TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

4. Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald – Third Report: Members’ CPD; Lord Bishop’s vote; Members’ pay – Debate commenced

The Chairman of the Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald (Mr Speaker) to move:

That the Third Report of the Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald [PP No 2018/0018] be received and the following recommendations be approved:

Recommendation 1 The Tynwald Management Committee should be responsible for overseeing the Members’ Continuous Professional Development Programme.

Recommendation 2 a. The Lord Bishop should retain his vote.

(if the above recommendation is agreed to)

b. Any Member of Tynwald who has a right to vote should be under the same duty to exercise that vote as any other Member; this applies to the Lord Bishop.

(if the above recommendation is agreed to)

c. Any Member of Tynwald who has a right to vote should be under the same duty to attend and count towards the quorum as any other Member; this applies to the Lord Bishop.

Recommendation 3 The basic terms of reference of an inquiry into Members’ pay should therefore be: That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Isle of Man Government should establish an independent review to examine and report on the emoluments of Members of the House of Keys and Legislative Council, including all pay and allowances, with recommendations for a structure for salary and any related payments; and that the review should have regard to the following principles: • The salary and benefits must be sufficient to allow anyone to be able to serve in Tynwald; • The salary and benefits must be at a level to attract a diverse collection of community members; • Enhanced executive and scrutiny roles should be recognized; • Any change to the structure for pay and allowances must not result in an increase in overall costs of Members’ remuneration; and • The recommendations of the review should maintain the principle of linking Members’ basic pay to Civil Service salary levels.

The President: We turn to Item 4 on the Order Paper, Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald. I call on the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Speaker, to move.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald (Mr Speaker): Thank 5 you, Mr President. The Third Report of the Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald examines three matters which have to some extent already received Tynwald approval in outline: continuous professional development; the role of the Lord Bishop; and the remit of a review of pay and enhancements for Members.

______Hansard Extract Page 1 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

10 Your Committee is pleased to report that the work on continuous professional development has already started. Following the General Election in 2016, Members received an enhanced initial briefing which was organised by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office. We print in the Report a list of activities which have been undertaken as part of this process by way of a continuous professional development programme. I am happy to confirm that this programme is now an 15 established part of the system of formation for Tynwald Members. The Committee makes one recommendation in relation to this: that the Tynwald Management Committee should be responsible for overseeing the Members’ continuous professional development programme. This will ensure that the momentum for improvement will not be lost. I now turn to the question of the Lord Bishop. Last June Tynwald voted to retain the Bishop 20 as a Member of Tynwald. From that starting point the Committee has considered the presence of the Lord Bishop on the Island and the continuing existence of the Diocese in the context of our social and community framework. The Lord Bishop represents a significant part of our continuing heritage. However, the existence of the Diocese is not a mere historical accident that we wish to preserve but a continuing part of the Island’s cultural life. We believe that whilst the 25 Island continues to identify itself as a Christian nation there is a justification for the Bishop’s role in Tynwald. We were asked to consider specifically two matters in connection with the Lord Bishop and they are whether the Lord Bishop should be included in the quorum of the Legislative Council and whether he should be allowed to abstain. There is a further related issue: whether the Lord 30 Bishop should retain his vote. A proposal that the Bishop be deprived of his vote has been rejected by Tynwald twice, once on the basis of a disagreement between the Branches and once, in July 2017, on the basis of it being rejected by both Branches. I should emphasise that this is not the question that Tynwald referred to us for consideration and report; however, it is part of the background that we are entitled to consider. A decision on whether the Lord Bishop should 35 retain his vote sets the context in which the other matters, quorum and abstention, should be decided, so we include it here in our recommendations. It has been made quite apparent that the loss of the Bishop’s vote would mean the loss of the Bishop. Members will be able to read the very clear letter from the Archbishop of York on this matter. We also note that the loss of the Bishop’s vote would, without other changes, leave 40 an even number of voting Members of the Legislative Council. We have concluded that in the light of the value placed by Tynwald on the presence of the Lord Bishop his right to vote should be maintained. As a corollary of that, since it is a basic rule of Tynwald that all Members must attend Tynwald and the Branch of which they are a Member unless they seek leave of absence, and all Members must cast a vote if they are present in the Chamber, we think on principle that 45 this rule should apply to the Lord Bishop as well. Formal leave of absence is regularly given to Members in order to enable business to be carried on outside Tynwald. There is also a practical consideration, namely that if the Lord Bishop is not part of the quorum of Tynwald Court there may well be a practical difficulty in holding a March sitting of Tynwald in a year where there is an election for Members of Legislative Council. We have put the recommendations in an order that 50 will allow Tynwald to decide the questions in a logical order. And now to the simple matter of Members’ pay. Originally, the Committee was asked to consider the matter of MLCs’ pay only. Subsequently, Tynwald resolved on a combined vote that an independent review of all Members’ pay and allowances be undertaken, and it referred this recommendation to the Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald to report with 55 recommendations on the terms of reference of such a review. We have taken the later vote as replacing the original part of our remit and we focused on one inquiry for all Members of Tynwald. However, in setting the terms of reference we take note of the previous resolutions in relation to Members’ pay, which we have taken to apply to all Members’ pay, and they are: the salary and benefits must be sufficient to allow everyone to be able to serve; the salary and 60 benefits must be at a level to attract a diverse collection of community members; an enhanced

