PP 2017/0066(3)

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE GENERAL ELECTION

2016-17

Volume 3

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE GENERAL ELECTION

On 18th October 2016 it was resolved –

That a committee of five Members be appointed with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to consider all aspects of the organization and operation of the General Election 2016; and to make recommendations for future practice in elections to the and to report no later than the April 2017 sitting of Tynwald.

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Committee Membership

Mr D C Cretney MLC (Chairman)

Mr D J Ashford MHK ()

Miss C L Bettison MHK ()

Mrs D H P Caine MHK ()

Mr M J Perkins MHK (Garff)

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel: 01624 685520) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the , Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, , IM1 3PW.

Table of Contents VOLUME 1 I. BACKGROUND ...... 1

II. THE COMMITTEE AND THE INVESTIGATION IN CONTEXT ...... 2

III. THE ELECTORAL REGISTER AND RELATED ISSUES ...... 4

ACCURACY AND TIMELINESS 4

ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 5

MARKED REGISTERS 5

DISTRIBUTION OF MANIFESTOS TO HOUSEHOLDS 7

“UNDELIVERED” MANIFESTOS 8

IV. POLLING STATIONS ...... 9

LOCATION AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF POLLING STATIONS 9

BEHAVIOUR OF CANDIDATES AND THEIR SUPPORTERS OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS 11

V. INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FOR CANDIDATES ...... 13

TREATING: “BISCUIT-GATE” 15

CONSTITUENCY MAPS 17

OTHER ISSUES 18

VI. REQUISITION MEETINGS ...... 18

PARISH BOUNDARIES AND CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARIES 18

HOW MEETINGS ARE PLANNED, AND BY WHOM 19

HOW MEETINGS ARE PUBLICISED 21

VII. THE COUNT ...... 23

AYRE AND MICHAEL: COUNTING ERROR DISCOVERED AFTER DECLARATION 23

GARFF: COUNTING ERROR DISCOVERED BEFORE DECLARATION 24

DOUGLAS EAST: RESULT LEAKED BEFORE DECLARATION 25

REFRESHMENTS FOR POLLING AND COUNTING STAFF: “PIZZA-GATE” 27

SUPPORT FOR RETURNING OFFICERS 29

VIII. ELECTRONIC VOTING ...... 31

REMOTE VOTING 32

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS AT POLLING STATIONS 34 IX. LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 35

ORAL EVIDENCE ...... 41

9TH DECEMBER 2016: EVIDENCE OF MR PETER KELLY CP, MR STEVE CROWTHER, MR TIM BAKER MHK AND MR ANDREW BARTON 43

12TH JANUARY 2017: EVIDENCE OF MR ANDREW COWIE, CHAIRMAN, AND PETER WHITEWAY, CLERK, RAMSEY TOWN COMMISSIONERS; MR PAUL COWIN ASST. TOWN CLERK, DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL; THE HON SHK; HON MHK; MRS LOUISE WHITELEGG; MR JUAN MOORE, CEO AND MR ROBERT JELSKI, RETURNING OFFICER FOR RAMSEY, IOM LAW SOCIETY; MR WILL GREENHOW, CHIEF SECRETARY, MRS DELLA FLETCHER, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND MS KIRSTY HEMSLEY, SENIOR EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICER – CABINET OFFICE 81

15TH FEBRUARY 2017: EVIDENCE OF MR NIALL CAREY, ISLE OF MAN POST OFFICE; MR ROB CALLISTER MHK; MR WINSTON TAYLOR, RETURNING OFFICER, AND MR PETER BURGESS, DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER, FOR GARFF; MR JEREMY CALLIN, RETURNING OFFICER FOR 145

Volume 2

WRITTEN EVIDENCE ...... 181

APPENDIX 1: SUBMISSION DATED 15TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM THE CABINET OFFICE 183

COVERING LETTER DATED 15TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM WILL GREENHOW, CHIEF SECRETARY 185

FIGURES 192

CALENDAR 193

MEDIA MONITOR LIST 198

NEWS RELEASES 218

REQUISITION MEETINGS – EMAIL EVIDENCE 276

ONLINE DISPLAYS OF REQUISITION MEETINGS 303

LOCAL AND NATIONAL COVERAGE OF THE ELECTIONS AND BOUNDARY CHANGES 314

LEAFLETS 365

STAFF NEWSLETTERS WHERE THE ELECTION HAS BEEN MENTIONED 371

GOVERNMENT WEBSITE – ELECTIONS 390

GUIDANCE FOR CANDIDATES VOTING AND OFFICERS 412

PUBLISHED RESULTS 452

ALL STAFF BULLETINS 458

PUBLIC NOTICES 463

TWEETS ON GOV.IM 467 NEWS RELEASE THAT BRIEFLY MENTION THE ELECTION 469

ALL STAFF BULLETINS THAT BRIEFLY MENTION THE ELECTION 473

ISLE OF MAN EXAMINER GENERAL ELECTION SUPPLEMENT DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2016 482

MANX INDEPENDENT GENERAL ELECTION SUPPLEMENT DATED 15TH SEPTEMBER 2016 494

GUIDE TO VOTING PUBLISHED BY IOM EXAMINER ON 30TH AUGUST 2016 506

GUARDIAN ARTICLE DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 2016 514

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 2016 515

NYC RADIO INTERVIEW DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER 2016 WITH HON ALLAN BELL 519

APPENDIX 2: SUBMISSION DATED 10TH JANUARY 2017 FROM KIRSTY HEMSLEY, CABINET OFFICE 521

COVERING EMAIL DATED 10TH JANUARY 2017 523

EMAIL DATED 21ST JULY 2016 TO PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES 526

NOMINATION PAPER 528

GUIDANCE FOR CANDIDATES 534

MAXIMUM AMOUNT, ELECTION EXPENSES 2016 GENERAL ELECTION 552

DECLARATION FORM FOR DONATIONS RECEIVED 553

APPENDIX 3: SUBMISSION DATED 11TH JANUARY 2017 FROM ALISON KELLY, GENERAL REGISTRY 557

Volume 3

APPENDIX 4: ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT DATED 3RD OCTOBER 2016 INTO THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON 22ND SEPTEMBER 2016 IN RESPECT OF THE CONSTITUENCY OF AND MICHAEL 563

APPENDIX 5: SUBMISSION DATED 31ST JANUARY 2017 FROM HM ATTORNEY GENERAL 593

APPENDIX 6: SUBMISSION DATED 2ND DECEMBER 2016 FROM THE IOM POST OFFICE 597

APPENDIX 7: SUBMISSION DATED 4TH JANUARY 2017 FROM THE IOM POST OFFICE 601

APPENDIX 8: SUBMISSION DATED 11TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM TIM BAKER MHK (AYRE AND MICHAEL) 607

APPENDIX 9: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM CLARE BETTISON MHK (DOUGLAS EAST) 611

APPENDIX 10: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MHK (GARFF) 615

APPENDIX 11: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MHK (ONCHAN) 621

APPENDIX 12: SUBMISSION DATED 2ND NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MHK (RAMSEY) 625

APPENDIX 13: SUBMISSION DATED 21ST OCTOBER 2016 FROM MARTYN PERKINS MHK (GARFF) 633 APPENDIX 14: SUBMISSION DATED 27TH OCTOBER 2016 FROM WILLIAM SHIMMINS MHK () 637

APPENDIX 15: SUBMISSION DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM THE HON. JUAN WATTERSON SHK () 641

APPENDIX 16: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM ANDREW BARTON, CANDIDATE (GARFF) 649

APPENDIX 17: SUBMISSION DATED 1ST NOVEMBER 2016 FROM KURT BUCHHOLZ, CANDIDATE () 657

APPENDIX 18: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM STEVE CROWTHER, CANDIDATE (, CASTLETOWN AND ) 661

APPENDIX 19: SUBMISSION DATED 15TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM LEO CUSSONS, CANDIDATE (RUSHEN) 669

APPENDIX 20: SUBMISSION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MICHELLE INGLIS, CANDIDATE (DOUGLAS CENTRAL) 679

APPENDIX 21: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MARK KEMP, CANDIDATE (RUSHEN) 683

APPENDIX 22: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM RICHARD MCALEER, CANDIDATE (ARBORY, CASTLETOWN AND MALEW) 689

APPENDIX 23: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM LYNN SIRDEFIELD, CANDIDATE (DOUGLAS NORTH) 695

APPENDIX 24: SUBMISSION DATED 27TH OCTOBER 2016 FROM LOUISE WHITELEGG, CANDIDATE (AYRE AND MICHAEL) 699

APPENDIX 25: SUBMISSION DATED 19TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM THE ISLE OF MAN LAW SOCIETY 703

APPENDIX 26: SUBMISSION DATED 6TH FEBRUARY 2017 FROM SIMON CAIN, RETURNING OFFICER FOR AYRE AND MICHAEL 709

APPENDIX 27: SUBMISSION DATED 11TH JANUARY 2017 FROM WINSTON TAYLOR, RETURNING OFFICER FOR GARFF 717

STATEMENT 719

APP 1: TIME POSTING SLIP 724

APP 2: EMAIL DATED 8TH AUGUST 2016 14:26 FROM ANDREW BARTON, AND ATTACHMENT 725

APP 3: EMAIL DATED 8TH AUGUST 2016 14:33 FROM WINSTON TAYLOR 732

APP 4: EMAIL DATED 11TH AUGUST 2016 FROM WINSTON TAYLOR 734

APP 6: JOINT STATEMENT BY DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICERS 737

APPENDIX 28: SUBMISSION DATED 14TH FEBRUARY 2017 FROM WINSTON TAYLOR, RETURNING OFFICER FOR GARFF 741

COVERING EMAIL DATED 14TH FEBRUARY 2017 743 STATEMENT BY JULIE PEEL 744

VIEWS OF THE GARFF ELECTION STAFF 747

COLLATION OF POLL SHEET 755

APPENDIX 29: TALLY SHEET SUBMITTED BY MR PETER BURGESS, DEPUTY RETURNING OFFICER FOR GARFF, DURING ORAL HEARING ON 17TH FEBRUARY 2017 (Q 350) 757

APPENDIX 30: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM STEPHEN HALSALL, PRESIDING OFFICER FOR “GARFF 7” POLLING STATION AND TECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL 761

APPENDIX 31: SUBMISSION DATED 21ST NOVEMBER 2016 FROM LAURENCE VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, RETURNING OFFICER FOR ARBORY, CASTLETOWN AND MALEW 765

APPENDIX 32: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM PHILIP CALEY, OF 769

APPENDIX 33: SUBMISSION DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM ALLEN CORLETT, CAPTAIN OF THE PARISH OF 771

APPENDIX 34: SUBMISSION DATED 15TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM CHARLES EDGAR COWIN, CAPTAIN OF THE PARISH OF 775

APPENDIX 35: SUBMISSION DATED 9TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM CHARLES FARGHER, CAPTAIN OF THE PARISH OF 779

APPENDIX 36: SUBMISSION DATED 9TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM , CAPTAIN OF THE PARISH OF 783

APPENDIX 37: SUBMISSION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM JOHN JAMES QUAYLE, CAPTAIN OF THE PARISH OF 787

APPENDIX 38: SUBMISSION DATED 23RD DECEMBER 2016 FROM DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL 791

COVERING EMAIL DATED 23RD DECEMBER 2016 FROM PAUL COWIN, ASSISTANT TOWN CLERK 793

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL 795

APPENDIX A: GUIDANCE NOTES FOR POLLING STATION STAFF 797

APPENDIX B: ELECTION COUNT PROCEDURE 803

APPENDIX C: COUNTING SHEET 805

APPENDIX D: SPREADSHEET FOR MULTIPLE SEAT, MULTIPLE CANDIDATE ELECTIONS 806

APPENDIX E: TALLY SHEET 809

APPENDIX 39: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM PEEL TOWN COMMISSIONERS 811

COVERING LETTER DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 813

LETTER DATED 23RD AUGUST 2016 FROM CABINET OFFICE 815

LETTER DATED 2ND AUGUST 2016 FROM PEEL TOWN COMMISSIONERS 816 LETTER DATED 21ST AUGUST 2015 FROM CABINET OFFICE 819

CABINET OFFICE NEWS RELEASE DATED 24TH DECEMBER 2014 822

APPENDIX 40: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM RAMSEY TOWN COMMISSIONERS 823

APPENDIX 41: SUBMISSION DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM ANTHONY ALLEN 827

APPENDIX 42: SUBMISSION DATED 24TH OCTOBER 2016 FROM GEOFF ALLEN 831

APPENDIX 43: SUBMISSION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM L J BOAKES 835

APPENDIX 44: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MICHAEL CHRISTIAN 839

APPENDIX 45: SUBMISSION DATED 22ND OCTOBER 2016 FROM SIMON COSTAIN 843

APPENDIX 46: SUBMISSION DATED 8TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM PAULINE AND STEVE DEHAVEN 847

APPENDIX 47: SUBMISSION DATED 21ST NOVEMBER 2016 FROM KEN DIACK 851

APPENDIX 48: SUBMISSION DATED 26TH OCTOBER 2016 FROM CAROL GLOVER 855

APPENDIX 49: SUBMISSION DATED 10TH JANUARY 2017 FROM BILL HENDERSON MLC 859

APPENDIX 50: SUBMISSION DATED 11TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM ALASDAIR IRVING 885

APPENDIX 51: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM JONATHAN IRVING 889

APPENDIX 52: SUBMISSION DATED 7TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MAUREEN E MCLEAN 893

APPENDIX 53: SUBMISSION DATED 18TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM STEPHEN MOORE 897

APPENDIX 54: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM M NETTLETON 901

APPENDIX 55: SUBMISSION DATED 17TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM TIM NORTON 905

APPENDIX 56: SUBMISSION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM MARY ROSE TRAINOR 909

APPENDIX 57: SUBMISSION DATED 16TH NOVEMBER 2016 FROM BRIAN WHITEHEAD 913

APPENDIX 58: SUMMARY OF ELECTORAL OFFENCES PUBLISHED IN JULY 2012 BY THE UK ELECTORAL COMMISSION 917

APPENDIX 4: Acting Attorney General’s Report dated 3rd October 2016 into the General Election held on 22nd September 2016 in respect of the constituency of Ayre and Michael

563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 [Signature ]

582 [Signature ]

583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 APPENDIX 5: Submission dated 31st January 2017 from HM Attorney General

593

594 From: Kelly, Julia Sent: 31 January 2017 15:45:06 To: Jonathan King Subject: FW: Representation of the People Act: enforcement Importance: Normal

Dear Jonathan

Thank you for your email of the 20th January.

I am happy to provide you with my response below to the questions which the Committee have asked me to consider:-

(1) There is a requirement in section 37 that election publications must state the name of the publisher and printer. Section 44(2) provides for a maximum penalty of a £5,000 fine. But Members of the Committee say they know of contraventions of this provision which have not been prosecuted. How can this be?

I first need to correct what the question describes is the penalty for a breach of S37 of the Act. The penalty is in fact a fine not exceeding £1,000 under s37(4); it is not, as the question describes, a fine under s44(2).

I cannot speak for my predecessors by offering any explanation why any previous contraventions of s37 have not been prosecuted. In my time whilst Acting Attorney General I have not been asked to consider a prosecution under s37.

I perhaps need to add: the Committee needs to be aware that it is not my role to investigate any alleged breaches of the provisions of s37; if the Election Registration officer had considered there had been a breach of s37 that warranted consideration of prosecution, it would have been for the Registration Officer to cause an investigation to be carried out and, if appropriate, for the results of that investigation to be brought to my attention for me to consider if a prosecution was warranted.

(2) Where the Act places a duty on a person but does not specify a penalty, how is the duty to be enforced?

I do not wish to answer what is a generic question as I do not know whether my answer will necessarily fit all circumstances. I would ask the Committee therefor to identify the enforcement of specific duties they are concerned with and I would be happy to provide an answer on those specifics.

(3) Section 71 applies where information is given to the Attorney General that any corrupt or illegal practice has occurred. Are there any circumstances where an offence could be prosecuted without information first being given to the Attorney General?

No, the provisions of this section are explicit. Prosecutions in the circumstances which pertain under s71 are in my hands.

(4) Under section 71 the Attorney General must institute such prosecutions as the circumstances of the Attorney General appear to require. Given the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral

595 process, in what circumstances would a credible allegation of a corrupt or illegal practice not warrant prosecution?

Plainly, s71 confirms that there is a discretion to be exercised when I am considering whether or not to authorise a prosecution. In making any prosecution decision there are two tests which I must apply. The first is the ‘evidential test’ where I must be satisfied that the evidence will support a successful prosecution. If I am so satisfied that the evidential test is capable of being met, then I will consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. To assist the Committee I refer you to the Prosecution Policy relevant to the United Kingdom which the Isle of Man adopts (in relation to the two test exercise): http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code_2013_accessible_english.pdf

(5) In your report dated 3rd October 2016 on the Ayre and Michael count (CABO.357) you have concluded (at paragraph 39) that a returning officer acted unlawfully and yet you have also concluded (at paragraph 46) that a prosecution is not in the public interest. The Committee would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning for this conclusion.

As the Committee will appreciate, the commission of an unlawful act does not and should not automatically result in prosecution. That being the case, the law provides that it falls to me to impartially, with the assistance of my experienced Prosecutors, to make the prosecution decision. My decision making must necessarily be free from external pressures of influence, political or otherwise. In this particular case I was satisfied that although the evidential test had been met, I took into account that the Returning Officer had made a mistake in law (and so he had committed an unlawful act) for which he publicly apologised. In the circumstances of this case, I concluded the Returning Officer had acted at all times in what he honestly believed was in the public interest. The Returning Officer acted believing his was the correct view of the applicable law notwithstanding that it clearly differed from my own view and that of my Law Officers. I also took into account why he acted as he did and, fortunately for him, the favourable outcome of his actions. In view of the outcome of what I nevertheless considered his illegal action, I determined that the public interest had been served by me publicly criticising the steps which he had taken and I decided that the public interest did not in addition necessitate prosecution. By publishing in full my enquiry and conclusions, I considered the integrity of the election process had been supported and that a prosecution would not add to that.

Regards,

John

John Quinn Acting Attorney General H.M. Attorney General’s Chambers 3rd Floor Belgravia House 34-44 Circular Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1AE

596 APPENDIX 6: Submission dated 2nd December 2016 from the IOM Post Office

597 598

Election 2016

Written Submission from Isle of Man Post Office to the Tynwald Select Committee detailing its election manifesto posting service

Following both the 2006 and the 2011 General Elections, Isle of Man Post Office (IOMPO) worked closely with the Cabinet Office to introduce enhancements to the manifesto postal service provided to candidates. Subsequent By-Elections provided additional opportunities to develop and improve the service further.

In May 2016 IOMPO engaged with the Cabinet Office to update the IOMPO “Guide to the 2016 General Election Manifesto Mailing.” The guide incorporates the requirements under The Representation of the People Acts 1995 and Representation of the People Regulations 2015 and provided detailed information to the candidates as to how they could manage their manifesto mailing campaign through IOMPO. It included details about the size and weight parameters for each item, which could be posted to each household.

In addition, the guide provided the contact details of a dedicated Account Manager, who liaised with the candidates to discuss & arrange the print and fulfilment of their manifestos and also the collection of the required number of local “letter” stamps (45p) from the candidate’s local Post Office.

The guide was available through the IOMPO website and upon declaration, candidates were provided with a copy of the guide either by email or hard-copy as preferred by the candidate.

IOMPO engaged with a number of candidates to discuss their campaigns and arranged the fulfilment, franking, the application of stamps and dispatch for a number of those candidates. For some other candidates, IOMPO arranged for the relevant number of stamps to be made available at the candidate’s local Post Office branch, which were applied by the candidates themselves and then either collected by IOMPO or dropped by the candidate to their local Post Office or to IOMPO HQ in Cooil Road, Douglas to be delivered to their constituents. For candidates using IOMPO for postage or franking, IOMPO submitted a posting certificate from the candidate to the Cabinet Office for a single/combined payment of appropriate postage directly to IOMPO.

We are aware that other third parties on the Island also provided print, data and fulfilment services together with stamps (not sourced directly from IOMPO) to candidates. In some cases, the third party provider provided the manifestos (enclosed in the fully prepared addressed envelope) directly to IOMPO for posting. In other cases, the third party provider provided the manifesto mailing directly to the candidate, who in turn provided to IOMPO for posting.

In the weeks running up to 22nd September 2016, IOMPO delivered an estimated 160,000 manifestos to households across the Island in line with our standard delivery specifications. We are aware that a small number of items were undeliverable, due to incorrect addresses or “gone aways.” In these

Page 1 of 2

599 cases, normal postal procedures were followed, with the items containing a return address being returned to the sender.

All correctly addressed manifesto postings were delivered to households before 22nd September.

We have arranged a follow-up meeting with the Cabinet Office to continue to improve the service further for future Elections and By-Elections.

Page 2 of 2

600 APPENDIX 7: Submission dated 4th January 2017 from the IOM Post Office

601

602

Election 2016

Written Submission from Isle of Man Post Office to the Tynwald Select Committee detailing its election manifesto posting service

Answers to Follow Up Questions

“Missing” manifestos:

In her written submission to the Committee, Douglas North candidate Lynn Sirdefield says that as many as 500 of her manifestos were not delivered after they were left with the Post Office. The Committee understands that a number of residents of have told Ms Sirdefield they received other candidates’ manifestos through the post but not hers. The Committee therefore asks: a. How do you explain the circumstances reported by Ms Sirdefield?

Ms Sirdefield presented her manifestos already prepared and stamped to IOMPO over two consecutive days. As Ms Sirdefield did not purchase her postage from IOMPO and therefore did not use IOMPO to claim her postage costs back, there was no requirement for IOMPO to separately count the number of items presented by Ms Sirdefield. IOMPO is therefore unable to confirm the number of items presented.

Following a query from Ms Sirdefield and a subsequent investigation with the relevant delivery staff, it was confirmed to her that all manifestos received had been delivered. IOMPO have not had a further communication from Ms. Sirdefield and received no complaints from any Tromode residents.

b. How many other candidates, if any, have alleged the non-delivery of manifestos? Which candidates and how many manifestos have been affected by this issue, and how do you explain what has happened?

IOMPO received queries from two other candidates and following investigation with the relevant delivery staff, all queries were resolved with confirmation of successful delivery of their manifestos.

1

603

Constituency mailing lists:

The Committee understands that whereas public funds are available under section 31(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1995 to allow each candidate to send one hard copy of his or her manifesto to each household in a constituency, the electoral register supplied to candidates by the General Registry this year was presented as a list of individuals. A number of candidates appear to have had difficulty converting the “per individual” data from the General Registry into a “per household” mailing list. This issue is mentioned, for example, by Garff candidate Andrew Barton in his written submission at paragraph 9. Mr Barton also spoke about it in his oral evidence to the Committee on 9th December 2016. The Committee therefore asks: c. How many candidates asked the Post Office to convert the General Registry data into a “per household” mailing list?

IOMPO received queries from approximately 10 candidates. d. For how many candidates, if any, did the Post Office do this?

None e. If the Post Office did not do this conversion for any candidate, why not?

To convert the data file from one format to another required the manipulation of personal data, which required material change to the original data.

Data manipulation is not a service IOMPO currently offers.

f. If the Post Office did do the conversion, was it done in house or outsourced? If it was outsourced, to whom was it outsourced and how was the supplier selected?

N/A

g. If the Post Office or a supplier did convert this data for any candidate, how was it done? Did it involve any specialist software or technical skill?

N/A

2

604

h. Was the Post Office consulted by the drafters of the Regulation 24 of the Representation of the People Regulations 2015 before those Regulations were laid before Tynwald in January 2016?

IOMPO was consulted by the Cabinet Office over the definition of a standard “letter”. This was to align the Regulations with the modern postal tariff. (DL & C5 envelope sizes and a weight of under 100g. The previous guide detailed 50g). There was consultation on other changes to the Regulation, to clarify to candidates on how to handle posting exceptions.

The Cabinet Office notified IOMPO of the change of entitlement from one manifesto per voter, to one manifesto per household being incorporated into the new Regulation.

i. Was the format of the information which candidates and the Post Office would require, in order to implement the publicly funded mailing under section 31(2) and Regulation 24, identified during the preparation of the Regulations or at any other time before the 2016 General Election? If so, when? If not, why not?

In respect of the size, format, weight and recipient, IOMPO believes the definition was clearly identified in the preparation of the Regulation.

In respect of the voter data, IOMPO had no discussion with the Cabinet Office at the time the Regulation was prepared.

It became evident through communication from the candidates, that there were problems being experienced by the candidates in getting the data into the correct format to address their manifestos to households, as per the amended Regulations.

As stated above, this was not a process IOMPO was involved in and all data queries received by IOMPO were referred to the Cabinet Office.

j. What discussions of this issue have taken place between the Post Office and the General Registry or the Cabinet Office either before the 2016 General Election or since?

Some conversations took place with the Cabinet Office during the campaign, to provide candidate feedback on the data.

An initial post-Election meeting has been held with the Cabinet Office to review the processes for future election campaigns.

3

605

606 APPENDIX 8: Submission dated 11th November 2016 from Tim Baker MHK (Ayre and Michael)

607 608 Tim Baker MHK for Ayre & Michael Observations on the General Election 2016 Further to the Tynwald resolution of 18th October, please find below my personal observations on various aspects of the organisation and operation of the General Election. Constituency structure Much comment was made on the recent constituency restructuring and changes to constituency boundaries across the whole Island. Ayre & Michael is geographically very large (c.36% of the Island’s area) and encompasses 6 parishes, so is difficult to canvass effectively. Whilst new, the constituency structure has been derived in a fair and consistent manner across the Island after a thorough review process, with constituencies broadly equal in terms of electorate. Accordingly, I believe there is little merit in further review of the constituency structure and we should recognise that the perfect solution does not exist. However, should a wider review be undertaken, then I believe that the above considerations should be taken into account in respect of Ayre & Michael. Election signage Consideration should be given as to whether there is still a need for candidates to erect physical signs around the constituency promoting their candidature during the latter stages of the campaign. There are plenty of better methods of communicating to the electorate in today’s modern world! These signs are visually intrusive in rural areas and, in some cases, election signage was defaced and/or removed, creating animosity and suspicion – plus wasted police time as this is a criminal offence. There was some inconsistency and confusion over acceptable ways for them to be affixed, particularly to road furniture. Signs were also not always removed in a timely manner after the election If the use of such signs is still deemed appropriate, consideration should be given to limiting how many each candidate can erect or, at a minimum, providing effective guidelines for their use. Candidate meetings refreshments There was confusion over the rules around refreshments being offered to potential voters if candidates held private constituency meetings. This put candidates in other constituencies who only wanted to provide simple hospitality in a difficult position and caused unnecessary concern. In my case this was a factor in deciding not to hold such meetings. Surely some generally acceptable arrangements could be defined and communicated to candidates based on the application of reasonableness. Requisition meetings I believe these are an historic, important and valuable part of the electoral process. They were held in 4 of the 6 parishes in the constituency, though often called quite late in the day and not always well publicised. Rather than waiting for such meetings to be requested by constituents, could they be required as a standard part of the General Election process and scheduled in advance?

609 This would bring greater clarity and make it easier to publicise, both of which would benefit the electorate and modernise the process. Advance voting The arrangements made by the Returning Officer to enable voters to advance vote within the constituency at selected times prior to election day was very much welcomed. I believe this was successful in encouraging a high turnout. At polling stations With 7 polling stations, it was difficult for the Returning Officer to control and standardise the behaviour of candidates’ tellers outside polling stations. Are tellers still a necessary part of the election process? If so, do clear rules of engagement need to be issued to candidates in advance, with some form of enforcement for non- compliance? Count procedures It appears that counting procedures differed significantly between constituencies, based on the approach adopted by each Returning Officer. However, each constituency had 2 seats, all voters had 2 votes and there were between 3 and 8 candidates in each election. Accordingly, it must be possible to define a standard set of “best practice” count procedures, which each Returning Officer could tailor to any local circumstances. These procedures should include a complete set of key controls (with checklist to be signed by the Returning Officer) to ensure the completeness and accuracy of each count Count reconciliation Whilst several controls were operated effectively, there was a clear control weakness in the Ayre & Michael count, as evidenced by the errors subsequently found. This could have been avoided if a simple reconciliation had been undertaken to compare the number of people who voted, the number of valid votes cast (reflecting both plump voting and spoiled ballot papers) and the total votes attributed to each candidate.

TS Baker 11/11/16

610 APPENDIX 9: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Clare Bettison MHK (Douglas East)

611

612 I believe there are a few things that would make the running of the election smoother for candidates and electors alike: - Availability to purchase the marked registers with details of those who previously voted. This should only be available to declared candidates who have registered with the information commissioner. The manual process currently in use is time consuming for the staff on the public counter who supervise the process. - An advice note to candidates, sent on declaration, with some basic information about use of social media and the associated pitfalls. It would also be great to have clearer user- friendly information about map availability, boundaries, and relevant dates available online for everyone to access. - An alternate form from the standard 'annual canvas' form for voters wishing to register prior to the election. The threatened £1000 fine was worrying for some voters, especially some foreign nationals who I spoke with during the election, ironically resulting in them not registering. I also think that it should be possible to register for voting online, not just to receive the form. - Registration forms should be available in a variety of languages as well as large print, on request. We are failing to engage a lot of foreign nationals in the political process as they are often unaware of their entitlement to vote. - Some people appear to have submitted their forms in time but they were not added to the seven day register. Others were removed but weren't on it to begin with. - The seven day register has to be submitted 14 days prior to the election and takes seven days to produce. This then means those people have often missed the opportunity for advance voting if required. I think that the turnaround of this register could be quicker. - The count chamber should be properly sealed. The results for Douglas east were published on BBC news prior to the recount taking place. 5 out of the 8 candidates had gone home without staying for the recount as they were unaffected. - Many voters had to walk past one, sometimes two polling stations to get to the polling station they were due to vote at. I think voters should be able to vote at any polling station, possibly limited to constituency. - I think that there is an opportunity to reduce the number of polling stations in Douglas East to 2 owing to the low turnout and central positioning of all polling stations, this would also represent a cost saving. - I think it is important to give consideration to parking provision with polling stations as Loch Promenade Methodist church is an example of limited parking availability putting people off voting, especially those who are disabled. - Many voters gave feedback that they would like to see some form of electronic voting introduced, and I am sure this would improve voter turnout.

613 - The advance voter system seems archaic and takes a huge amount of time for the returning officers to facilitate. As a candidate, on occasion, I felt the advocate's office were annoyed with the number of advanced votes. However, it is not for me as a candidate to question someone when they state they can't get to the polling station. - It would be helpful for all those who complete the declaration of secrecy to receive a guidance note on count etiquette, the count process and what you should be looking for. - The votes were clearly sorted and checked prior to counting commencing in Douglas East and I am totally confident in the result. - I think there should be 2 standardised processes for counts, for those with 4 candidates or less and those with greater than 5 candidates (unless it is a by election with only one candidate). The tray system wouldn't work where there were more candidates due to the number of variations and, therefore, trays needed. The streaming system could do with being done in bundles of 50, with 50 lines down the page and the candidates detailed across the top. In Douglas east each candidate was assigned a number and the counters worked in teams, one reading out and one marking (Nb. Where some had loud clear voices it was distracting others.). By assigning each ballot paper to one line of the grid you can also verify the number of ballot papers represented on the sheet. - The Douglas east requisition meeting was arranged at Loch promenade Methodist church on rally day when the prom was closed making access extremely difficult for many residents. I think requisition meetings should be arranged automatically in all areas rather than requiring 12 signatories to arrange. - I would like consideration to be given to all manifestos being sent centrally in one package, rather than people receiving up to 8 manifestos over a month. This would help with clarity, fairness and cost. - I was surprised that expenses and donations had to be declared prior to the election date and were not asked for again. If someone had made a large donation the day before the election it seems that this would not have necessarily been declared.

