a Parliamentary democracy that in the event of a tie of a controversial nature the Chair supports the status quo?

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have made it perfectly clear that if you want to raise a point on Standing Orders in relation to my decision, then you arc entitled to do so, but not at this sitting of the House.

Mrs. Hannan: Could I ask when that could, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: Pardon?

Mrs. Hannan: Could I ask when this point could be raised?

The Speaker: Yes, of course, at the next sitting of the House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL - SECOND READING AI,PROVED

The Speaker: Now we proceed with the business of the House and I call upon the hon. member for Middle. I apologise for the intrusion.

Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, the Bill now before the House makes sensible amendments to some of the provisions in the principal road traffic legislation, namely the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985 and the Road Traffic Act 1985. There arc only four main changes effected by the provisions of this Bill. Some of the changes will make life a little easier and certainly less stressful for some and will simplify and reduce the paperwork of the police and the courts. Other provisions simplify procedures or enable Manx residents to be covered and to comply with E.C. regulations when travelling abroad. The four main changes are, firstly, to provide wider and more flexible controls in respect of parking facilities for vehicles but in particular to enable a charge to be made for the parking of vehicles on the public highway, which is not permissible under existing legislation. The second change is the existing fixed penalty system operated by the police which has been in operation since the 1st January 1987 is extended to cover a wider range of minor motoring offences; Among the offences to be covered by the extended scheme are the following: exceeding the speed limit, unlawful carrying of passengers on motorcycles, contravention of traffic signs, leaving vehicles in dangerous positions, driving on a footway, parking on a footway . • Other changes are that separate rates of fixed penalty are prescribed for a non­ endorsable motoring offence and an endorsable offence, that is, £12 and £24 respectively, and, whereas at present non-payment of the fixed penalty leads to a prosecution, the Bill provides that the accused has to act to contest liability and in default he is deemed to be fined the amount of one and a half times the fixed penalty. Safeguards are of course contained in the Bill where the failure is not his fault. The third change is the procedure for the making of traffic orders. This is changed

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved Kl26 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 to provide a simplified standard procedure primarily to remove the function of the Governor in Council of deciding appeals against certain orders. This procedure will provide publication of a draft order, consideration of written objections and then the making of the order. Those are the main amendments affecting the Road Traffic Regulation Act. The fourth change relates to the prescribed requirements for third party insurance or security for use of a motor vehicle on a road. The compulsory insurance cover required at present - death and personal injuries - is extended to also require insurance against damage to property. This is a follow up on the E.C. directive of requiring damages to property to be made compulsory in member states, aimed at the United Kingdom, which is the only member state without such a requirement. The United Kingdom has now implemented this directive and, whilst this directive does not apply directly to the Isle of Man, it is desirable to bring our insurance into line with the E.C. in order to facilitate the movement of Manx vehicles into the United Kingdom and the Continent to enable us to offer reciprocal arrangements to foreign motorists from E.C. countries visiting the Isle of Man and to enable insurers to issue a standard form certificate: Mr. Speaker, this is the outline of the effect of the Road Traffic Bill 1988, but 1 intend to go through each relevant clause in some detail to fully explain the effects thereof at another time. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill. The Speaker: Seconder? Mr. Kermode: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Now does any other hon. member wish to speak to this reading? The hon. member for Ayre. Mr. Quine: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the second reading of this Bill, providing, as it does, for strengthening of road traffic legislation. I particularly welcome the revision and extention of fixed penalties for certain traffic offences, albeit neither the nature of the scheme nor the offences covered are, in my humble view, sufficiently far-reaching. I am satisfied that this legislation passes what I would term the acid test, that is that there is a real need for it and, secondly, that in the context of an order of priorities it has a high point of reckoning. Furthermore, I am sure it will go to some significant extent in making the procedures of the police, particularly as it relates to particular offences, more cost-effective, although it could have been more so and I shall expand on that a little later. As I said, I feel more could have been done but I do not feel inclined at this point in time to move an amendment. I think I am satisfied that we should take a small step forward at least in the way proposed in this Bill because I am sure the majority of hon. members of this House will feel more comfortable with that than trying to make a more dramatic change from what we have to what we should have. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we would have been better served by a more radical and clinical provision of a fixed penalty system. I would have preferred to have dealt with traffic contraventions, particularly those relating to parking and other minor offences, as civil debts which would have allowed us, I feel, to have dealt with these infringements by way of matters of vicarious liability

