L E G I S L A T I V E C O U N C I L O F F I C I A L R E P O R T

R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H O O N C E I L S L A T T Y S S A G H

P R O C E E D I N G S

D A A L T Y N

HANSARD

Douglas, Tuesday, 11th May 2021

All published Official Reports can be found on the website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Supplementary material provided subsequent to a sitting is also published to the website as a Hansard Appendix. Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.

Volume 138, No. 19

ISSN 1742-2272

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, , IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2021 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

Present:

The (Hon. S C Rodan OBE)

The Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man (The Rt Rev. P A Eagles), The Attorney General (Mr J L M Quinn QC), Mr P A Greenhill, Mr R W Henderson, Mrs K A Lord-Brennan, Mrs M M Maska, Mr R J Mercer, Mrs J P Poole-Wilson and Mrs K Sharpe with Mr J D C King, Clerk of the Council.

Business transacted

Leave of absence granted ...... 603 Tribute to His Honour William Cain CBE QC TH ...... 603 Order of the Day ...... 604 1. Adoption Bill 2021 – Second Reading approved ...... 604 2. Competition Bill 2020 – Second Reading approved ...... 606 3. Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 – Second Reading approved ...... 614 4. Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 – First Reading approved ...... 616 Competition Bill 2020 (Continued) – Suspension of Standing Orders to allow evidence stage – Motion lost...... 618 Procedural – Extra sitting ...... 621 The Council adjourned at 11.58 a.m...... 621

______602 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

Legislative Council

The Council met at 10.33 a.m.

[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]

The President: Moghrey mie, good morning, Hon. Members.

5 Members: Good morning, Mr President.

The President: The Lord Bishop will lead us in prayer.

PRAYERS The Lord Bishop

Leave of absence granted

The President: Please be seated. Hon. Members, Miss August-Hanson has continuing leave of absence. Mother and baby are 10 continuing to be well.

Tribute to His Honour Deemster William Cain CBE QC TH

The President: Hon. Members, you will have been very sorry to have learned of the death of our former Member of Legislative Council, His Honour Deemster William Cain. The son of former Second Deemster James Arthur Cain, Thomas William Cain was born in the Isle of Man in 1935. He was educated at Marlborough College and Worcester College, Oxford. After two years of 15 National Service, he was called to the Bar at Gray’s Inn in 1959 and admitted to the Manx Bar in 1961. William Cain then worked for T W Cain and Sons until 1980, when he was appointed as Her Majesty’s Attorney General for the Isle of Man and as such served in Legislative Council and Tynwald Court. He held this position until 1993 when he was made Second Deemster. He served as First Deemster from January 1998 to 2002, when he retired. 20 William Cain was awarded the Tynwald Honour in 2011, based on his national and international work. In the Isle of Man he was respected for his knowledge of and articles on constitutional reform, with his major contribution being the digitisation of Manx legislation; and, as the learned Attorney will vouch, there was probably no greater authority on the Kilbrandon Report, which was commissioned and published in the 1970s to determine the constitutional position of, amongst 25 other things, the Isle of Man. As Honorary Chairman of the Isle of Man branch of the United Nations Association, he promoted and strengthened relations with other nations. He also made a significant contribution to wildlife conservation, both in the Isle of Man and further afield. He was a founder member of the Manx Wildlife Trust and acted as its Chairman for 36 years until his retirement in 2010. He was

______603 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

30 instrumental in the introduction of the 1990 Manx Wildlife Act, which established the principles protecting many listed species of animals and plants. On a personal note, I had the privilege of knowing William Cain for over 30 years, and he was an absolute gentleman. This Council will wish to extend to Felicity and the family our deepest condolences. 35 Shall we stand for one moment in memory of our late colleague, Deemster William Cain CBE QC Tynwald Honour.

Members stood in silence.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Members

Order of the Day

1. Adoption Bill 2021 – Second Reading approved

Mrs Sharpe to move:

That the Adoption Bill 2021 be read a second time.

The President: We turn now to our Order Paper. The first Item of business is the Adoption Bill 40 and for Second Reading I call on the mover, Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Sharpe.

Mrs Sharpe: Thank you, Mr President. Mr President, Hon. Members, I am pleased to move the Second Reading of the Adoption Bill 2021 on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Care. 45 In my First Reading speech on 4th May, I gave a brief overview of the background to this Bill and the reason why an update to the Bill is so greatly needed. Our adoption legislation is simply out of date. To update our legislation, one of the most significant changes this Bill brings to Manx law is to make the child’s welfare the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency for the whole of the child’s life, rather than just the first consideration, as it is currently in the 50 Adoption Act 1984. This change brings the Adoption Bill in line with the Children and Young Persons Act 2001. The Department, when considering policy for the new Bill, considered adoption law in other small islands and the law in Commonwealth jurisdictions. As a result of the close relationship we have with the UK and the numbers of cross-border placements, the Adoption and Children Act 55 2002 (of Parliament) for very practical reasons was deemed to be the most suitable starting point for our legislation. The Bill, however, is slightly different to English and Welsh law and is different in the areas which are appropriate in order to ensure it works correctly for our Island. One of the most significant areas of divergence with England and Wales is in relation to post- adoption contact. The Hon. Member, Mrs Lord-Brennan, raised this distinction last week at the 60 First Reading of the Bill. Unlike Parliament’s Adoption and Children Act 2002, the court cannot award direct contact when making an adoption order. At First Reading, I responded to the Hon. Member and explained that the Department decided against allowing direct contact – sorry, Mr President – as we are a small community. Direct contact could disrupt the child’s ability to bond with their adoptive family. This could have a detrimental effect on the formation of the 65 child’s attachment with their adoptive family and beyond.

______604 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

Mr President, there is no getting away from the fact that adoption is a lifelong transformative change. It creates a new legal relationship with the adoptive parents and legally severs the relationship with the birth parent. I would like to point out, though, that there are other legal routes to achieving permanence for a child in those circumstances where it is appropriate to 70 maintain direct contact with family members. This can be achieved, for example, through residence orders or special guardianship orders. These orders are made when it is not appropriate for the link with the birth family to be completely severed. In such cases where there are links to be continued with family members, then the Department believes these other routes for permanence, such as special guardianship 75 should be used rather than adoption. In short, it is the achievement of permanence for the child which is imperative, rather than the legal route taken. Indirect contact only can be awarded by the court in the Bill. However, the importance and value of indirect contact should not be overlooked. Indirect contact provides the child with an important link to their birth family and serves to help the adopted child to establish their identity. 80 So to conclude on this point, the Department considers that diverging from the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (of Parliament) in terms of direct and indirect contact is necessary for the Island. As mentioned in the First Reading, the Bill was amended in the as a result of concerns with some definitions, in particular if ‘adoption agency’ or ‘registered adoption society’ should be used. To provide clarity, some amendments were then made. The Bill is in parts 85 complex, but necessarily so. The adoption of a child creates a new family for that child. Adoption is unique in this respect. Mr President, I will not outline the principles as I did at the First Reading, as I am sure Hon. Members are aware of these now. I trust I have responded to Mrs Lord-Brennan and should any other Members have anything else to raise I am happy to address this now or indeed during 90 the clauses stage which, Mr President, I intend to defer until the next sitting. Mr President, I beg to move that the Adoption Bill 2021 is read for the second time.