Thank you for your consideration.

Clare Bettison MHK Douglas East

614 APPENDIX 10: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Daphne Caine MHK (Garff)

615

616 Submission from Daphne Caine to the Select Committee established to consider all aspects of the organization and operation of the General Election 2016; and to make recommendations for future practice in elections to the House of Keys; and to report no later than the April 2017 sitting of Tynwald.

In summary, I feel consideration should be given to:

1. Updating the Guidance to Candidates booklet to cover all aspects of campaigning, including advice on declaration, expenses, size of banners etc plus providing details of the penalties for exceeding/breaking the guidelines. Clearer guidance is needed on what candidates must do and must not do. 2. Extending the period between declarations closing and the election to six weeks. 3. Allowing a candidate to withdraw from the election once nominations close. There could be some permitted exceptions up to a later date, for instance if a candidate discovers he/she is facing criminal charges or serious illness. 4. Not permitting candidates or their supporters to stand outside polling stations. 5. Enforcing the maximum size of banners on public property plus review the size of those banners. 6. Consider easier ways for people to request a requisition meeting or consider abolishing the requirement for people to request the meetings so Captains of the Parish would assume requisition meetings will be required and could draw up a list of potential meeting dates and venues and publicise this in advance. 7. Update laws that prohibit candidates holding meetings on licensed premises (providing no alcohol is served) and consider allowing light refreshments to be provided. 8. Enabling online registration and voting. 9. Not permitting any road closures that may impact on turnout or make roads hazardous, except emergency road closures. 10. Prescribing the counting method, the checks to be undertaken and the method of declaring of result; also greater clarification over what access to outside media/public is permitted by candidates and their supporters and media during a count.

More detailed information about my election experience can be found below.

Reflections on standing for the House of Keys

1 In the 2016 General Election Guidance to candidates, it states:

Copy of Electoral Register A copy of the full register for the constituency in which a candidate intends to stand is available from the General Registry, Isle of Man Courts of Justice free of charge upon application to the Chief Registrar. The Chief Registrar will require the candidate to complete a form of declaration that it is their intention to seek nomination as a candidate in the forthcoming House of Keys election.

1

617 In fact, candidates were obliged to confirm they had made a media announcement before signing the declaration form and being permitted to obtain a copy of the register. This led to my sending out a somewhat rushed announcement on the spot, on my phone from the General Registry.

2 The Garff Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officers were unfailing polite, professional and helpful. The Garff officers’ advice over advance votes was much appreciated, along with their commitment to facilitating so many elderly and infirm constituents to vote.

3 However, a deadline of four weeks and one day between nominations closing and the polling day is very tight and put officers under pressure. Perhaps a six week period would benefit the organization of the poll. Having declared just five weeks before the election it is not something I would recommend!

4 Also, why can’t a candidate withdraw from the election for any reason once nominations close? There should be some permitted exceptions up to a later date, for instance if a candidate discovers he/she is facing criminal charges or serious illness. If polling papers have already been printed the name of a withdrawn candidate could be blacked out by the returning officers prior to issuing to voters.

5 With regard to the total amount permitted to be spent on expenses, the Guidance states:

There is now a limit on the amount that can be spent on a campaign from the moment a candidate makes a public declaration, the maximum amount being £2000 plus 50p for each registered elector in the relevant constituency. As an estimate, the limit may equate to £4500 to £5000, however the exact limit for each constituency will not be known until the publication of the electoral register dated 1 July 2016.

By the time I declared the final totals were known. This could have been updated in the online Guidance booklet. It would be helpful to make reference to the detailed information available elsewhere, presumably after 1 July: Maximum amount for electoral expenses (note: form is actually headed Manximum (sic) amount).

6 Also, it would be helpful if the Guidance could state the penalty for breaking the maximum permitted expenses.

7 Ref: Every candidate is entitled to have one copy (of) their manifesto delivered by the Isle of Man Post Office to each household containing one or more persons on the electoral register for the constituency for which they are standing for election. The cost of postage will be paid out of money provided by Tynwald, up to the cost of the minimum charge for a standard letter, and should be disregarded when computing election expenses and donations.

Advising the total size of a ‘standard letter’ (A5 envelope) and permitted weight would provide greater clarity and prevent inadvertent additional expense.

8 Ref section 13 Guidance for tellers at polling stations. It states:

It is common practice for candidates at elections to appoint “tellers” or “checkers” to stand outside polling stations and identify electors who have voted. This is a well established

2

618 practice, but the activities of tellers can sometimes be confusing or even intimidating so far as the voters are concerned, and do lead to complaints and disputes. Tellers have no legal status so far as electoral law is concerned. They are volunteers for candidates. They should not be confused with polling agents, whose appointment and duties are prescribed in the Representation of the People Act 1995. They do however play an important role in elections by relaying information to the candidate or their supporters and helping to increase turn out. The candidate or supporters may then contact the voters who have not yet voted on polling day to persuade them to vote.

I believe this practice is intimidating. In my opinion it is outdated and consideration should be given to banning the practice. In some cases rather than increasing turnout, such a phalanx of candidates and/or their tellers is off-putting and I know one person who has not voted because of it. Asking for people’s voting numbers and chasing those who have not voted is similarly intimidating in my opinion.

9 Ref the document Election Publicity Guidance:

Sizing (banners etc) The maximum size of any material to be displayed is 15” x 24” (38cm x 61cm).

Firstly, this is a random size that is not easy to produce. Could it not be made A3 size?

Secondly, many candidates exceeded the maximum permitted size of banners/posters on roadsides (public highway etc), arguably giving them an advantage – a higher profile and a more professional looking banner. My campaign team was advised that the returning officer would request candidates to remove over-sized publicity material on receipt of a formal complaint. This requires review in my opinion.

10 Ref: All posters and banners, including fixings, should be removed by Sunday, 25th September 2016.

It is an offence to interfere with any election material yet this happened repeatedly to my roadside banners. Some were knocked down in the weeks prior to the election while, on the day after the election (23 September 2016), 18 out of 40 disappeared before my team could retrieve them. If anybody knows where they went…can I have them back please!

Requisition meetings:

11 Advance publicity for the hustings events was criticised with many voters complaining they were unaware of their local meeting until after it had taken place.

Perhaps consideration could be given to drawing up a list of hustings events to be held if required in advance of nominations closing. These could be widely advertised/promoted. Candidates and constituents could note the dates. The process for calling for a requisition meeting should be better promoted; people should be able to request the meetings online, direct from the election website, or via easily accessible email links to the Captains of the Parish.

3

619 12 Venues for requisition meetings should also be reviewed. I had constituents who objected to attending meetings at religious premises and two out of three Garff meetings took place in such. The school halls would have been a better venue.

Candidates meetings – are not permitted to take place on any premises that may be licensed for alcohol. This is outdated in my view. Surely it is enough to state that no alcohol must be served. Why is it against the regulations to serve light refreshments, ie, soft drinks, tea, coffee and biscuits.

Polling Day

13 Turnout is reducing. Consideration should be given to the enabling online voting to be permitted at the next election.

14 The Mountain Road was closed, making it hazardous for voters crossing the main road at with the additional traffic.

15 Garff’s count was a rollercoaster of nail-biting emotion for me; first being informed I was third, trailing by 18 votes, before approximately 25 bundles of votes were found in two ballot boxes by my counting officer (after I had called for a recount). The additional votes put me in second place but if they had not been discovered prior to a declaration of the result, the outcome could have been very different following a by-election that would have been required. While the final outcome meant I was elected (by 23 votes), I sympathise deeply with the third placed candidate.

Confidence must be restored in the counting process. Perhaps a more prescriptive method could be introduced.

4

620 APPENDIX 11: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Julie Edge MHK (Onchan)

621

622 From: Julie Edge Sent: 18 November 2016 10:58:00 To: Enquiries Subject: General Election Evidence Importance: Normal

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to provide the following information to the Committee.

1). I was not able to access the data provided on the CD of the electoral register for Onchan. This system needs to be addressed for future elections. 2) I accessed the electoral register at Onchan District Commissioners due to not having a version from Registry to complete my nomination paper by the deadline. I was then advised that the Commissioners were operating with an out of date Register. This meant I had to get a new Nomination Form completed in a short space of time. I recommend that the Local Authorities are made aware of the Regulations and requirements to display the up to date Register. 3) Representation of the People's Act - I feel the five years resident on the Island should be amended to ten years. 4) Declaration of Interests - I would recommend that declaration of interests is a requirement on nomination forms to ensure fair representation for the people from the outset inline with declaration of political parties. This would ensure clear and transparent process at the outset of campaign.

My overall experience of the count at Onchan and the professionalism of the Returning Officer and his team were outstanding.

Kind regards

Julie

Julie M Edge MHK CMgr, MCMI, SBM

623

624 APPENDIX 12: Submission dated 2nd November 2016 from Lawrie Hooper MHK (Ramsey)

625 626 Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the General Election

Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:09

Dear Honourable Members

Standing in the 2016 General Election in Ramsey I felt that the election in the constituency was organised well by our Returning Officer and his staff.

I have no comments or suggestions to make in respect of the Count itself as this was conducted well and there were no issues arising that I was aware of. I also did not encounter any issues on polling day at the polling stations.

However, the same cannot be said of the organisation of the election by the Cabinet Office. Whilst they put out a lot of information in advance of the election, which was helpful and for which they should be congratulated, there were a number of issues.

1) In the first instance, incorrect paperwork was provided on the 21st July by the Cabinet Office, where the nomination papers sent out were missing a box for the proposer and seconder to sign.

Following this, the updated forms sent out on the 26th July were also missing a box for the candidate to place their electoral number.

Whilst these are minor points they did cause some concern and it was necessary to clarify the situation with the Returning Officer as to whether those forms were acceptable, this was an unnecessary distraction caused in my view by poor control processes within the cabinet office. The forms should have been checked to ensure they captured all the relevant information required by the legislation, before they were issued to candidates.

627 2) In the second instance, and perhaps more significantly, all of the polling cards in Ramsey were sent out with the incorrect polling stations.

As I am sure you are aware, Ramsey is split into two electoral wards, Ramsey North and Ramsey South.

Ramsey North has historically voted at the Town Hall and / or the Fire Station, with Ramey South voting at St Paul's Church.

For some reason these stations were switched around for the 2016 General Election, although the old polling stations were printed on the polling cards.

My understanding is that North Ramsey was historically CRAM1 and South Ramsey was historically CRAM2, but for some reason the Polling Districts (Keys Elections) Order 2015 switched these around. To my knowledge no one was informed of this change.

Anecdotally, when I asked for information on the polling stations (in order to put this information on my manifesto) I was advised of the incorrect stations (the ones that had historically been used) and so it was clear that these changes to the districts had not been communicated to the Returning Officer.

When we received an official announcement from the Cabinet Office regarding the polling station error, it was blamed on a "Computer System Error".

I find this difficult to follow, as the Cabinet Office should have had adequate controls in place to check polling districts matched polling stations before the poll cards were printed. The computer systems in the Cabinet Office would only be reacting to the information that was input and so I lean towards the conclusion that human error was at fault and this error resulted from inadequate controls over the poll card printing process. When the error was corrected, the Cabinet Office decided to re-print all the polling cards rather than simply change the polling stations back to match the cards that had already been printed. At this point in the process no-one aside from the Cabinet Office were aware the stations had been switched and this would have seemed the more sensible solution. If legislation was what prevented this being done then it should be updated to allow some more pragmatism and common sense to prevail.

628 It's also worth noting that the government website is still (as at 02/11/2016) showing incorrect information and I reproduce a portion of the table from the website below:

Ramsey

Ramsey CRAM1 Ramsey Methodist Church Hall, St Paul's Church Hall, Market Waterloo Road, Ramsey Square, Ramsey Ramsey CRAM2 St Paul's Church Hall, Market Square, Ramsey https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-neighbourhood/elections-and- voting/general-election/polling-stations/

The website clearly still shows Ramsey South Voters (CRAM1) could vote at St Paul's Church. This was not the case as all CRAM 1 voters had to vote at the Methodist Church.

With regard to the practical effect of switching the stations, this caused a considerable amount of consternation amongst voters with a number of voters turning up on the day to vote only to be turned away and directed to another polling station. I am aware of at least one voter who, on being turned away, simply went home instead of casting their ballot.

I am also aware, that a number of people did not receive their second , corrected, polling card. I have no firm evidence for this and am only aware of it from conversations held with several voters on polling day.

I am concerned that this confusion with the polling cards could have depressed voter turnout.

What also concerns me here is that I was aware of the issues with the polling cards before receiving the official announcement from the Cabinet Office. As soon as the issue was identified the Cabinet Office should have informed all affected parties, instead of some of us finding out informally "on the grapevine".

629 Whilst candidates were informed on the 16th September, a media release did not go out until the 20th September (two days before the Election and four days after corrected polling cards had started to be delivered to voters)

3) More broadly than the electoral process itself is the issue of electoral registration. There were a number of voters removed from the voting lists despite having returned their registration forms.

I am aware of a number of voters who were removed incorrectly from the lists and did not know they had been removed as they informed me they had returned their registration forms within the correct timescales.

I also encountered one instance of a person in a Residential Nursing Home who had been removed from the Register. This person had previously been registered at their residential address (not at the Nursing Home), and I do not know if a registration form was sent to the Nursing home. This may be a wider issue or it may be this was simply a one off occurrence.

I do not know how wide spread this issue of electoral registration was, but it seemed to be significant enough to come up more than a few times during my canvassing.

Consideration really needs to be given to enabling online registration so that people can register to vote online and also check online whether they are on the electoral register.

Consideration should also be given to introducing a "live" or "rolling" register. Voters should be able to register up to the day that they cast their vote, instead of having to register by the 1st September 2016.

My last comment in relation to electoral registration is that we as candidates did not receive the updated "7 day" register (additions / deletions / changes) until the 16th September, (which was a Friday 5 days before the election), giving only 3 working days to capture anyone who was only added on to the 1st September Register. It should not have taken two weeks to get the list of additions / changes to the register out to candidates.

4) The final item I would like to draw to your attention is that of guidance for candidates and enforcement of the Regulations and the Act

630 There were a number of instances where guidance was sought throughout the election campaign but the one that springs most easily to mind is that of the provision of refreshments at public meetings. There was concern that this could be interpreted as "treating" which is an illegal act and there was something of a furore over "biscuitgate" on social media.

The Cabinet office were unable to give guidance on this and suggested that candidates seek their own legal advice. My concern is that this could result in differing opinions being given by different advocates and it would seem to make more sense for guidance to be published by the Cabinet office which can be relied on by the various candidates, especially for minor items such as this.

Finally, where there were clear (albeit minor) breaches of the Representation of the People Act 1995 it did not seem that there was any real action that could be taken. Section 37, Election publications was the area in which I am aware there were breaches but as far as I know no action was taken to force these breaches to be remedied before polling day.

Now I doubt these breaches would impact on the outcome of the election but then it raises the question that if a breach of the law is a) not enforced / enforceable and b) isn't going to impact on the election, then why is it in the law in the first place? Either the section of the law is important and needs to be enforceable and enforced or it is not really relevant and should be amended appropriately.

I hope that you will find this information of use

Kind regards

[Signature L Hooper ]

Lawrie Hooper BSC (Hons) MRES ACA MHK for Ramsey Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles

631

632 APPENDIX 13: Submission dated 21st October 2016 from Martyn Perkins MHK (Garff)

633 634 From: Perkins, Martyn Sent: 21 October 2016 17:53:45 To: Enquiries Subject: Select committee on the Election Importance: Normal ______

A quick email to make sure these thoughts are captured.

A briefing to all prospective candidates well before the election. Personal security .... facebook etc.

Invite a team of international observers to observe process.

Employers not be allowed to hinder people running for office. Candidates must inform their employer they are running for election one month prior as a minimum. Maximum amount of notice required to be worked for successful candidates one month from election date.

If there are any changes to the previous guides to candidates they should be highlighted and noted as being changed. A new set of regulations which can be updated without changing the law. What will the sanctions be on the candidate if the regulations are violated. Candidates meetings.... tea coffee biscuits light refreshments (no alcohol) should not considered an inducement. Standardised counting of votes using the same spreadsheet. Captains of the Parish allowed to use schools free of charge for requisition meetings. Cabinet office to suggest dates for requisition meetings to avoid clashes if meetings are called.

Provision for electronic voting . Investigate methods of getting younger voters to engage.

Martyn Perkins MHK Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW.

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.

RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll- shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.

Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr

635

636 APPENDIX 14: Submission dated 27th October 2016 from William Shimmins MHK (Middle)

637 638 Dear all Please find undernoted my submission to the committee. Generally the Middle constituency election was well organised and operated. Steven Quayle, the Returning Officer and his team were experienced, professional and organised. This was consistently demonstrated during the election period. The count The counting of votes and emptying of ballot boxes was carried out in a diligent manager. A simple multiple basket system for each potential voting combination was employed with numerous cross checks. This may be a best practice to consider for other counts. How to increase voter turnout ? This was disappointing despite a keenly contested election between a number of credible candidates and good weather on election day. The turnout varied across the constituency. The Returning Officer advised that the turnout in Marown parish was 10% higher than in the Braddan and Santon parishes. I submit the following suggestions ;  Incentivise voting - trial a souvenir gift for voters, this need not be expensive e.g. memorial coin, supermarket trolley counter, pen.  Introduce electronic voting - many residents travel extensively and the manual process for an advance vote is off putting.  Add or change polling station locations to include Mount Murray and Ballacottier/Clybane areas. Circa 15% of the Middle electoral register live in or very close to Mount Murray. Similarly the Ballacottier/Clybane area contains a large number of voters. Many residents in these areas have children. Driving to the rural polling stations at village hall or Santon old school hall stations may have discouraged some voters. I have received anecdotal feedback along these lines.  Improve the electoral register accuracy. It was surprising how many people I called upon were not on the register. Various explanations were provided, some credible, others less so. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries. Regards Bill

Bill Shimmins MHK for Middle Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles

639

640 APPENDIX 15: Submission dated 14th November 2016 from the Hon. Juan Watterson SHK (Rushen)

641 642 Dear Mr Shimmins

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide evidence to the Select Committee reviewing the organisation and operation of the general election. I have presumed that the committee will be looking at all aspects of the election, including the legislation.

At the outset, I would like to commend the returning officer for Rushen on his professionalism and efficiency with regard to the organisation of the election.

Turnout

There was some consideration that turnout has continued to fall. In Rushen was around 55%, whilst in the UK turnout is frequently under 50%. This is certainly down on last time, and there is always space for improvement. I am aware that a significant number of measures have been considered over the years to improve voter turnout, such as moving from November to September, and having longer polling hours. Whilst the system can be made as easy as possible, it will always be voter engagement which is the key determinant. I might be bold enough to suggest that the turnout in Rushen has held up better than other places due to the ongoing Year 6 programme of bringing school children into Tynwald and explaining what we do. I know my constituency colleagues have also brought a number of adult groups to Tynwald and this is all positive in terms of people getting an understanding of Manx politics and the institution of Tynwald. It is fair to say however, that many candidates let along members of the public have never been to Tynwald. Sadly, I do not feel that the negative headline grabbing of the Island’s print media does anything to engage people in meaningful debate in politics.

It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the use of social media and either turnout and electoral success. Use of social media is still distinctly mixed amongst candidates. Its use may have helped turnout in the 16-35 demographic especially.

The absence of parties is both a strength and a weakness. On the plus side there is a direct accountability between the Member and the electorate and no disadvantage placed by the party filtering candidates. The biggest complaint was that the public do not know who the Chief Minister will be. This could be countered by adopting my proposal to the Lisvane Inquiry.

It may also be seen that there is a lack of choice in policy terms. Despite the rhetoric, many policies are the same between candidates which may make voters who do not have a personal relationship with any of the candidates feel apathetic.

Nominations

1. I believe that the new system for a nomination week was successful. I am not aware of any downsides to the revised process in practice. I am grateful that Mr Humphrey made provision for this within the constituency, I understand that not every constituency was so lucky. I don’t believe that it is unreasonable for regulations to require that a returning officer for a constituency outside of Douglas to make reasonable provision for some actions to be undertaken in the constituency. Such actions including: receiving and verifying nomination papers; issuing and receiving of advance votes; holding the period for objections to nominations (see Regulation 55 for a more complete list) 2. I remain concerned that there is no requirement for candidates to declare any criminal convictions or director disqualifications on the form as I believe it is reasonable for the electorate to take these into consideration.

643 3. It may be beneficial for the area on the form for the polling number of assentors should be divided between polling district and polling number. It appears that some people still do not appreciate that both are required. 4. It may be worth writing on the form that a person may only propose, second or nominate up to two candidates. This mistake was made by at least one person in Rushen with potentially serious consequences, especially if that person acts as proposer or seconder. 5. If I recall, the occupation / description category was omitted from the published notices this year. Regulation 10(2) does not seem to require it any longer, which I think is a retrograde step.

Expenses 6. I was confused as to the interpretation of the rules concerning the declaration of donations. S.20A of the Act requires a declaration of donations received to be submitted no later than 5 working days before polling day. If this is intended to allow it to inform voters of the donation base, it is worthless as there is no requirement or ability to publish this declaration (just make it available). Given the wording of the regulations, a large donation could be made four days prior to the election and would not need to be declared until after polling day (s.20D(2)) . This makes a mockery of the system. It is worth reviewing the purpose of this, and amending the rules accordingly. 7. It may be advisable for Treasury to issue advice on the tax treatment of election donations and expenses. 8. s.10I of the Representation of the People Act extends the law and guidance under charities legislation to political parties. Currently, regulations exempt low turnover charities from the requirement for independent review of their accounts. I believe that such an exemption is inappropriate for a political party which should be examined by an appropriately qualified person who is not a member of, or connected to, the party.

Advertising & election material 9. Election advertisement needs to contain the words “Representation of the People Act 1995” and the names and addresses of the people it is printed and published by (s.37). I have never understood what purpose this achieves, it seems only to catch out the unwary. Perhaps if election material produced by candidates were exempted from this, the purposed (whatever they may be) could be achieved if they are designed to govern election advertising by those who are not candidates. 10. Our returning officer ruled that rosettes with any text on them constituted advertising and could not be worn by tellers within the curtilage of the polling station. This rule was interpreted differently in different constituencies, so clarity may be required. 11. S.31(2) & regulation 24 provide that every candidate is permitted to have their manifesto delivered to each household. However. It appears that the interpretation of this (whether by IOMPO or Cabinet Office) was that certain places such as nursing homes were counted as a single household for this purpose. From the candidate’s perspective, this is anomalous, as most of us produce the lists based on the electoral roll, meaning that either additional expense is incurred or special arrangements need to be made to deliver manifestos to nursing homes. 12. I cannot find any requirement in the legislation for unbiased or balanced media reporting. The committee may wish to consider this matter, and whether is needs to be introduced. 13. Whilst the Post Office offer a service to deliver leaflets, they cannot guarantee to be able to deliver to specific constituencies. This is a considerable inconvenience to candidates who run the risk of looking like they don’t know their own boundaries.

644 14. Publication guidance was also issued by the DOI (https://www.gov.im/media/1352436/election-publicity-guidance.pdf) which raises some questions: a. The maximum size for posters was 15”x24”. However, it is more important that the poster is clear, letters are large and there aren’t too many words. In this respect 15”x24” may be unduly restrictive. More accurately, road safety could be better achieved by other means. b. Posters are not the be affixed to railings or guard rails. In practise these are ideal and with no impact on road safety.

Electoral Roll 15. Much was made in the build up to the election about the completeness of the electoral roll. However, during my campaigning and after the election I didn’t come across anyone who felt disenfranchised. 16. Whilst it is positive that staff at nursing and residential homes add every householder to the list, this includes some who do not have the capacity to vote. DHSC should perhaps issue guidance to staff as to who should and should not be included on the return for electoral and jury purposes. It may be inappropriate for example that EMI patients, or adults in institutions with severe learning difficulties be subjected to receiving candidate visits or manifestos, albeit they are sent in good faith. a. A number of residents at Southlands would have preferred to have had arrangements made to vote at Southlands. It may be that staff could promote this across all nursing and residential homes. b. The guidance cross refers to policy by local authorities and the MUA. It may be more useful to consult with these bodies and provide consolidated guidance. 17. The supplementary list should be automatically sent to each candidate as soon as it is ready. 18. Candidates should not need to make special arrangements to receive any electoral list electronically, which should be the default. 19. The paper version of the electoral roll is extremely difficult to use, separating streets and filing lanes and tracks in an illogical manner. It must have proved quite frustrating for those relying on the paper copy. I would suggest that the Committee look at this matter, as it is still relied upon for other purposes such as credit checks. 20. The electronic register did require an element of editing before use for no apparent good reason. For example houses which began with numbers started in column “Address 2” whilst those who had house names started in column “Address 1”. This all requires manual intervention by candidates when producing mail merges. 21. Whilst the date of attainment is an essential requirement for the election registration officer to know, it could be considered a breach of privacy for candidates to receive people’s dates of birth. 22. I am not sure what the purpose of the “Status” flag is on the electoral roll, and whether it forms part of a persons electoral number, or what other purpose it serves.

Advance voting 23. I am not sure what the uptake of advance votes was in other constituencies, but in Rushen over 5% of ballots cast were advance votes. This was a great facility for older people who did not want to venture out on polling day and worked very well. 24. It would help if advance votes could be accepted later than at present, although I appreciate there may be practical issues (such as ensuring that these are marked off the ‘marked register’) which would mean consultation with returning officers. The later people are permitted to vote, the better democracy is served.

645 25. There was an issue with people having to go off Island at short notice. The system could be enhanced whereby a person can make an appointment with the returning officer, or an election official at their local commissioners’ office whereby on production of valid identification, they could receive an advance vote “on the spot”. The legislation appears to permit this, it would require an adjustment of some of the systems applied by the returning officers. 26. There were some difficulties with those people who cast their vote whilst absent from the Island, as they had not adhered to the requirements of who could countersign their declaration. A common one was the use of a teacher, when I believe the regulations only permit a secondary head teacher to sign. A review of the requirements for who can undertake this countersignature should be reviewed, bearing in mind that in practise there is no actual check on the validity of these. 27. Could an application for an advance vote be made through the government website with secure login? (N.B. not actually vote, just apply for an advance vote)

Voting 28. There appeared to be some concern with some voters that if they lost or didn’t bring their polling card, they couldn’t vote. Perhaps this could be clarified on the polling card. 29. I was aware of one polling card that was delivered to the wrong address (even though correctly addressed). Fortunately, I was able to assist, but that person was concerned at their entitlement to vote. Perhaps this information could be included on the public notices indicating polling stations. 30. In cases of personation, there are certain questions that can be asked if the person is to be challenged (Regulation 37). I would suggest that in case of dispute it is not unreasonable for a polling clerk to require the production of proof of identity in the rare few cases where this is suspected. The questions are bizarre anyway as the presiding officer may ask for the person’s date of birth, but has no way of verifying the correct answer! This would also obviate the need for Regulation 38 which requires personation to be known, not reasonably suspected. 31. It seems anomalous that people living in the South West part of the constituency (around Cregneish) are required to drive past with the or polling station to get to their polling station. This would require splitting the polling district, but would be easily achievable based on postcode.

The Count 32. There were a number of instances around the Island of votes going missing and the tallying of votes not being consistent. This is easily remedied if a set procedure is followed, consisting very simple steps that can be set out in a standard form. 1 Number of books of ballot papers issued by cabinet office 2 Number of books received by Returning Officer after polls closed 3 Number of ballot papers issued 4 Less: papers returned to the presiding officer as spoilt (replacement required) 5 Less ballot papers issued but not returned e.g. absentee ballots not returned 6 Total number of ballot papers in ballot Number to be reconciled boxes 7 Less: disallowed papers (e.g. spoiled papers, papers with no mark, etc) 8 Total number of valid ballot papers.

646 9 Represented by: Ballot papers with one valid vote Ballot papers with two valid votes

10 Total number of votes cast 11 Candidate A Candidate B Etc Total to reconcile. a. For reasons of practicality, ballot papers can be bundled with a top sheet. In Rushen they were done in 25s, but a larger number may be more desirable. b. At the initial count, questionable papers should be withdrawn whilst splitting the piles split into “plumps” and “2 votes” and bundled accordingly. This allows subsequent steps to be undertaken more smoothly. c. In the Rushen count the total reconciliation between steps 10 and 11 above was 11 votes out. I suspect that this was largely down to the manual logging and addition of the totals on the top sheets of each bundle. If each top sheet was numbered or coded, and the aggregation done on spreadsheet rather than via paper and manual addition, it would reduce the time required to examine any differences between steps. 33. It has proven helpful in the past for the Returning officer to decide, after consultation with the candidates, the margin of difference that is unreasonable for the purpose of regulation 47 (Re-count). 34. It is understood by many that the requirement for secrecy in the count is absolute (and that therefore no communication can be made outside of the count). However, as I read it the secrecy does not extend to the count or result, only to any attempt to ascertain to match any vote to the voter. Election paperwork 35. Following the election, the marked register is only available for inspection (Regulation 57). The election regulations should be amended so that any person can obtain a copy of the marked register, or other documents currently only available for inspection (see Regulation 55). Donation declarations are another such document.

I hope that this is of assistance, however if the committee wish me to clarify or elaborate on any of the above points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

The Hon. Juan Watterson BA(Hons) FCA CMgr FCMI SHK Speaker of the House of Keys Member of the House of Keys for Rushen Legislative Buildings Douglas ISLE OF MAN IM1 3PW

647

648 APPENDIX 16: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Andrew Barton, candidate (Garff)

649 650 Written submission of Recommendations for future practice in elections for the House of Keys Elections.

I was very pleased to hear that a committee had been formed and tasked with researching the recent General Election. When I started with my standing for election, I being one of the 1st to do so, I entered the ‘competition’ with every good intention and indeed expected and at that time had full and complete confidence in the Isle of Man Government, its rules , laws and procedures. I have, since become so dissalusioned that I am very satisfied with the outcome of the election and have taken the stance that it will be unlikely that I will stand again.

I am very happy to be invited to send my opinions and thoughts. I hope that after April 2017 changes can be made to make both the National and local elections enter a future of well organized properly thought out and modern election practice and procedure.

I will list the main points and then elaborate. My main points of concern are;

1 Nomination forms- Incorrectly sent out without main signature Boxes. Nomination forms should be ready immediately a candidate declares an intention

2 A standard and complete electoral register should be made available at the same time and be the same register held by all candidate and officials with no variations.

3 the revised version of the Register took somewhere in the region of 14 days to produce and was only available on the Fri before the election day. Further to this it was distributed with the incorrect password.

4 The fact that as was pointed out to me on some occasions that cold calling/canvassing is now illegal on the IOM.

5 Poor Advertising of the Requisition Meetings.

6 Improper venues for the meetings

7 Poor management and chairmanship of the meetings.

8 Candidates Manifestos being published and distributed very often after the requisition meetings.

9 Only 1 Manifesto being financed to deliver to each household.

10 Restrictions to the type of venue for any public meeting and that tea/coffee and biscuits cannot be provided by the candidate.

651 11 The Chief Minister Alan Bell, frequently in the media repeating that more women required in politics, with this I entirely agree, however male or female its down to the policy not the sex.

12 The chief minister repeatedly critisising candidate quality and passion.

13 The IOM Government helping, encouraging and supporting the IOM Newspapers to undermine a candidates policy THE NIGHT BEFORE the election day

14 A totally relaxed attitude towards correct election procedure on the election count.

15 Electronic voting methods must be introduced as this is the modern way .

16 Election day should change to a Saturday.

I fully accept that some of the points would not necessarily be worthy of mention but are very worth considering by the committee, there are however many items that require a very positive attention.