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl27 where the responsibility could have been placed on the owner and not necessarily on the driver, and as a consequence much of the administrative costs could have been curtailed or reduced. The treatment in particular of parking offences in this way would have minimised the paperwork and removed the criminal stigma presently attached to certain minor traffic offences, which in reality are basically social infringements; they are not criminal offences as such. Again this treatment of parking contraventions, the placing, as I said, of vicarious liability on the owner for certain offences, it could have facilitated the collection of debts by requiring the clearance of debts for such infringements as a prerequisite to vehicle licence removal, and again that would have been a very cost-effective procedure. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a radical proposal which I am suggesting; this would have been in line with systems of enforcement of parking and other minor traffic offences which already exist in other places. They are tested schemes, they are proven, they do work, and I feel that we could have taken a bigger step and we could have moved more towards that sort of system than the adjustments which we are proposing to make in this case. The list of non- parking offences should have been substantially enlarged, I feel, as one looks through the offences which are provided for here, the non-parking offences. There are other minor traffic offences which could have been included and the list could have been substantially enlarged and indeed in other places there are all but a hundred traffic offences dealt with under a system such as I have mentioned here today. In my experience this treatment enables much more to be achieved with fewer resources and in a more acceptable manner, and that is very important. We are always confronted with the issue of have we got sufficient policemen to enforce the laws that we, sometimes somewhat blindly, pass? We should be thinking more before we pass legislation as to the ability of the police force to enforce that legislation. Certainly systems can be changed, they can be streamlined, and they can bring about a significant reduction in the resources required to achieve the same end or in fact even a better product, and, as I say, by moving them, had we moved them from the purely criminal sphere to the sphere of civil debt, the enforcement of such offences would have been much less vexatious much more acceptable 10 the motorist, and no less effective, indeed more effective. Of course vicarious liability cannot be attached to all minor traffic offences and I would make that point clear, but there are many minor traffic offences which could have been dealt with in that way. If this Bill receives its second reading, and I sincerely hope that it will, I shall endeavour to strengthen the law on drunken driving by the insertion of a new clause and schedule to the Road Traffic Act 1985. As I have said previously, if we are serious about road safety this is the aspect of road traffic law which should be addressed. If we are serious about reducing accidents, reducing casualties, it is the problem of alcohol affecting the ability of drivers that should be tackled as the first priority. Alcohol is a significant contributory cause in one out of ten accidents, one out of ten road accidents alcohol is a significant contributory cause. It is the main

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved Kl28 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

ingredient in one out of every five deaths on the road. A third of all drivers killed have excess alcohol in their body and a third of all drivers tested after an accident are similarly affected by alcohol. These statistics are United Kingdom statistics, recent statistics, and I am sure the situation is no different here than in the United Kingdom. In fact it may well be worse by reason of the fact that our procedures for enforcing the law in regard to drunken driving are reactive rather than proactive. Our procedures, in the absence of certain of the facilities which are available in the United Kingdom, the absence of those facilities results in a situation where we are reacting to a situation and our police are not in a situation to take a proactive stance towards the enforcement of alcohol-related offences. I make no apologies for relating these statistics. Indeed I hope that members will dwell on them because as a matter of priority this is the area - I do not think it can be contested - this is the area, alcohol in relation to the driving of vehicles, that is what we must tackle if we are serious about reducing traffic accidents and the consequential casualties. If we are serious about reducing road accidents, go to the heart of the matter, go to this problem, attack this problem, attack the alcohol problem. Do not fiddle about wi-th cosmetic measures which may be less politically sensitive but which, frankly, will have little or marginal effect on road accidents and casualties and will take up a disproportionate amount of our resources. Go to the heart of the matter and stand by that. Mr. Speaker, I support the second reading.