______Hansard Extract Page 2 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

role in scrutiny should be recognised; and any change to the structure for pay and allowances must not result in an increase in the overall budget for Members’ remuneration. All these principles are absolutely necessary in order to ensure that everyone on the Island who is eligible in law to serve has the practical means to do so. Public service must never go 65 back to being the exclusive preserve of the retired or the well-off members of society. We need a true cross-section of our community to be represented in Tynwald in both Branches. It would be unfortunate to undermine the progress that has been made in recent years in attracting young people who have not traditionally engaged with politics; our record number of younger Members and female Members is testament to that. 70 That said, the principal constraint set for the pay review is that it must be cost neutral. This must not result in an overall increase for Members of Tynwald; instead any changes will feature as a reapportionment of the available money. No change should be made to the principle that the pay of Members of Tynwald be linked to Civil Service pay. Within these constraints, we have left the remit of the inquiry as broad as possible in order to allow the inquiry latitude to make 75 wholesale reform of the system, so that it can reflect the expectations of the public and Members, as well as the demands of the modern political world. On a personal note, I should say that although I agree with the Report, I did formally record my dissent to the proposition that the Government should be in charge of commissioning the independent pay review. My personal view is that this is a matter that should be better kept for 80 Tynwald. I would also add that in my personal view Tynwald will not learn anything from an independent report that Members do not know already. This Report brings nearly to a close the examination of the areas which we were commissioned to undertake. The two remaining matters, scrutiny and legislation, we will report on in our next and probably final report. In this connection I should say that we plan to look at 85 the whole process of legislation and scrutiny in the round, as we do not think that we can reasonably restrict our inquiry to part of the legislative process without touching on how the whole process works. Any change will need to be viewed in the overall context and may require extensive changes to parts of the system that are formally outside the remit of the Committee and I hope that the Court will accept that this is the best course of action. 90 With that, Mr President, I beg to move.

The President: Dr Allinson, Hon. Member for Ramsey.

Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr President. 95 I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The President: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr President. 100 I read through the Report in some detail. I agree with recommendation 1 on CPD. I disagree with recommendation 3; I am not sure in any way about the recommendations and I will be voting against that. I would really like to spend most time talking about recommendation 2 and I rise to raise an amendment, which will shortly be circulated, proposing that the Bishop does not retain his vote. 105 First of all, I would like to recap recent discussions on this topic. In June last year we debated the report from Lord Lisvane and a motion was supported that the Bishop’s vote should be removed in this Hon. Court by 17 votes to 14. The Branches were in disagreement with Keys in favour but Council was against. We revisited the subject in July when Mr Hooper moved a motion and a vote on the Bishop’s 110 vote. At this time various Members made contributions. My hon. friend, Mr Henderson raised concerns that a combined vote would be premature. He counselled that the Select Committee would take evidence, weigh up and balance all the points, devise a suitable plan and present it

______Hansard Extract Page 3 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

to Tynwald. Mr Corkill, Member of Council – (A Member: Corkish.) Corkish, my apologies – made exhortations to respect tradition and the Chief Minister urged Members not to throw away their 115 morals. Mrs Corlett expressed a sentiment, which others seemed to share at that time, that whilst she was not in favour of the Bishop retaining his vote, she was voting against the motion because she felt that this should be considered fully by the Select Committee. The vote on this occasion was ayes 12, noes 19. As you can see, the vote in July was blurred by the remit of the Select Committee and, misleadingly perhaps, the Report describes these two votes, without this 120 context, as ‘a proposal that the Bishop be deprived of his vote was rejected twice’. Not for the first time on the Lisvane Report, the road we have taken has been windy and slow. I hope that today we will head back towards the straight and true path of democracy. After so many months I was expecting a more fulsome report from the Committee. The Chairman has obtained a letter from the Archbishop of York. What else has been achieved since 125 last summer? As I was underwhelmed by the Report, I commissioned some additional research on the situation in comparable democracies, which was kindly undertaken by the Tynwald Library team, and I will share this with you. The main thrust of the Committee’s findings is that it is abundantly clear that the presence of the Bishop is important to Tynwald and the Island. There is no mention in the Report that the 130 retention of the Bishop’s vote is not welcomed by many people on the Island. This is a commonly held view but it does not merit one line in the Report. What is abundantly clear is that this Report does not reflect public opinion and is unbalanced. Following a request from Mr Speaker, a letter was provided by the Archbishop of York, who advised that the position of a voice in Tynwald without a vote would be a weak position; this 135 would significantly undermine the Diocese. The Committee feels that this probably means that the Diocese of Sodor and Man would be downgraded to part of another diocese in England. This was stated by Members in previous debates. I hope that the Anglican Church would carefully consider their position and weigh up all factors prior to reaching a conclusion. Ultimately, of course, it is the decision of the Anglican Church, but I am sure many, including myself, would 140 welcome the retention of the Isle of Man as a separate Diocese. This rank and status is really the crux of the argument made by others for the Bishop to retain his vote and for some Members this has previously been an overriding concern. I respectfully wish to challenge this mindset and would like to examine the background in more detail. The Tynwald Library research confirmed that bishops or other faith leaders automatically 145 having voting positions in parliaments is incredibly unusual; it is out of step with most of the rest of the world. Even in the House of Lords in Westminster, the Scottish and Welsh bishops do not have a vote, only the English bishops, who are also known as the Lords Spiritual. The Scottish and Welsh bishops also do not vote in their devolved assemblies. The historical reasons in Scotland differ from those in Wales. Bishop Peter has explained these to me, but they are not 150 especially relevant for today’s debate. What is clear is that this is not a Celtic tradition, as bishops do not vote in either of the Irish parliament chambers or the assembly in Stormont. At the moment, we are keen to foster closer links with other Commonwealth countries. There are many bishops in Canada and Australia – the Tynwald Library has confirmed they do not vote in their parliaments. I wondered that perhaps with our ancient history this anomaly 155 might be a Viking tradition. No, it is not. The Icelandic, Norwegian and Danish parliaments all drew a blank for bishops or other faith leaders. What about the other Crown Dependencies? No. Neither Jersey or Guernsey have a Bishop or a faith leader voting in their parliaments. The dean sits in Jersey but does not vote. You really struggle to find anywhere comparable to us with this arrangement, other than the English bishops. 160 Hon. Members, I am unconvinced that this a Manx tradition. I am not a scholar but it seems this may well be a multi-century-long hangover from English rule alongside the other Tynwald barons of old, but they have all gone, swept away by a clamour from the Manx people for democracy. I have spoken with many proud Manx people who find this tradition irksome. To be clear, they do not object to the Bishop; it is his vote that they find difficult to stomach. Some

______Hansard Extract Page 4 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

165 have written to me expressing their deep dissatisfaction. I will read one recent excerpt from a resident of Douglas:

I have no gripe with the individual concerned and recognise his profoundly held beliefs and views and would in no way seek to diminish them. But as the oldest democracy in the world it is wholly incomprehensible that we should make constitutional allowance to permit the imposition of an organisational representative to sit in our democratic chamber. By doing so we insult every Manxman and Manx woman, demean our democracy and show that we are not free or fair in the reflection of our society within its constitutional arrangements. We are unable to reform and reflect a nation or its aspirations in the 21st century, instead we cling to a historic anomaly.