The President: Thank you. Mr Henderson. 95 Mr Henderson: I beg to second, sir.

The President: Mrs Poole-Wilson.

100 Mrs Poole-Wilson: Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her explanation of the rationale for limiting the Bill to indirect contact. I suppose one remaining question, which is one that I have sent on this point about the limitation to indirect contact, notwithstanding that we are a small jurisdiction and there are obviously going to be more challenges with the potential for direct contact is, what the Bill is 105 doing is saying in no circumstance could a court order direct contact, it can only order indirect contact. I would be just interested in a situation where that might be something that would be appropriate, perhaps with siblings, for example. So I completely understand that the permanence for the child and the birth parents might not be suitable for direct contact, but one could potentially see a situation where there are siblings and it might, in certain circumstances, be 110 appropriate, and why it would not be suitable for a court looking at all the circumstances of that particular situation to consider the possibility of direct contact. So I would just be glad to hear the Department’s thinking as to why they are absolutely satisfied that the only option for a court is indirect contact in any circumstance. Then more broadly, Mr President, I belatedly, with apologies, have had a really good root 115 through the detail of the Adoption Bill, and I am very supportive of what it is achieving, but there are some questions and technical points which I have raised with the mover and the Department,

______605 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

and we are engaging thoroughly in that. I would like to thank the mover and the Department and the drafter for their consideration of the points being raised. Thank you, Mr President. 120 The President: Thank you. Mrs Sharpe to reply.

Mrs Sharpe: Thank you, Mr President. 125 I would like to sincerely thank the Hon. Member for her observations on the Bill. Just to pick up on the point very briefly about direct and indirect contact, it is true that within the Bill the ability to give direct contact is not given to the court, only indirect contact. However, that does not mean to say that, in certain circumstances, a child who is adopted would not be able to have direct contact with, for example, siblings. That would occur under a voluntary agreement. So that 130 is indeed possible and, wherever possible, the Department places siblings together anyway. But I will discuss this more fully with the Department and get a detailed answer for the Hon. Member at the next sitting.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. 135 I put to Council the question that the Adoption Bill be read for the second time. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

2. Competition Bill 2020 – Second Reading approved

Mr Henderson to move:

That the Competition Bill 2020 be read a second time.

The President: We turn now to the Competition Bill 2020 for Second Reading and I call on the mover, Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

140 Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Normally at Second Reading we would be giving a brief overview of any particular legislation and then moving straight to clauses section, but with this particular piece of legislation, Eaghtyrane, because of the amount of questions and queries that were received at First Reading, it seems to me that the information requested and so on should be furnished to Hon. Members. 145 Therefore, my Second Reading opening gambit, as it were, will be a little bit longer than perhaps normal Second Reading speeches, Eaghtyrane, if yourself and Council colleagues can bear with me on that. Eaghtyrane, I propose to take my opening remarks in several sections, referring to opening remarks, response to Mrs Lord-Brennan, response to Mrs Maska, response to Mrs Poole-Wilson, 150 Hon. Members, and a conclusion. So in starting off, I would like to thank Olteynyn Onnoroil for their engagement during the First Reading of the Bill, which was to be welcomed. It is my intention today to simply progress, as I have stated, the Second Reading of the Bill in order to respond to the points already alluded to. Eaghtyrane, in response to the Hon. Members, Mrs Lord-Brennan’s and Mrs Maska’s concerns, 155 we would have to refer to resources of OFT, and I note that Mrs Lord-Brennan and Mrs Maska expressed concerns as to whether or not the OFT’s resources are sufficient to implement this Bill. To place these concerns in context, it may be useful to note that the OFT already has obligations placed upon it by the Council of Ministers to regulate and investigate anti-competitive practices,

______606 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

further to Part 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1996. While the OFT is taking direct ownership and 160 responsibility for obligations as a consequence of this Bill, there is not anticipated to be a significant increase in the OFT’s obligations in this area in comparison to the position at present. With respect to the new powers for regulatory controls on mergers, which are set out in Part 6 of the Bill, I would agree this part of the Bill does impose new obligations upon the OFT. However, such obligations are not anticipated to be onerous, as the OFT anticipates it would only need to 165 investigate one or two mergers every 10 years or so as a consequence of the financial threshold and other criteria for merger notifications that are intended to be prescribed in secondary legislation. This approach has been taken to ensure that the OFT only considers mergers that may have an impact upon consumers while not being required to consider every merger that takes place in the Island. It avoids the situation which has arisen in the Channel Islands, where the 170 competition authorities there have been notified of and required to give careful consideration to a large number of mergers, many of which have little practical impact on consumers on those islands. In the event that legal challenges arise as to the powers of the OFT, then the Board will be able to draw upon the Legal Fees Fund to defend itself in the event its decision, or decisions, are 175 challenged in the courts. It would therefore be my view that this Bill does not impose any significant obligations upon the OFT over those already in place. The question of how these obligations are resourced and undertaken is a separate matter, and I understand Members’ concerns in this regard. However, as I noted last week, the Council of Ministers has provided resources to support the OFT in its work in the past, and I am confident it will continue to do so in 180 the future. I also recall that Hon. Members expressed concern as to whether or not the OFT possessed the requisite capabilities to enforce this legislation. In this regard, it is clear the OFT has demonstrated such capabilities in the past, either by utilising its own officers or with the support of third parties. The Bill makes provisions for such arrangements to continue in the future, with regard to 185 investigations into anti-competitive practices in general as per clause 9(7), or mergers in particular as per clause 25(3). This Bill also gives greater weight to OFT training and developing its officers in light of the new statutory powers provided by this Bill. Finally, in the event the OFT requires administrative support to execute its functions, it will be able to obtain it further to the Memorandum of Understanding it has with its sponsoring 190 Department. Such assistance may take the form of shared administrative resources or more specialist support with respect to preparing and progressing any necessary secondary legislation and guidance. These arrangements may change in the future, and I would note that the Regulatory Review Report has now been published on the Order Paper for the forthcoming sitting of Tynwald and will be subject to a public consultation over the next two months. 195 As a consequence of this regulatory review, it may be the case that a new Isle of Man regulatory authority serves to enforce competition legislation in place of the OFT and, as all Hon. Members will no doubt be aware, having perused the said report, it indeed affects the Office of Fair Trading responsibilities, certainly as outlined in this Bill, quite significantly, which I hope will answer some of the considerable questioning that was placed in this regard to the independent role of the OFT 200 in this matter. Having those sets of responsibilities moved to a new independent regulatory authority should go a long way to alleviate those concerns. Such a body would most likely be created as a consequence of secondary legislation such as a Transfer of Functions Order made further to section 5 of the Statutory Boards Act 1987 and Schedule 2 of the Government Departments Act 1987. Alternatively, its creation may require new 205 primary legislation where functions cannot be transferred or implemented using vires such as those I have just mentioned. In either circumstance, the legislation providing for the new Isle of Man regulatory authority, in the event that it is decided it is formed, will make the necessary amendments to existing legislation to ensure that body can fulfil its legal responsibilities. Again, Hon. Members, I have assurances personally secured from the Cabinet Office in relation to the 210 progression of this regulatory body over the summer, and it is their current intention to try to