1 Nomination Forms

The cabinet Office should have had the Nomination Forms available as soon as a candidate declared the forms should have been properly checked for the correct signature boxes for the proposer and seconder. Once the new form had been issued it was too late in my instance and I was told to get the proposer and seconder to sign next to their names, when these were submitted to the returning office there was some question as to whether the form would be acceptable, I refused to accept this and insisted that he contact the Cabinet Office. Obviously this must have been done as I did not hear anything further regarding this matter, I was however concerned!

2 & 3 Electoral Regsisters

On Various occasions throughout the election procedure the electoral register that I held differed from the version that was held by the returning officer and agents, especially after the revised version was finally issued. The revised version took far too long to be published and was only published on the Fri before the election, that being less than a week, further to this the register arrived by post along with the password in a separate envelope in the same delivery. If the password had been correct then the security of this is severely weakened. I was initially unable to access the cd as the password was incorrect, as it was the weekend I had to resort to generating a piece of search software to access the cd. I am not sure how Signed Sealed and Delivered accessed the cd I can only assume they used a similar method. This is quite unacceptable and all this could have been avoided with much more attention to detail by whomever tried to secure the information.

652 On the election day I received a telephone call from one of my supporters informing me that his 16 year old daughter who was lucky enough to be able to vote as she was now on the revised and updated register but was turned away as her name was not on the register at the polling station. Her father had to call the cabinet office and then go down to the polling station with his daughter in order to ensure that she was able to vote. This is unacceptable and has caused embarrassment for the young new voter and vast annoyance for her father. I found the whole issue annoying to say the least as well.

4 Issues regarding cold calling/canvassing

On some occasions whilst on my travels I was informed by some householders that it was illegal for me to call at their door. I would like the exact status of this clarifying as they may have a point as after all a candidate is selling his or her self.

5 6 7 and 8 Requisition Meetings

I think that it is well documented that particularly the Onchan meeting was very poorly attended this was credited by the Captain of the Parish to the advertising method being poor. I have to agree with this. It seems an excessive attempt at economy to leave the advertising of these very important meetings to chance and variances of press releases to the media. They should be paid for adverts all the same size and shape and content for ALL the Islands meetings. 2 of the 3 meetings were held in churches, this is wholly unacceptable as some people informed me that they would not be attending because of the venues. All the areas had school halls as an alternative and this was described as too expensive. As the schools are quite obviously government owned this should not have been a restriction!. Some may disagree with me but I felt that the meetings were poorly chaired, in one supplementary questions were firmly not allowed at the beginning but by the end of the meeting supplementary questions were being tabled as norm. Once a policy has been agreed then it has to be maintained throughout the meeting. I went to great lengths to make sure that my Manifesto document was sent out before the Requisition meetings, I believe that this is important as how can the attendees ask informed questions and test the metal of the candidates if they have no idea what they are standing for. As I was the only candidate to have issued my manifesto before the meeting it was quite obvious to me that my document led and influenced the questions from the floor of the meetings. I would like to see a policy that if there is no manifesto issued and distributed then there should be no attendance by those candidate at the Requisition meeting. Just as an observation many voters spent a lot of time complaining that they only received a Manifesto a matter of a few days before the election day, whilst this may be intentional by the candidates it does not help and encourage the voting public to make the effort.

9 Only 1 manifesto paid for to be delivered to each household

653 Fundamentally wrong, what if the household has 4 members entitld to vote and there are at least 4 candidates standing and the household has each voting member voting for a different candidate then the manifesto may not make it into the hands of all the household members. Each voting member of each household needs to have their own personally addressed manifesto from each candidate. The addressing of just one to each household presented such an issue that the IOM Post Office was unable to facilitate the candidates addressing and distributing of the documents leaving only one company on the island who had taken the time and effort to write their own software to get this sorted. Quite unacceptable and again poorly thought out.

10 Restrictions to the type of venue for any public meeting and that tea/coffee and biscuits cannot be provided by the candidate.

Finding a suitable venue for a public meeting, ie no alcohol etc, is quite a challenge. I can say this that I find it extremely bizarre that tea coffee and biscuits can be construed as bribary if you gave this simple refreshment to ‘visitors’. Very unacceptable especially as we live in a nation that has historically offered tea and coffee in fact expected as a matter of course. The very fact that the Cabinet office or whomever was enforcing this is quite unacceptable, as if a cup of tea or coffee is going to influence a vote.

11 The Chief Minister Alan Bell, frequently in the media repeating that more women required in politics, with this I entirely agree, however male or female its down to the policy not the sex. This perhaps influenced the voters.

This seems to me to be a waste of time talking about, I do not believe that it matters whether you are male female or any where in between as long as you are willing to put your name forward and have a popular policy. To actually repeatedly speak out possibly influenced the results. I do not believe that any sitting member of government should critisise the quality style or passion of candidates in public. Anything that might influence the vote is quite unacceptable unless of course they are standing against that politician/candidate.

13The IOM Government Helping, encouraging and supporting the IOM Newspapers to undermine a candidates policy THE NIGHT BEFORE the elction day

Firstly I did not support the idea that the Isle of Man would be Bankrupt within 4 years but it was most improper for the Treasury to condemn this candidates policy the day before the election again a clear case of the government undermining a policy which after all had been out in the public domain for months; it seems odd to me to wait till the eve of the election. Government should not interfere with a candidates policy even if it believes it to be incorrect.

654

14 A totally relaxed attitude towards correct election procedure on the election count.

This is perhaps the area here things went wrong the most. Throughout the day the election appeared to go well. Once the voting had closed the doors were locked and the boxes start to come back in. There was no apparent counting in of the boxes as they arrived and I heard the returning officer say just to put them down somewhere near to the stage. This needs tightening up they should have been checked in with some sort of identification process. There was far too much preoccupation with ensuring that the staff had food etc, this to a candidate seemed bizarre as the day had been just as long and food was perhaps one of the last things that is required. But whilst the staff were going out of the room to eat it was obvious that errors may be made here, I believe that this is where the boxes started to get forgotten. Food is not a priority, all the staff had ample time to eat, just taking one area, South, only has something in the region of 350 voters voting over a 12 hour period this would have presented ample stand down time to eat etc. There was great pre occupation with making sure that the ballot boxes were being witnessed as properly sealed before opening, with no provision for them being counted off. In my opinion they should all be opened from each polling station and a total count should be made to establish that the quantity of voting slips tallied with the cards that were handed in. This would then have highlighted the error, simple accounting would have fixed this. Generally the importance of the occasion was lacking. The circumstances that unfolded because of the numbers etc were totally embarrassing. I do not think I need to elaborate in this document as 2 of the committee were present. As with everything to do with the general election a more professional approach across the board needs to be applied.

15 Electronic voting methods must be introduced as this is the modern way 16 Election day should change to a Saturday.

We need to adopt a modern approach to voting and welcome the online voting options as a matter of urgency. The turnout for all the elections is now so poor we have to make it easier and more accessible. I think that over the next 5 years there will be local elections where the correct proper and best option can be trialled. Also a Thursday is not the best day of the week it presents people with a multitude of problem as many now work early to late and then children need looking after after they have perhaps even gone to bed. Electronic voting would also remove the problems of voters being away off Island etc.

Whilst some of these issues may be deemed as unimportant I felt on the day that they all were very very important. How our election practice is modernized and maintained will determine how the Government as a whole operates throughout

655 that 5 year period and we must have a modern and dynamic approach to all that we do as I believe that the commercial future of our Island requires a can do and maximum attention to detail approach.

As a by line to all this I would also like to suggest that we look again at the boundary issues particularly in Garff as Onchan quite obviously does not want to be part of the sheading, it is counter productive if we have a vastly reduced turn out to vote and those that did not turn out will have a stand off approach to government. Onchan will have to be made part of Onchan even if Garff only has one representative MHK in the future, I do not feel that the 2 MHK per area has improved things at all and I think it is an effort to be fair taken too far and in fact has alienated many in Onchan.

I will be very happy to give oral evidence if required.

Andrew Barton LBIPP LMPA

[Address given ]

656 APPENDIX 17: Submission dated 1st November 2016 from Kurt Buchholz, candidate (Douglas Central)

657

658 From: Kurt Buchholz Sent: 01 November 2016 10:52:53 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: RE: Election Candidates - Invitation to provide written evidence to Tynwald Select Committee Importance: Normal

Dear Mrs Shimmins,

I am happy to share my “lesson” learned during the recent By-Election and the General Election. I have a few observations and a few recommendations.

1. Voters should not be required to register under their address as their details are already with the government tax office.

2. Voting should be allowed online and more polling stations close and within to the constituency should be set-up. Douglas Central had one voting station located in Douglas North (Glenclutchery Road)

3. Voters should have one vote only as the two vote system gives a disadvantage to candidates. To explain it simply, the voters will elect their “prime” candidate and the second vote will go in most cases not to the second best candidate who might be seen as a threat for the first candidate, but to an unlikely candidate who might even win the most votes in the election. In such way the third or fourth best candidate will always be guaranteed more votes than the second best candidate. To understand this point you have to be familiar with the probability calculations and I am afraid that your chairman has never even heard about these type of calculations.

4. Candidates should be nationwide to avoid “family and friends” votes which brought the majority of present candidates into Tynwald.

5. The election process should be observed by independent observers not from the IOM

6. The ballot boxes should be transparent and not black so that nobody could see what was inside

7. The ballot boxes should not be kept in a separate room as the candidates during the final count as it happened in the Douglas Central count. The returning officer and nearly all his team, except one person, locked themselves up into a side room for nearly 30 minutes with the remaining ballot boxes during the counting. During this time the remaining one person counted alone some baskets with cards and gave the result to a person with a computer who sat so conveniently with the back to the wall so that nobody could see what numbers he entered into his computer.

I am sorry to say but the general election counting process was done in an unprofessional way and no transparent. It also led to an outcome in the counting that contradicted every prediction and forecast. I express my reservation towards the qualification and motive of the chairman of your committee but hope that the newly elected MHK’s would consider suggestions made by previous candidates which includes myself.

Kind regards

Kurt Buchholz

659 660 APPENDIX 18: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Steve Crowther, candidate (Arbory, Castletown and Malew)

661

662 . . [Address given ] . . .

18 November 2016

Reference; SRC/027

Committee Secretariat Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man IM13PW

Attention of Charlie Shimmins Assistant Clerk of the Select Committee. Reference; Select Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the General Election - call for evidence. Mr Stephen Crowther, candidate for Arbory, Castletown and Malew. Further to your letter dated the 24th of October 2016 in reference to the above committee please find noted below my observations. Your letter requested we give 'account of the organization and operation of the election’ with an emphasis on ‘what lessons can be learned from the recent General Election and what improvements can be made for the future’.

1.0 Documentation/communication. 1.1. My decision to stand and declare at the recent election was only made at a relatively late date in the canvassing period. As an architect and solo practitioner with a busy practice this required quick mobilisation and assimilation of election procedures. Broadly I felt that the documentation provided by the Cabinet office was of a good standard and easily downloadable. Candidate requirements are well covered, particularly expenses, the only concern being the timeline for deliverable dates such as; 1. Nomination papers. 2. Declaration of donations. 3. Data protection, Information Commissioner. 4. Notifying teller and polling agents (on day 39?) Some dates for information were listed in Joanne Taylor's two e-mails to myself on the 4th of August 2016 however I feel a list of relevant dates would be a useful additional guidance tool......

663 November 18, 2016 Page 2

Recommendation; In the late stages of canvassing and with many other dates to consider I would recommend a principal webpage with a simple list of sequential dates collated from each of the different departments. This could also significantly reduce departments resources in advising candidates of overdue notification. 1.2. While I appreciate it may be useful to have a returning officer who is not located within the constituency this seemed to cause considerable confusion among many of the electorate particulate with regards to advanced and proxy voting. It is understandable and to be commended, that the government have made these procedures more rigourous however having returning officers located within the constituency would facilitate far better organisation and ease-of-use for a busy electorate. Due to the numbers involved this seemed to place considerable pressure on the returning officers facilities. Procedures for advanced/proxy voters seemed complicated and unclear to many of the electorate and this resulted in an e-mail from Joanne Taylor on the 10th of August 2016. This procedure must be clear and not deter potential voters. Recommendation; Delegation of some of the returning officers duties particularly for advanced voters to register, for example local town clerks? More local sitting of returning officers premises. An online option? Clear and simple documentation for voters to be directed to. 1.3. A number of electorate advised me that they had been taken off the electoral list but should have been eligible to vote. While small in number there was little that could have been undertaken after the final registration date in early September. Recommendation; I appreciate the efforts the government have made in this area and it would be difficult to describe further measures however is it possible to highlight the number of people who lost their vote due to inaction before the next election, particularly as a warning. It is also important to examine the electoral offices procedures to ensure there are no anomalies.

2.0 Electorate awareness. 2.1. Arbory Castletown and Malew's newly combined constituency presented a challenge for a number of the electorate. Many of the electorate did not understand from previous elections that they now had 2 votes against 1, even on polling day. The freshness of the constitutional arrangements were hard to absorb for a number of the electorate. Considerable objections were also raised regarding candidates leaving visiting cards with contact information, without waiting for an adequate duration for a response. Clearly the size of the constituency now requires visits to each dwelling a considerable feat of endurance. Approximately just under 3000 dwellings, understanding that some of these are social care homes, this is a considerable number and with many visits lasting extended periods. In light of the constituency changes it would seem these practicalities need to be highlighted to the electorate to ensure that they have realistic expectations. Given an average of 20 min each this

664 November 18, 2016 Page 3

would be equivalent to 1000 hours, at 5 hours a day that would be 200 days! I appreciate this is a crude calculation however it does highlight the extent of the problem which is expressed in electorate frustration. Recommendation; In advance of the election a simple A5 document outlining the practicalities of the election process would considerably raise the electorate's respect for the election process. (The importance I attach to this would be the government's spending resources on this in preference to the postage for manifestoes. Newspaper and radio advertising are good however for this importance they don't reach enough of the electorate) 2.2. The radio interviews provided by both Manx radio and 3 FM were well- organised and many of the electorate advised they were using the associated webpages. It is essential however that the above recommended document if circulated, highlights these webpages and social media linking the interviews/profiles. The Isle of Man newspapers questionnaire, while to be congratulated however would have been better printed with each of the candidates answers to the questions grouped sequentially to allow a quicker cross comparison of each candidates opinions on particular matters. Recommendation; While much of the media coverage was good some refinements could provide quicker comparisons for a busy electorate. It is also important that government and media stress the MHK's national role taking precedence over local issues.

3.0 Manifestoes/Public meetings. 3.1 On both national media and at public meetings the electorate noted concerns on the late delivery of manifestoes. From my own point of view as described in the introduction the lateness of my campaign made this difficult to organise particularly as the Isle of Man has limited facilities for publishing this size of document. As noted in the recommendation 2.1, it would appear worth noting to the public the logistical challenge of delivering the manifesto. This is particularly exampled by a number of the electorate believing that the government subsidise candidates campaign's. This needs to be made clear by the Cabinet Office particularly as the Isle of Man has never encouraged party politics. Recommendation; Ensuring the public are clear on the independence of candidates financing and the challenges on producing a campaign. This information could be provided as outlined in the recommendation 2.1. Manifestoes should be retained in local libraries and digital copies should be retained online for future reference. 3.2. It should be noted that a number of the candidates prepared dedicated public meetings. It would seem prudent that these should be advertised in a central location. This would allow each constituencies electorate to quick access therefore seeking out candidates for clarification on detailed matters.

665 November 18, 2016 Page 4

Also a format for running public meetings to ensure adequate space and questioning procedures. With the simplification of technology it would seem possible that more future public meetings could be recorded and put online for the general electorate to evaluate particularly noting that some attendees to the Castletown hustings were not able to enter the building due to capacity (which reflects well on the local authority for ensuring the popularity of the meeting). Recommendation; Public meetings are an essential arena for the public awareness of their candidates and should be assisted in both procedure and communication through the national media. Could the radio and newspapers provide a central location for advertising events. 3.3. It was noted that a number of candidates at previous elections have made commitments that had not been adhered to. While the honesty and integrity of candidates is a matter for the democratic process I am sure there are extreme cases in which elected candidates have diverged radically from their core stance. It wouldn't seem unreasonable that elected MHK's could be deselectable should they deviate significantly from their core commitments. I appreciate that this is a difficult topic however addressing this matter would give the electorate far greater belief in candidates canvassing. This is reinforced by my recommendation in item 3.1 for retaining manifestoes as a commitment record. It would also mean that the electorate would be better able to establish the core commitments of a candidate and select on this basis. Recommendation; A deselection process for elected MHK's or their financial remuneration is partly commensurate on performance. This would ensure the electorate can seek redress where candidates have been deliberately deceitful on a significant scale. I appreciate this is a difficult and complex area however critically important to the electorate. Even if very rare, if the public could see redress this would significantly enhance their belief in the system.

4.0 Polling day. 4.1. Following discussions with other constituency candidates there seems to be an inconsistency in procedures for tellers and polling agents. In the last few days before the election, procedures must be clear and precise, to avoid frustration. I appreciate that this is covered in appendix 8 however the wording seemed to leave some ambiguity. There seemed to be a lack of clarity on who should be registered for attendance at polling stations. At polling stations problems also arose with events that were organised on the same day, particularly in Castletown, which caused considerable confusion for the electorate. Recommendation; It is essential that returning officers have available better defined procedures for registering tellers and polling agents. All polling stations are dedicated to the election process with no other activities taking place in close proximity or at their entrance.

666 November 18, 2016 Page 5

4.2. The arrangements at some polling station buildings entrances particularly where disabled access to the building is difficult, tellers and polling agents need to be clearly advised as to where they can stand. Entrance to a number of polling stations was difficult and appeared intimidating to the electorate particularly due to the number of candidates standing. Recommendation; Electorate access to polling stations needs to be clearly defined and must not appear intimidating to the electorate. 4.3. The count proceedings at Castletown Townhall, while well-run, seemed to prove difficult for count staff. Candidates and counting agents were allowed to circulate among the counting tables. For those counting this could be extremely distracting and not helpful to the overall count proceedings, particularly where you're walking behind counting tables. Recommendation; Candidates and counting agents should be restricted to observe from a central area but not walk behind counting staff. 4.4. Where the number of candidates standing is high it is also likely that recounts will be required. While this is part of the election process and unavoidable having additional staff available may help alleviate fatigue where this may stretch into the early hours. Recommendation; Consider additional resources for constituencies with high numbers of candidates.

5.0 Election timing. 5.1. As already discussed some of the problems that resulted from a lack of clarity on advanced & proxy voting were particularly exacerbated by the holiday period during the election. The key canvassing period within late August and early September are the key holiday period for families and children before returning to the school autumn term. In addition many people without family will take holidays in the reduced price period beyond the school holiday return, particularly in the warmer weeks of late September. I appreciate that the timing of the election is very much part of Tynwald procedure however it would appear a small shift in the timing of the election by perhaps 2 weeks could make a significant difference to the amount of advanced votes required. Recommendation; Moving the election date by a further 2 weeks from late September to early October would reduce the number of people on holiday during core canvassing in August and advanced votes required on election day. It should be noted that the evenings are still light in early October. Another alternative is to simplify the advanced/proxy voting and facilitating voting online following physical registration.

Conclusion.

667 November 18, 2016 Page 6

Another alternative is to simplify the advanced/proxy voting andfacilitating voting online following physical registration.

Conclusion. While physically and financially exhausting, I very much enjoyed the experience of standing as a candidate and I was considerably inspired by many of the genuine concerns and interest of the electorate. I would also like to congratulate the Cabinet office for their hard work, obviously undertaken to help streamline the process. The above observations are only provided to help refine and assist in clarifying this. Much of the electorates concern in trying to establish and compare each candidates position was expressed at some of the public meetings. I feel that the above recommendations, particularly communicating with the public on the election process, candidates practicalities and sourcing information would significantly assist them in the election process and avoid some of their frustrations. It would also seem that modern technology, particularly looking at the recent American elections, would facilitate greater voter turnout and electorate involvement.

Contact information should further clarification be required;

My address remains as the header. Respectfully, [Signature]

S R Crowther

This letter is provided in good faith and should extracts be taken from the letter, it is expected that these will remain in context. Should the writer be identified tIlis must be agreed beforehand.

668 APPENDIX 19: Submission dated 15th November 2016 from Leo Cussons, candidate (Rushen)

669

670 On 15 November 2016 at 12:51, Leo Cussons < > wrote:

Dear Mr Shimmins,

Thank you for the invitation to present comments and evidence regarding the election. I have some comments regarding the turnout at the election, the total representation of people and how this can be improved.

I have enclosed a spreadsheet of the election result from September 22nd 2016, The spreadsheet covers all the results from all the constituencies in the Isle of man. I have worked in my example below the results from Rushen constituency where I stood to demonstrate total representation in Rushen.

Total votes balloted in Rushen constituency 5767 as per Manx Radio Turnout in Rushen officially 58.2%

Leo Cussons Independent 331 5.7% James Hampton Independent 1033 17.9% Mark Kemp Independent 1104 19.1% Independent 1212 Elected 21.0% Juan Watterson Independent 2087 Elected 36.2%

Census 2016 give the total number of residents at 6,977 Total number of resident registered voters 5767 Difference of 1210 That lowers the turn out to 45.47%

From the turnout, two candidates were elected with 57.2% of the vote

That means that 42.8% of people that voted are not represented in any form

Most worrying is that from the total number of residents in Rushen only 26.03% (57.25% of 45.47%) are represented. This clearly is not very effective form of representation.

In the short term, I propose that voting should be made compulsory as the sheer cost of stage elections makes them ineffective if they are not used by all residents. This would also mean that everyone is involved in society. There are many places in the world where this has proven to be successful. Australia is a good example of this.

Secondly, we need to move some sort of proportional representation where all candidates are members of political parties and the total vote of the island for each party secures the number of seats in Tynwald. This way you a have a true representation of all the people in the Isle of Man and their will.

I hope the example above example demonstrates the nature of what is a representation problem. If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

Leo Cussons

671 qwerty

path \ 160922 Election results \ Footered Page 1 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 672 File Called 160922 Election results.xls done [ Date } 23rd Sept 2016 by ASB to Analyse available data on the IOM 2016 General Election Mainly candidate results, and Voter Turnout (which fell over, as below)

Contents of this Workbook Worksheets

Footered Sheet with footers in already, ready for copying

Notes This sheet

160922 results results per the BBC, ex http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-37362561 And alongside, from Manx Radio http://www.manxradio.com/election-2016/results-2016-folder/keys-2016-douglas-central-results-sec/ Showing Total Total Number Turnout Number of of Voters who % Eligible Cast Valid Voters Votes

These two sets of publications do not match - more voted ( per the BBC ), than were Registered.(per Manx Radio ) Print Area is set for L Hand side of page only.

160922 results (2) results per the BBC, ex http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-37362561 Compared with the numbers on the Electoral Rolls, per the Govt website at https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-neighbourhood/elections-and-voting/electoral-registration-data/ Again, the BBC figures do not look right.

quarterly-totals-registered-vot Data about the number of Registered Voters, fed to the above s/sheet from https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-neighbourhood/elections-and-voting/electoral-registration-data/

path \ 160922 Election results \ Notes Page 2 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 673 22nd September 2016 Election Results http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-37362561 Totals % Boundary changes saw the number of constituencies reduced from 14 to 12 for this election. Each area now elects two members to the House of Keys. Constituency results Arbory, Castletown and Malew Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Richard McAleer Independent 718 12.3% Philip Gawne Independent 972 16.6% Independent 991 Elected 16.9% Carol Quine Manx Labour 267 4.6% Jason Moorhouse Independent 1066 Elected 18.2% Carl Parker Independent 890 15.2% Stephen Crowther Independent 950 5854 16.2%

Ayre and Michael Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Liberal Vannin 39 0.7% Timothy Baker Independent 1571 Elected 27.7% Alfred Cannan Independent 1736 Elected 30.6% Alan Kermode Independent 440 7.7% Carlos Phillips Independent 1331 23.4% Louise Whitelegg Independent 563 5680 9.9%

Douglas Central Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Kurt Buchholz Independent 632 15.0% Ann Corlett Independent 1031 Elected 24.5% Richard Falk Independent 540 12.8% Sara Hackman Independent 342 8.1% Michelle Inglis Independent 95 2.3% Chris Thomas Independent 1571 Elected 4211 37.3%

Douglas East Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Clare Bettison Independent 561 Elected 18.1% Quintin Gill Independent 415 13.4% Richard Halsall Manx Labour 163 5.2% Jon Joughin Independent 480 15.5% John McBride Independent 303 9.8% Independent 487 Elected 15.7% Cat Turner Independent Green 324 10.4% Amanda Walker Independent 373 3106 12.0%

Douglas North Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Karen Angela Independent 287 7.6% Independent 1219 Elected 32.1% John Houghton Independent 775 20.4% Independent 1177 Elected 31.0% Lynn Sirdefield Manx Labour 343 3801 9.0% per Manx Radio 22:31 Turnout in Douglas North officially 50.1&

path \ 160922 Election results \ 160922 results Page 3 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 674 Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Kate Beecroft Liberal Vannin 1134 Elected 36.0% David Fowler Independent 296 9.4% Keith Fitton Independent 767 24.4% Bill Malarkey Independent 952 Elected 3149 30.2%

Garff Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Andrew Barton Independent 346 7.1% Daphne Caine Independent 1270 Elected 26.1% Nigel Dobson Independent 231 4.8% Martyn Perkins Independent 1767 Elected 36.4% Andrew Smith Independent 1247 4861 25.7%

Glenfaba and Peel Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Independent 1805 Elected 34.5% Leslie Hanson Independent 1238 23.6% Raymond Harmer Independent 2195 Elected 5238 41.9%

Middle Candidate Affiliation Votes Status William Bowers Independent 394 9.7% Paul Craine Independent 1090 26.9% Independent 1205 Elected 29.8% Independent 1357 Elected 4046 33.5%

Onchan Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Anthony Allen Independent 510 11.6% Rob Callister Independent 1272 Elected 28.9% Timothy Craig Independent 841 19.1% Julie Edge Liberal Vannin 953 Elected 21.7% David Quirk Independent 822 4398 18.7%

Ramsey Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Alex Allinson Independent 2946 Elected 47.1% Nick Crowe Independent 716 11.4% Lawrie Hooper Liberal Vannin 1471 Elected 23.5% John McDonough Independent 236 3.8% Leonard Singer Independent 886 6255 14.2% per Manx Radio 22:01 Turnout in Ramsey officially 61.7% Rushen Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Leo Cussons Independent 331 5.7% James Hampton Independent 1033 17.9% Mark Kemp Independent 1104 19.1% Laurence Skelly Independent 1212 Elected 21.0% Juan Watterson Independent 2087 Elected 5767 36.2% per Manx Radio 21:55 Turnout in Rushen offically 58.2%

path \ 160922 Election results \ 160922 results Page 4 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 675 22nd September 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-37362561 Totals % Boundary changes saw the number of constituencies reduced from 14 to 12 for this election. Each area now elects two members to the House of Keys. Constituency results

Arbory, Castletown and Malew Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Richard McAleer Independent 718 12.3% Philip Gawne Independent 972 16.6% Graham Cregeen Independent 991 Elected 16.9% Carol Quine Manx Labour 267 4.6% Jason Moorhouse Independent 1066 Elected 18.2% Carl Parker Independent 890 15.2% Stephen Crowther Independent 950 5854 16.2%

Ayre and Michael Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Patrick Ayres Liberal Vannin 39 0.7% Timothy Baker Independent 1571 Elected 27.7% Alfred Cannan Independent 1736 Elected 30.6% Alan Kermode Independent 440 7.7% Carlos Phillips Independent 1331 23.4% Louise Whitelegg Independent 563 5680 9.9%

Douglas Central Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Kurt Buchholz Independent 632 15.0% Ann Corlett Independent 1031 Elected 24.5% Richard Falk Independent 540 12.8% Sara Hackman Independent 342 8.1% Michelle Inglis Independent 95 2.3% Chris Thomas Independent 1571 Elected 4211 37.3%

Douglas East Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Clare Bettison Independent 561 Elected 18.1% Quintin Gill Independent 415 13.4% Richard Halsall Manx Labour 163 5.2% Jon Joughin Independent 480 15.5% John McBride Independent 303 9.8% Chris Robertshaw Independent 487 Elected 15.7% Cat Turner Independent Green 324 10.4% Amanda Walker Independent 373 3106 12.0%

Douglas North Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Karen Angela Independent 287 7.6% David Ashford Independent 1219 Elected 32.1% John Houghton Independent 775 20.4% Ralph Peake Independent 1177 Elected 31.0% Lynn Sirdefield Manx Labour 343 3801 9.0% per Manx Radio 22:31 Turnout in Douglas North officially 50.1&

path \ 160922 Election results \ 160922 results (2) Page 5 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 676 Douglas South Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Kate Beecroft Liberal Vannin 1134 Elected 36.0% David Fowler Independent 296 9.4% Keith Fitton Independent 767 24.4% Bill Malarkey Independent 952 Elected 3149 30.2%

Garff Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Andrew Barton Independent 346 7.1% Daphne Caine Independent 1270 Elected 26.1% Nigel Dobson Independent 231 4.8% Martyn Perkins Independent 1767 Elected 36.4% Andrew Smith Independent 1247 4861 25.7%

Glenfaba and Peel Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Geoffrey Boot Independent 1805 Elected 34.5% Leslie Hanson Independent 1238 23.6% Raymond Harmer Independent 2195 Elected 5238 41.9%

Middle Candidate Affiliation Votes Status William Bowers Independent 394 9.7% Paul Craine Independent 1090 26.9% Howard Quayle Independent 1205 Elected 29.8% Bill Shimmins Independent 1357 Elected 4046 33.5%

Onchan Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Anthony Allen Independent 510 11.6% Rob Callister Independent 1272 Elected 28.9% Timothy Craig Independent 841 19.1% Julie Edge Liberal Vannin 953 Elected 21.7% David Quirk Independent 822 4398 18.7%

Ramsey Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Alex Allinson Independent 2946 Elected 47.1% Nick Crowe Independent 716 11.4% Lawrie Hooper Liberal Vannin 1471 Elected 23.5% John McDonough Independent 236 3.8% Leonard Singer Independent 886 6255 14.2% per Manx Radio 22:01 Turnout in Ramsey officially 61.7% Rushen Candidate Affiliation Votes Status Leo Cussons Independent 331 5.7% James Hampton Independent 1033 17.9% Mark Kemp Independent 1104 19.1% Laurence Skelly Independent 1212 Elected 21.0% Juan Watterson Independent 2087 Elected 5767 36.2% per Manx Radio 21:55 Turnout in Rushen offically 58.2%

path \ 160922 Election results \ 160922 results (2) Page 6 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 677 Data comes from https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and-neighbourhood/elections-and-voting/electoral-registration-data/ filename is quarterly-totals-registered-voters-12-constituencies-website-v4.csv

Date of Register Arbory, Castletown & Malew Ayre & Michael Douglas Central Douglas East Douglas North Douglas South Garff Glenfaba & Peel Middle Onchan Ramsey Rushen Total Registered Voters 01/04/2016 5,407 4,839 4,773 4,161 4,307 4,462 5,032 5,817 4,369 4,896 5,644 5,390 59,097 01/07/2016 5,452 4,858 4,840 4,217 4,339 4,488 5,056 5,837 4,393 4,915 5,693 5,422 59,510 15/09/2016 5,487 4,884 4,890 4,251 4,386 4,496 5,069 5,886 4,445 4,997 5,726 5,446 59,963

Transposed

Date of Register 01/04/2016 01/07/2016 15/09/2016 Arbory, Castletown & Malew 5,407 5,452 5,487 Ayre & Michael 4,839 4,858 4,884 Douglas Central 4,773 4,840 4,890 Douglas East 4,161 4,217 4,251 Douglas North 4,307 4,339 4,386 Douglas South 4,462 4,488 4,496 Garff 5,032 5,056 5,069 Glenfaba & Peel 5,817 5,837 5,886 Middle 4,369 4,393 4,445 Onchan 4,896 4,915 4,997 Ramsey 5,644 5,693 5,726 Rushen 5,390 5,422 5,446 Total Registered Voters 59,097 59,510 59,963

path \ 160922 Election results \ quarterly-totals-registered-vot Page 7 of 7 Printed 09/02/2017 16:37 678 APPENDIX 20: Submission dated 16th November 2016 from Michelle Inglis, candidate (Douglas Central)

679

680 Michelle Inglis [Address Given]

Re: Select Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the General Election 2016

To Whom it may concern,

I stood as an MHK candidate in the General Election 2016, this is my experiences and observations of the process which I encountered.