Hon. Members, you will all be aware that this is a widely held view across the Island, which as I mentioned earlier is not reflected in this Committee’s unbalanced Report. I would submit that the argument of maintaining a questionable tradition is not compelling. 170 There are many outdated traditions which have been changed by this Hon. Court to ensure that our Island moves on from inequitable historical practice. I would like also to examine the democratic impact of having the Bishop selected by the Church voting in our parliament. The Bishop’s vote is one of nine in the Council, so it comprises 11% of the franchise. This ratio is higher than the 25 bishops currently sitting in the House of 175 Lords, which has 793 peers. They represent 3% of the vote in that revising chamber. Of course, the Lord Bishop has more voting power in our tricameral system as, in addition to our laws, his vote also counts for expenditure votes and policy matters. On the basis of the facts, Bishop Peter is arguably the most powerful political bishop of all in 2018. Even Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who held considerable influence in South Africa, never had a vote in their parliament. 180 Democratically, this situation simply does not hold up to scrutiny in the modern world. Other matters were considered by the Committee. They highlighted matters around quorum of the Legislative Council and also the desirability of an odd number voting. These are administrative points; they can be overcome. There are several options: add another Member, reduce by a Member or simply stay the same and rely on the President’s casting vote when 185 necessary. Quorum numbers can also be changed. Hon. Members, we did not have a Lord Bishop for a year and for much of that time other Legislative Council Members were unwell. The world did not stop, the wheels did not come off; Members rolled up their sleeves and parliamentary business was not delayed. We can manage. Please do not be obfuscated with the administration considerations. 190 The Tynwald Standing Orders Committee and the Legislative Council Standing Orders Committee should consider these in the normal course and propose changes as required. All of us should be confident that the combined experience and skill of these Committees, ably supported by the Clerk of Tynwald and his parliamentary team, can resolve these technical administrative points. There is no need for further debate on these administration issues; to do 195 so is simply distraction and deflection from the main question. In summary, I am not proposing that the Bishop leaves Tynwald. He will provide much valued input and advice and his useful different perspective. Ultimately, if this means in time that the Bishop loses rank and becomes a dean, that would be very disappointing but it is not insurmountable. That is a decision for the Anglican Church; it is not a question for this Hon. 200 Court. Hon. Members, this is not a religious question and it is certainly not a question of morals. If it was, every other country apart from England is in a state of turpitude. Ultimately, this question in front of you boils down to one thing and one thing only: your view on whether status and hierarchy and rank is more important than democracy, whether you feel that maintaining a 205 questionable tradition overrides all other considerations and whether you believe that everyone who votes on our laws should be elected by the people of Mann in a transparent and accountable manner by their elected representatives. Members, it is time we moved on from the mediaeval era. I ask you to consider your democratic values and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name:

______Hansard Extract Page 5 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

To leave out all the words in recommendation 2 and to insert the words ‘That the Lord Bishop should remain a member of the Legislative Council and Tynwald, but not retain his vote in this Court and the Legislative Council. The Tynwald Standing Orders Committee should bring forward legislation to remove the vote of the Lord Bishop by October 2018.’

210 The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper: Thank you very much, Mr President. I rise here to second the amendment that has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins. 215 I agree that the core of this debate should be the simple fact that we live in a democracy, which means the people get to elect their representatives. Currently they do this directly in the case of Members of the Keys and indirectly in the case of Member of the Council, but no one on this Island has elected the Lord Bishop. If we continue to insist that we live in a democracy, the only proper course of action is to ensure that only those representatives that have been elected 220 actually have a vote in this Hon. Court and its Branches. Having read the Committee Report, it makes no reference to this whatsoever. In fact, the Committee Report does not really make any argument in favour of the Bishop keeping his vote at all. The Committee talks a lot about the quorum but never really addresses the issue of the Bishop’s vote. It is only two paragraphs of the vote that talk about the Bishop’s vote at all. 225 The core arguments that the Report sets out seem to be that, firstly, the Bishop’s vote makes LegCo an uneven number, which thereby reduces the number of times the President has to use his casting vote. I find this quite interesting because the President uses his casting vote in line with the Keys’ wishes, so the argument here would seem to be that the advantage of keeping the Bishop is that the will of the House of Keys is more likely to be overridden by the Legislative 230 Council than if the Bishop was not here. So the Committee seems to be arguing that it is important to keep the Bishop’s vote in order that the power of the House of Keys remains diluted. That is a very weak argument to make. At any rate, I agree with the Hon. Member for Middle that this is an administrative or operational issue that can be easily addressed by the Standing Orders Committee. 235 The second argument and the one that I think resonates a bit more with people is that if the Bishop were to lose his vote, the Island would then lose the Bishop. The Committee asserts that the Bishop provides the Island with status and influence and yet does not support that assertion with any evidence. I would appreciate some clarification from Mr Speaker, the hon. mover, on exactly what status and influence the Island has that for example Jersey lacks. Has any work 240 been done on this; and if it has, why hasn’t it been included in the Report? So this assertion should be challenged as the Report does not support it. Simply stating a thing does not make it true and by not providing any evidence in support it is clear to me that this evidence simply does not exist. The Archbishop of York makes the case for the Bishop keeping his vote by outlining that 245 without the vote the case for the Diocese of Sodor and Man is weakened. The Committee have interpreted this to mean that we would probably lose the Bishop, although I would hasten to point out that is not what the Archbishop actually says in his letter. He says the case for the Diocese would be significantly undermined, but this is completely different to saying the Church would actively reconsider the status of the Diocese. Following this line of argument it would 250 seem that from the perspective of the Church the Bishop adds no value either to Tynwald or to the Island other than his ability to cast a vote in this Hon. Court. So what we have, Hon. Members, is a vote with a Lord Bishop attached, and if the Bishop’s primary function is to cast votes in this Hon. Court, which is seemingly what is being asserted here, then surely he should be elected by the people of this Island just as any other Member is. 255 Something I find very interesting from the Archbishop’s letter is that he refers to the voice and the vote of the Bishop as if these two things are intrinsically linked, that for some reason the