______607 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

progress it as expediently as they can. It is not a case of letting it lie in abeyance. It would therefore be my view that this Bill does not require amending in anticipation of the creation of such a body and the Bill should be considered on its own merits accordingly. I turn now to the necessity for the Bill. I also recall that grave concerns were expressed as to 215 the need for the Bill at this time, particularly in light of the conclusion of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Eaghtyrane, during the First Reading I made it clear that, and I stated, the Bill’s introduction will also meet an undertaking we have given to the United Kingdom to update our competition legislation in light of negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU, and for the now agreed UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. I then said this is a critical aspect of 220 the proposed legislation. I did not say it was urgent, Eaghtyrane, or that there was an urgent need to have this legislation pushed through. What I was referring to is the fact that having such legislation in place was a critical aspect for the then EU negotiations, as we were not sure what was going to be extended to us at that time and what we should be compliant with. Since then, the position has changed in that it would be from the Isle of Man’s point of view 225 and our desire that this could form a critical aspect for future trade agreements going forward, because we are not sure if we want to be party with any future trade agreements if those countries may or may not wish to have a ‘level playing field’ applied to us if we are going to have these agreements extended to us. In other words, it is better to have this arrangement in place as a consequence of what may or may not come along in the form of some trade agreement with 230 which the Isle of Man wishes to have extended to itself. So rather than finding ourselves in a future position where we cannot have a trade agreement extended to us, because the associated jurisdiction has made a requirement that there should be some sort of competition regulation to international standards in place, and we have not got one, then that places us in a very poor position. In other words, it raises our standards on the 235 international stage and in possible preparation for any future requirements with any particular trade arrangements. I did qualify that statement with a further statement, Eaghtyrane, that while no firm deadline has been agreed as part of this commitment, the OFT desires to have such legislation in place as soon as possible, so that the lack of such legislation does not pose a potential barrier to future UK 240 trade agreements being extended to the Island. As I stated during the Bill’s First Reading, the necessity for updating our competition legislation has been known for some time. A consultation on the principles of this Bill was undertaken in 2013. The need for the Bill’s development was given greater impetus as a consequence of Brexit and the associated UK negotiations. I would therefore highlight for the benefit of Olteynyn Onnoroil the statement by the Ard- 245 shirveishagh on this matter during the Bill’s Third Reading in the House of Keys on 30th March. I have agreement to read this out, or re-read it out for the public record, Eaghtyrane, where the Ard-shirveishagh stated:

As the UK continues to negotiate new Free Trade Agreements, or FTAs as they are known, we want to be able to take opportunities to expand our inclusion in these FTAs beyond the scope of trading goods alone. But one thing I have learnt about these negotiations is that nothing is clear at the outset, in fact nothing is clear until the very end. So we need to be in a good position and to be ready to meet the obligations of these agreements before we know what they are, and we need to be able to do so quickly. I believe the Competition Bill helps us do that. The Bill was drafted with the benefit of an important comment from UK colleagues where the UK-EU agreement was being negotiated. In the end, the competition’s chapter of that agreement did not apply to us, but its provisions were very similar to the competition chapters you might find in standard FTAs. So it is possible that we may need to comply with very similar provisions which may be included within new agreements that the UK negotiates. It makes sense to me, therefore, that we should take the opportunity not only to update and modernise our competition law, but also to put ourselves in a position to be able to meet these potential future obligations, should we need to do so, as quickly as possible.

As the UK continues to negotiate new Free Trade Agreements, or FTAs, as they are known, we want to be able to take opportunities to expand our inclusion.

______608 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

250 Eaghtyrane, I will now move on to some concerns raised by Mrs Maska and in particular the changing powers of the Council of Ministers. Moving to respond to the concerns expressed at the last sitting, the Hon. Member requested information as to how the powers of the Council of Ministers will change as a consequence of this Bill. As I noted at the time, the Council of Ministers will be losing a number of powers with respect to the undertaking of investigations into anti- 255 competitive practices that it presently has, further to Part 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1996. I would highlight that at present the Council of Ministers may refer to competition investigations, and set the terms of reference for such competition investigations to any Department or Statutory Board it considers appropriate, further to section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1996. As a consequence of this Bill, it will be for the OFT to determine in its own regard, or at the 260 request of the Council of Ministers, what competition investigations to undertake. Furthermore, the OFT will have direct control over the terms of reference for such investigations. Similarly, at present any person who has given an undertaking to refrain from competition matters may be released from the undertaking by the Council of Ministers further to section 14(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1996. Following the commencement of clause 13 of this Bill, the removal or variation 265 of such undertakings are entirely now a matter for the OFT. Changes such as these will mean the OFT is empowered to act as an independent regulator in its own right, rather than at the direction and control of the Council of Ministers. Furthermore, while the Council of Ministers retains the powers to specify in secondary legislation exemptions from the application of competition law, such secondary legislation may 270 only be made as a consequence of clause 8 of this Bill on the grounds that exceptional or compelling reasons of public policy make it necessary to do so, imposing a legal test for the making of such exemptions that does not exist at present. In addition, as a consequence of this Bill, the Council of Ministers will now be required to consult with the OFT before making exemptions via secondary legislation, a statutory consultation requirement does not apply at the present time. 275 With respect to mergers, the Council of Ministers will have the power to overrule the OFT’s decision with respect to a merger, or vary the conditions imposed by the OFT on a merger, if there are exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy that make it desirable to do so. This is a new power, but one that is similar to powers provided to political authorities in the UK and the Channel Islands – to which I will return at a later point, Eaghtyrane. 280 Overall, the Bill moves significant powers away from the Council of Ministers to the OFT. Where the Council of Ministers retains powers, their use is subject to legal tests that did not apply previously. I would hope the Hon. Member would agree with me that this Bill represents a significant improvement to the regulatory independence of the OFT and imposes greater controls on the decision-making powers of the Council of Ministers. 285 With regard to other jurisdictions, the Hon. Member also queried whether other jurisdictions are happy with the powers of Council of Ministers under this Bill. I am happy to confirm to the Hon. Member that the Bill has been extensively discussed with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in the UK. In light of these discussions, some amendments to the Bill have been made, most notably the 290 change of using the ‘exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy’ test, as is already applied to the Channel Islands over the ‘national interest’ test previously set out in the Bill. As was discussed in another place, the term ‘exceptional and compelling reasons for public policy’ has a much narrower scope for interpretation than the term ‘national interest’ which it replaced. Otherwise neither the CMA nor BEIS raise any concerns with the powers of the Council 295 of Ministers under this Bill. I trust that the Hon. Member can accept my assurances in this regard. Now turning to Hon. Member, Mrs Poole-Wilson’s concerns, I will first look at the definition of ‘merger’, and with respect to the definition of merger I note here her concern that the OFT is not unduly burdened by notifications of mergers that are not relevant or appropriate, particularly in the broad definition of a merger in this Bill in comparison to that in EU competition law and 300 changes being considered by the Channel Islands.