Information was scarce and hard to come by, apparently it was available on the internet but, it was difficult to find as it was buried in obscure places. This should be readily available, easy to find and easy to follow.

There was little assistance by way of advance voting and proxy voting, the forms indicated that they needed to be signed in front of the returning officer which apparently was not the case. These forms should be clear in their direction.

The returning officer appeared to be lacking in information surrounding some of the paper work involved, such as declarations of secrecy. I took all of my paper work for signing and was told that I didn't need to sign some of it, it turned out that I did in fact have to sign it and so did the returning officer.

On requesting information from the Cabinet office, the Registration office and the returning officer, I received contradictory information or 'passing the buck' whereby no-one appeared to know who dealt with what. This is not helpful when constituents are expecting the candidates to know what is happening and when.

The requisition meeting appeared a little chaotic in that all candidates were asked to give their view of every question, I felt that this was unproductive to the constituents who may have preferred to direct specific questions to specific candidates. Some constituents did speak to me following the requisition meeting and did express concerns over how the questions were handled and the way the answers were sought.

There was no information available, that I could find, concerning the polling stations although one candidate did seem to have this information. This should be made available to all candidates as soon as it is available. There was some concern from constituents who had always voted in a specific location because of the proximity and were diverted to another polling some distance away. A large number of these said they were refusing to vote because of the distance they now had to travel, bear in mind a lot of these are elderly.

There was no specific information concerning ferrying constituents to the polling stations, I personally feel that this should not be allowed as the constituents feel obliged to vote for whoever

681 drives them to the polling station. It gives an unfair advantage to those that have the means to do this, bear in mind not everyone drives.

Following the close of the polling stations all of the Douglas Central candidates met at All Saints church hall at 19:50 ready for the closing. We were then locked out at 20:00 and told we were not allowed into the hall until all of the boxes had arrived and they had set up the hall for counting. We were locked out for between twenty and thirty minutes. Eventually we were allowed into the hall, not much changed, there were no boxes in sight at all. Once the counting staff were ready the returning officer went into an ante room to retrieve a single box. This was opened and counting began. At the same time the returning officer and his deputy began counting the advance votes. On completion of this the returning officer, the counting officer and three counting staff all went into the ante room and shut the door. I did ask one of the candidates wives if that was normal, she said she didn't know. These individuals were all in that ante room for a good twenty minutes. The counting of the first box was completed and the voting cards returned to the box. This box was returned to the ante room and another brought out. The door to this room remained closed throughout and none of the candidates or their representatives were allowed in. Some of the candidates noted that all votes were fairly evenly split following the first box being counted. This rapidly changed as the remaining boxes were counted, skewing the votes exponentially.

A few days after the count had taken place I received a breakdown of the votes for each candidate for each ward. It was to say the least not quite what I had expected. I had spoken to quite a number of the constituents and had a fair idea of how many votes I was likely to receive, these figures did not add up. I have since spoken with a number of constituents who have told me that they voted for me, if they did then their votes could not have been counted. There are a lot more people who say they voted for me than the votes I received in each ward overall. Nothing about the count adds up.

Whilst I felt that particularly the lack of information available and the counting which appeared shady at the very least was a major issue, I did enjoy the experience. I have made a number of friends from the experience including my fellow candidates.

The entire process from start to finish needs to be open and transparent, because my experience of this process may suggest a huge lack of organisation or even corruption as some would describe. It may be worth considering employing a single co-ordinator who manages all of the information so that it is readily available and organised.

Yours sincerely,

Michelle Inglis MSc BSc (Hons) CSci FIBMS

682 APPENDIX 21: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Mark Kemp, candidate (Rushen)

683

684 From: Mark Kemp Sent: 17 November 2016 17:22:52 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: RE: Election Candidates - Invitation to provide written evidence to Tynwald Select Committee Importance: High

Dear Mr Shimmins,

I’ll keep my comments brief. My reasons for this are that I felt that the whole election process from start to finish was massively flawed and that certain government staff showed a complete lack of interest, empathy and knowledge about the processes involved in running an election office and if I let myself type what I really think, you’ll be reading a ten page document.

1. There was no information uploaded to the election page of the government website until a couple of weeks prior to the submission of nomination papers.

2. The information that was sitting on the election page was grossly misleading and I was amongst several candidates to contact the government for clarity over dates.

3. The attitude of staff in the Cabinet Office was a disgrace! When I went in to talk to staff personally to enquire about how to run for MHK and when information and nomination papers would be available, I was met with rudeness and apathy. The person I spoke to was rude and abrupt and would not engage with me. Indeed, because I kept a certain member of staff talking for more than 5 minutes, trying to understand why the IOM Government wasn’t prepared for a General Election, other members of staff came into the reception area to ask the person I was talking to if she was “alright” and if she needed them to take over whilst looking at me in a threatening manner. At no point did these other people address me. This is not good enough on all counts and having spoken to other candidates (some of whom are now MHKs) I am loathe to engage with Cabinet Office staff ever again as I know this wasn’t a case of a person having a bad day, they were covering up the incompetence of their office.

4. I found Kirsty Hemsley to be extremely helpful and professional throughout the process.

5. Incorrect nomination papers were distributed by staff and incorrect voting cards were distributed in Ramsey. Where is the four eye review of documents, legal documents?

6. I was informed that I had declared my intention to run on a certain date, but this date was incorrect. Where is the checking and double checking of facts before engaging with someone?

7. There are loopholes that candidates can take advantage of, i.e. if you spend money on a campaign before declaring your intention to stand, you can spend over the limit for your constituency. The lack of transparency over election rules is shockingly biased towards those that have run before or, and especially, those that are MHKs running again. The rules, all of the rules need to be posted online and should remain online and accessible for the whole 5 years in between elections.

8. Rules regarding candidates rigging an election or intimidating or coercing voters are vague and there is no help for candidates running who feel that Ministers or MHKs are acting improperly. A Minister in my area believed a mutual acquaintance was my campaign manager and contacted him directly and attempted to intimidate him. Do I report this to the police, my Returning Officer, the Cabinet Office or is this allowed? I actually would like an answer to this by return.

9. Why are candidates allowed to post notices on road signs? Is this not illegal?

685 10. Candidates should not EVER be allowed to advertise outside a polling station of counting station at any point – no signs should be permitted to sit outside these areas at any time.

11. Why are candidates from other constituencies allowed to advertise in adjacent constituencies? MHKs in adjacent constituencies can work together to undermine rivals by crowding land permitted for advertising one’s campaign.

12. Election teams should not be allowed to stand in doorways, entrances or polling rooms of polling buildings. They can intimidate voters or coerce them.

13. Ministers and MHKs should NOT be allowed to use Government resources during a campaign. They should be forced to set up their own email addresses for example and they should NOT be permitted to strategically withhold and release information that could support their campaign. They should not be allowed to make public announcements for 4 months prior to an election (a member of their department should do it) and they should not be allowed to use the media for self-promotion.

14. Ministers should be investigated for lying to the media, but especially so during a campaign. If found guilty of abuse of power or privilege they should be expelled from the General Election.

15. Voting boxes should be accompanied by a police officer to counting stations and should be visible to the public at all times within the counting station (with the Returning Officer declaring before the boxes arrive how many there are and where they are coming from). A surveillance device should be attached to the boxes whilst in transit and CCTV should be installed in all polling stations and counting stations for the whole of the election day.

16. Candidates should not be allowed within 3 feet of counting clerks and should not be allowed to engage in conversation with them, the Returning Officer or any other Officer permitted within the counting station.

17. All correspondence with the Returning Officer should be to an email address which is hosted by Government.

18. Everything should be audited before, during and after an election to ensure process is followed.

19. The Returning Officer should not advise on whether a recount is in one’s interests or not. It should be a simple, “Do you want a recount?” question with a yes or no reply.

20. Numbers are falling dramatically with each election and we have now moved into not only a new epoch but a new age. . .’The information age’ and as such, we should now be permitting voters to vote electronically. Security around this can be achieved and without it, voter apathy will continue whether the government is deemed trustworthy or not.

21. The General Election needs to be made a big event and Government has to spend money advertising it and educating people on their rights and the consequences of not voting.

22. Schools should have local politics on their curriculum for a half term every year (this can be a PSHE lesson, General Studies lesson or managed in tutorial time). Children should be educated on their rights to vote.

23. Anyone who wants to be Speaker, President, Chief Minister or Minister must express their intention at the time of announcing their election. MHKs can manipulate the public into thinking they are voting for an MHK when in fact they are voting for someone that intends to spend time as CM, President or Speaker. This is a slap in the face to voters who can’t make a judgement on whether a candidate can serve their constituents whilst holding an office.

686 Thank you giving me the opportunity to contribute to this consultation. I sincerely hope that I haven’t wasted my time writing to you and that there will be a drive to make the process more accessible, transparent, better supervised, advertised and that bias towards existing MHKs will be removed from the election process.

Yours Sincerely,

Mark Kemp

687

688 APPENDIX 22: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Richard McAleer, candidate (Arbory, Castletown and Malew)

689 690

Submission to committee reviewing the 2016 General Election

I intend to give a full and frank overview of the Election process from a Candidate’s point of view, any criticisms I make are for constructive reasons and are not aimed at any individuals:

Pre Election:

The election pages on the government website need to be updated to provide prospective candidates with a one stop shop as to finding out the necessary information.

This should include a detailed map of each constituency including a total of the houses and registered voters in each area.

Full details of the nomination process; who is eligible to stand, how many assentors you need etc

There is now a requirement for candidates to declare any donations to the Cabinet Office but not to declare total spend. This should be part of any future elections All candidates should declare how much they have spent and keep invoices for inspection. I suspect there were candidates who spent over and above the ceilings laid down for this election.

Changes to boundaries:

This year marked the first year of the new two seat constituencies around the Island. From my experience on the doorstep a lot of voters were unaware that they were now part of a new area and not in the region where they paid their rates. Communication in this regard was very poor and something that the Cabinet Office may wish to consider for any future elections. I also believe that some of the new constituencies were too big in terms of area to be covered. This may be an area that the committee can review and tweak for the General Election in 2021.

Voter registration:

It should be possible for people to register to vote online and to check their registration in the same way. It is possible to submit Tax returns online so why not register to vote.

Absent votes/proxy votes :

Registration for this should be able to be done online by voters and alternative voting days be scheduled for those who are off island on polling day at convenient venues arranged by returning officers.

Campaign period:

There should be clear guidance given to all candidates on what publicity means can be utilised and where they can and cannot display Election posters. I noticed posters for other candidates from other constituencies displayed in our area, I also noticed posters extremely close to polling stations. The Returning Officer and his staff should do a sweep of the immediate area to remove any such posters that are too close.

Hustings meetings; These should be arranged with the full cooperation of the candidates so that they can be held at times which are convenient for the candidates. All candidates are usually willing

691 participants in these as they give valuable opportunity for engaging with large numbers of voters in one venue. The local authority clerks could be used as liaison in this regard, there should be no need for a given number of electors to request such meetings a simple request from the authority to the candidates to agree a mutually convenient time should suffice.

Campaign posters- a maximum size limit needs to be imposed as I saw some ludicrously large ones on display on my travels around the constituency and island in general. This is in the interest of fairness as there is limited space on railings etc and also if they are too large they are distracting to drivers and can impinge on road safety.

Election day:

Polling stations should be the same as per local elections, the cost of manning these should be outweighed by the convenience of casting votes for the electorate. In Arbory Castletown & Malew for instance there should have been polling stations in St Marks and a second one in Castletown either at Janets Corner or Morton Hall. I haven’t seen any statistics for these areas but I would suspect that turnout would have been down in Janets Corner this time round compared to 5 years ago.

Returning Officers – is it absolutely necessary to employ Advocates at great cost to perform this task, surely a local authority Chairman/Clerk or Captain of the Parish could do the job equally as well at a fraction of the cost.

Polling station clerks/counting clerks – In my opinion there should be two separate teams one that mans the stations during the voting period of 8am till 8pm. They should then be replaced with fresh teams of staff used to quick counting ie Bank clerks to conduct the counting of votes. This would prevent fatigue and errors caused by the unreasonably long hours they were there.

Candidates / helpers- These should be limited to one per candidate at a polling station at any one time, they should be situated well away from the entrance to the polling halls as it can be quite intimidating for voters when faced with large numbers of people wearing rosettes. In my view several helpers/candidates were pushing the boundaries to the limits in this regard in Arbory, Castletown &Malew.

Counting process

Candidates should be admitted to the counting hall as soon as the polls close and witness the opening of the boxes, we were kept outside for fifteen minutes after the polls closed. When a batch of 25 papers is counted, they should be passed to another teller to verify that the count is accurate before passing to the returning officer or assistant for tallying up. This would decrease the likelihood of errors being made and also possibly of recounts as each vote will have been checked twice.

Recounts

These should only be called when a candidate is within a realistic distance from the next candidate ie 2-3 %. There have been well documented instances of counting problems at this election. At the count in Castletown we had 3 counts and none of them produced the same results . This highlights the problem with the system and of having tellers on duty all day as they naturally get tired and make mistakes.

692

Additional irregularities during polling

In the first hour of voting one teller erroneously made marks on ballot papers that may have led to voters being identified. The total number of papers involved was not known but was approximately 100. The returning officer pointed out this error to all candidates prior to the count and asked for their opinions on whether to allow these votes. All candidates agreed that the votes should be allowed.

Suggestions to improve future elections

An electronic system of voting (not internet) should be trialled at future elections. There are systems available whereby a list of candidates can be programmed in and the voter simply picks the candidate(s) of their choice by pressing a button next to their name. An additional name such as None of the Above could be added for those who do not wish to cast votes for any of the candidates, as is their right. The votes could be automatically counted by the system during the day so that a speedy result can be declared after the polls close. There are security systems available to ensure that no more than the permitted ballots be cast by any one voter.

After the Election:

It was not made clear what the post election schedule would be for successful candidates until the week of the election. This does not give successful candidates sufficient time to serve notice etc with existing employers. This information could be included as part of a pack for prospective candidates in the weeks prior to the nomination deadline.

I hope that my observations will be useful to the committee and I would be happy to answer any questions on any of the above if the need arises.

Richard McAleer

Candidate for Arbory Castletown & Malew

693

694 APPENDIX 23: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Lynn Sirdefield, candidate (Douglas North)

695 696 From: Lynn Sirdefield Sent: 18 November 2016 17:01:47 To: Enquiries Subject: Election 2016 Importance: Normal ______

In response to enquiries and Eva ding the 2016 elections I would like to raise my concerns regarding possibly as many as 500 of my manifestos going missing once deposited at the main post office.

I also have concerns regarding information given to prospective candidates not being clear leaving by them at a disadvantage to previous candidates.

If you require further details I can be contacted on[Number Given] Kindest Regards Given] Lynn

697

698 APPENDIX 24: Submission dated 27th October 2016 from Louise Whitelegg, candidate (Ayre and Michael)

699 700 Louise Whitelegg [Address Given]

27th October 2016

Dear Sirs

Further to your e-mail please find below my commentary for the Ayre & Michael election on the evening of the 22nd of September 2016.

I arrived just after 8pm and my husband (Colin) before 9pm. I was not sworn in but Colin was. At no time were the doors locked so at times the evening was quite confusing with many different people walking in and out.

Without ceremony the votes were taken out of the boxes and placed on separate tables. The votes counted then, once the boxes tallied, the returning officer sent all the counters out of the room for a break, whilst remaining in the room tidying the papers. The candidates and observers for the most part left the room during this time with the exception of Mr & Mrs Cannan senior, Judith Lay (Manx Radio), Pat Ayres, Colin and myself.

Once the counters returned to the room everything stepped up a pace. The votes where then placed in piles, with two pieces of paper indicating Cannan / Ayre, Cannan / Baker, Cannan / Pillips etc etc etc. there was a separate table for the plump votes. Once all the votes were allocated to the correct pile the number was written on the sheets of paper.

The total number of votes for each candidate, plus plumps was then written on a sheet by the returning officer. This was then added up and announced to the public / press waiting outside. It was not officially announced to the candidate’s; in fact I only knew what was happening by reading upside down through a crowd of people. It all concluded very quickly.

On returning home I could not sleep, so I caught up on a few jobs and read. At 5.30am it came to me that there was something not quite right. The numbers that had been written on the sheet did not appear to add up. This is in addition to two messages I received from people purporting to be at the count telling me that the count was wrong. In the morning I sought advice and discussed my concerns with another candidate Pat Ayres. I decided that I would rather have ask the question and been proven wrong than risk the integrity of the election, the reputation of the Island is paramount. At around 11am on the 23rd I e-mailed the returning officer, copying in the Government with my concerns.

I then received a call from the returning officer around 12.30pm assuring me that the count was accurate and verbally giving me the figures, he advised that he would send me and the other candidates the figures that afternoon. I wrote those figures down as he gave them to me and could not get them to tally. I did not receive an e-mail in the afternoon, so at close of play (4.55pm) I e- mailed again (also copying in the Government) to ask for the figures. These arrived in the evening (7.00pm).

701

I was unwell over the weekend and did not look at the figures until first thing Monday morning, when again, I e-mailed the returning officer advising that I could not get the figures to add up. The returning officer reverted quickly, confirming my suspicions and also advising that there was a second error in transposing the figures.

After this things moved pretty quickly. I met with the cabinet office and the attorney general’s office on the Tuesday to explain my concerns. Which chiefly were that this must be investigated and that the findings must be public. Voters must not be disenfranchised and the election process must be rigours, trusted and lawful.

Events then developed further between the returning officer and the attorney general’s office which I was not privy to.

I would not wish to speculate the cause of the errors. Perhaps the facts above speak for themselves. However, I am incredulous that there is no redress in legislation to correct a count that is in the public domain which is now proven to be incorrect. I am concerned that the only method of recount after the fact, with sufficient evidence is for a candidate to raise a petition. I am concerned that the conduct of the returning officers and the method of the count is not more prescribed in the legislation. I am concerned that the ‘teeth’ of the legislation appears to be lacking. I strongly believe that the legislation needs a root and branch reform, indeed this may even be an opportunity to consider electronic voting.

I have attempted to cover what I feel to be the most salient points. Should you require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Louise Whitelegg

702 APPENDIX 25: Submission dated 19th November 2016 from the Isle of Man Law Society

703

704 705 706 707 [Signature J Moore]

708 APPENDIX 26: Submission dated 6th February 2017 from Simon Cain, Returning Officer for Ayre and Michael

709

710 APPLEBY

The Tynwald Select Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the General Election Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Your Ref IM1 3PW Appleby Ref 435634.0001/SC/LB

6 February 2017

Isle of Man Office

of Man) LLC

37 Athol Street

Douglas Dear Sirs

Isle of Man Mil LB Tynwald Select Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the 2016 General Election (the "Committee") Tel 144 (0)1624 647 647 I am writing in response to an email of 26 January 2017 from Alex McQuarrie, app lebygfobal icom Parliamentary Intern and Assistant Clerk to the Committee, Chamber & Information Service, Office of the Clerk of Tynwald asking me if I would like to reply to comments made by Alfred Cannan and Louise Whitelegg on 12th January 2017 to the Committee Isle of Man Managing Partner and to provide a written submission detailing my own account of the events described by Faye Moffett them. Isle of Man Partners Simon Cain Christopher Cope Prior to the Election Day I had written to all of the candidates inviting them to appoint Simon Harding both election agents and counting agents in the normal way and we collectively agreed Claire Milne Charles Davies that each candidate should be able to appoint 2 counting agents. Some of the candidates Mark Holtigon did appoint 2 counting agents, although I believe that some appointed just one and one Caren Pegg Kyle Sutherland of the candidates did not appoint a counting agent at all. In addition Mr Cannan had asked for a limited number of friends and relatives to attend the count, which I decided to allow, but I wrote to all the candidates saying that they could do likewise.

I chose Parish Community Hall in Sulby as the venue for the count. This is a new venue, chosen as being fairly central to the new constituency of Ayre & Michael. The entrance to the hall is at the back of the building. One passes through a corridor area where there are toilets and a kitchen, and there is a door into the main hall which has a stage at the near end of the hall. I asked the guests to remain on the stage so that they did not go onto the floor of the hall where the count was taking place. This arrangement seemed to work very well. The only problem with this arrangement was that towards the end of the count some overly enthusiastic members of the public entered the building from the back and stood by the doorway on the stage of the hall. As soon as I noticed

Ct I 4926962v1 YOur 101;11i asimmia s British Virgin Isla; • Cayrnan land 711GuernseyHong Kong • Isle of Man a Jo • Mauritius • Seychelles • Shari 11 APPLEBY

that this had happened, I asked them all to leave and wait outside, which they did. I am not aware of any requirement that the building itself be locked, and in this case to do so would have been impractical because the candidates and their guests would have been stuck inside: at least one of the candidates smoked, and I think several of the candidates and their guests wanted to be able to slip out for some fresh air during the count, which seemed reasonable. Consideration could be given to providing security personnel to police the entrances of all counting stations but it would be for Tynwald to decide if the costs of that would be commensurate with the need. Personally I would not see that as a priority.

I can't comment when the count began - I do not recall any time being set for the start, because it was always going to take about half an hour for the boxes to be sealed and for the final polling station accounts to be completed in all the polling stations and then for the staff to arrive with the boxes from , Jurby, , Churchtown, Ballaugh and Kirk Michael after the polls had closed. (The seventh polling station was the venue for the count so the West Lezayre Polling District ballot box was already there).

All of the counting agents were invited by me personally to watch in person the unsealing of each ballot box and I believe that they did, but those that chose not to do so would have been able to watch all proceedings from a few yards away in the hall. I know that one candidate, Mr Ayres, was not in attendance until much later in the evening and he had chosen not to appoint a counting agent. I note that Mrs Whitelegg suggested that she or her agent might not have been invited to watch the boxes being opened, that is not the case: they certainly were.

During the whole count the interaction between me, as returning officer, and the counting agents was very good and no-one expressed any problem with any of the arrangements. I note Mr Cannan mentions in his evidence that he was concerned about the use of mobile phones, but he did not mention this to me at the time. I have never heard of this being a concern or an issue and I have no problem with people using mobile phones in the hall, as long as it does not interfere with the count. In a large hall like the one in Sulby, there is plenty of room for the count to take place at one end of the hall and for the candidates and their agents to wander around the other end of the hall and chat and to use phones if they want to do so.

Various comments have been made suggesting that a prescribed methodology for counting across all constituencies should be adopted and I would support that. In our case we followed the procedure that I myself had learned when acting as deputy returning officer in East Douglas some years earlier, which was also a 2 seat constituency. Basically we had these stages:

1 empty the boxes and verify the number of ballot papers in each, to confirm the number of ballots matches exactly the number recorded as having been placed in the boxes according the returns from each polling station*;

4926962v1 2

Bermuda • British Virgin Islands • Cayman Islands 712• Guernsey s Hong Kong • Isle of Man • Jersey • Mauritius • Seychelles • Shanghai APPLEBY

2 mix all the ballots with the advance ballots and divide them up into different piles, each pile representing each possible permutation of vote;

3 count each pile;

4 allocate the number of votes to the candidates on a sheet to find the result.

*this is the only part of the procedure which is prescribed by the election rules.

I am aware that where there are more than about 7 candidates this method can be impractical because of the huge number of possible permutations in the way in which a voter can vote, being either for any one candidate or any two candidates. However this was not a problem on this occasion, with 6 candidates and so 21 different possible permutations of vote.

After the completion of one of the stages of the count (I think it was after stage 2, as set out above) I invited the staff to take a short break to have a bite to eat in the kitchen, to have a coffee or soft drink, to go to the toilet, etc. This break lasted about five minutes. There is nothing wrong with doing this, indeed some of the refreshments had been kindly brought for the counting staff by one of candidates, Mrs Whitelegg. Many of the staff had been working at polling stations and then at the count continuously since 7.30am. I think it was more efficient to get on with the count as soon as the ballot boxes arrived, and have a short break in the middle, rather than having a break before the count began. This is a fairly unimportant issue and the count should be conducted according to the circumstances, so for example in a geographically smaller constituency like one of the Douglas seats or Ramsey, where the polling stations are located just a few minutes' drive from where the count takes place, it might be easier to have a short break before the ballot boxes are emptied.

Mr Cannan refers to all of the counting staff leaving the hall at the same time and leaving the ballots unattended. I am sorry that Mr Cannan did not ask me about this before making this comment because I would have reminded him that this did not happen. While I remained in the hall for most of the period in question, one of our presiding officers was Ruth Costain, an advocate, who remained throughout this short break seated at one of the counting tables where all the ballots were arranged in their piles waiting to be counted. This was not by chance, I had specifically agreed with her that she should remain in the hall with the ballots for the entire time just to keep an eye on the ballots and make sure none of the candidates or counting agents interfered. Ruth happened to have sprained her ankle a few days earlier and it was easier for her to stay there seated, rather than walk up a ramp to the kitchen on crutches. She will be pleased to confirm this to the Committee if it feels that it is an important point. It would indeed have been "most concerning" (to quote the Committee) if the hall had for a single second been left unattended, but that did not happen.

4926962v1 3 Bermuda • British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands 713• Guernsey • Hong Kong • Isle of Man . Jersey . Mauritius • Seychelles Shanghai APPLEBY

I note that Mrs Whitelegg mentioned that she was not sworn in at the count. Only the counting agents had to be sworn in for the count, and they all were, some earlier in the day. Mrs Whitelegg's husband was in fact appointed by her to be her counting agent although she could have appointed two had she chosen to do so, as some of the other candidates did. She also mentions that she was not asked not to use a mobile phone. This is because there is no rule against using a mobile phone.

Unfortunately I don't think Mrs Whitelegg has an entirely clear recollection of the precise details of how the count was conducted, which is entirely understandable. I did in fact invite all the counting agents to wander around the counting tables as they are permitted to do, and most did. All counting agents were also invited to watch the seals being broken on each box and watch the boxes being opened and watch the ballots being counted, and all were invited to review the seven polling station returns which were displayed on a table at the front of the hall for all of the candidates and agents to look at, which I am sure they did. The count in fact went very smoothly. None of the agents or candidates had any queries or problems with anything at all on the night; I was unaware of any unhappiness with anything that happened during the evening. We added up the final tallies of the votes in the presence of the counting agents on the table at the front of the hall specifically so they could all see the whole process and the way in which the votes were tallied up, and as far as I was aware all of the candidates or their counting agents were present and watching as the votes were added up and allocated to the candidates, and all were aware of the result and had had an opportunity to make any observations which they wanted to make before the result was declared. Of course some of the candidates, who had not done as well as they might have hoped, paid less attention to the process than others. At no stage either before or after the declaration did any of the counting agents or candidates make any suggestion that there was anything about the way in which the process had been done that they were unhappy with. Finally, although Mrs Whitelegg refers to my being "harassed and stressed" I would like to reassure the Committee that neither I, nor any of my staff, were at any stage either harassed or stressed by anyone during the entire day or evening. On the contrary, (and this may seem strange in view of what came to light in the following days) the process went extremely smoothly and in an orderly fashion, and I and my staff enjoyed the day and the evening, and we all felt pleased and privileged to have been able to play the part that we did on the day of the general election day and in the weeks running up to it.

As members of the Committee will know, on the following Tuesday I was asked by the Cabinet Office to investigate after it became clear to us, following Mrs Whitlegg's email to me on the Monday, that there was a discrepancy on the counting sheet. (As Mrs Whitelegg says in her evidence I had sent to her the counting sheet on the day after the election, the Friday). As returning officer I felt it was incumbent upon me to investigate the matter without any delay, which I did, and within an hour or so I was able to identify the cause of the discrepancy. There was a suggestion that some ballot papers might have been "missing" (i.e. lost or stolen during the course of the count). If that had been the case I would have wanted to look for them. Instead, I was able to confirm that no

4926962v1 4

Bermuda • British Virgin Wands • Cayman lands714 • Guernsey • Hong Kong • Isle of Man • Jersey Mauritius • Seychelles • Shanghai APPLEBY

ballot papers were missing: there had been a counting error. Of course I don't need to tell the Committee that it was shocking to find, several days after the event, that a pile of ballot papers had been added up incorrectly and we are undoubtedly fortunate that it had no impact on the result, which was not at all close. Ironically if it had been a close election either I or one of the candidates would almost certainly have called for a recount and the mistake would have been spotted. In retrospect there is a step which should be added into the process, namely that the total number of ballots recorded on the counting sheet (not to be confused with the number of votes, of course, as some ballots contain one vote and others contain two votes) should have been checked against the number of ballots recorded from the polling station returns and the advance vote return. The counting process is not prescribed: if it were, I am sure that this additional step would be part of the prescribed process and the mistake noticed straight away. No doubt this lesson will be now be learned. Of course in the past where the constituencies had differing numbers of candidates elected (1, 2 or 3), a uniform process would perhaps have been more difficult to apply.

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to write and to make the above observations.

Yours sincerely

[Signature S Cain]

Simon Cain PARTNER

4926962v1 5

Bermuda • British Virgin Blonds a Cayman Islands715 • Guernsey • Hong Kong • Isle of Man • Jersey • Mauritius • ScytheHes • Shanghai

716 APPENDIX 27: Submission dated 11th January 2017 from Winston Taylor, Returning Officer for Garff

717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735

736 737 738 739 740 APPENDIX 28: Submission dated 14th February 2017 from Winston Taylor, Returning Officer for Garff

741 742 From: Winston Taylor [ ] Sent: 14 February 2017 16:22 To: Alex McQuarrie Subject: Re: Tynwald Select Committee

Dear Mr McQuarrie,

Please find enclosed submissions from Julie Peel and a summary note of the responses from my election staff for the attention of the Committee.

I also enclose a copy of our updated Collation of Poll Sheet that we used during the election for the Committees information.

I will be attending with Mr Peter Burgess who was one of my Deputies.

Kind regards

Winston Taylor Advocate For and on behalf of Simcocks Advocates Limited

Isle of Man Dispute Resolution Law Firm of the Year in the Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2015

Simcocks is the trading name of Simcocks Advocates Limited, an incorporated legal practice in the Isle of Man with registered number 104672C. Registered Office: Ridgeway House, Ridgeway Street, Douglas Isle of Man IM1 1EL

Directors: C J Arrowsmith, A L Coole, P B Games, I E Newby, A D Spencer, D M Spencer. A full list of legally qualified staff is available at the above address or from www.simcocks.com

Disclaimer: The information and any files transmitted with this Email is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email and delete the information from your computer. Thank you.

Warning: E-mail is susceptible to interference. You should not assume the contents or attachments originated from Simcocks Advocates Limited or that they have been accurately reproduced from their original form. If in doubt, please verify their authenticity with the sender. Whilst we have made every endeavour to ensure the information we send is virus free, we will not be held responsible for any information which arrives infected.

Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

743 [Signature]

744 745 [Signature]

746

Views Of The Garff Election Staff

1. Pre-Polling Day Training

It was considered that the provision of training sessions leading to the day of the election was adequate and useful. Placing new staff with experience was also considered to be of assistance.

The use of role play ensured the staff were well equipped for their duties they performed at the polling stations and the count.

Written guidance was also provided for each member of staff and the availability of extra training if required.