______Hansard Extract Page 6 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Bishop cannot add valuable contributions without his vote. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. I believe the Bishop can and does add value to this Hon. Court by adding his voice to debates and his perspective on issues and I do not accept without his vote the Bishop has little 260 or no value; and if the only value in the Bishop is that he has a vote then, Hon. Members, we really need to consider why we are so keen to have a Bishop at all. The Archbishop talks about a voice without a vote being a weak position, and again with this I completely disagree. The learned Attorney General has no vote and yet his voice carries a great deal of weight in this Hon. Court. Surely the voice of the Bishop is of much more importance 265 than his vote. Any Member of Council can speak and vote but the argument for having a religious representative as part of this Hon. Court is surely that he will add his own unique perspective to our discussions. I do not see a dean, as has been suggested may be a possible outcome of removing the Bishop’s vote, as having any less influence than a Lord Bishop in this regard, and at any rate the question of whether or not the Island should have a Bishop or a 270 representative of a different rank is surely a question for the Church and for our Christian communities. Whether the Bishop should play a voting role in our parliament is a matter for this Hon. Court. I believe a core principle of any democracy is that the people should have a voice and a vote regarding who represents them, who casts votes on their behalf, and so I urge Hon. Members to 275 support the amendment to remove the last vestiges of feudal rule from this Hon. Court. Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.

280 Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr President. First turning to the recommendations in turn: in the case of recommendation 1, personally, I do not disagree with the Committee whatsoever, I think the Tynwald Management Committee is the right place for professional development of Members to be overseen. Turning now to the one that has just been debated, recommendation 2, I think my views are 285 well and truly on record in this Hon. Court and outside in relation to this. I most certainly will be supporting the amendment from Mr Shimmins. I do not believe that the Lord Bishop should hold a vote. As with the previous speaker, Mr Hooper, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, I do believe that the Lord Bishop adds to the debates in this Chamber. I think the voice is very important and I think the crucial thing here is I have not heard anyone in this Hon. Court say they actually want 290 the Lord Bishop to go from Legislative Council – the sticking point is the vote. I want to refer to the letter from His Grace, the Archbishop of York, which I found quite interesting, because a lot of the conversations we have had in this Court around this previously, and debate, has been saying that if we go to remove the vote then definitely the Lord Bishop’s role will disappear, we will lose the Diocese. Well, as Mr Hooper has already stated, the letter 295 does not actually say that. It goes to a certain stage and then it stops, Mr President. The phrases I found quite interesting in the letter were that although the Lord Bishop’s vote was called ‘extremely important’ and it said it would ‘significantly undermine the case’, there it stops. It does not go forward and say if you remove the vote from the Lord Bishop then the role will disappear and so will the Diocese. The Archbishop of York has not said that. 300 A couple of other things that did stick out in the letter from His Grace was that the Bishop’s role has been around since the early days of democratic government. I should point out, Mr President – maybe it is just the phraseology in the letter – that the Lord Bishop’s role actually predates democratic government, it has been around a lot longer than that. We have heard Mr Hooper refer to it as ‘feudal’ in many ways, and looking back in time you can see how that 305 connection is made. But I also found it quite interesting that there was the comparison with the Deans of Jersey, Mr President. Now, the Deans of Jersey are in a very different situation, because if you look at the history of the Deans of Jersey, they have never been a diocese in their own right. They were

______Hansard Extract Page 7 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

originally part of the Diocese of – and I am going to probably mispronounce this now – 310 Coutances, when they were part of France and then, after they became part of England, they moved to the Diocese of Winchester, where they have been ever since. In fact, the Deans of Jersey did actually have a vote at one stage in the States of Jersey, their vote was removed in 1948, so you could say we are 70 years behind the curve. There is nobody who was arguing in Jersey that the Deans of Jersey, the fact they have got a voice but not a vote is impacting on 315 their ability to actually provide a debate and clarity in the States in Jersey. So I think it has been tried and tested elsewhere. I also want to turn to the fact of people saying, ‘It is a big change, we need to be careful.’ Well, Mr President, all change starts somewhere. I have said this before in this Hon. Court, one man’s change today is another man’s history further down the line; everything starts 320 somewhere. Going back in history; in 1917, when the Clerk of the Rolls was removed from the Legislative Council there were people saying it was the end of the world. 1919 when the Archdeacon, the Vicar General, the Receiver General went off Legislative Council, again there were people saying it would not work, it would be chaos. 1975 when the First Deemster, the last of the judiciary left 325 the Legislative Council, it was said it was important to have a judicial voice, it would actually mean that Legislative Council had less value. If someone today recommended putting a member of the judiciary back onto Legislative Council there would be an outcry saying it was confusing the parliamentary system and the judicial, breaking down barriers. As I say, Mr President, one man’s change today is another man’s history further down the line. So we do have precedents of 330 reform. I have found the occasions where our current Lord Bishop has spoken in this Hon. Court very valuable and I am sure he has a lot more to say as we move forward, during his time as Lord Bishop, but I do not believe that it should carry the vote. Again, going back to the Deans of Jersey, as I say, they had the vote until 1948 when it was 335 removed, but also the other difference with the Deans of Jersey is that actually, to be fair, the current office does not go back that far because there was actually a gap when the office did not exist between 1180 and 1620. So again, we have got more continuity and we have a diocese already in place. Personally, I would say to Hon. Members, who I am sure will raise concerns and say that the Church will just remove the Lord Bishop’s role and put us in with a diocese in the 340 UK, I think that would be very short-sighted of the Church. The Church would be going from A to C. At the moment they have got A, which is a Lord Bishop sat in Legislative Council with a vote; B is a Lord Bishop without a vote, but a voice. Is the Church really saying that they would throw the baby out with the bathwater and go for option C where there is no Lord Bishop and no voice at all? I think if they were to go down that line it would be very short-sighted and I think, from 345 the tone of His Grace’s letter, the Church realises that and that is why His Grace did stop short of actually turning around and saying this would lead to the Diocese disappearing, because that was the question that was asked. Turning to recommendation 3, and I do have an amendment to move to this. There is not much to be honest, Mr President, that myself and Mr Speaker have agreed on with regard to 350 Lisvane, I am sure Mr Speaker will agree on that! But he will be delighted to know that some of the words in his opening remarks I was very encouraged by. I think, hopefully, we will agree on this that I do not believe it is Isle of Man Government’s role to be conducting a review of Members’ pay. That is blurring what is government and what is parliamentary. Now, Members of this Hon. Court, as parliamentarians, have always fiercely protected the fact that government 355 should not be blurring the lines with parliamentary. This is exactly what the intended recommendation here does. So what my recommendation does is change the words to say that: ‘Tynwald is of the opinion that the Tynwald Emoluments Committee should establish a review to examine and report on the emoluments of Members.’