______609 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

As she noted last week, the Bill has already been amended to allow for the definition of ‘merger’ to be amended in the future by an Order approved by Tynwald. I would also highlight that clause 23 of the Bill, as amended, allows the OFT by an Order approved by Tynwald to set the criteria and financial threshold a merger must meet in order for the parties to be required to notify 305 the merger to the OFT. Certainly I can confirm that any such order being progressed will be put out to consultation and the threshold will be up for consultation, as will the term ‘merger’, which was a concern that was raised. So I can confirm that those will be consultation items before that returns to Tynwald. A commitment has already been given by the Chairman of the OFT when moving the Bill in the 310 other place to consult on the draft order setting out the criteria, as I say, for financial thresholds for merger notifications, which will require Tynwald approval. In undertaking this consultation, OFT would also, in the light of changes to legislation elsewhere such as in the Channel Islands, propose any amendments as I have hinted at to the definition of a merger that may be required to ensure this term aligns with the definitions used elsewhere. 315 As a consequence of this secondary legislation, most notably due to the financial threshold value of mergers being set at £20 million, it is likely that very few mergers will be required to be notified to the OFT for consideration under Part 6 of this Bill, if that threshold continues to stand. For clarity, this financial threshold of £20 million would be the sum of the local parties’ revenue. For example, if party A had a local revenue of £1 million and party B had a local revenue of 320 £19 million they would, if the financial threshold was set at £20 million, be required to notify the OFT of a merger. Turning to the powers of CoMin in overruling a decision of the OFT, the Hon. Member also enquired as to how the powers of the Council of Ministers under the Bill compares with the political powers in the Channel Islands, insofar as to the process by which the political authority 325 in each jurisdiction may overturn decisions. In this regard, the approach in this Bill and that taken in the Channel Islands legislation is different. In brief, Olteynyn Onnoroil, the Channel Islands legislation provides for a Minister to exempt a merger from being notified to the relevant competition authority, while this Bill provides instead for the Council of Ministers to overrule the decision of the competition authority on mergers that 330 have been notified to it. So we do ours from a back-to-front perspective, which we believe is far more transparent. It is the term ‘exceptional and compelling reason for public policy’ that has been taken from the Channel Islands’ legislation. I would note here that clause 23(4) of the Bill provides for the term ‘exceptional and compelling reason of public policy’ to be defined in an Order made by the Council of Ministers and approved 335 by Tynwald. It would then be up to the Council of Ministers as the Island’s highest political authority – not a Minister or the Committee for Economic Development, as is the case in Jersey and Guernsey respectively – to determine whether or not it is necessary to overrule the OFT’s decision or vary conditions imposed on the OFT with respect to a merger after following a process set out in that clause. In particular, the process set out in this clause would only allow the Council 340 of Ministers to overrule the decision of the OFT if there are exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy that make it necessary to do so. Overall, the process set out in the Bill, whereby the OFT’s decision on a merger may be varied or overruled by the Council of Ministers, may be considered a hybrid of the approach taken in the Channel Islands and the UK. From the Channel Islands has come the requirement for such 345 decisions to be taken on the grounds of exceptional and compelling reasons of public policy, which has been adopted from the Channel Islands. From the UK has come the aspects of the process whereby the OFT, like the CMA, makes a decision on the suitability of the merger on competition grounds. It is only after the CMA or OFT has made its decision that the Secretary of State, or Council of Ministers respectively, may intervene. 350 Eaghtyrane, in further discussing the situation between ourselves and the Channel Islands, which does not really form part of what is written before us in the legislation, I think I require to make further clarification. There is commentary which has been made that, for whatever reason,

______610 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

or perhaps because the large element of this Bill has been ‘taken’ from Channel Island legislation and blended with the UK, and then an Isle of Man solution in overview has been worked up, that 355 it has been stated perhaps – and I do not know where, why, who or when – but there has been an impression given that our Bill is identical to the Channel Islands’ legislation. I just want to assure Members that that clearly is not the case. It is not identical to the Channel Islands’ legislation. It is the Isle of Man’s version of competition regulation that has taken its reference point – and I can admit heavily from Channel Islands’ legislation and indeed from UK 360 legislation – but we have produced our own Bill, hopefully an Act, which is quite different. It is the OFT’s view that the processes in this Bill enable the OFT to give its consideration to all mergers that may give rise to competition concerns, a position that may not arise for competition authorities in the Channel Islands due to the differing approach. Such a process also provides greater transparency. The Bill also ensures such decisions are carefully considered and undertaken 365 by the Island’s highest Government authority, providing an enhanced level of scrutiny. The appeals procedure with respect to fines, etc.: Finally, on a more technical note, the Hon. Member queried as to who would preside over appeals against fines imposed on parties who fail to notify the OFT of a merger that was required to be notified as a consequence. In this regard, I would note that the appeals process, including the person or persons presiding over such an 370 appeal would be set out in the rules of procedure made by the OFT after public consultation and Tynwald approval, further to clause 23(3) of the Bill. It is anticipated at the present time that such rules would provide for an independent panel to be constituted to consider any such appeal with the panel, including at least one independent competition specialist. If the parties are not satisfied with the outcome of such an appeal, then they will remain able to submit the matter to the courts 375 for consideration via a petition of doleance. Eaghtyrane, I hope that Hon. Members have found this response to the queries of assistance. I can assure Hon. Members that I and officers from the OFT and the Department will be more than happy to assist with any further queries they may have, or amendments they may wish to draft. Eaghtyrane, I would ask Hon. Members to consider that it is the legislation before us that is for 380 our deliberation, and that the main principles behind it are to provide a modern legislative framework that provide for: protecting consumers from unfair trading practices through advice, education and enforcement; facilitating businesses that wish to trade fairly; ensuring that markets function in the interests of consumers; providing an effective and appropriate legislative framework for consumer protection; gaining value for money in service delivery by providing the 385 right services in the right way. Eaghtyrane, ta mee shirrey kied y treealtys y chur roish, I beg to move that the Competition Bill 2020 be read for a second time.