Dr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions about the claims and the intent of this Bill perhaps that I might advance at this stage in the hope that the member might be able to present us with more evidence on them later on. I notice, to begin with, the Bill has, as part 3 of the front page, its little standard word-processor piece about the fact that the Bill will cause a net reduction in public expenditure and manpower by reducing demands on the police and the courts, and I think that Part 11 of the Bill, fixed penalties part of the Bill, in that context I would not argue with that claim. However, dealing with Part I of the Bill where there are these major changes in controls on parking both on-road and off-road and the introduction of, I would have thought, the D.H.P. must be contemplating a Parking Division because they are going to be dealing with meters, permits, tokens, tickets, badges; presumably they are going to need meter maids, they are going to need all sorts of administration to deal with all of this. I would have thought that there would have been presented to us some assessment of the costings, prospective costings, that have been associated with those sorts of measures. Now also there is a very, very important factor, I think, in all of this proposal for control. Control is all very well and good if it produces a better solution than, let us say, the chaos it replaces, if that is the two extremes of the argument, and I wonder whether consideration has been given to the transport needs of the towns of the Isle of Man, specifically Douglas, I suppose, but there is a need to have a flow of so many people into the town and for them to do their work and to flow out again in the evenings and the other flows that are necessary for traffic. Traffic, after all, is people expressing one of the basic freedoms they have: to drive their motorcar, and I wonder how much planning has been given for the future transport needs and the development of those needs on the Island, because somehow we are

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMRER 1988 Kl29 going to have to deal with that and if this proposal is going to seriously decrease the number of parking spaces available in Douglas, then we are going to have subsequent problems of very real import for us to deal with, and I would like some sort of description as to ·how the D.H.P. plans to deal with the overall parking problem in Douglas and indeed, how the Government, and I presume, being a departmental Bill and therefore having been accepted by Executive Council, I would assume there would be some co-ordinated plan to deal with the problems of getting people into and out of the towns of the Isle of Man with a minimum of disturbance and stress. So I would like some more descriptions of where this proposal for the control of parking, on and off-road, lies within an overall plan of dealing with the necessary traffic flows. In general I support the Bill. I certainly feCI, like Mr. Quine, that I think there are developments that perhaps could have been more ambitious, but I find that in most of the provisions of the Bill I find I will be easily supporting it, providing a proper explanation is available as to how it fits into an overall plan.

Mr. Kermode: Mr. Speaker, having heard the last speaker speak and I want to take nothing away from the hon. mover of the Bill, but I felt I would just like to answer a few of the points that he has brought up. It is not the intention of the department to suddenly find parking meters all over the streets of the town, Mr. Speaker. That is not the intention. The idea at this moment in time, we have no legislation which enables anybody to charge for parking on the highway. In essence, areas like the end of the Jubilee Clock where we are hoping, and the Corporation have asked for, to install pay and display, at this moment in time, with it being a highway, it is not possible and this legislation is to help us along that road in order to create wherever we can and wherever is possible more parking places. We recognise the needs but the overall plan that the member is asking for, for parking in Douglas, is now being dealt with by this department of the D.H.P.P. and will come forth in another manner and not particularly at this time at this Bill. But this Bill will certainly help us on the way of projecting some of the things we want to do. But the overall parking plan, there is a parking report that has been done. That is being decided upon this week by our department, in turn will go to Executive Council, and in turn the hon. members of this Court, I am sure, will be informed of that plan as far as parking is concerned.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested about some of the things the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine, said, in particular that a third of all drivers killed, and I think he said drivers in accidents, have alcohol in their blood and this is a U.K. figure. I am bound to say it rather proves the case that the breathalyser is not the answer to this. However, I suspect that the hon. member is going to suggest two things. One is much higher penalties, which I would certainly support because I think that is the real deterrent, and also I think he will be suggesting that people in hospital and so on after an accident can have their blood tested to see if they are over any limit, both of which seem to me entirely reasonable. His two other ideas, I was disappointed he did not say that he was going to move