______Hansard Extract Page 8 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

360 Mr Speaker sits on the Emoluments Committee, as do I. One of the other interesting things is that there is previous precedence for this because the Emoluments Committee has looked in similar terms of the uplifts of Members’ pay. They did so in 2010, if my dates are right, so there is no reason they cannot again. In fact, if you go to Tynwald Standing Orders, Mr President, the remit of the Committee does actually state that:

In addition to its consultative functions set out in paragraph 8.3(ii) and as it thinks fit, the emoluments of Members of Tynwald;

365 So I believe that is where it correctly sits. I do not believe it sits with Isle of Man Government and I think I would have great concerns about trying to ask the Government to take or undertake a matter that, to me, is purely parliamentary. The remit is very clear, in the recommendation, and I actually do welcome that from the Committee. It is quite clear that what it is saying is that:

Any change to the structure for pay and allowances must not result in an increase of overall costs of Members’ remuneration.

370 So that is a clear boundary. It is saying:

The recommendations of the review should maintain the principle of linking Members’ basic pay to Civil Service salary [levels].

Again, a clear boundary. And that:

The salary and benefits must be sufficient to allow anyone to be able to serve in Tynwald;

I quite agree with Mr Speaker’s opening remarks that it is important that we do not put up barriers to anyone in our community being able to stand for the positions that we are in today and that the salary and benefits must be sufficient. So there are very clear boundaries there. I 375 see absolutely no reason why there needs to be an independent review commissioned by Isle of Man Government, even putting to one side that that is wrong place for it to be done anyway. With those clear boundaries we should be using the parliamentary systems that we already have in place, and that is the Emoluments Committee, and that is why I have moved the amendment that I have put forward today, Mr President:

In the second paragraph of recommendation 3, to replace the words ‘Isle of Man Government should establish an independent review’ to ‘Tynwald Emoluments Committee should establish a review’.

380 The President: The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford, and reserve my – 385 Two Members: You can’t.

Mr Quayle: Oh, in which case, if I can’t, I am speaking on the amendment then, if I may, Mr President. 390 I obviously do not agree with Mr Ashford’s comments in other areas, which are well known. But I think it is important that Government cannot be involved in setting Tynwald Members … it has to be something for a Tynwald Committee to do, so I think it is an eminently sensible proposal, and I hope all Tynwald Members will support it.

______Hansard Extract Page 9 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

The President: Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine. 395 Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr President. I do support the first recommendation but I have a few issues with the third, so I am happy to support the amendment from the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford. I also rise to support the amendment from the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins. I 400 question the Committee’s assertion, in its Report, that the Lord Bishop:

has a notable influence on the proceedings of Tynwald.

Enough in that first line to cause me concern. As the Committee’s Report continues I fear it gets more out of step with the mood of this Hon. Court, (A Member: Hear, hear.) or perhaps I should say the mood of this Hon. House. The clincher of the inclusion of the letter from the Archbishop of York I found not at all compelling. 405 Moreover, I take issue with the Archbishop’s comment that the Bishop’s voting on the Legislative Council is:

testimony to the fact that Tynwald takes seriously the spiritual nature of the Island’s identity, and its moral and ethical responsibility for the life of its people.

I do not understand what that has to do with the Island’s identity, but also is the Archbishop suggesting Members of the Upper Chamber would be lacking in morals and ethics without the steadying presence of the Church of England’s appointed Bishop? 410 Isle of Man Newspapers in its Examiner leader column last week found it, ‘completely bizarre and anachronistic’ that the Bishop should retain his vote. They said the fact the Select Committee found he should retain that vote was astonishing. I have to agree. History tells us that Tynwald Members have been slow to embrace democracy. Only gradually has the primacy of the Keys taken executive power from the Legislative Council. A 415 Crown-appointed Lieutenant Governor was a significant part of our heritage but, rightly, his political influence has been removed and the policy direction and government of this Island now rests on the democratically elected Members. The surprising thing is that the Bishop has retained a vote for so long after the Attorney General’s was removed. The fact the Lord Bishop will have a vote on this Item is simply wrong. While the method of the Keys acting as an electoral 420 college to vote people into Legislative Council is not without its critics, no one on this Island has any say in who is appointed Bishop. I have listened with interest to the current Lord Bishop’s contributions to our debates. They do add value for many but, in my view, the Church of England appointed Bishop retaining a vote in Tynwald and in Legislative Council is indefensible in the modern age – patently undemocratic 425 and disproportionate in terms of one unelected person’s influence in this Hon. Court. If the Church of England is prompted to remove an ancient diocese and reduce its influence on Island affairs, as a result of this Hon. Court determining the Bishop voting in the Manx parliament is no longer appropriate, then so be it. We should not allow this Hon. Court to be blackmailed over the role of the Bishop, if that is in fact what is intended. But we need to do what is right for the 430 composition of this parliament and the good government of the Isle of Man. If the amendment before us today is supported, and the threat carried out to downgrade the Diocese of Sodor and Man, I will experience a very small pang of regret for the loss of tradition, but give a silent whoop of celebration at the evolution and modernisation of this parliament. Thank you, Mr President. 435 The President: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.

Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr President.