The President: Hon. Member, Mr Greenhill. 390 Mr Greenhill: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Yes, now before we start the debate I want to make one thing quite clear. 395 At this stage our focus should be on the legislation which was passed and amended by the House of Keys. The question before Council is: should this Bill be passed? Should it be amended or should it be rejected? Other considerations which the mover has referred to which came up at the First Reading stage, such as the resourcing of the organisation promoting this Bill, is not relevant. Those are matters for Tynwald Court, and such matters and wider aspects should be 400 brought up, debated in Tynwald. This is not the forum to do that. I am not particularly interested in the position of legislation in the Channel Islands or hearing about it. This Bill is an Isle of Man Bill going through the Branches. It has been through one Branch and has been amended. Please let our focus be on what is before us today. Thank you. Mrs Lord-Brennan.

______611 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

405 Mrs Lord-Brennan: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome the remarks from the mover in terms of the international perspective and to do with mergers. I note that the Bill in its entirety gives the powers of responsibility to the Office of Fair Trading and of course the point of this, to build on the final points that Mr Henderson has said, is to assure that there is an effective system of redress for individuals and businesses, to promote 410 consumer choice and to support markets that function effectively. That is part of the purpose of having a competition framework and for updating it. So that is an important principle to keep in mind. I do not have many remarks to make today. I have advanced some queries behind the scenes, which the hon. mover has addressed. None of them were to do with the Channel Islands. I do not 415 know where the comparison or whatever has come about from that. However, I would like to remark in connection with a point that has been made about the regulatory review, and to point out that if we are advancing this legislation, whatever happens with the regulatory review, and which I understand is not actually going to be something that will be capable of being progressed in the next few months, I think we need to be mindful of that. It is true that the report is published, 420 it is the case that that is a matter for Tynwald Court, but it is also the case that there is no associated motion with that. It is a consultation. I have read that report so I would not want, either for the record or perhaps for other Members around this Council to think that there is going to be some kind of imminent switch from the OFT to an overall regulatory authority. It is indeed my reading of the report that the OFT would still 425 remain and that it would simply be transferred. So we are dealing with the matter in hand, which is the OFT in the Bill, and I think until significant changes come about that, those powers will rest with the OFT. It is difficult to speculate from the outside as to what the position of the OFT is in terms of how it might approach functions in the Bill. They are important functions, given the fact that you need 430 them to be a redress for individuals and businesses, so it is an important view in that respect. I think that where there are some difficulties it does all seem to stem from the fact that there are concerns about independence of the OFT. Clearly this Bill does not address that but I think, hand in hand with that, it has obviously been quite difficult to hear from the OFT directly as an independent statutory board, perhaps in the same way as we might hear from other independent 435 Statutory Boards of note, usually when a Bill gets brought forward. I am conscious that people might think it is just banging on the same tune about why this matter is important. It is of course important because it relates to the functioning and the implementation of the Bill and the OFT’s ability to do that. But it is certainly from the initial reading of the Regulatory Review Report, being recognised more and more the significance of this, and 440 how important it is in order for officers to carry out their work, for commitments to be met and for that system of competition authorities and related legislation to be available for the public. It is a really important matter and I think things look like they are moving in the right direction. It is not a new matter, but it is a constraining matter, the fact that we have the set-up that we do with the OFT. 445 There have been efforts in the past to address this. In fact in 2011 there was a motion to change the set-up of the OFT so that Tynwald Members would no longer be eligible to chair or be a vice- chair on the Office of Fair Trading, as far back as 2011. The arguments that were made in the case of that were that having something that was politically independent, the OFT, would be better equipped to stand up to public scrutiny; and that it would be free of conflicts of interest; and it 450 would be effectively much more in line on a level, reputational platform with the Isle of Man FSC and the Insurance and Pensions Authority, at that time. Unfortunately, that motion was defeated – Mr Henderson might remember. But the point is that these things go back a long time and that it is still relevant today and it will have a bearing. So we should go into this in the full knowledge that this Bill, which is an upgrade to the 455 responsibilities and the legislative obligations of the OFT – it is an upgrade. So we are going to it knowing that we are dealing with this with the current set-up with the OFT in place.

______612 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

If there are changes in the future – and I hope there are – it is not the case that this is something that is going to be sorted out in the next couple of months. It is going to take much more than that. So I just wanted to be clear about that point. I do not think that Cabinet Office is just going 460 to go away and create a regulatory authority out of nowhere in the next couple of months. I think it should happen, I think is important, but the OFT will still be within that, I think, under current proposals. But, as I say, that is not something that is even going to be settled any time soon, probably for the next administration. So those are the points that I would make, Mr President, in connection with the Bill. Thank you. 465 The President: Thank you very much. Mrs Poole-Wilson.

Mrs Poole-Wilson: Thank you, Mr President. 470 I would just like to thank the mover for his very detailed response to the questions raised at First Reading. I appreciate very much the commitment that there will be future consultation on the definition of ‘merger’ and also on the financial thresholds, because I think what is critical is to be absolutely clear in the Bill which mergers will be subject to the notification regime for the sake of people doing business and approaching the Isle of Man. So I would like to thank him for that. 475 I would also like to thank officers for a detailed discussion about some other points that have been raised, and I understand that work is ongoing to bring forward some amendments, which are really about absolutely clarifying on the face of the Bill some of this detail about which mergers will be subject to the Bill’s notification regime. But on that basis and all the work and clarification that has been offered so far, I am very happy 480 to support Second Reading of the Bill today. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. Mrs Maska. 485 Mrs Maska: Thank you, Mr President; and thank you to the hon. mover for his very full and in- depth explanation of matters that arose at First Reading. I gain great comfort from his assurance that the extended powers of the Office of Fair Trading will be enabled by the capability to operate in an extended way, if necessary. I would also like to 490 confirm that in my view this Bill is coming forward in a very timely way in terms of the importance of potential future trade agreements. I think that is something that has been made manifestly clear by the hon. mover in his Second Reading speech, that this actually will hopefully give confidence to potential international trade agreements that the Isle of Man may be in future negotiating and involved in; and the openness and transparency that there is a competition 495 framework in place that the Island can be measured against is going to be vital as we go forward. So I do thank the hon. mover for explaining that on the record. With that, Mr President, I will be welcoming and be able to support the Second Reading of this important Bill. Thank you.