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved Kl30 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 amendments in respect of them, because I am sure it is a very good point that for the fixed fines it would be much better if they were a civil matter rather than a criminal one, and I hope he will move an amendment in respect of this. It also seems to me it would save a vast amount of time and effort if, instead of having to pursue people for fixed penalty fines, one just made it clear they would not get their licence renewed until they were paid, particularly if they are Manx residents; it might be more difficult if they were not Manx residents, and I am sure with the Government's computor programmes this would be, or should be in the future, perfectly possible and therefore I hope the hon. member might pursue that one by means of an amendment.

The Speaker: Reply, sir.

Mr. North: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I thank those members who have supported the second reading for this Bill, particularly the great experience and support of the hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Quine. The non-parking offences- I would stress that this Bill is, as the hon. member did say, a simple step forward and we are trying to keep it that way. The hon. member for Rushen - I hope he was not being discriminating when he referred to meter maids only, but we have no plans at this stage for a full Parking Division in the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. What we are trying to do, and this Bill goes a step towards it, is to try and solve a parking problem, within Douglas specifically and in the Island, in many ways, generally. This legislation will enable our department to start to tackle the problem. We know what the problem is and this is a start to tackle it. He wants more description of how we are going to tackle it and my colleague from the department who is Chairman of the Road Safety Committee has already mentioned some there, and the Minister of Highways, Ports and Properties is well aware of the problem as well and certainly the department will be bringing forward, I am sure, further regulations and changes or orders in the future. What I feel is, as far as the fixed penalties, the existing, which was started not too long ago, was a positive step forward. This is the next step and certainly some of the suggestions bear in mind and I think are well worthy of recognition, and I think it is a definite step forward to be able to issue fixed penalties for endorsable offences and I welcome particulary that part of the Bill. We need, as the hon. member said, definitely to be able to charge for on-street parking and this is part of the problem we are going tackle and this Bill solves that problem. The hon. member for Glenfaba, supporting the hon. member for Ayre, we certainly, as I have said, we will look at that on a civil matter. I am sure that is possibly a good suggestion. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the second reading of the Road Traffic Bill 1988.

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that the Road Traffic Bill be now read a second time. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Now we will not proceed with clauses, in keeping with the policy of the House on these matters.

Road Traffic Bill - Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 Kl31

EMERGENCY POWERS (AMENDMENT) RILL - SECOND READING APPROVED

The Speaker: With the agreement of the House I do think we should take the second reading of the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill so that we will be enabled to proceed with the clauses of that Bill at our next sitting as well. I call upon the hon. member for Rushen.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill 1988 is a Bill that has been in the pipeline for some time but for one reason or another its introduction has been delayed. It extends the powers provided by the Emergency Powers Act 1936 in the way that was recommended by a small committee which assisted me during the seamen's strike in November of 1986. In their report to Tynwald the committee expressed the view that, although it did not prove necessary to have recourse to such powers during the industrial dispute to which this report relates the committee is of the opinion that legislation in question may need to be strengthened so as to ensure that the Government is able respond adequately should the need arise. This Bill permits the special powers provided by the Emergency Powers Act of I 936 to be exercised in cases where events are likely to cause substantial harm to the economic position of the community. At present these powers can only be exercised if the community is likely to be deprived of the essentials of life. So Clause l of this Bill substitutes a new Section 3(1) in the 1936 Act which permits the Governor in Council to make a proclamation of emergency where specified events are likely to cause substantial harm to the economic position of the community, and it amends Section 4(1) of the 1936 Act to allow emergency regulations to be made after an emergency has been proclaimed. Clause 2 of this Bill inserts a new definition in Section 2 of the 1936 Bill with reference to 'community' and explains that 'community' includes a substantial portion of the community and it affects certain repeals. Clause 3 is simply the short title. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the second reading of the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill 1988.