______Hansard Extract Page 10 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

I think it is important to have a voice on the other side of the argument. The debate with 440 regard to the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins’ amendment with regard to the position of the Bishop, I would like to break down into two elements: first of all, I have to say, I am disappointed with Mr Shimmins’ emphasis that just because we are not like everybody else we are wrong. (Mr Crookall and another Member: Hear, hear.) I actually take quite the contrary view – I think Tynwald is an extraordinary, special place. The last thing we want to do is run 445 around saying, ‘Me too’ (Several Members: Hear, hear.) As far as the moral and ethical dimension of this is concerned, I want, with the President’s permission, to tell a short story. About six or seven years ago this same discussion took place, outside this Hon. Court, where a group of people decided, quite reasonably, that they wanted a debate on whether the Bishop should have his position and a vote in this Hon. Court. The then 450 Member of Keys, Mr Leonard Singer, was invited to speak against the motion that the Bishop should lose his vote and his seat, and I was also invited to attend. So effectively those speaking against the motion came from two different traditions, one a Jewish tradition and one a Christian tradition, my own. Right up to about 48 hours before the debate, I was unaware of who it was that we were, as it were, opposing and so I took it upon myself to find out. I 455 discovered that it was actually a humanist group, an atheist group, who were taking this position. I thought, ‘Well, goodness me! I don’t know very much about humanism.’ So I took the opportunity, in that 48 hours, to study it very carefully and I found myself being extremely respectful of the humanist standpoint, which effectively argues that a humanist does not consider that there should be a theological, a God effectively, in order to achieve moral and 460 ethical standards and conduct; that effectively those principles emanated from the nature of humanity itself, and I absolutely respect that position totally. When it came to the debate itself, which was incidentally and interestingly dominated by humanists, when myself and Leonard came to the point of arguing our position, our argument was this, and it was a very simple one: that if the humanists, the atheistic tradition, takes the 465 view that moral and ethical argument has a very important place in here, then wasn’t it true that we had to have some manifestation of it? Could it be, I argued, that the position now currently taken by the Bishop could be taken by a humanist who was here to present a moral and ethical dimension to our debate? But that as it happens, our tradition is one of having a Christian representative to argue the moral and ethical dimension; and that we felt it was important that 470 in the hurly-burly and the push and shove of various, there should be that calming voice at some point. Bearing in mind and to show how reasonable the humanist standpoint is, when it came to the vote, we won, which I found quite extraordinary, that atheists should consider that it was important to have a moral and ethical voice in here. So that was an interesting outcome. Turning, secondly then, to the issue of the vote, because I think those who were arguing for 475 the removal of the Bishop’s vote have really conflated two arguments, the one of moral and ethical contribution and whether or not he – as it happens, he at the moment – should have a vote. I think when it comes to the vote, Mr President, I hope Hon. Members bear in mind the changing balance now that is happening between the primacy of the Keys and the new and emerging role of LegCo. I think all Members must be very focused, at the moment, on who the 480 new Members are going to be, because they are going to bring a variety of new contributions to the developing role of LegCo and that will be very much in the forefront of our minds to get that balance. It is good to see an advocate on LegCo, I am delighted that it is the case, but we need a balance. I would have thought it would be good to have a business person’s mind up there as 485 well. But absolutely and certainly, I think it is important to have somebody up there offering a moral and ethical dimension to help us in our thinking in these incredibly important matters. And to fear that vote, when that vote is only one in effectively nine and that Keys, the elected body, has primacy, why do we fear that? I do not see that. So, Mr President, I will most definitely be voting against this amendment. 490 Thank you, Mr President.

______Hansard Extract Page 11 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

The President: Hon Member for Douglas East, Miss Bettison. No? Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Perkins.

Mr Perkins: Thank you, Mr President. 495 Regarding the Select Committee’s recommendations: recommendation 1, I wholly endorse. Recommendation 2, I do take on board the Hon. Member for Middle’s amendment and go with that. Recommendation 3, now this is an interesting one because it has various riders going down, finishing up with:

The recommendations of the review should maintain the principle of linking Members’ basic pay to Civil Service salary levels.

500 I think we all agree that this is not an easy one, Mr President. What civil servant gets a phone call at nine o’clock in the evening complaining that goats are rampaging through their garden? (Laughter) What civil servant gets a phone call complaining about the grid girls when we have Come Dancing on the television? What civil servant goes away on business, representing the Isle of Man internationally, to come back to a message on the phone, ‘My drains are blocked and 505 what are you going to do about it?’ So we have to be very careful on our salaries. I do believe that the amendment taking it away from the Government and putting it with a parliamentary inquiry is the right way to go. On all this, I think, do we need another inquiry? If it comes back that our pay is inadequate, as indeed Lord Lisvane says, are we going to agree with it? There were would be absolute uproar 510 with the public. Do we want to make a decision on how much we reduce the MLCs’ pay? Do we want to make a decision on reducing the number of MHKs or the number of MLCs? Do we want to alter the boundaries again? It opens a whole can of worms, and I really think we need to ask ourselves, do we need this recommendation 3? Thank you, Mr President. 515 The President: Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr President. I rise, like the Hon. Member for Douglas East, to speak against the amendment raised by the 520 Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins. I too noted his exception to the Isle of Man being different – it is the differences that make us special. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) We need to be proud of the Isle of Man and we need to be confident in ourselves, and actually need to set our own path. I was also intrigued by his reference to the Lord Bishop being the most powerful Bishop, with 525 11% of the votes on LegCo as opposed to only 3% in England. I was unsure whether Mr Shimmins was proposing that we increase the size of LegCo fourfold, (Laughter) but I suspect that may not get past the SAVE initiative. The only other conclusion was obviously that we split the Lord Bishop in four, and I do not think that is likely to be a particularly practical solution. He also referred to potentially adding another Member to LegCo to rebalance it if the quorum issue 530 was a concern. Well, again, who is proposing putting more cost into the Legislative Council? Everybody who has spoken has clearly welcomed the Lord Bishop’s contribution, his voice covering moral and spiritual issues, and I think even Mr Shimmins himself referred to a useful different perspective which helps balance our thought process. I think we have really got to hold that thought and if we want that contribution within this Hon. Court and within the Legislative 535 Council we need to recognise why we have it. We have it because we have a Lord Bishop; we have a Lord Bishop because we have got a diocese; and the Lord Bishop comes because he has a vote. Would any of us come here if we did not have a vote? Certainly I would think of better

______Hansard Extract Page 12 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

things to do if I was able to speak. (Interjection) But the Attorney General’s position is relatively unique. (Mr Cretney: Very unique.) Very unique, thank you. 540 The Speaker: He is paid to be here.