500 The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. Mr Henderson to reply.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. There is little left to be said. I must again thank Hon. Members and yourself for the forbearance 505 of my Second Reading opening speech inasmuch as I felt compelled to try and provide an extensive clarification due to the intensity and depth of some questioning from last week to provide the reassurances Hon. Members were seeking.

______613 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

The only point in question really to respond to, Eaghtyrane, is with regard to the regulatory review at the minute, and I take the Hon. Member, Mrs Lord Brennan’s point with regard to the 510 actual implementation of such an independent regulatory authority would be way beyond the next general election, and I think that is self-evident. The point I was making is the fact that Cabinet Office are committed to trying to progress things as much as they can during the summer, the consultation and so on, but obviously they will not be in a position to provide the required legislative changes and new structures before the General Election. But that is the hope at the 515 minute and the commitment to pushing this forward. So, Eaghtyrane, with that, I beg to move.

The President: Thank you, sir. I put to Council that the Competition Bill be read for the second time. Those in favour say aye; 520 against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

3. Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 – Second Reading approved

Mrs Maska to move:

That the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 be read a second time.

The President: Item 3 on our Order Paper is the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill for Second Reading. I call Hon. Member, Mrs Maska, to move.

525 Mrs Maska: Thank you, Mr President. Thank you to Hon. Members for the constructive and useful debate which took place at First Reading on 4th May. I trust and hope that Hon. Members are supportive with the overall policy intent in the form which was confirmed in another place, and also the format of the Bill as we now move on to the Second Reading. 530 I am grateful to have received comments and queries from Members regarding the principles of the Bill and share views expressed that there are many landlords who operate in a responsible and caring way, providing decent accommodation to their tenants. For those landlords this Bill should not be onerous, as they should be and are very likely to be already meeting the current required minimum standards. However, it was also clear from Hon. Members at First Reading that 535 they are also aware there are people in our community who are living in poor-quality rented accommodation, and our shared knowledge and experiences of this important issue will hopefully help to ensure that we put the welfare of those people and the knowledge of the sector in the forefront of our minds as we consider this Bill. With this in mind I can provide some clarification to the query raised by Mrs Sharpe and also 540 by Mrs Poole-Wilson regarding working and engaging with the third sector, other Departments and Government agencies, such as Manx Care, so as to enable the more vulnerable members of our community to identify suitable quality and appropriate housing in the private sector. This Bill will ensure that landlords who register not only meet standards, but will also meet personal conduct requirements. This will, hopefully, as the process operates and becomes widely 545 understood, give prospective tenants and any Health and Welfare professionals working with the vulnerable people in our community, confidence in the private rental sector in its various forms and locations. The register of landlords coming from this Bill will provide assurances on standards, together with a level of transparency across the private rental sector, which exists elsewhere but has never

______614 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

550 before been seen on this Island. This information and knowledge will help Government to better understand and identify the support needs of the sector who provide this vital housing across the Isle of Man. In response to Mrs Lord-Brennan’s query about a rent deposit protection scheme, Part 6 of the Bill makes legal provision for such a scheme to be set up as a ‘must’, as both the Department and 555 Hon. Members in another place recognise the importance of this in the Isle of Man. The detail of a rent deposit protection scheme will be developed as secondary legislation sitting under this primary Bill. Of course, as is the case for many schemes of this nature, the operational parameters will be determined as part of this detail, as the secondary legislation progresses. As has been stated before, Hon. Members, I can assure you that any scheme coming forward will be subject 560 to consultation in the public domain and engagement with the sector, also in consultation with Treasury in terms of governance and the structure of such a scheme and, ultimately, it will be for Tynwald approval before it can go live. All of this can only happen when this Landlord Registration Bill has been enacted. With regard to the Landlord Registration Bill’s regulations themselves, as hon. colleagues are 565 aware these too are secondary legislation and are already under way. The feedback on an early draft consulted upon last year has given the opportunity to refine in line with that consultation. These regulations will also be progressed through the right and proper route with ultimate approval through Tynwald, once this Bill progresses and becomes enacted. To further provide clarification on Mrs Lord-Brennan’s points around the regulation of public 570 sector housing, the reason that public sector housing providers are not required to register under this Landlord Registration Bill is that they are already regulated by local government legislation; and hence detailed information about provision, locations, landlords, management, condition and maintenance standards is already known to local authority housing providers, who themselves provide an extremely valuable service. 575 The extent of this important residential sector is already known to Government and to the Department. This is not the case with private landlords, and in the course of the Department’s engagement with the Manx Landlords Association they also were unable to identify or offer a snapshot of data or offer evidence of the extent, location, types of property – be it houses or flats – or standard of repair and maintenance applicable to this sector of our housing, similar to 580 that which is already known by bodies such as local authorities or housing authorities in respect of public sector housing. The existing minimum housing standards embodied in primary and secondary legislation apply to all housing providers, both public and privately rented, and the Department oversees and monitors public sector providers on a regular basis. I emphasise that the Department is constantly 585 working with such providers to address issues of disrepair and tenancy disputes and such other matters which arise through such tenancies. In drawing to a close, Mr President, I would like to offer thanks to the Manx Landlords Association for their continued engagement in this Bill, and most recently in their email of 3rd May to Hon. Members. I would reiterate to Members that the Department has met with the 590 Association on a number of occasions to discuss the Bill in some detail, and have also responded to the numerous queries raised by the Association. I thought it may also be helpful to draw Members’ attention to Mr Baker’s email to all Hon. Members and to the Association. This email set out a concise response and was dated 13th April. It addressed each concern raised by the Manx Landlords Association, including advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers. If any Hon. 595 Members would like additional copies of this correspondence, I am more than happy to send that on as a reminder. I also can confirm that in response to queries raised by Hon. Members, we have reached out to DEFA who actually are the Department to oversee the operation of environmental health officers, and we have asked that they may be able to make an officer available for Members to 600 hear evidence at our next available sitting, with leave of this Council. That would be on the basis that Members can extend their questions, and I would be a conduit to pass those on to that

______615 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

Department so that we can actually help explain the operational approach that exists at present under existing primary and secondary legislation, and also map out how this would be approached in the future, which may offer some assurance to Members and gain further understanding. So I 605 will welcome any queries that Members have in this regard, with the leave of this Hon. Council. Finally, Hon. Members, I cannot state strongly enough how important this Bill is to the Isle of Man and its residents for a number of reasons. It will make consistency and transparency more available than ever before, which will be comparable with that available in other jurisdictions. It will also recognise and support the important role that the private rental sector plays in ensuring 610 shelter, choice of location and property, type of property and availability of accommodation. It will support those who strive for a quality of life which may be beyond them at present. This Bill is important for every member of our Manx community and for future generations. Mr President, I beg to move that the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill 2020 be read for a second time. 615 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. 620 The President: I put to Council the question that the Landlord Registration (Private Housing) Bill be read for the second time. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

4. Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 – First Reading approved

Mr Greenhill to move:

That the Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2021 be read a first time.