2. Polling Station Issues

Polling Agents and Candidates crowding outside the Polling Station. Some electors felt intimidated. (? whether some electors declined to vote as a result of being put off).

Electors being surrounded for exit polls.

It was raised that at a previous election (outside Garff) a candidate was electioneering outside the Polling Station. This also ties in with electioneering material within the vicinity of the Polling Station. Clear guidance should be given to candidates on these issues.

Issues with the Electoral Roll were dealt with as and when they arose through the Deputy Returning Officers/Returning Officer and the Chief Secretary’s Office.

1

747

Although questions were answered when raised by candidates specific training should be provided for them.

External Education for:-

 Candidates

 Their representatives

 Exit pollsters

To include issues such as:-

 Poster sizes;

 Where they cannot be placed;

 Venues for husting meetings.

 Returning Officers meeting with the candidates to advise what is expected of them.

 Written guidance to be provided/available for the candidates and their staff.

 Road closures – more thought should be given to this issue.

3. Food

 Food at lunchtime was much appreciated (took 1½ hrs from the time of order to time of delivery);

 At some polling stations there was little opportunity to get food or a break between 6 – 8 pm.

 Staff needed a break before the count;

2

748

 Blood sugars levels low which would affect the count as time went by.

 At least one staff member was a known diabetic and therefore it was important to ensure that her medical needs were catered for.

 There was sufficient time before the count began for staff to be fed;

 There should be an official amount of time to take a break ( ½ to ¾ hour break between close of polling station to the count). This will also allow adequate time to dismantle the polling station and set up the venue for the count.

 Travelling time between polling station and count venue.

 Staff stressed the importance of being alert whilst doing the count;

 Staff are on the go from 07:00 a.m. – 01:00 a.m.;

 Staff were staggered in taking a break and food at the Working Mens Institute;

 ? perception of delay in staff going for a break and something to eat;

3

749

 Particularly non staff do not have an appreciation of the paperwork that is required to be completed before and during the count process;

 The staff stationed at the count venue would be ready to count whilst the others arrived;

 It is more important to eat than to get the first votes in;

 The candidates had the opportunity to eat during the day and during the count.

4. Refreshment Break before the recount  Once it was known there would be a recount a short break was necessary;

 They needed to break the cycle to be able to properly function;

 They were all tired at that point;

 They needed a breath of fresh air to be able to continue;

 A break was necessary;

 A couple of Counting Clerks were diabetic.

4

750

5. Distractions at the Count

 Candidates and their Agents chatting around the count table;

 Changes suggested as to the table set up;

 Nobody left the table after they had eaten and sat down until told to do so before the recount;

 The suggestion that the importance of the occasion was lacking was considered to be very insulting;

 The staff disagreed with paragraph 14 of the submissions in document 1 (Mr Barton’s).

6. The Count

 Collating the ballot papers into bundles of 25’s worked out fine. This was done during the Presiding Officers ballot paper account and the reconciliation process;

 They found the method of counting that was adopted to be effective and efficient;

 They considered that we used a simplified system;

 The view was, sorting into combinations complicates things;

 Requires more than one sorting of the ballot papers;

 Requires boxes/containers with names;

5

751

 There were few ‘plump’ votes

 Most voted for 2 candidates as they had 2 votes

 Our system was probably the most easy to use;

 The system was easy to cross reference;

 If there was a greater number of candidates, the number of ballot papers in the bundle can be reduced to aid counting of the votes;

 Any system that is adopted should be fit for purpose for a general election and a local authority election;

 Urged to adopt the system used in Garff as it was:-

 Efficient; and  Easy to double check.

 Candidates and their agents should note that even though the staff are not doing anything at the end of counting of the ballot papers, this does not mean that activities are not going on behind the scene.

7. Limiting the Number of Polling Stations

 Logistical implications; and

6

752

 Requires further thought.

8. Electronic Voting

Mixed views on this topic. Some were sceptical whilst others thought it would be a good thing. There was a view that as this method is on its way we should get on with it and make it work.

Advantages

 More people would use it;  Would help people who couldn’t get out;  Would assist count.

Disadvantages

 Open to voter fraud;  Where is the system likely to be situated;  How is it going to be done;  How do you verify the voter.

9. Withdrawal of a candidate

No as could be open to abuse and coercion.

10. Saturday Election

Not supported.

7

753

11. Forms

Too many and too much detail required.

12. Clerks as Returning Officers

Reluctance on the part of the Clerks to take on such a role owing to the nature and amount of work that is involved.

8

754 Collation of Poll

Candidate Grand Total no. of Ballot Papers in Ballot Box 112 (In Ballot Box sealed by Presiding Officer (PO) and includes Total rejected Ballot Papers) A 49 Total no. of Valid Ballot Papers in Ballot Box 110 (From PO count) B 15 Total no. of Ballot Papers counted 110 (At count by Counting Clerks) C 30 Total no. rejected Ballot Papers 2 D 10 E 98 Number of Registered Electors 5069 Total no. of voters voting at the Election 112 2.2% of poll (Includes rejected Ballot Papers)

Bundle No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total No. Ballot Papers 25 20 25 25 15 110

A 10 12 16 4 7 49 B 5 4 3 2 1 15 C 6 6 6 6 6 30 D 0 1 2 3 4 10 E 20 19 21 23 15 98

Bundle No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

Bundle No. 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Total No. Ballot Papers 0

A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E 0

755 756 APPENDIX 29: Tally sheet submitted by Mr Peter Burgess, Deputy Returning Officer for Garff, during oral hearing on 17th February 2017 (Q 350)

757 758 759

760 APPENDIX 30: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Stephen Halsall, presiding officer for “Garff 7” polling station and technical engineer for Douglas Borough Council

761 762 From: Steven Halsall Sent: 18 November 2016 12:20:22 To: Enquiries Subject: views on election Importance: Normal

Hello,

Firstly I would like to say that running a general election is not easy and I think that overall it was run very well and people will always pick up the negative.

That said for the general election I worked as the presiding officer for Garff 7. We were based in Onchan with Garff 6, we had a few issues,

The pole cards for the two areas all had Garff 6 on (so no Garff 7). This was highlighted on the original pole list but never changed even though I brought it up with the returning office a week before the election after seeing the Ramsey mistake and was told it was all sorted and the pole cards will be right.

We also did not have the most up-to-date voters list, we had people coming into to the station (for Garff 6) with a pole cards but they were not on our list, after numerous phone calls to the returning officer and cabin office we found out the list we had was not the most recent and ended up having a PDF version emailed to us and a printed copy arriving in the afternoon. But people were in the station waiting to vote whilst this was sorted out and didn’t go down well.

When it came to the count it was painfully slow with the tally system being used, we didn’t finish till 1am (after a recount) and the majority counting I would put over 55 and were saying its well past there bed time, am in my 30s and was struggling.

It was clear that the returning officer’s aid had no clue on what was going on and what forms needed filling in. When it came to my ballot box being opened and counted, I found the returning offices aids changing my ballot paper return slip (the one filled in at the polling station that says how many vote paper were used and returned) changing number to reflect spoilt votes. As the aid had no clue on what was happening, it was taken 30 to 40 minutes to open an check each ballot box.

Also I didn’t get why after checking that the right amount of votes was in the ballot box all the votes were not put in one place (i.e. an empty ballot box) and all counted at together. At Garff everything went back into the original ballot box and they were put in different places, which lead to some being missed.

When the Douglas Borough Council do elections we don’t tally the votes just sort them and count them, a far easier and quicker system than the tally system. I would recommend you look at what the council do on their counts and copy them. I would recommend that a workshop is held in future years that show what is expected at the count. (however you decide to do it) so everyone is doing the same.

Once again I would like to say that generally I think the election ran well.

If you need any further information on the above then please contact me using the details below.

Regards

Stephen Halsall CAD/Tech Engineer

763 Douglas Borough Council Town Hall, PO Box 2, Douglas, Isle of Man IM99 1AD

Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram

Consider the environment: please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Douglas Borough Council. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

764 APPENDIX 31: Submission dated 21st November 2016 from Laurence Vaughan- Williams, Returning Officer for Arbory, Castletown and Malew

765

766 From: Amanda Thompson Sent: 21 November 2016 15:50:44 To:

Subject: RE: Invitation to give written evidence - Tynwald Select Committee on the General Election Importance: Normal

Dear Mr Shimmins,

I do not wish to comment upon the various mishaps which happened during the course of the Election in constituencies other than my own very largely because I make it a point of never intruding upon private grief.

I do believe however, the Representation of the People Regulations 2015 were poorly drafted and that in many cases they imposed a mandatory sanction by the use of the word “shall” in situations where “may” would have been more appropriate in that when seeking confirmation of a course of action from the Cabinet Office, the reply was it is at the Returning Officer’s discretion.

I believe that it is also worth noting that it is essential for the Returning Officers to assert his or her control of events and procedures from the outset and to ensure that Polling staff and Counters are fully briefed prior to Election Day so that they know what is expected of them.

Please accept our apologies for the late response due to work commitments.

Yours sincerely

Laurence Vaughan-Williams

767

768 APPENDIX 32: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Philip Caley, Captain of the Parish of Braddan

769 770 From: Phil and Margaret Sent: 18 November 2016 15:41:03 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: Select Committee on the Organization and Operation of the General Election.

Dear Mr Shimmins,

In the run up to the General Election a requisition meeting was held in the Parish of Braddan at and I was very disappointed that the meeting had not been advertised in the local press as in the past. Notice of the meeting had been on the Government web site but not everyone was aware of this or simply did not have a computer and as a result of this the meeting was not as well attended as usual.

On the day at the Union Mills Polling Station everything appeared to be running smoothly. I had been unable to attend the count in the evening so I am unable to comment on this.

Thank you to the Committee for inviting me to have submit written evidence.

Yours sincerely

Philip Caley

Captain of the Parish of Braddan

771 772 APPENDIX 33: Submission dated 14th November 2016 from Allen Corlett, Captain of the Parish of German

773

774 [Address Given ]

Committee Secretariat Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas Isle of Man 14th November 2016 IM1 3PW

Dear Sirs

Select Committee on the Organization and Operation of the General Election

Thank you for your letter of 20th October 2016 concerning the above, and in particular for inviting the Captains of the Parishes to submit evidence. I comment as follows:

Glenfaba and Peel

The election was well organized and operated smoothly under the direction of an experienced Returning Officer, and I am not aware of any problems.

Requisition Meetings

This was my first election as Captain so I have no previous experience to call upon, but it appears to me that the enlarged constituencies make it more difficult to schedule and properly advertise Requisition Meetings.

Although there has been adverse comment regarding the decision not to advertise meetings in the written press, I see no reason to change this.

I received a petition on the Tuesday evening in the week prior to the election, and although I was able to establish the availability of candidates and venue, and agree a date the following day, this was too late to place an advertisement in any paper as the only date available for the meeting was Tuesday of the following week.

775

I do, however, consider that just publicizing meetings on a government website and social media, is insufficient. This should be maintained and in addition there should be some properly structured publicity on the Island’s radio stations.

Election Day

Although Glenfaba and Peel ran smoothly there has been comment as to the adequacy and accuracy of the count in other constituencies. Clearly this is the responsibility of the Returning Officer and should remain so, but I wonder could there be a role here for the Captains of the Parishes, acting upon that officer’s instruction, having a roving brief as an impartial observer looking for anything which may have been overlooked. Ballot boxes being mislaid springs to mind. Larger constituencies produce more votes, more ballot boxes and more work for those concerned with the count, so there could be merit in having an additional check in the system.

Yours faithfully

Allen Corlett

Allen Corlett

Captain of the Parish of German

776 APPENDIX 34: Submission dated 15th November 2016 from Charles Edgar Cowin, Captain of the Parish of Ballaugh

777

778 From: Linda Cowin Sent: 15 November 2016 19:07:20 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: General Election Importance: Normal ______

In response to your letter dated 20th October 2016 regarding call for evidence of the last General Election, I wish to submit the following views.

Once nominations close, which is 4 weeks before the election day, I have to wait until I am called upon to call a requisition meeting, which normally takes 7 - 10 days. I then have to liaise with the other 5 Captains in the 2 sheadings so as not to clash with each other. I then have to arrange a venue for the meeting, which is usually the Parish Hall at Ballaugh, which has a lot of organisations using the Hall during the week ie cubs, scouts, guides, youth club, and we have to negotiate with one of those groups to give up their night. With the possibility of 6 Requisition meetings, one in each Parish, it makes the 2 weeks prior to an Election very busy. With 6 candidates standing for Election I arranged the Requisition meeting to start at 7pm, this gives the candidates & public plenty of time for discussion. I would recommend all meetings start at 7 pm if possible to save any confusion. Advertising Requisition meetings by the Cabinet office could be improved, & I would recommend that when all meetings have been arranged, that an advert be placed in 2 newspapers, giving an alphabetical list of each Parish, venue & start time, & who will be the Chairperson. I also place a notice in local notice boards & shop, making sure everyone is informed. As for ballot boxes going astray, this is very serious & should be investigated thoroughly.

Edgar Cowin. C.P.

779

780 APPENDIX 35: Submission dated 9th November 2016 from Charles Fargher, Captain of the Parish of Marown

781 782 [Signature J C Fargher ]

783

784 APPENDIX 36: Submission dated 9th November 2016 from Donald Gelling, Captain of the Parish of Santon

785 786 From: Donald Gelling Sent: 09 November 2016 11:25:34 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: Operation of the General Election Select Committee. Importance: Normal

Dear Mr Shimmins, Comments on the past Election ;-

1, It was not a welcome change to move the Parish of Santan into Middle as most of the people have and still look South and were very comfortable being part of Malew and Santan for 30 years and the Bishop having just moved Santan Parish and Church to be with Malew/St Marks and the Abbey Church in !

2, Many people felt there was too much Media coverage on " There are not enough women in the Keys " ?. When the Island needs the right people , Not what sex they are.!

3, Many voters were not aware that they could vote for ONE or TWO and that they were giving the same value to the second vote cast as to the one which was their preference. !

4, Why has there been a move away from the Captains of the Parish being requested by a number of Residents to call a Requisition Meeting to which all candidates would be invited to attend ?. This was then Chaired by the Independent Captain of that Parish and all meetings would be conducted in the same way .

5, Tynwald has shown in this modern world how voting can be successfully carried out in the Court by Electronic systems ! Why can this not be the system to use for future elections when voters would enter the booth and a screen already showing the candidates just make their vote and register ? At the close of the Voting Station the Votes would already be available and the result available for announcement .

6, I am at a loss to understand how ballet box,s could be left unopened when the Candidate,s and their assistants along with the Returning Officer are there at the count to make sure it is all correct and legal !

Just a few notes having listened to people following the General Election ,

Regards,

Donald J Gelling, C. B. E. C. P. Santan Parish,

787

788 APPENDIX 37: Submission dated 16th November 2016 from John James Quayle, Captain of the Parish of Jurby

789 790 [Address Given ]

16Th November, 2016,

Mr C Shimmins, Assistant-Clerk to the Select Committee, Committee Sletariat, Ligislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW.

Dear Mr Shimmins, re; Select Committee of the Organisation and Operation of the General Election — Call for Evidence

I refer to your letter dated the 20'h October 2016 in connection with the above, to which I have pleasure in replying and hopefully being of some assistance to the Select Committee.

Firstly I would like to provide a brief history of my involvement both in local authority and House of Keys elections since becoming Clerk to Andreas, Ballaugh and Jurby Parish Commissioners. I became Clerk to Jurby Parish Commissioners in May 1973 and since that time I have conducted local authority elections for Jurby, firstly for a three year term, and currently for a four year term. In March 1978 I became Clerk to Andreas Parish Commissioners and in January 1979 I became Clerk to Ballaugh Parish Commissioners, and of course from then on conducting elections for these two local authorities. Some of these elections were contested, and when the Single Transferable Voting System came into being, I hid to use that for three contested elections.

Regarding the House of Keys Elections, since 1981,1 have worked under 4 different Returning Officers for the Sheading of Ayre and a By Election in Ramsey. At the House of Keys General Election in 1986 when the STV System was first used, I was appointed Deputy Returning Officer for the Sheading of Ayre. I therefore consider that I have a 'little' experience of what takes place, or should, take place during the counting of the votes at elections.

791 In my experience, at House of Keys Elections, before the Day of the Election, the Returning Officer appointed a Senior Counting Clerk (I have been appointed to this position on may accasions) whose responsibility was to ensure that the respective Ballot Boxes were received from the Presiding Officers from the various Polling Stations, and on the instruction of the Returning Officer each box was then verified to ascertain that the number of ballot papers therein matched the Ballot Paper Account for each box. After all the boxes were verified, the contents of all the boxes were then emptied onto the counting table and the Returning Officer would then add to these ballot papers any Absent (today Advance) ballot papers which he had received, and he would then announce the total ballot papers to be counted, and the counting of the votes took place.

The contents of each box was not counted individually.

Having listened to the reports on the radio and read in the newspapers the problems encountered at some of the Polling Stations during counting, I can only assume that the Election Rules have not been adhered to. If the election and counting was carried out according to the Election Rules, the problems encountered should not have arisen. In my experience, one carried out the rules in order as laid down, and step by step.

To me, the rules are self explanatory. My first contested elections was in 1979, where I had a contested election for Andreas and Ballaugh Parish Commissioners, and I carried out both elections according to the Election Rules. I did not seek help or assistance from other persons.

My own observations on the recent problems is that, maybe in one case there was an inexperienced Returning Officer and in another the rules were not adhered to.

Incidently, I was not involved or called upon to act in any capacity at the recent General Election, and that was the first time that I have not been involved in a House of Keys or Board of Education Election since 1981.

Trusting the above may be of some help to you.

Yours sincerely, [Signature J J Quayle ]

J J Quayle, Captain of the Parish of Jurby, and Clerk to Andreas, Ballaugh and Jurby Parish Commissioners.

792 APPENDIX 38: Submission dated 23rd December 2016 from Douglas Borough Council

793

794 From: Paul Cowin To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: RE: Invitation to provide oral evidence - Tynwald Select Committee on the General Election Importance: Normal Attachments: WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO TYNWALD SELECT COMMITTEE.docx ;Notes for Polling Station Staff.docx ;Counting Procedures.docx ;Counting Sheet.docx ;Result Spreadsheet Victoria.xlsx ;Counting Tally Sheet.docx ;

Dear Charlie,

I write to confirm that I have been nominated by Douglas Borough Council to give evidence on its behalf, and will attend the Select Committee of Tynwald on the 2016 General Election at 11.10 a.m. on Thursday 12th January, as requested.

The Council’s Executive Committee has approved my attendance following my submission to it of a report outlining the procedures in place for local authority elections. In preparing the report and drafting the written submission it became very evident to me that the Local Elections Act and the Local Election Rules set out some very clear processes to be followed, but they do not cover all eventualities. We therefore use some supporting procedures, developed specifically to supplement the guidance in the Act and Rules.

Attached are:

My written submission, as approved by the Executive Committee; with

Appendix A, Guidance issued to Polling Station staff;

Appendix B, Guidance issued specifically to Counting staff;

Appendix C, a Counting Sheet which is completed during the Count (used in simple single-seat bye elections);

Appendix D, a spreadsheet used for multiple seat, multiple candidate elections; and

Appendix E, a tally sheet used for manual counting in larger cases.

I think these should go some way to explaining how we deal with elections and particularly the counting of votes. It is important to stress that they are reviewed for each election, and as they are not statutory they can be varied according to circumstances. However, at each election, by the time the count starts, everyone concerned is aware of what procedure is to be followed.

I will be happy to explain further at the hearing, or beforehand if you wish to discuss the matter in more detail. Please let me know if there is anything further you think I should add.

Finally, when the Executive Committee considered my report which focussed on procedures, the Members looked at the 2016 General Election on a wider basis and asked me to raise three issues:

· Whether it is contrary to the Election Rules for tellers outside a polling station to ask voters their number on the way in to vote – there seems to be a perception that it is forbidden to do so on the way in but voters may be asked on the way out.

· The selection of buildings to be used as polling stations in some cases was somewhat obscure – voters were directed to buildings they were unfamiliar with when there were other public buildings in the area that might have been more suitable.

795 · Whether some means could be found to allow a voter to vote at any of the polling stations in their constituency, rather than being specifically allocated to one.

While I don’t think I can add very much to those three points as they are really just based on Members’ observations, I look forward to hearing from you if there is anything else related to procedures that I can help with.

Paul Cowin Assistant Town Clerk Douglas Borough Council Town Hall, PO Box 2, Douglas, Isle of Man IM99 1AD

Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram

Consider the environment: please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Douglas Borough Council. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

796 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO TYNWALD SELECT COMMITTEE.docx

WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL TO THE TYNWALD SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 2016 GENERAL ELECTION TO THE HOUSE OF KEYS

1 This submission is based on the e-mail communication received on 22nd November, 2016, which included the paragraph

“The Committee would like to hear from the Council about its administration of local authority elections, with a particular interest in the procedure used at election counts”.

2 The conduct of local authority elections by Douglas Borough Council is largely governed by the Local Elections Act 1985, with the Local Election Rules and the Absent Voters’ Regulations made thereunder. Some additional, less formal, guidance is given to the staff attending the Polling Stations, as in Appendix A.

3 The procedure used in Douglas Borough Council’s elections for the counting of votes is deliberately kept as simple as possible although there are some more complex elements in certain cases as described below. Counting Staff are again given some additional guidance as in Appendix B.

4 At the close of the poll at 8.00 p.m., the Returning Officer deals with the absent votes; they are opened, verified, and placed in the receptacles set out in the Local Elections (Absent Voters) Regulations. Then they are held pending their introduction into the mass of ballot papers after all the ballot boxes have been verified.

5 Shortly afterwards, the first ballot box arrives from a polling station. The ballot paper account, showing the number of ballot papers issued, is passed to the Returning Officer. The box is opened, all the ballot papers taken out and placed on the counting table, and counted into bundles of 25 regardless of which way the vote is cast. The total should match exactly the number of ballot papers issued at that polling station. Then those ballot papers are placed to one side within sight of the Returning Officer while the same procedure happens with the other ballot boxes, which arrive after the start of the first count, until all have been verified.

6 All the ballot papers are mixed together, with the absent voters’ ballot papers added in, and counted by one of the following methods:

6.1 In the case of a simple bye election with just one seat contested, by sorting the ballot papers into trays marked with each candidates’ name. In this process any dubious or spoilt papers are identified and decided upon. At each stage the Chief Counting Clerk fills in a pre-prepared sheet (Appendix C is an example from the recent Victoria Ward Bye Election) and once the totals are complete, he shows the candidates the provisional result.

6.2 In a more complex election with a number of candidates contesting more than one seat the process is more complex. The trays are marked not with each candidates’ name but with all the potential combinations of votes. Plump votes (where a ballot paper contains only one vote) are removed during the process and counted into named trays. Then the papers with two votes are dealt with in their respective combinations and then the combinations of three. (Three being the maximum number of seats contested at any one election). As all the various combination trays and the named trays are counted the figures are entered into a computer spreadsheet which then calculates the result and prints a provisional outcome. Within the spreadsheet there is provision for checking the number of “unused” votes and thus verifying the total number of ballot papers.

6.3 In an even more complex election with numerous candidates and thus combinations to be conveniently sorted into trays, staff split into pairs and one reads out the contents of each ballot paper while the other records them on a tally sheet as attached at Appendix E. While this is naturally a protracted process,

797 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO TYNWALD SELECT COMMITTEE.docx

it is the most effective means to record every vote, used and unused. A counting sheet similar to Appendix D is completed manually to show the candidates a provisional result.

7 In case of a close election, if any candidate then asks for a recount on seeing the provisional result, that is done. In practice, as a matter of course, the Chief Counting Clerk will flick through the ballot papers to satisfy himself that they have all been correctly sorted. Once the candidates have accepted it, the Returning Officer declares the result.

798 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Notes for Polling Station Staff.docx APPENDIX A

Douglas Borough Council

Victoria Ward Bye Election

Thursday, 3rd November, 2016

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR POLLING STATION STAFF

1 There will be one Presiding Officer allocated to each Polling Station, assisted by one Poll Clerk. A schedule will be circulated to all those who have agreed to take part, showing their designation and their allocated Polling Station. Overall management of the election rests with the Returning Officer.

2 The Presiding Officer is in charge of each Polling Station and the Poll Clerk will assist. There is a responsibility to maintain order in the polling station, to ensure that polling is conducted in an orderly manner and that no unauthorised person enters the polling station. The Local Election Rules 2003, as amended, set out a number of regulations as to the running of the Polling Station and procedures to be followed. This note is to highlight the more significant elements and to clarify some areas that are not covered or where there may be confusion.

3 All staff starting at 7.30 a.m. are expected to use their own transport to collect the ballot box and equipment from the Town Hall and to be at the Polling Station for 7.30 a.m. in order to set it up for opening at 8.00 a.m. Polling booths will already be there and the Station will be open. It is important to have all the signage and polling booths ready promptly at 8.00a.m. The polling booths are the folding variety and may need to be unfolded; signage should be self-explanatory.

Staff commencing later in the day will again have to use their own transport . They will not have to be concerned about setting up but should be aware of the processes.

4 Immediately before 8.00 a.m., the Presiding Officer must show the ballot box, empty, to everyone present (usually only the Poll Clerk but possibly a police officer or a candidate) then remove the key from the lock, thread two cable ties through the loops and tighten them so as to prevent the box being opened.

5 Furniture should be arranged so that a table faces the door with two chairs behind for the Presiding Officer and Poll Clerk; the polling booths should be erected to one side and the sealed ballot box placed within clear sight of the Presiding Officer either on, or on a chair in front of, the table.

6 After 8.00 a.m., no person other than the authorised Officials, candidates, agents, Chief Executive, Assistant Town Clerk or Police Officer may remain in the Polling Station.

7 When a voter comes in to vote, the procedure in the Election Rules should be followed: in practice, most voters have a polling card and will pass it over to the staff. The number should be read out, and if there is any doubt, the name should be questioned. The number and name should be looked up in the Register of Electors, and a tick placed against the number. The number should be written on the counterfoil of the next ballot paper in sequence, then the paper stamped with the official mark and handed to the voter. (It is useful to fold the paper in half before stamping it, because they are easier to handle at the count, and care should be taken to place the stamp in the margin and not on the space for the voter to mark.)

8 In cases where no polling card is produced by a voter, and they don’t know their number, they should be asked for their name and address which can then be looked up in the Register of Electors but otherwise the same procedure applies. If anyone is not on the list, they may not be permitted to vote.

799 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Notes for Polling Station Staff.docx APPENDIX A

9 Voters’ polling cards may be taken away by the voter but if they leave them, they must be removed from the table as soon as possible and binned or otherwise disposed of. Care must be taken that they do not end up in the ballot box.

10 The voter should then take the ballot paper and mark it at the polling booth where a pencil is provided. Voters should place a cross opposite the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote – only one. Once marked, he or she should fold the paper (they will usually just re-fold it as issued to them), and place it in the ballot box, showing the official mark to the Presiding Officer. Again in practice, it is not essential to insist on seeing the mark on every paper as long as the Presiding Officer is confident that the issuing procedure is followed.

11 Once the voter has voted they should leave the polling station forthwith and not loiter. If they are inclined to stay and talk to the staff or other voters they must be asked by the Presiding Officer to leave.

12 If anyone comes in to the Polling Station wearing a candidate’s rosette or the like, they should be asked to remove or cover it while they are in the Station.

13 There are a number of definite DON’Ts:

Don’t allow any unauthorised person into the Polling Station;

Don’t take a ballot paper out of the book except immediately before issue;

Don’t issue a ballot paper without the official mark;

Don’t let anyone put anything at all in the ballot box except a ballot paper properly issued at the Polling Station;

Don’t let anyone other than election staff know the name or number of any voter who may or may not have voted.

Don’t issue a ballot paper to anyone if they have been marked on the list as having been issued an absent voters’ ballot paper (indicated by “A” alongside), or if they are missed off the list altogether for any reason (In the latter case they should be advised to register with the Electoral Registration Unit of the Cabinet Office on 685754 to get their names on the list for the future);

14 There are also a number of occasional hazards that may or may not be encountered:

Candidates’ tellers may ask to be told voters’ numbers: they should be told on the very first occasion that it is an offence to ask and an offence for staff to tell them;

Voters may not return into the Polling Station having left but may be reminded of their own number if they ask before they leave;

Some voters may argue about the recording of their number contravening the principle of secret ballot. The answer to this is firstly, it has to be done by law (the Election Rules which may be shown), and secondly the only people who have access to the papers before the count is finished are sworn to secrecy – after the count they are sealed away and are protected by law so they can only be accessed by order of the High Court in connection with a prosecution.

Any voter unable to mark the paper by themselves (through visual or physical impairment or because they cannot read) may be assisted by the Presiding Officer. In so doing the Presiding Officer should ask the Poll Clerk to temporarily stop voters coming in to the Station, and once it has cleared, ask the voter for which candidates

800 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Notes for Polling Station Staff.docx APPENDIX A

they wish to vote and mark the paper accordingly. The ballot paper should be placed in the ballot box as normal, the voter escorted from the Station and normal operation resumed. The name and number of the voter whose vote is cast in this manner should be recorded on the list supplied, with the reason.

If a voter advises the Presiding Officer that they have accidentally spoilt their ballot paper before they place it in the ballot box, it may be taken off them and a replacement issued. The spoilt paper should be taken off them and placed in the envelope provided, but otherwise the replacement is issued in the normal way.

If someone wishes to vote but their number is already marked as having voted, they may, if the Presiding Officer is satisfied that they have a genuine case, be issued with a pink Tendered Ballot Paper. This should be resisted strongly and is only a very last resort. First check with the counterfoils of the papers issued that that number has indeed been used. If there has been a mistake it can be corrected and the voter allowed to vote normally. If the number has been used, and the voter responds “Yes” and “No” respectively to the two questions set out in Rule 35 of the Election Rules, a ballot paper should be taken out of the book of pink papers, stamped, and given to the voter to mark normally. It must not then be placed in the ballot box but taken by the Presiding Officer, endorsed with the voter’s name and number, and placed in the envelope provided. The voter’s name and number must also be recorded on the list provided.

15 Staff are scheduled to be on duty at the Polling Station either from 7.30 a.m. until 2.00 p.m. or from 2.00 p.m. until 8.00 p.m., and in some cases all day. Staff changing during the day should familiarise themselves with routines in a short overlap.

At 8.00 p.m., the Presiding Officers should complete and sign all the forms and envelopes, including the ballot paper account. These, and all equipment other than the polling booths, are all to be brought back to the Town Hall.

Then all staff including the early shift of Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks will return to the Town Hall. Level 3 of Shaw’s Brow Car Park will be open for parking. All staff will go into the Council Chamber, to the table allocated to the Ward that includes their Polling Station, and the count will commence. Staff arriving from the Polling Stations should leave all coats and other belongings in Interview Room 1 and take to he Chamber only the box of envelopes and materials.

16 The results will be announced once the Ward has completed their count; the Returning Officer will read them to everyone present in the Council Chamber and will then take the candidates downstairs to read the results to any members of the Public that may be present. Meanwhile staff are expected to remain in the Council Chamber.

17 The Returning Officer will clear the Council Chamber of everyone except staff and then proceed to package up all the papers and forms that have been used. (The staff are required to remain in case any queries arise during that process). The Returning Officer will inform staff as soon as they can be released.