Mr Baker: So I think we do have to be very careful about the unintended consequences of our actions. The tone of this debate is effectively to suggest that the Committee, of which I was 545 a part so I declare an interest, has not considered these matters. We have considered these matters, the simple truth is – and do not shake your head, Mr Shimmins, please. We have considered these matters, we just have not come up with a conclusion that you like. That is the bottom line. There has been a lot of discussion within the Committee at the various stages that we have 550 gone through. We have not come through with these recommendations lightly. And I would draw Hon. Members’ attention to the fact that actually the remit of the Committee was very tightly drawn, and the focus on the quorum and the abstention rules were the specific matters we were asked to consider. The point about whether the Bishop should have a vote or not, we were given permission to bring into our consideration – that was not a matter that we were 555 asked to report on. We have brought it forward to contextualise those other points. So you have got to understand the context before you actually dissect the actual recommendations that have come forward. (Interjection by Mr Cretney) Turning to Mr Hooper’s comments, I was amazed to hear him refer to the UK, effectively, as not being a democracy because the UK has got bishops and it has got non-elected members 560 within the House of Lords. So the fact that the Bishop has not been elected does not make us not a democracy, it just means that the Bishop was not elected. Again, Mr Hooper believes that the Lord Bishop adds value. So we need to be mindful for Hon. Members: if you do wish to vote against the Bishop retaining his vote and the Church takes actions that may be alluded to in that letter, or 565 suggested that it might, but clearly has not effectively said, ‘We will definitely do this’ – those consequences are the consequences of our decision. To say, ‘Well, if the Church does that, then that is up to them’, is ducking the issue. If we choose to take away the Lord Bishop’s vote, the consequences, whether they be good or whether they not be good, are on us. Let’s make no mistake about that. We should not second-guess that everything will work out the way we 570 ideally want it. So with those thoughts I will sit down. My views are clear and we have had two votes on this which have previously concluded that the Lord Bishop’s vote should remain. Thank you.

575 The President: Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Peake.

Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr President. We have had an interesting journey through the Lord Lisvane Report resulting in recommendations that provided very little change. Today another batch of recommendations 580 are before us seeking our approval. I do agree the CPD is a great opportunity for Members, so I will be agreeing with that. The second recommendation, I will be going with the amendment. It is clear that the previous Lord Bishop had many concerns about the role and how it aligned with his core roles and responsibilities. He pointed out the obligations to attend the Legislative Council meetings 585 and Tynwald Court resulted in pressure on his time and commitments. The other obligation was having the vote, for or against, whenever he was present in Council or in this Court. His suggested solution was to have an option to abstain from a decision, while the Committee pointed out in their recommendations that the Lord Bishop should have the same responsibility as other Members and be required to vote.

______Hansard Extract Page 13 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

590 This appears fair at first sight, although once you begin to think deeper around the subject, the responsibilities are not the same. Much weight has been put on the importance and benefit of moral guidance the Lord Bishop offers this Court, and I acknowledge that having a different viewpoint on subjects can afford the opportunity for a fuller understanding. I am unconvinced this needs to have the extra weight of a vote. 595 There is a suggestion that having to participate in the vote may restrict the freedom of content of a speech and bridle any effort for change. By appreciating and understanding the former Bishop’s sentiments, formed after many years of being a Member of the Legislative Council, it is clear that the opportunity for the role of Lord Bishop in this Court is different from other elected Members. One difference is the route to which we become a Member of this 600 Court. MHKs are voted in by the public. They either stand on stated policies or have faith of their constituents – they have a view and are held to account by the public. MLCs are voted in by publicly elected representatives and are accountable to the same. The Lord Bishop is chosen by one religious organisation with little public influence or accountability. The threat from the Archbishop of York of the Island losing its Bishop if this vote 605 was recommended is surprising, as it has not been based on evidence. I believe the Lord Bishop should be released from his obligations of being part of a quorum and having a vote.

The President: Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan.

610 Mr Cannan: Thank you very much, Mr President. Members will see an amendment in front of them, but before I move that specific amendment I want to give my contribution to the debate that we are having about recommendation 2 and the Lord Bishop. I am going to do something highly unusual, Mr President, for those that know me: I am going to sit on the fence on this one. (Laughter) And 615 just let me explain why. I have listened very carefully to what the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins, has had to say and indeed I acknowledge and commend him for a very well-thought-out and well-put- together argument. I think the key point here in all this is really for us to accept that the Church’s vote in a democratic parliament is one that should be in today’s society scrutinised and 620 looked at very carefully. But I think the more relevant point here is what this debate is telling us – and I think this is for Bishop Peter. I think that this is an opportunity for a new Lord Bishop, a fresh pair of eyes coming into this Hon. Chamber, to perhaps really take time to assess himself in this case whether he is best serving the interests of the community, and of the Church and of the 625 respective faiths, by being inside this Court; or whether in fact actually there may be as solid an opportunity to put forward more robust perspectives and viewpoints on a number of issues from outside this Hon. Court. I do not necessarily accept that the Lord Bishop needs to be inside Tynwald to deliver his message. I certainly do not accept that the Lord Bishop needs to be inside Tynwald to represent 630 his faiths and his communities and the Christian nature of this Island. I think there are many strong core reasons why the Lord Bishop could adequately do that from outside this position. But I think that the new Lord Bishop needs some time to determine that. So having really clearly agonised a lot about this matter – because it is a very serious matter – it will be, if voted through today, a very significant change. And Hon. Members will know that I 635 am very firmly in favour of reform and change. I think that the most sensible course of action, I would hope, is for the Lord Bishop –who I am sure may well want to speak this morning or this afternoon, bearing in mind the time now – to perhaps give me and this Hon. Court his views on that, and perhaps we take a 12-month period to reflect on that. In other words, support the Committee’s recommendation but suggest to the Hon. Member 640 for Middle that he may like to come back in 12 months’ time with his proposal. That will have given both the Lord Bishop a proper time to have considered his role, the Bishop’s role on the