The President: The final Item on the Order Paper is the Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant 625 Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill for First Reading. Hon. Member, Mr Greenhill.

Mr Greenhill: Thank you, Mr President. This Bill will amend the Airports and Civil Aviation Act 1987, an Act that provides a statutory framework for the Department of Infrastructure in relation to the operation of airports, and for 630 the Department for Enterprise in relation to the regulation, control and restriction of activities related to civil aviation. The Isle of Man is an International Civil Aviation Organisation compliant territory under the United Kingdom signatory to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, and central to the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the Island continues to comply with its international obligations. 635 The powers and functions provided by the Bill for the Department for Enterprise are already enabled in the Air Navigation (Isle of Man) Order 2015, which was made by the Privy Council of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Island. The Bill will ensure that the Department has the necessary powers in primary legislation to replace the provisions of the Privy Council Order, which will be revoked over the next couple of years to enable the transition to civil aviation orders made 640 under the 1987 Act. Therefore the Bill does not change or introduce new civil aviation policy, nor does it greatly increase the regulatory powers of the Department for Enterprise, but instead seeks to strengthen and modernise those already in place.

______616 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

The Bill will provide for restriction of flying regulations to enable an authorised person to permit an aircraft to fly in the restricted airspace. So, for example, a pilot would have to obtain 645 permission from the authorised person before flying within that airspace. Depending on the reason for the restriction, the authorised person could be an air traffic controller or either an aviation co-ordinator for the Isle of Man TT races or a flying display director who will be present on the ground at the event. The Bill clarifies the ability of the Department for Enterprise, or an authorised person, to 650 exercise a discretion in respect of a number of matters including authorising, approving, permitting or otherwise restricting a person, activity or equipment. Such discretion is needed to meet expectations on aviation safety regulatory authorities laid down in the Convention. The Bill further clarifies that the Department for Enterprise or an authorised person has rights of access required for the enforcement of provisions within orders and regulations made under 655 the 1987 Act. As Hon. Members will be aware, Government amendments were made in another place to the powers of entry section. The Department moved the amendments to address concerns raised about, and to mirror amendments made to, a similar powers of entry provision in the Climate Change Bill, which has been making its way through the Branches just ahead of the Enterprise Bill. 660 The powers of entry section is essential to provide effective powers of enforcement which in turn ensures that stringent safety measures are in place for aviation in the Isle of Man. Again, such rights of access are expectations of the Convention and will ensure that the Island continues to comply with international obligations. We believe that the amended section now achieves the right balance between the need to enforce the law, ensure public protection and to provide 665 sufficient safeguards and rights to a person or business. The Bill also introduces two new sections to the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996. These sections will enable the Department to exercise discretion in the charging of Ship Registry fees where necessary to attract new business. To maintain oversight, any discretion will be undertaken within parameters set out in a discretionary fees framework approved by the 670 Treasury. While Ship Registry fees will still be prescribed by regulations, the ability to exercise some discretion in the application of those fees will enable the Ship Registry to continue to compete with other flag states in a globally competitive market. Mr President, I beg to move that the Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill be read for the first time. 675 The President: Hon. Member, Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu Eaghtyrane. I beg to second, sir, and reserve my remarks. 680 The President: Mrs Maska, Hon. Member.

Mrs Maska: Thank you, Mr President. I welcome this Bill coming forward and, again, I can confirm that there was early consultation 685 with the Department of Infrastructure through its Airports Director regarding the formation of this Bill. I just want to put on the record that the Department of Infrastructure is content with the structure and format of the Bill as it has been brought today. Thank you, Mr President.

690 The President: Thank you. Mr Henderson, do you wish to reply?

Mr Henderson: It is Mr Greenhill.

______617 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

The President: Oh, sorry. (Interjections) Thank you very much. 695 I put to Council then that the question that the Enterprise (Aviation and Merchant Shipping) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill be read for the first time. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

Competition Bill 2020 (Continued) – Suspension of Standing Orders to allow evidence stage – Motion lost

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow an evidence stage to be taken on the Competition Bill 2020 at the next sitting on 25th May 2021.

The President: Mrs Lord Brennan, you had a point of order, I think?

700 Mrs Lord-Brennan: Thank you, Mr President. I am grateful. On a point of order, I would like to move that the Legislative Council hears from the OFT in a short evidence stage prior to the taking of clauses, but on the same day. My reason for this is I think it is obviously the OFT that has the obligations under the Bill before us, and I think it would be helpful if there were any questions to put to the head of the OFT, rather than do that on the 705 spot, that there is an opportunity that is planned ahead of time in order to ask such questions related to the Bill. So I would like to move on that basis.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. 710 If that motion is seconded, it is one I will put to Council for decision because it requires a suspension of Standing Orders. Standing Orders currently does not provide for an evidence session. As you well know, it is intended that Standing Orders from October will have an optional evidence session as an alternative to the current Second Reading position. Of course we have had the Second Reading of this Bill so this would be an extra stage. 715 So the motion for suspending Standing Orders has been made. I need to hear if there is a seconder. Mr Mercer.

Mr Mercer: Thank you, Mr President. 720 I am happy to second that suggestion, perhaps even as a rehearsal for what we might see in October in subsequent evidence sessions. I think the increase in transparency is welcome and I would like to second.

The President: Thank you, sir. 725 The question is now open for debate. Mr Henderson.