18 Clarification of the following might be helpful:

All Polling Stations should have facilities for making hot drinks, but staff should bring with them their own supplies of tea, coffee, milk, etc. as well as sufficient food to last their spell on duty. It is generally useful for staff scheduled to work together to co- operate and avoid duplication;

There is no restriction on bringing newspapers, books, cards, or anything else that may help pass the time if the Polling Station is not busy;

Nor is there a restriction on laptop computers or mobile telephones; the latter can be very useful if there is an urgent need for advice from the Returning Officer;

801 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Notes for Polling Station Staff.docx APPENDIX A

Warm clothing is recommended because while all Polling Stations should be heated they can become cold as doors are constantly opened and closed. One small point is that as Candidates often adopt particular colours as “theirs” for publicity purposes, staff ought to avoid wearing clothing that could be misconstrued as favouring any of them. The best way to avoid the suggestion is to avoid distinctive colours – stick to something neutral. No bright yellow or green ties, for example; and

Staff are required to use their own transport but sharing will help to ease potential parking difficulties. Again, staff working together should co-operate wherever possible.

19 Anyone experiencing any difficulty or requiring advice should contact the Assistant Town Clerk through the Town Hall switchboard, 696300 or by mobile phone on 407629

802 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Counting Procedures.docx APPENDIX B

DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL

ELECTION COUNT PROCEDURE

1 At the Counting of Votes in any Douglas Borough Council Election, while there are certain standard procedures followed, techniques may vary according to the number of seats to be filled and the number of Candidates.

2 At 8.00 p.m., or as soon afterwards as possible, all eligible to view the count are seated and the door secured.

3 The Returning Officer will then proceed to open the Absent Voters’ ballot paper envelopes following the procedure set out in the Local Elections (Absent Voters) Regulations. At the end of that process there will be a number of absent voters’ ballot papers in a receptacle which should be put to one side within sight of the Returning Officer. If there are multiple Wards involved in the election, or if the number of absent voters is such as to warrant it, the Returning Office may have opened the majority of the absent voters’ envelopes at an earlier point in the day (having given notice to the Candidates and Agents entitled to be present) in order to speed the process. In such case the receptacle of absent votes will have been kept secure and any absent votes received after that time simply need to be added.

4 The first ballot box then arrives, accompanied by the Presiding Officer and staff of the Polling Station: all their materials and official documents are placed to one side and the ballot paper account passed to the Returning Officer. The box is then opened and emptied on to the counting table, being shown empty to the Candidates and Agents present.

5 The first element of the Count is to reconcile the number of ballot papers in the ballot box with the number of ballot papers issued at the Polling Station as set out in the ballot paper account. The papers are counted into 25’s, faces upwards but disregarding the actual votes or spoilt papers, and clipped. Once the numbers are reconciled, the total is recorded on a counting sheet and the ballot papers placed back into the ballot box, still clipped and the lid left open within sight of the Returning Officer.

6 During that process the other ballot boxes should arrive. They are placed unopened close to the Returning Officer and the ballot paper accounts handed to him. Then when the process outlined above is finished, they are all dealt with, in turn, in the same way.

7 Then there comes a point where the Returning Officer has verified all the ballot paper accounts so the total number of ballot papers is known, and he has sight of all the ballot papers in the boxes and the absent voters’ ballot papers receptacle. The totals are recorded either on the counting sheet or spreadsheet, according to which method is being used as in paragraph 8 below and the Candidates and Agents are informed of them. The ballot boxes are then then emptied onto the counting table and mixed together with the contents of the absent voters’ ballot papers receptacle.

8 The papers are then sorted. The manner of doing so may vary:

8.1 In a simple, straightforward election for one seat, it will be by sorting into trays bearing each candidate’s name. Each tray is then clipped into bundles of 25 and counted, the totals being recorded on a counting sheet.

8.2 In an election for two or three seats with a limited number of Candidates, it will be by sorting into trays marked with the potential combinations of votes (in other words, sorting by the candidate for whom the voter has not voted). This part of the process extracts those ballot papers with less votes than there are seats, so these can be counted separately. The results are then input to the spreadsheet.

8.3 In the very rare case of an election for multiple seats and a very large number of Candidates, for example three seats and six Candidates, where the combinations are

803 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Counting Procedures.docx APPENDIX B

more complex, the counting staff simply separate into pairs and one reads the votes on each paper while the other records them on a prepared tally sheet. During this process where there are fewer votes than there are seats, the “unused” votes are recorded as well as the totals for each candidate. The totals are then entered into the spreadsheet.

9 During the sorting process, any papers carrying an identifying mark, or without the official mark, or unclear as to the voter’s intent, are flagged up for decision by the Returning Officer. He will inform the Candidates and Agents of his decision on each and then they are included in the totals.

10 Once all the ballot papers have been dealt with, the totals are added to the Counting Sheet or input to the spreadsheet as appropriate. The Counting Sheet used in the simplest cases shows the total for each candidate and the turnout can be easily calculated. The spreadsheet calculates everything automatically and prints out a provisional result. In either case, the provisional result is shown to the Candidates and Agents to give them an opportunity to ask for a recount if they feel it appropriate.

11 During the process of entering and recording the provisional result, the Chief Counting Clerk will manually flick though the ballot papers in each tray or pile to ensure they are correctly sorted. If a ballot paper is found at that stage to have been wrongly attributed, then a more thorough check is undertaken and the revised totals, if they are changed, are entered and advised to the Candidates and Agents.

12 If a recount is asked for and granted by the Returning Officer, the process again varies. If the count is carried out as in Paragraph 8.1 or 8.2 above, each bundle of 25 for each candidate or combination is manually checked for correct allocation and number of papers. If Paragraph 8.3 has been followed, it requires starting again from the point of mixing all the papers together. In whichever case, the process does not go all the way back to the beginning, as the totals in each ballot box had been previously verified and accepted by the Candidates and Agents.

13 Once the Candidates and Agents, and the Returning Officer, are satisfied that the count has been properly conducted and reached a final result, the Returning Officer declares the result to all present and counting staff seal the ballot papers and other official documents into packages as required by the Local Election Rules, for delivery the following day to the General Registry.

804 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Counting Sheet.docx APPENDIX C

DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL

VICTORIA WARD BYE ELECTION

Thursday, 3rd November, 2016

Crescent Polling District Villa Marina Promenade Suite

St. Ninian’s Polling District St. Andrew’s Church Hall

Strand and Quay Polling Districts St. Matthew’s Church Hall

Absent Votes 9

Total Votes cast ______

Turnout (=Total Votes cast/28.85) ______%

CANDIDATE A ______

CANDIDATE B ______

Spoilt Ballot Papers ______

Ballot Papers rejected:

(a) For want of official mark ______

(b) For voting for more candidates than there are vacancies ______

(c) For writing or mark by which the voter could be identified ______

(d) Unmarked or void for uncertainty ______

805 VICTORIA WARD VOTES PAPERS

Ballot Box A Quay & Strand/St. Matthew's Church Hall Ballot Box B Crescent/Strathallan Suite Ballot Box C St. Ninian's/St. Andrew's Church Hall Absent Votes

Total

Spoilt Papers 0 0

Totals to Count #VALUE!

A B C D UNUSED TOTAL TOTAL VOTES PAPERS A/B/C 0 0 0 A/B/D 0 0 0 A/C/D 0 0 0 B/C/D 0 0

Totals on full ballot papers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A/B 0 0 0 A/C 0 0 0 A/D 0 0 0 B/C 0 0 0 B/D 0 0 0 C/D 0 0

Totals on 2X ballot papers 0 0 0 0 0 0

A 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0

Total Plump Votes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spoilt Papers (a) want of official mark 0 (b) more votes than vacancies 0 (c) writing or mark 0 (d) unmarked or uncertain 0

CHECK TOTAL BALLOT PAPERS 0 CHECK TOTAL VOTES 0

806 PROVISIONAL RESULT

CANDIDATE A 0 -

CANDIDATE B 0 -

CANDIDATE C 0 -

CANDIDATE D 0 -

SPOILT PAPERS 0 0

Unused Votes 0

Total Votes accounted for 0

Total Ballot Papers 0

Turnout ##### %

Lowest Vote 0

807 BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS

ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS FOR VICTORIA WARD Thursday, 28th April, 2016

Public Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Local Elections Act 1986 and the Local Election Rules 1996, as amended, that

- - - - have been duly elected to serve as COUNCILLORS for VICTORIA WARD of the BOROUGH OF DOUGLAS until 1st May, 2020.

The total number of votes given for each candidate was:

CANDIDATE A 0 CANDIDATE B 0 CANDIDATE C 0 CANDIDATE D 0

Spoilt papers: 0

The total number of voters voting at this election was: 0 representing a turnout of #### %

The number of Ballot Papers rejected was:

(a) for want of official mark: 0 (b) for voting for more candidates than there were vacancies to be filled: 0 (c) for writing or mark by which the voter could be identified: 0 (d) unmarked or void for uncertainty 0

This 28th day of April, 2016

K.J. RICE, BA(Hons) RETURNING OFFICER

808 C:\Users\kirreeronan\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\713E5YQJ\Counting Tally Sheet.docx APPENDIX E DOUGLAS BOROUGH COUNCIL

ELECTION OF ………………… COUNCILLORS FOR …………………………….WARD.

DATE: ……………………………….

CANDIDATE 1 CANDIDATE 2 CANDIDATE 3 CANDIDATE 4 CANDIDATE 5 CANDIDATE 6 UNUSED

809

810 APPENDIX 39: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Peel Town Commissioners

811

812 eDMM's PEEL TOWN CONMSSIONERS m BARRANTEE PHURT NY HINSHEY e p Sa 7 1883

DEREK SEWELL, BSc (Hons)MBA CILT HALLEYBALJEY Town Clerk Clemgh y Valley TOWN HALL Commissioner for Oaths Barrantagh Looee DERBY ROAD RAAD DERBY Tel: Peel ( 01624) 842341 PEEL, PURT NY HINSHEY Fax: Peel (01624) 844010 ISLE OF MAN, ELLAN UANNIN Email: [email protected]. Website: www.netpeelonline. IM5 1RG All communications to be addressed to the Town Clerk Dy chooilley insh dy ve er ny enmys rish Cleragh y Valley

Our Ref DS CK/

18''November 2016

Committee Secretariat Legislative Buildings Finch Road DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM 3PW

Dear Committee Secretariat

Re: General Election 2016 Evidence (Section 3 and 4)of the Tynwald

The Commissioners have been in communication with the Cabinet Office since August 2015 concerning the legal authority the Election Registration Officer used to remove electors including local authority members from the register of electors in April 2015. The Commissioner's last letter dated 2 August 2016 (copy enclosed) to the Chief Minister highlighted discrepancies in the contemporary legal advice provided by the Election Registration Officer on 21 August 2015 and the Attorney General's response to a Tynwald question on this matter 10 months later on 21 June 2016. The Attorney General's response (Hansard 650)specified: Section 11 of Register of Electors Act 2006 makes provision for the Electoral Registration Officer to make alterations to the electoral register in a number of scenarios, which includes setting out the process to be followed depending on whether the alteration is one made under scenarios described in subsection (1)or subsection (2)of the Section 11."

This advice endorsed the Commissioners' assertion that the Election Registration Officers confirmed use of Section 5(3) of the Registration of Electors Act 1086 (subsequently confirmed as the 2006 Act) to remove electors from the register of electors was inappropriate and Section 1 I should have been used. Furthermore, the Commissioners had advised the Cabinet Office the Election Registration Officer had not discharged a number of statutory obligations prescribed within Section 11 prior to the removal of an elector from the register of electors. The Commissioners' letter concluded by stating their belief this issue should be subject to formal Tynwald scrutiny and review.

Cont.

813 The Cabinet Office response dated 23 August 2016 (copy enclosed) did not seek to address the discrepancy between the Attorney General and the Election Registration Officers' advice contained within the Commissioners' letter or the evidenced assertion the Election Registration Officer while undertaking an annual canvass (see attached press release) for information under Section 5(3)had not discharged the legal requirements of Section 11 of the Act to permit the removal of electors from the register. In addition, Section 5(4)of the Act clearly prescribes the power the Election Registration Officer has when either no response or false information is received when canvassing for information under Section 5(3).The legal powers were not used in this instance prior to the removal of the electors from the register. The Commissioners wrote to the new Chief Minister and Peel's local members of the House of Keys on 11 November 2016 to highlight their ongoing complaint on this matter. Mr. Harmer MHK and Mr. Boot MHK have subsequently advised this matter should be referred to the Tynwald Committee appointed on 18 October 2016 to consider all aspects of the organisation and operation of this 2016 General Election. The Commissioners believe the Tynwald Committee should scrutinize this aspect of the 2016 election because the annual canvass which took place prior to April 2015 resulting in a large number of persons being removed from the register of electors for the 2016 general election (and 2016 local elections) and resulted in the removal or suspension from office of elected local authority members in 2015.

The Commissioners wish to thank you for consideration ofthis matter.

Yours [Signature D Sewell ]

Derek Sewell Town Clerk

814 Crown and Elections Cabinet Office x Cabinet Offl Government Office Bucks Road We of Mart DOUGLAS foemment Isle of Man, IM1 31 Tel: + 44 1624 685741 Direct line + 44 1624 685710 Email v0ter—S@9-1 v.11

Your ref: DSJCK

Mr D Sewell Town Clerk Peel Town Commissioners Town Hall Derby Road Peel Isle of Man IM5 1RG

23 August 2016

Dear Mr Sewell, I write on behalf of the Chief Minister in response to your further letter to him dated 2n August 2016.

The Commissioners' ongoing dissatisfaction with the process for the annual canvass carried out in January 2015 is noted.

The view of Peel Town Commissioners that the conclusions of Her Majesty's Acting Attorney General in the Isle of Man upon which he advised and is satisfied that the Electoral Registration Officer and her team responded appropriately "absurd" is also noted.

However as Peel Town Commissioners have been advised the actions taken in regard to the Electoral Register were in accordance with advice received by Her Majesty's Attorney General's Chambers. Furthermore Her Majesty's Acting Attorney General has set out these matters in Tynwald Court.

It is though acknowledged that Peel Town Commissioners will remain unhappy with the way in which the January 2015 annual canvass operated. The important issue going forward is to ensure that a full review of the current electoral legislation which is underway is able to modernise and streamline outdated election practices.

Meanwhile the Crown and Elections team is presently working extremely hard to ensure that all Isle of Man residents entitled to vote at the House of Keys election are correctly franchised by inclusion on the electoral register. As at 1 July 2016 there were 59,510 registered electors; approximately the same number registered on 1 January 2015 but with considerable increased accuracy.

Yours sincerely [Signature K Hemsley]

Kirsty Hemsley Senior External Relations Officer

c.c. Mr Crookall MLC, Mrs Beecroft, Mr Harmer 815 0 PEEL TOWN CCONMSSIONERS

Our Ref DS CK/

2 August 2016

Mr A.Bell MHK, Chief Minister, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IM 13PG

Dear Chief Minister,

Re: Registration of Electors Act 2006

Thank you for your officer's letter dated 11 July 2016 which provided a copy of the Attorney General's response to Tynwald Question raised by Mrs. Beecroft MHK on 21 June 2016 concerning the removal of electors from the electoral register in 2015. This information was considered by the Board of Peel Town Commissioners at their Board meeting on 12 July 2016 and they have requested I write to you and Mrs. Beecroft to highlight two key issues which arise from the Attorney General statement and the previous responses received by the Commissioners from the Cabinet Office.

Which Legal Powers was the Registration Officer Using to Remove Electors from the Register? On 11 August 2015 the Commissioners were aware the legislation relating to the registration of elector had not been modified. The Commissioners assumed a change in Government policy had taken place which ceased the historic practice of retaining names information/ on the updated register of electors if there was no registration form response from a property. The Election Registration Officer's response dated 21 August 2015 (copy enclosed) stated the Registration Officer was using the legal requirements of Section 5(3)of the Registration of Electors Act 1986 (subsequently confirmed as the 2006 Act)to undertake this action. This is contrary to the Attorney General's Tynwald response which makes no reference to Section 5(3)within his response (Hansard 650) and instead stated:

Section 11 of Register of Electors Act 2006 makes provision for the Electoral Registration Officer to make alterations to the electoral register in a number of scenarios, which includes setting out the process to be followed depending on whether the alteration is one made under scenarios described in subsection (1)or subsection (2)of Section 11.

816 The Commissioners have consistently advised the Cabinet Office and the Registration Officer the legal authority for an annual canvass undertaken under Section 5(3) of the Registration of Electors Act does not provide the necessary legal authority to remove persons from the register when they do not return a registration update form. The Commissioners have highlighted Section 5(4) states persons who fail to provide information are guilty of an offence and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceed £1,000 and it is Section 11 of this Act which provides the authority procedure/ for the Election Registration Officer to remove persons from the electoral role.

The Commissioners find it absurd for the Attorney General to conclude he is fully aware of the Peel Commissioners situation, upon which I have advised and upon which 1 am satisfied the Electoral Registration Officer and her team have responded appropriately as recorded by Hansard 820 -830.

Did the Registration Officer discharge the legal powers prescribed in Section 11 of the Registration of Electors Act 2006 in this Instance?

The Registration Officer's letter dated 21 August 2015 justified the removal of electors by stating the register must be as accurate as possible. Section H (2)provides the Registration Officer with the legal powers to make an alteration to a register of electors in order that no person shall be registered when not entitled.

In these circumstances subsection (2)of the Act states: The registration officer shall, in accordance with regulations, give to the person affected notice in writing of the proposed alteration, stating that that person may, within such period as is prescribed, in writing require the registration officer to refer the matter for a hearing. If no requirement is made pursuant to a notice under subsection (2),the registration officer may make the necessary alteration to the register of electors, but otherwise the registration officer shall refer the matter for a hearing under Schedule 1, and shall give notice in writing to the person affected of the time and place at which the matter will be heard by the .

The Commissioners do not believe the documents sent out in the annual update of voters registration in January 2015 was a formal Section 11(2)notice. This paperwork made no reference to the legislation under which it was being served, did not state it was a formal notice, and did not include the statutory requirement that the person may in writing require the registration officer to refer the matter to a hearing.

Cont.

817 Furthermore, if the Registration Officer believed the documents sent out in the annual update of voters registration in January 2015 were a notice to the whole voting population. Then any returns within the prescribed period must be referred for a hearing and the person given notice when the hearing will take place before the High Bailiff. The legislation does not give the Registration Officer any discretion in this matter and this procedure did not take place. This is further reinforced by the Registration Officer's statement in August 2015 that Section 5 (3)of the Act was being used.

The legislation provisions for seeking information and removing persons from the register are separately prescribed in the Registration of Electors Act 2006 and have distinctly different procedures associated with them. The evident confusion over what parts of the Act were being used 4 months after persons were removed from the register and the Chief Secretary's statement on difficulties adhering to Section 11 in practice are very serious matters.

The Commissioners welcomed the Chief Secretary's assurance in November 2015 that the Election Registration Officers had reverted to a system where individuals who do not return their forms at the 2016 annual canvass, which ran from January to March 2016, will not be automatically removed from the register and will be written to separately prior to removing them from the register. However, this action or the proposed changes to this legislation has not resulted in the reinstatement of those persons removed in 2015 by the Registration Officer while canvassing for information and without issuing a formal notice or following the prescribed hearing procedures. The Commissioners believe this matter should be subject to a formal Tynwald scrutiny and review.

Yours sincerely [Signature D Sewell]

Derek Sewell

818 Crown and Elections Cabinet Office Cabinet Office Government Office lisle ofman _ fn > Bucks Road fpvcmm[ni DOUGLAS Isle of Man IMl 3PN Tel: + Email: Website www oov.im Your Ref DS CK/

21 August 2015

Mr D Sewell Town Clerk Peel Town Commissioners Town Hall Derby Road Peel Isle of Man IM5 1RGD

Dear Mr Sewell Thank you for your letter dated 11 August 2015 on behalf of Peel Town Commissioners, raising various issues in relation to registration on the electoral register. It may be helpful if I begin by setting out some background to try and assist Peel Town Commissioners. As Registration Officer it is my responsibility to ensure the Register of Electors is maintained. I am sure Peel Town Commissioners would endorse the importance of this being as accurate as possible. The Register is based upon information provided by those registered and to be accurate very much depends on information being provided. It is a legal requirement, as set out in Sec 5 (3)of the Registration of Electors Act 1986 not a policy one, to provide information to the Registration Officer, when requested to do so. This legal requirement is met in two ways. Firstly by the Registration Officer sending out the registration form and secondly the request for this information is complied with by completing the registration form. This requirement is visibly highlighted on the form, together with the clear statement that "failure to return the form will resultin the removal of those entries from the electoral register."In addition the envelope is prominently marked that action is required. Given that there has been no change to the policy, and indeed the legislation that there is a legal requirement to return the form, the Isle of Man Government Code of Practice on Consultation which is referred to in your letter, is not applicable in this instance. However, noting the comments in your letter, I would wish to reassure Peel Town Commissioners that the Cabinet Office, being aware of the spirit of the Code, sought to ensure that the consequences of not returning the completed electoral form was disseminated as widely as possible before, during and after the canvass period. This was the rationale for the inclusion of this information on the registration form and envelope sent to all households, the repeated public announcements and the change being highlighted by the newspapers, radio and in social media. An "All Government" e-mail was also circulated as a further way the Island. of reaching as wide an audience as possible across

819 In addition, as you mention, local authorities were given advanced notice before the forms were sent out by way of an e-mail to the Clerks on 24 December. For ease of reference the e mail,- replicated below, advised that :- i) all"householders would soon be receiving registration forms for them to confirm details ofeligible voters living at their premises 60 to ensure the accuracy ofthe Islands electoral register names would be removed from the voters list next Yer ifforms are not completed and returned y March 18, 2015 ' As you also set out in your letter the e-mail advised that "Residents cannot vote in House of Keys or local authority elections unless they are on the register. Being unregistered can also affect a person's credit reference history and excludes them from juryservice. " In addition, separate to this direct communication with local authority Clerks, all Members and officers of local authorities would also have personally received a registration form which clearly set out the legal requirement for completion, the deadline for return of the form and the consequences of not returning the form. Consequently I hope Peel Town Commissioners can better understand that the consequences of not returning registration forms was clearly set out. It is for this reason then that I feel unable to accept the comments in your letter that the process has been extremely poorly administered from the outset or the need for a formal investigation. In respect of the comments in your letter about the forthcoming by-elections for Peel and Glenfaba, and the fact that non -registration excludes the eligibility to vote in these by- elections, I would assure you that specific press coverage was devoted to this issue following the by-elections in Douglas North and Douglas South and the outstanding elections to the Legislative Council which had the potential to cause further by-elections. Despite further publicity in June, which would have enabled those interested in voting in the by-elections to appear on the July register, there has been no significant influx of applications for registration. As previously advised to those Peel Town Commissioners whose registration forms were not returned and so were subsequently removed from the register, it is not possible within the current legislative provisions to re-instate anyone, including those Peel residents who did not return their registration forms as required, either by 1s' April or 1S June, prior to the 1 October 2015 revision. Of course inclusion then is dependent upon these individuals having returned a completed registration form by the deadline of 17 September. Compliance with the requirements of the Local Election Act 1986 is of course a matter for local authorities and the elected Members themselves. I understand that a number of local authorities have arrangements in place to ensure conformity with these longstanding legislative requirements and regularly check that elected Members meet these requirements. The interpretation of those requirements is also a matter for local authorities but the variance of decision making, and actions in respect thereof, highlights the need for forward. clarity and a joined up approach to be adopted going

820 It is in the interests of all that a robust, clear and unambiguous system for elections to the House of Keys and to local authorities is in place. Such a system should incorporate modern methods of communication and effective administration practices. In this regard it may be helpful for Peel Town Commissioners to know that the Council of Ministers has previously determined that there should be a root and branch review of election legislation following the General Election for the House of Keys in 2016. It is intended that this review will cover all elements of the election process from registration to declaration, including the relevant pieces of primary legislation and the associated regulations. The scope of work to be undertaken is quite considerable given the importance of ensuring all election matters are properly administered within legislative provisions. Such provisions should be clear, unambiguous and able to ensure the delivery of an electoral system across all aspects that meet the requirements of good government. Local authorities will, of course, be consulted as part of this independent, comprehensive review. Meanwhile, pending this review there is a need to work within the requirements of the current legislative provision. I am aware that in this regard the Chief Executive of the Department of Infrastructure, Mr Black, has recently written to local authorities providing clarification on the issue of whether or not Members of a local authority have to be on the electoral register in order to remain eligible to hold office and what steps might be taken in cases where a Member is not on the electoral register. I hope the information and clarification contained in this reply is of assistance to Peel Town Commissioners in respect of the matters you raised in your letter to me.

Yours sincerely [Signature D Fletcher]

Mrs D Fletcher MBE Registration Officer

821 From: Kamsay, Alistair Sent: 24 December 2014 1145 To:

Subject: Annual update of voters register

Dear Local Authority, Please find attached and below for your information a news release issued by the Cabinet Office on the forthcoming annual update of the voters register.

Annual update of voters register All householders will soon be receiving registration forms for them to confirm details of eligible voters living at their premises. To ensure the accuracy of the Island's electoral register, names will be removed from the voters list next year if forms are not completed and returned by March 18, 2015. Residents cannot vote in House of Keys or local authority elections unless they are on the register. Being unregistered can also affect a person's credit reference history and excludes them from jury service.

The registration forms will arrive at every household early in the New Year, in envelopes prominently overprinted to highlight the importance of the enclosed documents.

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office's Crown & Elections Unit explained: Voting' in elections is the fundamental democratic right of every eligible Island resident, but you can only exercise that right if your name is on the register of electors. It was the practice in previous years to leave names on the list if there was no response from a property, but over time this has made the electoral register increasingly unreliable and inaccurate. Now that we are taking action to clean up the register the onus is more than ever on the householder to ensure that voter details are confirmed.'

Voter awareness initiatives will be undertaken in the New Year to promote the registration process and the importance of completing and returning the registration forms. For further information on registering to vote or for any other enquiry regarding the electoral process please contact the Electoral Registration Unit, Crown and Elections, Cabinet Office, Government Office, Bucks Road, Douglas, IMl 3PN. For email enquiries use [email protected] or call the telephone voters general enquiries on 685754 during office hours (Monday-Friday).

Ends

Regards,

Alistair Ramsay,

Communications Executive, Corporate Communications Service, 822 CahineT Office. APPENDIX 40: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Ramsey Town Commissioners

823 824 From: Peter Whiteway Sent: 17 November 2016 11:58:27 To: Enquiries Subject: General Election Call for Evidence Importance: Normal

Dear Sirs

At the public meeting held on 16th November 2016 the Ramsey Town Commissioners discussed the Call for Evidence by the Committee appointed to consider all aspects of the recent General Election.

The Commission has asked that the following comments be submitted to the Committee on its behalf:-

In relation to the reported difficulties at the recent general election Members may note that in both cases, where in Ayre and Michael it is understood that ballot papers were found after the count, and in Garff where it is understood that ballot boxes were discovered during the count, it appears that the problems would have been avoided had the election staff followed the statutory requirement to reconcile the ballot account, as required to do by Regulation 46 of the Representation of the People Regulations 2016 which states:-

46 The count

(1) Before the returning officer proceeds to count the votes, the returning officer must — (a) in the presence of the counting agents open each ballot box, take out the ballot papers in it, count and record them and verify each ballot paper account in accordance with paragraph (2); (b) count and record such of the advance voter ballot papers as have been duly returned in accordance with paragraph (3); and (c) merge the ballot papers mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). (2) The returning officer must — (a) verify each ballot paper account by comparing it with the number of ballot papers recorded and opening, counting the contents and resealing the packets containing the unused ballot papers, spoilt ballot papers and the list of tendered votes and adding all but the tendered ballot papers to the total; and (b) draw up a statement as to the result of the verification, which any counting agent may copy.

In relation to this the Commission would suggest that there should be in place clear and simple procedures to be followed, perhaps with flowcharts, to ensure that the election can be progressed in a consistent and reliable fashion, and that election officials and staff are not given to opportunity to interpret the legislation differently.

The Commission is also strongly of the view that the method of polling a ballot stations is outdated, and that the election should be able to be undertaken electronically so that the results of the ballot are available immediately polling stations close. Members commented that Government has robust security in place to enable individuals to submit income tax and transact other business with Government and that electronic voting therefore should be reasonable attainable.

The Commission would also wish to ask that consideration be given to the timing of the General Election which on this occasion resulted in a subsequent vacancy occurring on the Ramsey Town Commission following the successful election of Mr Hooper. The term of office of local authority Members of 4 years, compared to the term for Members of the House of Keys, will mean that Keys Elections can follow Local Authority Elections in the same year, as occurred this year.

825 An amendment to allow the term of office to be the same in both cases, and the timing of the Keys election to occur 6 months before the local authority election would allow local authority Members to stand for Keys, and if successful not require to be replaced by a By-Election ( the Local Elections Act allows for a By-Election not to be required if a general election is to take place within 6 months of a vacancy occurring). The Commission feels that this process would provide a natural progression from local authority membership to House of Keys Candidature and also assist in raising the profile of the local authority election.

The Commission has asked that the Committee be thanked for the opportunity to comment on the matter.

Kind regards

Peter Whiteway

T. P Whiteway Town Clerk & Chief Executive, Commissioner for Oaths & Registrar Ramsey Town Commissioners Town Hall Parliament Square Ramsey ISLE OF MAN IM8 1RT

www.ramsey.gov.im www.facebook.com/ramseytowncommissioners

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of Ramsey Town Commissioners. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

This email was scanned by Bitdefender

826 APPENDIX 41: Submission dated 14th November 2016 from Anthony Allen

827

828 From: Anthony Sent: 14 November 2016 15:54:41 To: Charlie Shimmins Subject: Select Committee on the Organisation and Operation of the General Election - Call for Evidence Importance: Normal ______

In response to your letter I would make the following comment:

The boundary change had a negative impact on the people who live in Onchan, pay Onchan rates and were unable to vote for Onchan candidates in the General Election. This translated into a number of the electorate not voting as their way of protesting. I believe reverting back to the 2011 boundary would be welcomed by the majority of Onchan residents. Local and National government should be joined up for the people.

At future elections, I would like to see only the Candidates present within the boundaries of the Polling Station. If all the Candidates choose to be present at one Polling Stations, then only one authorised representative at each of the other Polling Stations.

Finally there was the rule on treating which became farcical in terms of public meetings.

I am available for any further comment as required.

Kind regards

Anthony Anthony Allen Onchan Commissioner.

Sent from my iPad Anthony Allen

829

830 APPENDIX 42: Submission dated 24th October 2016 from Geoff Allen

831 832 From: Geoffrey Allen Sent: 24 October 2016 14:39:41 To: Enquiries Subject: General Election Importance: Normal ______

Hiya

Just a quick comment about the recent general election. Our polling station was new to us, the old Glencrutchery Special School. I have to say the signage was very poor. It was small and badly positioned at the Glencrutchery Road entrance and at the junction with the St Johns Ambulance HQ.

I trust this is helpful

regards

Geoff Allen [Address Given]

833 834 APPENDIX 43: Submission dated 16th November 2016 from L J Boakes

835

836 From: Lj Boakes Sent: 16 November 2016 12:28:13 To: Enquiries Subject: FAO Committee Secretariat wrt General Election 2016 Importance: Normal ______

Dear Sirs,

I'm in Michael and Ayre constituency. There was a candidate, whose name I have forgotten, (sorry,) who was standing as a member of the in my constituency. On the morning of the election I caught part of a Manx Radio news clip about him withdrawing. It should have been just that he'd withdrawn from LibVan but myself and other people misheard/misinterpreted it as if he had completely withdrawn from the contest. I'm not saying he would have won, but quite a few people would have voted for him if not for the confusion, as I overheard people in Shoprite talking about him not running, too. Perhaps there could have been a notice, or something up in each polling station to say he'd resigned from LibVan but was still standing as an independent candidate. Thank you. L.Boakes Sandygate

837

838 APPENDIX 44: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Michael Christian

839

840 J M Christian [Address Given]

17-11-16

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Election Errors Sept 2016

I write concerning the ‘Poll Card ’error that occurred in Ramsey at the 2016 General Election, i.e. poll cards sent out with the wrong polling stations on them. I received my second card on Saturday, five days before polling day, upon checking it over with the one I received days previous it give the address of a different polling station, realising this would cause confusion (which it did) I rang Manx Radio News to inform an error had been made, only to be told they could not check with Government Office until Monday morning. In my opinion that is a complete nonsense in this day and age of call divert etc, furthermore all the new cards were not sent out together causing confusion on Social Media when those with new cards were posting views against those who had not received new ones. I accept we all make mistakes what matters is how they are corrected, I would ask you to consider the following points. 1/ A responsible member of staff dealing with election issues have Government Office phone number diverted to their own phone over weekend to ensure problems can be dealt with quickly, and the media can contact someone. 2/ When any errors occur the media outlets are all informed so the details of the errors are in the public domain first not last as on this occasion I thank you for considering these points in advance.