Mr. Brown: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

Mr. Gilbey: I think this is a really fair Bill. There is only one thing that I would like the hon. Chief Minister to try and explain which I think must be subject to some doubt and was mentioned in the learned Clerk's briefing paper, and that is on page two Clause l(l)(d): 'with the supply of any service'. In view of the fact that Clauses l(l)(a), (b) and (c) cover virtually everything that one can think of as being essential, i.e. supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, with any means of transport, or any means of communication, one wonders what he and the Council of Ministers have in mind when they talk about the supply of any service, because it seems to me that unless they have something specific in mind this really could be taking the definition too wide, because it says the supply of 'any service'. Well there are all kinds of services one can think of that we could do without, although it might be inconvenient. So I would be grateful if the Chief

Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading Approved Kl32 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988

Minister could define that slightly more. There is one other point that I should draw attention to. If you look at the original '36 Act it does refer to prison with hard labour, and it does seem to me that it might be appropriate to take that out of the Bill as it obviously no longer applies.

Dr. Orrne: Mr. Speaker, only one small point; I rise as a supporter of the Bill. We have this small Act, the General Control of the Economy Act 1974, and it is an Act we have to renew or the Executive Council recommends that we renew every five years I believe it is, and it came up recently and I pointed out that this small Bill, which enables in extraordinary circumstances certain controls over pricing within the economy to be undertaken, lies entirely in the hands of the Governor rather more than the Governor in Council, and I raise the issue that perhaps centralised control in time of an emergency might be very important and I wonder whether consideration was given to an amendment to the General Control of the Economy Act to bring it all within the powers of the Governor in Council, i.e. Executive Council so there was at least central control during a time of great difficulty when I would have thought that that might have been a very important factor rather more than having the Governor and the Governor in Council acting separately if that occurred.

The Speaker: Reply, sir.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take the point made by my hon. colleague. We certainly have not looked at the General Control of the Economy Act from the point of view that he mentions. Mr. Speaker, it is obviously something we should do, if in fact it is as specific as the hon. member suggests and it is the Governor rather than the Governor in Council, it seems that that is quite a proper change and one that ought to be brought into line. It is certainly something I could give a commitment to look at, sir. The hon. member Mr. Gilbey described this Bill as a fair one, but he did go on to say, when he was talking about the disruption of the supply of any service, that perhaps it could be 'inconvenient if. .. ' Well obviously the fact that a disruption of supply is inconvenient is not nearly firm enough to enact the powers of the Emergency Powers Bill, either this one or the 1936 Bill. We say quite clearly the amendment is if the specified events are likey to cause substantial harm to the economic position of the community, and I would suggest that is a great deal firmer than sheer inconvenience, and if the community is likely to be deprived of the essentials of life- again, Mr. Speaker, a long way from merely inconvenient, and there was some pressure, I think, during our last seamen's strike to invoke the Emergency Powers Act because of the inconvenience it was causing and I was quite clear in my own mind and we received advice in fact that we could not implement the Act purely because of inconvenience that we suffered.

Mr. Gilbey: That is dealt with by transport. I just wondered what this 'any other service' might be, if anyone had anything in mind.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if I can just go on to that, but the hon. member did mention inconvenience and I was underlining the fact that it is much more than

Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading Approved HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 8th NOVEMBER 1988 K 133 inconvenience that is necessary before the powers of this Bill are enacted. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, was drawn up in such a way as to endeavour not to be specific as to types of services or as to companies or as to concerns that may place the Island in jeopardy one way or another and it was written in such a way that it was quite all-embracing in its terms, if you like, and if harm is damaged, substantial harm to the economic position of the community is caused, Mr. Speaker, under this Bill in, I think, any service that one can imagine, then it would be possible to take action, but there was an endeavour not to be specific with companies, concerns or undertakings. I beg to move.

The Speaker: The resolution then, hon. members, is that the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill be now read a second time. Will those in favour please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Does the House agree that that is an adequate number of second reading Bills to proceed with? Is that agreed? (lt was agreed.) In that case the House will now sit in private.

The House sat in private at 4.11 p.m.

Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading Approved