Mr Henderson: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I have already written to Hon. Members on the possibility of this proposal. I think to be fair, 730 Hon. Members, this Bill has been considerably examined to incredible depth and detail in the House of Keys, to start with. It has been amended in the House of Keys, the Hansards of which have been available to us all to peruse which I am sure most of us, if not all of us, have done. We have spoken to House of Keys’ Members with regard to the progression of this Bill. Then indeed, Eaghtyrane, on First Reading the Bill was examined in minute detail in some areas 735 and there were rafts … I can only describe it as a raft of questions posed at that point, some of

______618 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

which I was able to clarify, some of which I have been able to do so more fully today with my extensive explanatory speech with regard to the Second Reading. In between times, Eaghtyrane, Hon. Members have been in communication with the OFT, in particular with regard to further lists of questions and queries – and I mean lists of questions and 740 queries Eaghtyrane, some of which I am quite happy to accept. There is work ongoing, as has already been alluded to by Hon. Member, Mrs Jane Poole-Wilson, with regard to queries and concerns and further amendments to be worked up and proposed on. I do not know what else we could do to provide further information, Eaghtyrane, to be quite honest, in what has been undertaken so far in trying to assist Hon. Members, either through me 745 or through the OFT. Hon. Member, Mr Mercer, has availed himself of OFT services and found it very beneficial as to how things were explained to him and so forth, as have other Members. What I do not want to enter into, Eaghtyrane, which is my underlying fear, is a delay to the legislative process where it is not warranted because we are almost on the wire for the legislative timescale with regard to this Bill having any possibility of Royal Assent at the minute, because it 750 will have to go back to the House of Keys for assessment of our proposed amendments, and then for Royal Assent. I flag that up because it could be worked out that it is possible to do, but if there is a delay in the MOJ or a backlog of work that they have prioritised ahead of ourselves, then I think the Bill would be sunk, and I do not think we need to be in that position. I think there has been enough 755 information provided and explanation, and certainly behind-the-scenes work with Hon. Members, Eaghtyrane, to negate the need that the Hon. Member is posing to us this morning.

The President: Does any other Member wish to speak before I call on Mrs Lord-Brennan? Mrs Sharpe. 760 Mrs Sharpe: Thank you, Mr President. I find myself in two minds about this because I find myself asking: what would be the purpose of having an evidence session? To me, the purpose would be to get on record exactly what the OFT will need in terms of extra capacity and resources in the future. 765 The Hon. Member, Mr Henderson, has assured us that, if necessary, resources will be provided and capacity will be provided. To a certain extent we have to take his word for that from the Department that they will do that. I suppose, will the evidence session be useful for us in terms of our task in hand which is to really, we hope, get this legislation through before the end of this administration? 770 As I said, Mr President, I find myself in two minds. I know now from the last three years that nothing is ever perfect in terms of it would be wonderful if we were passing legislation and everything was ready for people to immediately gear up and put into practice. We have seen it with various Bills, for example, the Adoption Bill. We knew that the Department was not quite ready to implement everything that the Act would require at that time, but it is my belief that we 775 will get there eventually. So I suppose, on balance, I do not think that it would be useful to have the evidence session this time round for this Bill. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member. 780 Mr Greenhill.

Mr Greenhill: Thank you, Mr President. It is very important that the Island remains in line with the UK and the EU in terms of competition law, ensuring equivalence, and therefore I believe that the Competition Bill does that 785 and should proceed as planned without an evidence session.

The President: Thank you.

______619 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

Mrs Maska.

790 Mrs Maska: Thank you, Mr President. In hearing evidence I am wondering who it is anticipated would appear to give evidence. Would it be those who are politically involved with the OFT or would it be officers? I would be fearful of bringing officers to give evidence who might feel that they are being put on the spot, so to speak, in a way that maybe their role should not be scrutinised in that way. 795 They are carrying out a public service, it is different if it is a political Member that comes forward and answers for the role of OFT, but I would be reluctant to bring officers in who might feel fearful of coming to give evidence, subject to criticism on a public record, which maybe is never the intention. But I would be concerned about that and as such in this instance I would not be supportive of taking evidence in that regard. 800 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you. Mrs Lord-Brennan, right of reply.

805 Mrs Lord-Brennan: Thank you, Mr President. I thank all the Members for their contributions and putting forward their views. To me there is no point in labouring over the resourcing issues, we do not need to get hung up on that. However, the Bill before us is giving lots of responsibilities to the OFT and it is the OFT’s job to carry those out. 810 Now, you must ask, where are a lot of the answers that are provided coming from? Some of that will be a combination of coming from the sponsoring Department, DEFA. The reality is I would think that if we are putting forward this Bill and we want to check that it is right and it is going to do what it needs to do, and it is going to work with the intent that is laid out there, then it would be correct to hear from the head of the OFT if it is truly the case that we are dealing with an 815 independent Statutory Board. So it is actually something that ought to be … you should really expect to be able to hear those answers, to ask those questions directly, I think, in this particular set-up, because the Bill is giving the powers to the OFT. So if it is the case, that it is the only job of this Chamber just to pass legislation as quickly as possible to get it done before the end of the legislative programme, and that is the only goal and 820 we are not going to concern ourselves with how things work in practice, and to give the opportunity of a voice to the people who are involved – then actually why do we not just sit here all day and just pass every clause and pass every stage? Because then we would be getting it done. So I will leave it to the judgement and go with the judgement of this Hon. Council, but the fact is that what we do in this Chamber matters, it matters to people on the outside and it matters to 825 the people that are left to deliver this. So that is why, having known those officers a long time and with the greatest of respect for what they do, there is a significant responsibility and I think almost a courtesy for that. However, what I am hearing is we are talking about international obligations and we are talking about getting it done, and we are talking about resourcing. But actually there is a relevance for 830 the legislation in terms of the Isle of Man and how it works. So perhaps, if Hon. Members are not willing to go for that at this time, I would actually ask that you keep that in mind for the years to come when we will be working, or see the results of this Bill, and hearing other things that arise from it. With that, I thank Mr President for the indulgence and for Hon. Members for listening. But I 835 would absolutely stand by it as being a relevant part of our work. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Member.

______620 C138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 11th MAY 2021

I put then the question that Standing Orders be suspended to allow an evidence stage to be 840 taken on the Competition Bill at the next sitting, on 25th May. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. The noes have it. The noes have it. Thank you, Hon. Members. That completes the Order Paper.

Procedural – Extra sitting

The President: Our next sitting, on 25th May, will probably be dealing with the clauses of the three Bills that had Second Reading today. As such, I have been asked by the Clerk to request from 845 you that any amendments to be debated on 25th May should be submitted to the Clerk by 5pm on Tuesday 18th May, and in that way they can be published on the Order Paper and you will know exactly what you are voting for at the next sitting. In this respect, I would like to give notice that an extra sitting of this Council is likely to be required before the parliamentary session ends, to complete as far as possible the legislative 850 programme before the General Election. This would be in addition to the extra sitting already announced for Wednesday 2nd June. At present, we therefore have four sittings to complete the legislation. The exact dates will be given in due course and will take account of when Bills actually complete their passage in the House of Keys and on it being advised of the position by the Members of 855 Council who are in charge of that legislation once it leaves the House of Keys. It may well be that there would be less than one week therefore between particular sittings, but as much notice as possible will be given to Hon. Members. Hon. Members, the Council will now stand adjourned until our next sitting, which will take place in Tynwald Court on 18th May.

The Council adjourned at 11.58 a.m.

______621 C138