Yours sincerely

Michael Christian

841 842 APPENDIX 45: Submission dated 22nd October 2016 from Simon Costain

843 844 From: Simon Costain Sent: 22 October 2016 15:43:05 To: Enquiries Subject: General Election: call for evidence Importance: Normal

Online voting for the next general election please

W S Costain [Address Given]

845

846 APPENDIX 46: Submission dated 8th November 2016 from Pauline and Steve Dehaven

847 848 From: Bettison, Clare (MHK) Sent: 08 November 2016 17:53:09 To: Enquiries Cc: David Cretney Subject: FW: And on this Momentous Election Day . . . :) Importance: Normal

Please accept this as a written submission, for consideration by the General Election review committee, from Pauline and Steve DeHaven.

Kind regards,

Clare Clare Bettison MHK Member of the House of Keys for Douglas East Legislative Buildings Douglas ISLE OF MAN IM1 3PW

From: Pauline or Steve DeHaven [ ] Sent: 08 November 2016 16:20 To: Cretney, David (MLC); Bettison, Clare (MHK) Cc: Subject: And on this Momentous Election Day . . . :)

Hi David & Clare

Re: 'Our' Election and Feedback

Apologies this is late – hopefully not too late?

It appears quite a large number of the electorate (particularly teenagers of voting age) are not really au fait with how Tynwald and the House of Keys works. This could have a bearing on the apathy that sadly seems to affect all our elections, local and general.

Whilst I realise government has produced many excellent books/pamphlets/brochures etc about Tynwald, I don't think there has been one written specifically to include 'all you need to know about the general election'?

If this is the case, I wondered if a small, pocket sized ‘Tynwald for Dummies’ type booklet might grab the public's attention, especially if promoted and advertised on social media, radio and newspapers. Nowadays everyone seems to be so busy and short on time, especially the younger generation living ‘on the run’ instant messaging, one liner texts, facebook, twitter etc. which means they don't always take time to read anything longer than FB posts and/or Tweets. Consequently, a Tynwald for Dummies book, with simple, short bullet points (where

849 possible) for ‘Dummies’ to scan and absorb the information quickly and easily, might just fit the bill Perhaps also, a 'Tynwald for Dummies' power point presentation might appeal, if it too could be kept simple and short. Could even be held in that lovely café area in Tynwald, where the ‘Dummies’ could relax over a cup of coffee whilst enjoying the presentation, then have a quick tour through Tynwald afterwards.

Another point, of which you are both keenly aware I know, is how many of our multi cultural friends are under the impression they are not entitled to vote. Clare, with your many friends across different cultures, perhaps there would be a few who wouldn’t mind forming a ‘think tank’ to brainstorm ideas on how to enlighten and encourage their families and friends in preparation for the next general election? I love the ‘inclusivity’ theme permeating Tynwald at the moment and would love to see that welcoming inclusivity (just as you both would too I'm sure) extended across the island to all cultures.

Manx Radio’s contribution to the election this year was outstanding. However, I feel the government itself did not utilise the publicity machinery effectively enough to alert or encourage the public to get involved. I know I was eagerly awaiting the opportunity to grill our 8 candidates at a Hustings, but as I hadn’t heard of any meetings at that time, I telephoned Chris Robertshaw to find out when the Douglas East Husting would be. I was surprised to learn there wasn’t one scheduled, and that if I wanted one, I would have to get the signatures of 12 registered voters to present to the Mayor, who would then call the meeting. This I subsequently did. If I hadn’t telephoned Chris, I would not have been aware of the procedure, having assumed, as no doubt a large number of the electorate also did, that Hustings are organised by ‘others’ in authority. Hustings info' could also be included in the 'Tynwald for Dummies' booklet.

When handing out the registration forms to some of our multi cultural friends, I had quite a negative response. However, since you both have already mentioned the forms need updating, I am sure you will come up ‘trumps’ (whoops, apologies, poor choice of words there) with a much more user friendly, enticing version and layout!

Pauline and Steve DeHaven

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.

RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.

Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish.

850 APPENDIX 47: Submission dated 21st November 2016 from Ken Diack

851

852 From: Derek Sewell Sent: 21 November 2016 09:51:01 To: Enquiries Subject: Tynwald Committee 2016 General Election: Polling District of Peel (Election) Importance: Normal

Dear Sirs, Peel Town Commissioners considered this request from Peel resident (Mr Diack) at their Board meeting last week. The Tynwald Committee may have already received this communication directly. However, should this not be the case the Commissioners believe this issue may be of interest to the Committee. The Commissioners in their capacity as a local authority were generally supportive of the matters highlighted within the email concerning the polling districts. Yours faithfully Derek Sewell Town Clerk Peel Town Commissioners

Dear Sir,I wonder if you could draw the Commissioners attention to the obvious imbalance between the 2 Polling Districts of Peel that were in force in this years Local Authority Election & the more recent General Election as regards Peel. With a total of 3905 (1/4/16) registered voters in Peel,2415 are to be found in District 1 & only 1,490 in District 2. It seems strange that although we have 2 Polling Districts in Peel ,everybody has actually voted in the last 2 elections in the same building (Corrin Hall & Centenary) I understand that for `NEW` polling districts to be established an application needs to be made to the Cabinet Office & the time would appear to about right as a Select Committee has been recently set up calling for evidence regarding the recent General Election,unfortunately the closing date for submissions is Friday 18th Nov. One of the main reasons for requesting a change of the Polling Districts apart from the obvious imbalance is that of 3905 voters only 1405 people actually voted which resulted in a turnout of only 36% in the Local Authority Election. Therefore I`am sure that the people of Peel who live in the new estates on the outskirts of Peel would appreciated having a Polling Station that`s nearer to them, such as the Camp Site/Swimming Pool that has adequate car parking? Unfortunately as regards the General Election when there was a 56% turnout for Glenfaba & Peel ,I was too late in finding out the information as regards how many voters actually voted in Peel as that information was only available to the public until 4th November. I`am sure that better minds than myself could come up with a more satisfactory division of Peel as regards voting districts but one other option would be to do away with with the 2 Districts & just have a combined voting area for Peel which would make things easier in certain other quarters ! If the Commissioners do respond to the Cabinet Office they may well like to ask for a name change of Glenfaba & Peel to Peel & Glenfaba as it looks like Peel will keep on expanding ,regards Ken Diack

853

854 APPENDIX 48: Submission dated 26th October 2016 from Carol Glover

855 856 From: Carol Glover < > Date: 26 October 2016 at 11:24:03 GMT+1 To: " > Subject: election voting review

Hi David

Interesting times!!!

I wondered if you could ensure that Peter and I give some feedback to your committee on reviewing election process – we will submit in writing if required.

We have been away for the last 2 elections, however in 2011 we went to all the trouble of getting a postal vote, filling it out, getting it endorsed etc

This time as no candidates visited our home we did nothing ….. it is a moral shame to me that people ( and women in particular ) gave their lives for the franchise, and it is now so bureaucratic to vote it is easier not to.

We went away on 5th September and returned on 26th – all the papers were waiting for us on the hall table when we got home Of course had it been electronic, it wouldn’t have mattered where we were.

I noticed this online today which encouraged me to email – whilst it was illegal to take this picture, you can see that it is on a touchscreen with a credit card type swipe, and of course as we can see in the USA you can vote in advance. http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/784E/production/_92089703_capfture.jpg

I have also noted at work that there are people who choose not to be on the electoral role as they don’t want to do jury service – this needs de-coupling. No wonder the best turnout %s are only in the 50s. The key to me is the lack of engagement of the young ( millennials) – you must have an app or online voting tool for them to even consider engaging.

Lots of change needed in this area, so good luck with the committee.

Carol

Carol Glover Corporate Strategy & Projects Isle of Man Enterprises plc

857 858 APPENDIX 49: Submission dated 10th January 2017 from Bill Henderson MLC

859

860

Tynwald Elections Committee Response to call for Evidence by R. W. Henderson, MLC 10th of January, 2017

Dear Committee, Please find set forth below some observations which I would like you to consider and ask that they form part of your forthcoming recommendations in any report submitted to Tynwald. I consider my points important and would have a significant impact on future General Elections for the Isle of Man.

Some may have already been incorporated in the process, so I apologise if that is the case.

I submitted a substantial paper to the ‘Tynwald Elections Committee of 2001’ and indeed sat on that Committee with Mr. Cretney. That document I attach for reference with my ideas and observations for that time, much of which stands true today. The outcome of that Committee was a raft of over view recommendations for change to the election process. Eventually, some years later we saw the introduction of the date and timings of elections. In my view, little else changed as a result of the ‘2001’ recommendations.

My Previous Paper

The main points of my paper where to point out:  Voter apathy  Convenience factors  Public understanding  Accuracy of voter registration and remedies  Employers duty to promote  Island factor

861

I have put forward other ideas and observations over the years – including – when a person or family move home (private sales, moving flat / accommodation / local authority housing), someone dies, leaves the Island or comes to the Island – then that should automatically generate a voting registration form or update of voter information – straight away as part of that process – so as to assist accuracy. Any form of home move or leaving or coming to the Island, death etc – as part of that process change of details, change of address should generate a form which has to be filled out and sent in to register the changes.

In my original paper I highlighted the ‘convenience factor’ which I believe plays a significant part in determining if a person will vote or not. Why can’t for instance a person vote where they like or from a place which is convenient to them? On line voting was another option I proposed. Every registered voter could have a PIN to avoid confusion. In this way, they could vote where they liked. There should also be somewhere associated to the main areas of employment – such as in Douglas Town – say in Strand Street and elsewhere, were people can vote in their lunch break.

I highlighted that employers could promote election day, or have some sort of obligation to do so and give employees time off or additional break time to go and vote. And certainly, to remind all employees that it is important to vote. Which would link to the above ‘convenience factor.’

In addition, now, with sixteen year old’s being eligible to vote – why can’t schools give them the time to go to the polling booths, or better still be able to vote in school. Or in fact vote from work if the organisation is large enough to ‘warrant its own ballot box.

As far as I am aware none of the above have ever been put in place.

Voiding the Voting Register

One thing I have learnt, is that, the ‘Voting Register’ must NOT be amended just prior to an election – this new process has caused a huge and significant

862

problem every time it has been done. I have no doubt that it has also had a major effect on voter turnout, and who can vote (personal experience)The effect of doing this is that everyone becomes ‘unregistered to vote’ and is advised via media to re-register. Undertaking this process, just prior to an election is madness. What has happened, and from personal experience is that a significant proportion of previous voters will fail to re-register as they think they are already registered. This caused me personally and other MHK’s a huge amount of additional work to actually go door to door to the ‘missing voters’ and get them re-registered during the 2011 General Election.

I was deeply, deeply disappointed with the Government’s response to my remonstrations regarding this matter and obvious failings that this process caused. This issue was also raised by other Tynwald Members and raised in Tynwald. I have since continually raised this issue with the appropriate authorities, but there seems little appetite to change the approach – at the time of writing this. In fact, government made it perfectly clear that it was an individual’s problem if they failed to re-register. Which was made to me in Tynwald – ‘that’s their problem, not government’s’ – and put quite forcibly. It is my view that Government failed abysmally, certainly at the 2011 General Election in adequately informing the public and noticing households of what was happening and what was now being required.

Well, as far as I am concerned this is just not good enough. It is a dereliction of responsibilities, and was a disaster the first time it was done. If ‘government’ empty the National Voting Register – void it – then there should be adequate processes in place to cause people to re-register as well. I fully realise people have a responsibility to register and vote, but if government are insistent on continuing with this approach, then ‘they’ have a responsibility to counter the effects of their actions.

If my ideas above with regards to the automatic registration of change of details was implemented, then there may be no need to force the above on the public in the first place.

863

Yours sincerely,

R. W. Henderson, MLC

Appendix – personal submission to the ‘2001 Committee.’

864

Appendix 1

Submission to the ‘2001 Committee’

Tynwald Member's Rooms Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man

8th of April, 2002

Mr. M. Cornwell-Kelly Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man

Dear Mr. Cornwell-Kelly, If it is possible, could you please accept this further piece of evidence to be added to my main submission in relation to low voter turnouts in the Isle of Man?

It has come to my attention from Department of Transport traffic flow studies and Isle of Man Census that 60% of the Islands working population work within Douglas. I realise that Douglas will have the largest proportion of the Islands population any way, but never the less this is interesting supporting information for some of the main points I have been making in my main submission:

Many people come to work in and around Douglas from other parts of the Island

60% of the Islands total population work in and around Douglas. All these people will be eligible voters — this is a very important and a sizeable element of the community — which cannot now be ignored

The substantial number of people involved here — 39,685 (Economic Affairs) will all be subject to the " convenience factor which I have outlined in 2, of my submission

If nearly 40,000 people are working in the Douglas area then I think the recommendations as outlined in Section 2 of the analysis of my submission become even more relevant, and even more important. I think the actual number of people involved illustrates a greater significance of the proposals in that section.

865

[Signature R W Henderson]

Henderson, MHK R. W. North Douglas

866

Tynwald Members Rooms Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

31 st of March, 2002

Mr. Malachy Cornwell-Kelly The Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IMI 3PW

Dear Mr. Cornwell-Kelly,

Tynwald Select Committee on House of Keys Elections

Please find set forth below my evidence which I wish to provide as an independent Member of Tynwald ( but am also a member of the above Select Committee ). It is in note form and has not received the benefit of a final ' polish ' due to time constraints. Please accept my apologies for that and the lateness of response. This should not however effect or detract from the observations and recommendations made.

Introduction. I have set my evidence out in the form of two sections - the first illustrates the basic back drop of the Island and the atmosphere in which the current situation of low election turn outs is unfolding. This requires some explanation, as it does effect the " national mood " and how

interested and motivated people are in voting. Then in the second section I tease out various recommendations driven from the initial assessments in part one.

—

I have identified eight elements, which I believe could have had an effect on members of our community who did not, or were unable to vote, which was roughly an average of 41% of the total population for the 2001 Manx General Election. This is too large a proportion of our community to ignore and should give cause for very real concern.

It indicates that changes are urgently required if we wish to stem the tide of low voter turnouts, unfortunately now becoming a progressive and increasing feature of the Islands elections over the past few years. This is quite apparent and easily picked up when reviewing the historical and current data sets available on past and present elections: the general trend is that of an ongoing decline in voter turnout.

7

867

This is by no means a definitive set of observations, but issues that became apparent to me during the 2001 General Election from my own experiences. My remarks and observations are addressed mainly to the substantial numbers of our community who did not or could not register their vote for whatever reason, but also to broader factors effecting the community more generally.

1 Island Factor

The Island is a diamond shape in the upper, or northern aspect of the Irish Sea, being more or less equi distant from the Cumbrian coast of Whitehaven - England, The Scottish Barrow Head in Wigtonshire and a little further from the Northern Irish Coast of Strangford Lough. The Isle of Man is roughly 220 square miles in size, and approximately 32 miles by 13 miles at its longest and widest points.

The climate is typically Atlantic, warm in the summers, generally not too hot, and cool in the winters, wet, with little snow. Frosts tend not

to be prolonged or too severe. This means by and large that the Island does not suffer to the same extent the rigours of the elements as do other countries: annual crisis such as general, large scale flooding or major snow and storm damage.

The Island is still fortunate enough to have green open space and some semi-natural habitat left which supports a diversity of protected wildlife. The geology is also significant as is the Islands historical heritage. Infact some of the Islands natural and historical heritage is so important it attracts many visitors. It is probably the Islands greatest asset. This in turn provides the base from which the Islands favourable quality of life has developed.

The streets are still relatively safe compared to the UK. There is an excellent health service and education system, which rivals much across the water and betters it in some instances: all adding further value to that quality of life.

Because the Island is surrounded by the sea, it can be felt a safer place. " A more graphic illustration cannot be given than the recent foot and mouth epidemic which prevailed in the UK, but kept successfully out of the Island. Situations such as this can have a reinforcing effect on that " safe view

I would have to comment and I include myself in this that we tend in general to feel safer and at a safer distance from any major issues in the UK, or elsewhere and generally feel that whatever is happening over there, " may not affect us to the same degree here, or hope it does not.

By and large that has been true up to now. Even the Edward's review gave up and agreed we were a well-regulated finance jurisdiction and the OECD could not put us on the Tax Black List, which had the potential to ruin our economy. The Isle of Man has shown an extraordinary resilience in the face of economic down turns, and other circumstances, which have had Global, European or UK consequences.

In recent years the Manx Economy has developed to a remarkable degree. This financial year ( 2000 — 2001 ) the Islands economy was such that our GDP was

8

868

greater than that of the UK, the first time in the Islands history. Treasury income was E392,659,852 — a record, and expenditure was at an all-time high of E324,407,515. The budgets for Health and education: E 129,151 ,547 and E61 respectively. The standard of living has gone up over the years and many people are a lot better off than say 10, 20 and 30 years ago by way of increasing benefits and wages. There are unprecedented multi Emillion Government schemes currently underway including - a E200 million new hospital facility, a Gas fired power station and a natural gas pipe line to name but a few of the ongoing and forthcoming programmes.

There are no immediate major external or international threats to the Island. There are national issues, which are effecting different parts of the community. How many people these issues are effecting, to what degree or how deep concerns are being felt, is a little more difficult to quantify. This may be better known when the results of the quality of lif survey are collated and published.

The most important issue arising, is housing for our young people, first time buyer homes, sheltered accommodation for the elderly, and accommodation for the elderly who can no longer maintain a large house, but who wish to sell their home and move to something smaller and in their price bracket.

Also, housing and accommodation for staff who now have to be recruited from " away " as there is full employment in the Island, and there being no where for newly arrived staff to live. With increasing business, predominantly in the Financial and commercial sectors there is currently something in the region of 800 people in net immigration per year.

This means that " Residency and Immigration " are highly topical Island issues. People feel the Island is becoming overcrowded, and the resources for this expanding population, which has now exceeded 76,000 have not kept pace. We have busier roads, schools are full and most require " mobiles " ( temporary class rooms ), and Health Service waiting lists are growing.

There are Approximately 700 people registered on the Department of Local Government and the Environments' first time buyer's list and around 300 on the Douglas Corporation Housing list. Local authority lists have only just been opened to single people who are under the age of 45. Accommodation for single people and a transient, migratory work force who come and go from the Island is becoming harder if not impossible to find.

There is a section of our community that whether we like it or not, are not on large salaries, and are not as well off as we would like to think. There are over 22,000 people earning less than the national average of E419 per week gross — before tax, and over 3000 of those people earn under E5 per week. They are finding it difficult " out there, " many of who cannot afford a mortgage. There are also those who can't afford the extortionate rents being levied in the private sector. A first- time buyer house today — two bed or two bed and a box room, semi or terrace will be in the price range of E95,000 – El150,000 — commanding in the region of a E700 - E800 monthly mortgage, or to rent the same - E600 - E800 per month.

The situation of the ordinary young people and others who fall into the above earning bracket becomes clear from this near impossible equation. Simple maths tells us that many will have great difficulty, or simply won't be able to afford rent or mortgage. Some people are being forced to live in less than satisfactory conditions as a result.

There are other issues, too many to mention here but suffice to draw out that everything is not rosy in the garden, there are a number of internal problems, including population numbers which are having a direct impact on the quality of life of this Island and competing for an infrastructure and services which has not been historically keeping pace with the expanding population.

Population, housing and other concerns were raised during the run up to the election. People were worried about various issues and felt problems were building up and could get worse if Government did not do something, and sooner rather than later.

9

869

However, I would caution the Members of Government who bother to read this, especially the Ministers that these issues cannot be taken lightly and require a serious degree of attention - and - early action.The Treasury is going to have to open its vaults to assist the housing problems and cannot hold Departments to ransom. There has to be a corporate line here and the Treasury Minister will have to dig deeper in his pockets to sort this out as a matter of urgency.

The reason I go to some length outlining the dynamics of the Island is to set in context my comments and observations that flow from this Island factor over view. There is a developing scene here which I believe has an impact on how some people feel and react to situations, how they feel about going out and voting on " Polling Day " and whether that be for Local Authority Elections or The House of Keys National General Election.

Some people may well feel things aren't too bad on the Island. That is not to say people haven't concerns or weren't community spirited enough to turn out and vote in the last general election as a large number did. However, it may be that the above " Island Factor " scenario had an effect in varying degrees in determining people's interest, voting preferences, importance placed on the election and their own priorities and the perceived need to vote.

2 Convenience The second issue without doubt is the convenience of the Polling Booth - particularly for someone who works in a different part of the Island than that which they live. It means they have to come home to cast their vote. Currently, a citizen of the Island can only vote in the area which they live.

This is especially awkward for anyone living any great distance away from his or her place of work. Say for instance folk who live in Ramsey or the north of the Island who work in Douglas. Most people who live in Ramsey and the North of the Island will not get back home until 6 — 7 p.m. on working days.

This was so obvious to me, when I was helping in Ramsey, on Election day. Large residential areas were devoid of people until around 6 - 7 p.m. when they came home from work. The streams of cars returning to Ramsey could be seen coming down the mountain road as thousands of people came home for their tea.

These people have to leave early to get to work on time, and the Ramsey rush hour " starts around 7 - 30am, when the " daily big trek " to Douglas commences. Someone who has worked hard all day, and has come home for tea, has a meal, becomes settled, or then has the Family routines " to go through with children and or general house hold jobs, has to then have sufficient time, interest and motivation to go out again, to vote.

Having to attend a polling station, especially if it is a cold, wet, dark evening, which may be quite a way from their home, with only minutes to spare, having to rush to get there may cause its own problems. Further, add the " Island Factor " as well, and interest and motivation may be even more effected. These problems are not just localised to the North or South of the Island, but can equally effect folk who live and work in the same area such as Douglas.

The point is, is the possible impact all these points may be having on someone's " personal priority list " and what they feel is immediately important to them, what they need to do first when they get home of an evening, and their own perception of the necessity to vote. Polling stations open at 10 am and close at 8 p.m. This means many people only have a " voting envelope " of two hours ( 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. ) Even for folk who live in Douglas and work in Douglas, the chances are that they live in the larger outlying residential areas such as Anagh Coar, Farm Hill or Governor's Hill. That is also where their polling station will be. Working in Douglas means that they have either got the bus in or driven in and have to find somewhere to park for the day. That in turn means if they tried to use their lunch break to vote, they would have to somehow get back to their home area where they have to vote from.

10

870

This would no doubt mean using up a large chunk of their lunch break in doing so - either by trying to find a bus, driving and being caught up in busy lunch time traffic, risk losing a parking space and then having to lose more time trying to find somewhere else to park. Some people cannot leave their work place at lunch in any case. Further to that we have shift workers who may well be sleeping for most of that day and find it difficult to go to the polling booths, or impossible. There may be other reasons too, that make it difficult or nearly impossible for a person to attend a polling booth. I have noticed in the Elections that there are distinct voting patterns. There will be a steady flow of voters throughout the day from when the polling booths open to when they close. These will be predominantly retired people and pensioners or those on holiday who can vote without any time constraints on them. There will be some lunch time voters, but by far and away the most important time is tea time.

This is when the largest numbers traditionally turn out in the shortest time. This " two hour voting envelope " is crucial. An analysis of the figures would be interesting here as it appears, and certainly in my experience, that tea time is the busiest voting time, therefore, 8 hours of the " voting day " ( 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ) are not exactly wasted but not utilised by the majority. This is where improvements can be made.

3 Media Factor The third issue which I have identified as having an impact on voter turnout for elections is the " Media Factor " and Public perception.

During the run up to the 2001 General Election Isle of Man Newspapers and Manx Radio at times excelled themselves in the coverage and articles of interest that were being run. The papers had an election logo and all manner of articles on the Government and elections. Manx Radio ran Mannin Line specials, Mannin Line from the constituency pubs and special one-off interviews with MHKs, and requisition style forums.

I think it is true to say without a shadow of a doubt that the media are the most powerful influencing factor in most communities. They have the ability to reach every home in the land with their news items and comments. Indeed, most people make a special point during the day to catch up with the news, whether it be by radio or buying a newspaper.

The way stories and interviews are presented can determine the flavour and over view of that particular news item. The media have the ability to set the national mood or atmosphere. This is fine if what is being presented is accurate, impartial, balanced or positive. The

Press " in the Isle of Man are operating in a pseudo-monopoly environment, as there is no competition, or rival publications or radio stations.

Unfortunately, during the run up to the general election some media coverage was abysmal and set a negative view on politics in the Island and the General Election. Infact there were some items which demeaned and denigrated the whole process and seemed to cast aspersions on politicians in general. This has a major impact then on how the public perception and feeling lies and how motivated they feel to come out and vote. Especially when the items are run on the lead up to an Election.

I enclose two articles from the Isle of Man Examiner to illustrate my points. One run on the 30th of October, 2001 three weeks before the General Election to see how much people knew, and the other run on the 6th of November, just two weeks before the General Election on MHKs pay.

I think the later article on pay with some of its views in my opinion - are unjustified and damning statements. There is no balance what so ever. Someone reading this type of article I would imagine could be quite easily turned off by the whole thing and not be bothered to vote. These kinds of articles can have a major influencing factor on our young people, giving them negative impressions, and knocking away whatever interest they may have had in going to vote.

Some of the headings used in the article could quite easily lead the reader to assume Manx Politics and MHKs are nothing but a bunch of " free loaders e" I will give some example headings used - The more you pay them the worse the candidate. Some with no management skills are getting 240,000 a year. - They pay nothing towards a pension which would cost a lot of money to buy in the

11

871

private sector. - Some choose to drive around in very large and expensive cars. I've not claimed a penny in 13 and a half years. - Dead loss - the ministerial system isn't working.

The way the article has been pitched and the specific captions and headlines used, in my opinion make it completely biased and negative against MHKs. It gives a feeling of the public being ripped off somehow and huge expenses being claimed.

I was appalled that this article was run just two weeks before the General Election. Anyone who reads this could quite easily be forgiven in not turning out to vote. I was dismayed at the statements and allegations made by in this article. An MHK of some considerable experience. Surly something more positive and upbeat would have been more appropriate.

Further to that the article focused on the bitter words of Mr. , a man who I admire, but again let the side down with his unbalanced and sarcastic comments as printed. Mr. Webster is then used to pad out the rest of the article with yet more negative comments.

The national mood is being set here. The public could quite easily draw conclusions because of the way this article is set out, that MHKs get huge salaries and expenses and do little else!

Adding the likes of John Webster's ( former Government economist ) comments - " I know quite a few professional people who would like to get in but don't think they could change things because they would have to have too much regard for local issues rather than national ones." He sounds as if he never worked for Government - a very narrow minded and selective view point - I would have to say. This job is not the same as being a highly paid official or professional in the private sector and all the hassles that go with it - especially if you are doing the job properly and not forgetting your constituents - which some people seem to think is what you do. Unfortunately, this does happen with some politicians and then the view of the public is quite right - they do noting: They have never helped me etc., or they never return my calls, or they have never got back to me are some of the stock quotes one hears

There is however a minority within our community who are always and for ever trotting out the old music hall lines - " this is national government, local politics is for the commissioners and local authorities - MHKs should only concentrate on national issues - they are nothing but councillors. This phrase is so often used that I really think that the public are now convinced that being a Local Authority Supervisor is part of an MHKs role.

If a Local Authority is under performing or consistently underperforming then it is an MHK's duty to address that situation, especially if it is in their constituency, or effecting the constituency.

Unfortunately, it is rumours and opinions of this nature that are undermining the MHK role, and helping set the national view of the Islands politicians.

And it is just this kind of thinking that is perpetuating the public myth of MHKs seen as aloof, out of touch, not in touch with the people, not interested and only after the glory etc. Mr. Webster's approach would certainly help boost this no end. The perception is bad enough already.

We are a small Island community and the community role of the MHK is a very definite undertaking of the job. There is no shying away from that. The point is, and none of the snipers or smear merchants or the " Axe to grinds " will admit it, because it is of course where their case falls flat: any MHK worth their salt will say the same - National work is paramount.

Constituents realise this and do not expect their MHK to drop everything, they are perfectly happy to wait until time permits for that MHK to contact them, and also the fact of the matter is that if during the working week constituency matters arise, then more hours are worked to accommodate the increase! It is wrong to say or insinuate national issues suffer — they do not. An MHK is in pole position to make change and lead changes at a national level — and they do.

However, an MHK is duty bound to take into account the needs of their constituents and constituency — as an MHK is voted in to represent the constituency as part of their role — which of course everyone knows, but some choose to ignore this factor some times.

12

872

The Public now seem to have this misrepresentation fixed in the collective national thought, " which is a terrible shame, as in most cases nothing could be further from the truth. The media are also excellent at pushing this one out from time to time.

Having said that, I would like to see if an MHK could get themselves elected in a constituency, by the people, on the fact that they were not going to represent the constituency, or help constituents and deem that as not part of their elected job! Which it of course is!

This is a small country with a population of 76, 000 people, not even as many as an MP's constituency may have in the UK. It is quite erroneous and small minded to try and equate the two and divorce one from the other, hiving off an MHK's constituency work as Local Authority issues.

Why on earth do we have an advert every evening on Manx Radio " Community Calendar " inviting people to ring their MHK if they need support or advice — " Your MHK is someone you can turn to etc " — are the quote. This does not mean national work suffers as a consequence, quite the opposite. It does not mean that the interests of the Island are compromised against local issues, it just means you have to work hard and diligently.

Manx Radio resorted to an aggressive, sarcastic and insulting style of interview technique from time to time on the lead up to the General Election for " The Requisition Specials. "

None could be more graphically illustrated than in the case for North Douglas - where both myself and John Houghton were deliberately confused by name, time and time again, repeatedly quoted as being joined at the hip, and called Siamese twins by David Collister. The whole show was pinned around answering aggressive questions, or sarcastic points of view - which could have been taken as " put downs." Although I don't mind in the least batting my own corner and being answerable in public, this kind of thing just ended up as a fencing match and not much for the public.

I felt nothing positive came out of it; just how well David Collister could be fended off. There was no chance to promote anything positive which was a shame. Neither Politician was invited to speak about their manifestos or speak positively about particular interests, or what they thought on any of the major issues effecting the Island.

The bottom line is that anyone listening would not have a very good view of Manx politics and probably would not encourage them to come out and vote - listening to a radio host trying to goad MHKs.

I feel a more positive style would have produced more information for the public and a more positive upbeat show — whidh people were listening to and obviously may have an effect on how they draw their conclusions. But there was no other counter balancing show.

4 PR and Public understanding I think it is fair to say that not many people would be able to give a detailed definition or the distinguishing features between Tynwald, the House of Keys, Legislative Council, The Council of Ministers and Government.

People think Government means all MHKs. To the extent that we all ratify Government policy from time to time in Tynwald this could be loosely true, but in reality it is far from the real workings of the Manx political machine.

Government and Tynwald have been abysmally poor at making the system available and understandable to the ordinary people, so that they can feel close to it, part of it and have a sense of ownership. This is so apparent on Mannin Line, letters to the press and the queries I have fielded from the general public. They do not understand the system properly or how it works.

Further to that we do not lend ourselves to public awareness and Bringing the ordinary person on board. " Infact we produce the exact opposite - press cuttings enclosed - which basically sends out a message to the public - keep them at arm’s length! Please

13

873

see enclosed press cutting from the Manx Independent — editorial re the Tynwald Management Committee.

Meanwhile some of the public have their own views - " O, that lot in there, all on free dinners! I bet there are loads of back handers going on," " They are useless, nothing will ever change," " That lot, they just get their big money and do nothing!" - these are just a few of the oft used quotes which are often bandied about. That is a perception of the Manx politicians collectively. Everyone may not hold these views, but they are phrases often trotted out. The point is that this is the kind of thing that helps perpetuate poor perceptions.

The process of effecting a change and trying to gain resources for that change is another classic that is complicated and difficult to understand and often appear hidden to the ordinary person. " Why are things so slow " is one of the usual questions. The processes that have to be navigated are complicated and may take time to put in place.

If you have a situation that a person does not understand, then there is not going to be the same degree of interest there, which will affect motivation to actually go out and vote, especially if that person does not perceive anything positive from their actions - simple expectancy theory.

Some new people to the Isle of Man, even if they have been living here a little while, do not understand our political system. Certainly, when I was out canvassing some people were unsure of what an MHK was and were completely thrown by this strange " salesman on the door."

5 Polling Cards and Voter registration Although this may seem a trivial item, it does in fact form a very important element to the equation. The general perception is that you need your polling cards to vote. It is a reminder on people's mantle pieces to vote. It is something to bring with them. If they have not got a polling card it is usually thought that they can't vote - and will not turn out. The effect of the polling cards arriving is quite an event in its self and a talking point. All building up to General Election day, and that person actually going out to vote. The constituency of Ayre this time round being the classic example where this failed and caused problems. Polling cards help to reinforce the fact that it is voting time: prompting and reminding people to go out and vote.

It is well known that there are a substantial number of people who are not registered to vote. The size of this problem can easily be calculated by determining the number of address in all the constituencies of the Island, and measure them against the actual numbers of registered voters. Other Government information may be able to be brought into play here to gain an accurate figure.

6 The Election I Constituency Area I Candidates Monitoring the 1996 General Election and 2001 has lead me to some basic conclusions that undoubtedly have a determining effect on the election day itself and the general turn out.

A strong " sitting Member " who has been putting in the time and constituency work, will fend off challenges. If the challenge is particularly strong, then the effort by the sitting MHK usually is proportionate to the challenge. That can mean a large election team out working on the day, and teams of volunteers out knocking on doors to " get the voters out."

If the challenge is strong, then there will be two big teams working away. It may also mean that a vigorous campaign has been mounted by both parties on the run up to election day - press, media, posters, house calls and call backs.

This means the whole constituency could have been " energised and candidate promoted " - the election is hot in everyones minds. This undoubtedly has a very positive effect on the turn out, and as we can see by the different areas, voting turnout is higher than in other, less well represented or fought over areas. This can be seen in the 2001 general election for Middle, and Ramsey where turn outs were considered high for the 2002 General Election.

14

874

A constituency which has a very strong sitting candidate, that produces a week challenge, will by and large not have the large turn out that a well fought election has. People may well be happy with the current serving Member or Members, and plenty will think: " what's the point in coming out to vote, my MHK will get back in no bother. " And I think that this can be seen in the 2001 elections for the constituencies of East Douglas and Ayre as but two examples, where turn outs for the 2002 General Election were considered lower.

I must say however, it seems that the general trends are suggesting that turnouts over-all for elections are on a downward curve and points irrespective of how hard fought the election was, to something more, such as I have illustrated in 1 — 5, 7 and 8.

7 Young people It is my experience that younger people - not all, but a worrying proportion, are not interested in politics, the elections or wanting to make a difference. They are far more interested in getting on with their life and careers. Some of the biggest things asked on the doors, was what can you do for me, can you get me on the first- time buyers housing list with a realistic chance, or, how can you help me with my E700 a month rent - some have young families as well.

Try explaining the Government Housing policy to a 25 year old mum or dad, who is working hard and trying to make ends meet, paying E700 a month rent - that things will get better in a year or so, especially if single! It's now that people are struggling. If you can't offer anything that is seen as positive, then the interest is gone. An MHK can't say the rents are going to be cheaper, or there will be sufficient first time buyer houses in a few months’ time. People are desperate now.

It is the same with many other issues. Trying to explain that it takes a long time to change things, especially something fundamental, and how the political process works in order to effect that change just sounds so flimsy on the door step, especially if someone is having to give up their rented accommodation - young people know that politicians can't wave a magic wand, and when you confirm that, they lose interest rapidly. Why should they be bothered?

This thinking is further endorsed by the fact that if young people do not understand the workings of our process, what an MHK is etc., and how Government works then there is even less chance that they will vote.

The logic comes down to some very grass roots thinking:

• They don't do anything • We never see them except at elections

• I don't understand politics • You can't help me at the moment

• I can't be bothered - I've got a life to get on with • I'm too busy - I work all day • All you lot do is tell us what we can't do • You don't understand our problems or what affects us • Every one blames everything on the young people • I'm not interested

15

875

• I'm a single parent and pay E600 rent, I've got three children — you can't help

Additionally, consequences, responsibility and taking part in the community do not figure in a young person’s mind the same as someone who is 40, 50 or 60 years old. Their view of the future and long term thinking and planning for themselves is different. Many young people have an operational view of life - short term thinking in days, weeks and may be a year ahead. Voting does not always come into this equation. Please also see the attached Sunday Times article where Labour Minister Michael Wills went out and interviewed young people on " their own patch. " This is consistent with what information I have been gathering.

8 Government I Parliamentary Apathy I Disinterest Politicians are without doubt the executive managers of our community, elected by the people to carry out an important role on their behalf. Politicians are the strategic planners, all part of executive management functions which they are charged with. They are community role models and leaders.

To that end they should be collectively through either Government via the council of Ministers, or through the Parliament as Tynwald leading

the way in making changes and reviewing issues. They should be making things happen and following up on former reviews and assessments which indicated that change was essential. They should be querying if changes did occur and if not why not, and when they are going to be implemented. And if there is a problem, MHKs are empowered by the voters to " make it happen. At times we don't, its easier to hang back, and that's where we loose public interest and public support. And this is true of elections - there is a review after every general election and certain recommendations are put forward as a result. Many have been left in abeyance or not picked up on, or just left - and that has been a conscious decision unfortunately. Then politicians are accused of naval gazing and everyone rips into them for wasting time. I'm not surprised.

If we are going to have yet another review, and it is going to be meaningful then the first thing that must be done, is to pull the evidence and recommendations of the other reviews together, assess the current situation and pull out any further recommendations and act upon them!

Then, there must be further periodic evaluations to ensure actions have been undertaken, and changes made. If they have not taken place then the evaluation will highlight this, and then further action must be undertaken until the relevant recommendation has been fully implemented.

We must show our leadership here and take the bull by the horns, I fully realise that there may be substantial resource implications, but if there is going to be any change what so ever, and the unnerving downward trend of voter apathy is to be reversed, then we have to seize the initiative and lead from the front on this important issue. This must not be another paper exercise. Mind you, we should be leading from the front on all issues but there are plenty of times we don't, hiding behind the screen and anonymity of Tynwald.

Recommendations

The recommendations are listed out under the main assessment headings.

1 Island Factor

16

876

Overall, the general quality of life, environment and economy on the Island are good. It is providing a stable and confident base from which the Island is currently able to progress its ongoing successful economic development.

Any issues and complaints that we are experiencing are more often than not a symptom of our own success — such as the shortage of housing.

These issues are important, but how much of the entire scene is being effected requires careful analysis. How many people are experiencing difficulties and have major concerns, to what degree or how deep they are being felt, are difficult to quantify, but the full picture must be ascertained.

It may be that the " Island Factor " is having an effect on some people's sense of priority, how motivated they feel in going out to vote and the necessity of the same. Therefore, to address anything in this section, we have to turn to the other areas of my discussion, as the observations here, may be best solved by applying the remedies outlined throughout the remaining sections.

2 Convenience

Methods and venues for voting are inconvenient, time consuming or causing people to go out of their way. A consequence of this may also have an effect on people's priorities, interest, motivation and perceived necessity to vote. People's personal needs now are such that the voting envelope " of two hours that is left for them to use to vote is not adequate and is causing problems.

So, voting must be made as simple, easy and convenient as possible, taking away as many of the obstacles as practicable that could get in the way of someone leading a busy, working life with a family, from going out to vote, and actively assist them in registering their vote. Many people may wish to vote, but trying to prioritise the complications of a busy working and or family life may be prohibitive to slot this duty in, given the constraints of the current system.

• All voting should be linked to one central office

• People should be able to vote from anywhere in the Island, and not just where they live

• Mobile polling booths should be considered if appropriate for areas which have no practical facility which could be turned over for this purpose

• More polling stations should be brought into play at the central locations within all the towns. It might mean losing some of the stations in the districts, but to compensate for the staff requirements etc., it would be more effective to move resources to where they were most needed

People should be able to get to vote at a polling station near their place of work, and not have to wait until they get home at tea time

• If possible people should be able to vote from their work place • on-line- Government and the Parliament need to lead the country in developing a sense of national pride to encourage the interest in voting

• General Election Day could be a bank holiday

17

877

• Government I Parliament must encourage all employers in ensuring all staff and employees are allowed time off from work to go to the nearest polling booths, and that employers are promoting the Election Day and are actively encouraging staff to vote and promoting the Election

• Employers should be encouraged and assisted in setting up if at all possible an on-line voting facility for staff at the work place

• On line voting must now be a top priority with this committee and actively pursued. Manx Telecom gave customer figures recently that indicated that nearly 50% of all homes in the . • Island are on-line, and I would guess nearly all the finance and business sector are on line, as are most other places of business. Other work places are also on line. Many mobile phones are now on-line, home base phone units are on line. • Satellite TV is on line. Schools and colleges are all on line also answering the " young people interest issue. Local Authorities are on line.

• This is the new communication medium, especially for the younger generations. Its potential is massive. Everyone is going on-line.

• An on-line voting system must be developed as the primary recommendation of this paper. This obviously has a resource implication but I cannot see any other way for the Isle of Man to go. It should and must be the way to go.

Plenty of PR and information and " help desks " need to be organised and on an ongoing basis to help inform people, let them know changes are on the way, educate them, and assist them in learning how to access the new on line voting system. Show them it is nothing to be worried about. Also for the first year this was operational, it may be an idea to have a " voting assistant " at hand to help people in the larger stations.

This new system should be melded in with the traditional manual system. Once people get the hang of the new system and see their friends using it, it won't be long before it becomes the norm. A slow and assisted culture change is what is required - by way of education, encouragement and leadership.

The modern world is developing and the people who should be leading the way for our community are in a lot of instances dragging their feet, out of touch and being resistive to change. It is all right for them to legislate and make the rules and lambaste the public when there are objections to things, but put a computer in front of some people and they will run a mile saying: " O, I am too old now to change," or make any manner of excuses.

The time has come to make some fundamental changes. It is time for politicians to grasp the nettle and lead the community. This is one area where it is vital - to regenerate peoples interest.

We had the same carry on with the invention of the motor car, people with red flags walked in front of them, until the penny dropped - the huge and vast advantages were realised and grasped, otherwise the establishment would be left behind!

Given the convenience and simplicity of online voting and that most people have access to a computer whether at home or at work, then we have to update the present antiquated system, it is now out of kilter with developing technology and community needs. Or a more simplified form of electronic voting from polling booths and other designated areas.

18

878

Voting times need to be changed. Earlier and later timings need to be examined or some other combination to give people a better chance and offer greater encouragement. A two hour Voting envelope " is no use. Voting times must be changed to reflect the modern needs of our community.

3 The Media Factor and 4 Public Understanding and perception

Government and Parliamentary relations with the press have not been good at times. Positive public relations through the media is at times abysmal, or non-existent. The media can run negative article after negative article, with no official response.

The line has always been to " say nothing. " In the present climate and the way in which our community is developing, this is now not an option. There must be a Parliamentary and Government culture change to media and public relations.

Government and Parliament -Tynwald, are quite often seen as divorced from the public, running the country in spite of the public. There seems to be an uncross-able gap between politicians and public. Politicians are generally seen as separate to the general public and grass roots day to day issues.

The Isle of Man media have no competition, there is only one radio station and one newspaper publisher. There is no other conduit to express different views, opinions or observations. The public have a right to:

• As much information as possible • As much access to their Parliament and Government and functions and processes as possible

• Full and detailed explanations

• Full details and information prior to any changes

• Full consultation on important issues - by way of polls, phone in programmes, special features in the press, registering their views on line • A balance of information

• A range of opinions and observations which give different arguments and views - enabling a fuller picture to be seen

New working relationships with the press and radio must be constructed. These must be positive and proactive so that an enhanced balanced range of information which is appealing and positive to the public can be disseminated. This surely is a main function and responsibility of any Government and Parliament. Not to stay hidden at times giving the " no comment, wall of silence treatment, " which can be so negative and self-defeating. Government and Tynwald must work towards an improved public image, and seek to bury the institutional aloofness which it is often branded with. Better interfacing with the community in general must be worked towards. Not just attending charity functions and the like, but there must be a better mechanism in place to promote public relations especially where large Government

19

879

projects are being worked up, specifically controversial plans. " Public views and concerns seemed to be ignored and Government do what they like anyway, " is another common perception.

Ministers often " lay into " public opposition to any forthcoming changes or new projects which give rise to public concern. The public are demeaned and their views pushed to one side. The Ramsey marina debacle is one such classic. One particular politician was generally scathing of the public and opposition groups. It was almost as if everyone should have no say. Public wrong, politicians always right!

This kind of behaviour and in a high profile public image situation only serves to perpetuate and worsen public opinion and perception of Government and politicians in general in respect of " they do what they like anyway, they don't care what the ordinary people say or think, they are aloof." In the end it ends up in a highly charged confrontation between the authorities and public. And then the damage is done. These kinds of situations need to be handled and managed in a completely different style and a more " people friendly approach. " I do wonder sometimes what some MHKs are thinking of. They are at the end of the day elected by their constituents, and a large element of their role is to help their constituents and constituency in general.

It appears that sometimes politicians seem to think they are elected to be a " civil servant " - performing a staff role in the Government Department they work in, and little else matters, they are there for the good of the Department and Government in general and in spite of the community which that Department is there for in the first place.

The organisation almost appears at times to be there for its own good and will do anything to protect itself come what may. Government Departments are also very poor at times at being " community friendly," and holding their hands up and apologising.

What people thought of the New Hospital before it was built, people’s concerns over the MMR immunisation and the concerns raised about the Hyperbarric Chamber and young people in care are all classic cases were the establishment have treated the public like idiots who do not have a clue about anything.

Their caustic rebuttals, patronising comments, and expert views demeaning the intelligence of the public are all a matter of public record and well documented. Without doubt this all helps project an image and build up and reinforce a negative public perception. It all has a significant impact on Election day. We can do so much, much better.

5 Polling Cards

These are a vital ingredient for the General Election in the Isle of Man. There is no question about that. The system which enables the polling cards to be sent out across the Island requires urgent evaluation in the light of the unacceptable errors which occurred in the 2001 General Election where by at least one district did not receive their cards and people thought they could not vote.

The polling card system forms a vital reminder role and has a major impact in prompting people in turning out to vote. It gives someone a tangible reminder which is usually left in a prominent place in their home to ensure they remind themselves to vote and take their card with them to the polling station.

I would say, given the importance of this element for the election that a general review of the polling card system would not be a bad idea in the circumstances. This would then throw up the efficiency and accuracy of the system and whether or not changes and updating were required.

The cards themselves should also be subject to review. Are they properly, for filling the function they were intended for, or do they need upgrading and the adequacy and relevance of the information contained on them. Should they be a different eye catching colour so they can be easily seen in someone's home, and not easily lost?

The way in which people are registered on the voting register requires reviewing and how the public are contacted to register. This is usually in the form of a letter to send back to the Electoral Role

20

880

Section of Economic Affairs Division of the Treasury. The voting register only reflects those people who have filled in their registration form and bothered to send it back. They will also be the ones who only get polling cards

What data base does the electoral role section use when sending out registration forms, and are they sure of 100% hits to every home in the Isle of Man? Can they monitor if a form has not been sent back? Can they have access to the Post Office address data base? Both the media and many members of the General Public seem shockingly ignorant of this system, which became obvious during the 2001 Election.

When the registration forms are sent out, and certainly on the year prior to a general election that it is done on the same basis as the census - door to door. Ensuring a high registration rate, boosting the importance of the forth coming election and planting the idea in peoples heads - they have been canvassed for the election. The more registered the more that will vote. The more importance that can be attached to the event, and ways in which to reinforce that — then that must help towards encouraging a person to register and go out and vote.

A better linkage to other data systems so that people can register to be a voter via tax forms, rates, car tax, driving licence etc., or it is automatically done, and indicated that will happen on the forms that are being filled in and submitted. Also, should these cards come with basic carry basic candidate information? There could be 1000's of people who are not registered

Information more of it! People don't understand. Commonly held misconceptions:

 I filled in the census forms - I'm a registered voter • I pay rates and taxes - I must be a registered voter

• I moved house and never got my polling card - I filled out the census and pay taxes every year • I never got may polling card, so I thought I could not vote • You have to be living on the Isle of Man for 10 years to vote

• You can't vote if you are only staying a few years because of your Job

• You can't vote if you just moved here for work purposes • You can vote from your current address even if you have only lived there a short time

• Registering to vote can alter your legal status in some way or effect your nationality status

• If someone dies, they will automatically be removed from the register

• If you move you will automatically have your address changed on the register

6 Candidates

21

881

I think for this section that the explanatory notes in the main body of text above says it all. It’s down to the candidates on the campaign trail!

7 Young People

The Isle of Man school curriculum must be examined. The crucial point is catching young people early enough to begin to cultivate and generate an interest in their community and certainly when they reach their teens.

However, it should be incumbent on schools, and if too onerous, on the Education Department to construct an acceptable curriculum that has built within it enough suitable subject matter so as to arm a young teenager with a " working community knowledge " with sufficient understanding of our political system and motivation to look forward to voting and understand the effect of casting a vote and how important it is.

Schools and Colleges should be " on-line " for election day, and the day it self - promoted throughout these establishments. Even children who are too young, will be going home asking questions about it and wondering if their parents have gone out to vote. Schools and Colleges should be assessed to see what is done on Election Day, and what information is disseminated, or indeed what is promoted by the Head Teacher and staff. Promotion of Election Day in an interesting and lively way - not just a routine, boring thing that has to be carried out must become Department Policy for all schools and colleges. King William's Collage must also approached

General Election Day could also be promoted on the lead up to the actual date. In lively, innovative and interesting ways.

8 Politicians

• More leadership • Be more interesting • Don't just sit there • Do rock the boat • Better PR I Use the media positively • Get more involved • Ensure constituents are motivated • Ensure you don't become divorced from constituents • Do your constituency work - it is still an important part of being a national politician • Keep in touch with constituents at regular intervals — keep the constituency energised

Probably the most important recommendation of the whole lot is: It is down to politicians to promote Manx Politics at every opportunity, ensure the public are well informed, that they stay in touch with the public, and crucially, that the public understand the system and issues at hand. It is a Member of Tynwald's duty to lead from the front on this as one of their more impotent roles. Posh do's, functions and promotional away days, and all the rest are

22

882

insignificant when it boils down to the fact that the public are fed up and losing interest - surely that must tell us something! [Signature R W Henderson]

R. W. Henderson, MHK, North Douglas. March 2002

23

883

884 APPENDIX 50: Submission dated 11th November 2016 from Alasdair Irving

885 886 From: David Cretney Sent: 11 November 2016 17:09:53 To: Cc: Jonathan King Subject: Re: Importance: Normal

Dear Alistair,

Thank you for your Email. I have been elected to Chair this committee and I will forward your comments.

Kind regards,

David.

Sent from my iPad

On 11 Nov 2016, at 15:11, " > wrote:

Dear David,

I think I am correct in assuming that you will be heading up the Election consultation and I would like you to consider my request.

I feel it is essential to have microphones at all requisition meetings and questions from the floor not written.We had a situation this year at Marown where it was almost impossible to hear and there was only written questions apart from the last ten minutes and there were no supplementary questions.Both Howard and Bill are aware of the problem.

At Probus we have a portable system which we use in the main suite which is perfect.I have the system at home and you are very welcome to try it out.It has two mics. and a headset but only two of the three can be used at the same time.Although we paid £215 it can be purchased for much less.

Alistair Irving

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.

RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.

887

888 APPENDIX 51: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Jonathan Irving

889 890 Archived: 29 March 2017 17:39:52 From: Jonathan Irving Sent: 18 November 2016 10:21:22 To: Enquiries Subject: Public urged to give views on 2016 election Importance: Normal

For the attention of Mr David Cretney MLC

GENERAL ELECTION 2016

Dear David,

Further to your request to the public for feedback on 2016. This was my experience of assisting Mrs Kate Beecroft MHK during the 2016 election:

As I was asked to put up posters I went to the government website - on or around the start of September 2016 - and downloaded the constituency map to make sure I would be putting them up in the right area [makes sense and less embarrassing for everyone]. Going to the appropriate webpage I was greeted by a coloured map of the IoM with the list of constituencies - with their links - to its right. I downloaded the map marked for ‘Douglas South’.

Fortunately before embarking upon putting them up – about a week later - I spoke with Kate and explained some of the key vantage points I intended to target. Just as well! Kate replied: ‘Kewaigue is no longer in South Douglas’, ‘well it is according to the map that I’ve taken from the government’s constituency website’. Then Kate explained her boundaries had changed. So I went back to the same website; the map was still there but by now all the names/links had gone. All that was displayed was this [screenshot taken at the time]:

So I phoned government offices and spoke to a very pleasant lady in Voting Registration to request an accurate map. She said she would need to research my request and would phone me back. She duly did and this is what she eventually steered me to:

891 But steering me there wasn’t easy for the poor lady and impossible for ‘Joe Public’ [unless you are Bill Gates or work at Bletchley Park]. First of all I had to type into the government search engine: ‘boundary review’. Then select from the list: ‘Boundary Review Committee 2010-13’ [i.e. not 2016 election]. Then look for the map marked: ‘Douglas West’... but ignore that as it’s actually Douglas South... Then she added then ignore the bits shown on the Quay as they are in another constituency!

Obviously the point I’m trying to illustrate is that for the next election the government require an easily accessible website where thickos like me [that point doesn’t necessarily have to constitute part of your recommendations!] can go with confidence and find all the accurate info they may require.

Anyway I hope this assists in some way and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate.

Very best wishes,

Jonathan

Jonathan Irving [Address Given]

892 APPENDIX 52: Submission dated 7th November 2016 from Maureen E Mclean

893 894 Maureen Mclean [Address Given]

The Election Committee of Tynwald

Dear Committee members

Re: General Election 2016

As I was going to be on holiday on voting day, I had made arrangements to vote on September 8th at the lawyers – Simcocks in the presence of the returning officer. Up to that date I had only received two manifestos, instead of five (in fact I did not even know there were five candidates!) These two particular candidates had been to visit me but unfortunately I was out. One of these candidates was successful. Before voting, I would have liked to be able to read what each candidate was hoping to achieve if he/she was successful.

As a voter I am disappointed that I was not in possession of all information required to make a decision. I now ask myself why did I bother to vote because those who wanted my vote did not bother about the voters.

I do hope your committee can come to some agreement, so that this situation does not arise again. If it does, I shall have to surrender my vote regretfully.

Yours truly

Maureen E Mclean

895 896 APPENDIX 53: Submission dated 18th November 2016 from Stephen Moore

897

898 From: Sent: 18 November 2016 09:52:04 To: Enquiries Subject: General election Importance: Normal ______

My observation is that I was at the Demesne rd Polling Station, and people arriving from Lord Street told me that older people from Lord Street were not going to walk up the hill as it was to much for them, I would like the committee to consider that where older people live there is a Polling station within easy reach and no hills to climb.

Also I would like the committee to consider Badges , these Badges would have a Design suitable manx, with the year date on, it may encourage people to vote , and to see how many badges could be collected in a lifetime they would also become collectors items. These Badges would be Given out to every voter that Votes.

when anyone opens The boxes containing the votes this must be only be done if foul play is suspected and not to find votes if it has to done it must be done in the presence of a magistrate , the people must have confidence in the vote.

Thank you Stephen Moore [Address Given]

899

900 APPENDIX 54: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from M Nettleton

901 902 From: mn32 Sent: 17 November 2016 14:03:59 To: Enquiries Subject: 2016 Election comments Importance: Normal

This year i went to the Douglas south pre election meeting and have to say i throught it was a waste of time. It was also announced very late. They invite written questions from the floor and then the candidates give their answers- all we were getting were standard answers, past mhk saying all he had achieved every time he opened his mouth (which was unfair on the newcomers) Their was little chance to have an open discussion as there was too little time devoted to the meeting. These meetings should be compulsory and should go on for most of the day so you get a better idea of the candidates. I don't see me going to another similar meeting until we get chance to have a better exchange of views. It does not surprise me people dont bother to vote when this style of pre election campaign.

Mr M Nettleton

Sent from Samsung tablet.

903

904 APPENDIX 55: Submission dated 17th November 2016 from Tim Norton

905

906 From: Tim Norton Sent: 17 November 2016 13:55:26 To: Enquiries Subject: Feedback on General Election Importance: Normal

Sir,

I would like to give some feedback, please.

1) It does not make sense for a General Election to be held several months after Local Authority elections. Several successful candidates in the Local Authority elections were subsequently elected as MHKs, thereby creating the need for Local Authority by-elections. It would be better for the General Election to be held before Local Authority elections.

2) The decision to split off part of Onchan to the Garff constituency in order to create more equal two-seat constituencies for General Elections, has created confusion and resentment. I believe it was not necessary, that all the existing boundaries could have been respected if the Government have been willing to change the number of constituencies and/or MHKs.

3) I know that MHKs have to declare interests, but I would like all candidates to do so before the election, in the spirit of openness and transparency.

Thank you. Tim Norton Tim Norton [Address Given]

907 908 APPENDIX 56: Submission dated 16th November 2016 from Mary Rose Trainor

909 910 From: Mary Rose Trainor Sent: 16 November 2016 12:34:03 To: Enquiries Subject: General election Importance: Normal

The comment I would like to make is regarding the polling stations.

I live on Crosby Terrace in Douglas, there is a polling station 100 metres up the road but I had to go to the Masonic to vote. Luckily one of the candidates offered to drive me as it would have been a good 3/4 of an hour out of my day otherwise. Having spoken to a fair few people in the area/neighbours, they would have voted if they could walk up the road but couldn't be bothered to take time out to go to the Masonic. People should be able to vote at any polling station accross the island - that way I'm sure you would increase the turnout. If that's not possible then at least be able to vote at any polling station in your electorate. I also believe that voting should be compulsory - but I think that's a difficult one!!

Thank you Mary Rose Trainor

911

912 APPENDIX 57: Submission dated 16th November 2016 from Brian Whitehead

913 914 [Address Given]

915

used by the community other than a few sport/youth organisations because it is off the beaten track.

If the Isle of Man Bank can have mobile units then why cant Govt, once every five years do the same thing. A mobile unit (like the schools/highway board use) positioned in Village Walk would attract many more voters. There is ample car parking. People from upper Onchan have choice of two buses that stop on the road outside the car park and can return them back home.Thats how they do their shopping each week and attend social events in halls other than the Community Centre.

With so many empty units in Village Walk why not hire one for the day just like a number of charities/car boot operators do during the year?.

There is an old saying... "where there is a will there is a way" and it is about time that people who sit behind desks not having a clue as to how life goes on when they are at work started to take notice of the people they are there to serve.

This last election also threw up problems with the Garth region. Majority of voters in that constituency came for Onchan, so where was the polling hall? In the Methodist Church hall on a busy main road, with very little off street parking, so people did not vote.

As I said at the beginning you can cover yourselves with rules etc but without the people it is a waste of public money and time.

The community waits to see what if anything happens. Be sure unless something does make voting a lot easier the number of voters will get smaller over the years as people get older and less mobile.

Ytcere [Signature B Whitehead]

161116

916 APPENDIX 58: Summary of electoral offences published in July 2012 by the UK Electoral Commission

917 918 July 2012 t e e h s t

c Summary of electoral offences a F

Electoral fraud is a serious issue, Undue influence and can involve criminal offences. A person is guilty of undue influence if they This factsheet provides a directly or indirectly make use of or threaten to make use of force, violence or restraint, or inflict summary of electoral offences. or threaten to inflict injury, damage or harm in order to induce or compel that person to vote or You can read more about what to do refrain from voting. if you are concerned or think that an A person may also be guilty of undue influence if election-related crime may have they impede or prevent any voter from freely exercising their right to vote – even where the been committed at: attempt is unsuccessful. www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ voter-registration/electoral-fraud Undue influence doesn’t exclusively relate to physical access to the polling station. For example, a leaflet that threatens to make use of force in order to induce a voter to vote in a particular way could also be undue influence. Bribery The offence of bribery includes where Personation someone directly or indirectly gives any Personation is where an individual votes as money or procures any office to or for any someone else either by post or in person at a voter, in order to induce any voter to vote polling station, as an elector or as a proxy. This or not vote. offence applies if the person that is being personated is living, dead or fictitious. Treating It is an offence for any individual to vote as A person is guilty of treating if either before, someone else (whether that person is living or during or after an election they directly or dead or is a fictitious person), either by post or in indirectly give or provide any food, drink, person at a polling station, as an elector or as a entertainment or provision to corruptly proxy. influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Treating requires a corrupt intent – it Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the does not apply to ordinary hospitality. offence of personation is also an offence.

Putting voters first 919 The Electoral Commission: Summary of electoral offences

False statements Breaches of the secrecy of the ballot About a candidate's personal character or Everyone involved in the election process or conduct attending certain proceedings must maintain the It is an illegal practice to make or publish a false secrecy of the ballot. The Returning Officer will statement of fact about the personal character or give a copy of the official secrecy requirements conduct of a candidate in order to affect the to everyone who attends the opening of postal return of a candidate at an election. votes or the counting of ballot papers, and to polling agents. False statements that are not about another candidate’s personal character or conduct are not illegal under electoral law, but could be Campaign publicity material considered as libel or slander. Certain offences relate specifically to election campaign publicity material. Election campaign It is also an illegal practice to make a false publicity material must contain an imprint, not statement of a candidate’s withdrawal. resemble a poll card and not contain a false statement as to the personal character or In nomination papers conduct of another candidate. It is an offence to knowingly provide a false statement on a nomination paper. For example, if you know you are disqualified from election you Racial hatred must not sign the consent to nomination. Under the Public Order Act 1986, it is an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or False registration information and insulting material that is intended to stir up racial false postal/proxy voting application hatred or which is likely to stir up racial hatred. It is an offence to supply false information on a registration, postal vote or proxy vote application Police officers as canvassers form. False information includes a false signature. Members of a police force are not allowed to canvass and would be committing an offence if they did. Members of a police force may not False application to vote by post persuade any person to vote or dissuade them or by proxy from voting. A person is guilty of an offence if they apply to vote by post or proxy to gain a vote to which they are not entitled or to deprive someone else of their vote.

Multiple voting and proxy Further information voting offences Public Information The Electoral Commission There are various offences regarding multiple 3 Bunhill Row voting and proxy voting, including voting by post London EC1Y 8YZ as an elector or proxy when subject to a legal incapacity to vote and inducing or procuring Helpline: 020 7271 0500 another to commit the offence. Email: [email protected]

We are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. We regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections. We work to support a healthy democracy, where elections and referendums are based on our principles of trust, participation, and no undue influence. 920

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man, IM1 3PW British Isles April 2017

Tel: 01624685520 e-mail: [email protected] Price: £32.10