______Hansard Extract Page 14 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Island, and for us in Tynwald to have perhaps talked to the Lord Bishop at greater lengths about the issues and challenges that he is facing in his role. I talked about Government yesterday; clearly the Church has a lot of challenges in front of it as well. 645 So my view, therefore, is to say to Hon. Members, let’s go with the Committee on this. Let’s accept there are valid points being made this morning by the Hon. Member for Middle and others, but we should approach this in a considered and thoughtful manner. I hope that the Lord Bishop will recognise that, and also I hope perhaps that the Archbishop of York and others would recognise that the Island does recognise and value the role of the Lord Bishop, whether it would 650 be inside Tynwald or outside Tynwald on this Island. I am very certain that my constituents who attend church and are part of the Christian faith would fight strongly to retain that role as an individual role. I certainly would not like to see us having the Bishop of Liverpool, or Manchester, or Carlisle, or Blackburn popping over every five minutes to have a quick glance at matters and then popping back. There are a lot of issues for us 655 in our community, challenges that the Lord Bishop is dealing with that will impact on your constituents – perhaps less so in the towns. But for many of us out in rural communities dealing with a number of issues, particularly isolated communities in terms of maintaining a Church presence and how effectively that is put out on the ground. I commend actually the Lord Bishop and his team for the latest initiative, which has seen effectively a young member of the Church 660 committing to reinvigorating the Christian message out amongst the broader communities – not to necessarily hammer home the message of the Bible but to talk about good, strong, moral issues that we value on this Island. Mr President, getting off the fence and straight into recommendation 3: I have brought forward a recommendation which I hope will add some clarity to matters, and will more 665 accurately reflect the comments that we have seen in the Report. The recommendation that I am bringing forward this morning is that Tynwald is of the opinion that the Emoluments Committee should establish an independent review to examine and report on the emoluments of the Members of the House of Keys, which clearly then sets out to define what criteria would be set in that respect and separates the House of Keys from the Legislative Council. 670 I note the comments at paragraph 46 of the Committee’s Report where they say:

We do, however, draw a distinction between the pay for Members of Legislative Council and Members of the House of Keys. The terms of reference expressly allow for the role of a Member of the House of Keys and a Member of the Legislative Council to be considered separately, to enable a full range of options for the Review.

Yet my reading of recommendation 3 really does not provide any clarity for me at all around the difference in roles. It seems to me to put absolutely everybody straight into the same boat. I would suggest that it will not provide enough clear guidance for an effective independent review to take place, and the principles that have been attached – which I wholeheartedly endorse – 675 around elected Members of the House of Keys and giving everybody the right opportunities to serve, and of tying salaries down to the Civil Service salary, for example, should not necessarily be applied in the same manner to the Legislative Council, because as the Committee quite rightly point out they do want to draw this distinction. I think that an independent review should have that ability to accept that the House of Keys have a very different electoral process to go 680 through, and have very different roles and responsibilities and accountabilities when it comes to their position, as opposed to that of the Legislative Council. So, for example, let me be slightly clearer: if the Committee decided that the Legislative Council should be on a day rate, for example, and being on a day rate would satisfy all their criteria – allow them to come to their scrutiny committees and allow them to do their work, and 685 they would simply work on a billing rate depending on what level of work that they were involved with – I do not think tying that down to Civil Service salaries, for example, is going to be of any help whatsoever. So we are seeking reform. I think we are moving to changing the shape of the Legislative Council. I think whilst we have moved away somewhat from Lisvane directly, in some respects

______Hansard Extract Page 15 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

690 we are changing the emphasis, and I was absolutely pleased to note that the Speaker thinks that in recent years a lot of progress has been made in creating a young and diverse group of people –

The Speaker: In here. In here! (Interjection) 695 Mr Cannan: – in the Legislative Council –

The Speaker: No, in here!

700 Mr Cannan: Oh, in the House of Keys, of course, absolutely. So I would urge Members to support this amendment which pretty much covers everything that has been proposed by the Committee, and of course does determine that any changes for pay and allowances must not result in an increase overall to the costs of remuneration of Members of Tynwald, but does help the Committee meet their target in paragraph 46, whereby 705 the terms of reference expressly allow for a Member of the House of Keys and a Member of the Legislative Council to be considered separately. That is the important thing to enable a full range of options for the review. Finally, you will note that I have effectively incorporated the amendment regarding the Emoluments Committee establishing this independent review, rather than Government, so you 710 could quite easily vote this one through if you were so minded incorporating the amendment that Minister Ashford has also brought forward. I beg to move:

To leave out recommendation 3, and to insert the words: ‘Recommendation 3 That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Emoluments Committee should establish an independent review to examine and report on the emoluments of: (a) Members of the House of Keys, including all pay and allowances, with recommendations for a structure for salary and any related payments; and that the review should have regard to the following principles:  The salary and benefits must be sufficient to allow anyone to be able to serve in the House of Keys;  Enhanced executive and scrutiny roles should be recognized;  The recommendations of the review should maintain the principle of linking Members of the House of Keys basic pay to Civil Service salary levels; and (b) Members of the Legislative Council; but that changes to the structure for pay and allowances must not result in an increase in overall costs of remuneration of Members of Tynwald.’

The President: Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cregeen – sorry, Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen. 715 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President. Moved again! (Interjection) Some of the advertising slogans of the Isle of Man: ‘It’s our difference that makes us different’. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Programme for Government: ‘Our Island: a special place to live and work’. 720 What worries me about some of the comments made today is that we are constantly chipping away at the things that make us special. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) We might as well be part of the Home Counties if some Members get their way. I think some Members want us just to have one Member in Westminster and that will do, because it reminds them of home! (Laughter)

______Hansard Extract Page 16 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

725 Quite frankly, nobody has approached me to say, ‘Do you know what? This is a really important matter, the Bishop should lose its vote’. Nobody has come forward with it. And as for the comment, ‘Isle of Man Newspapers had an article …’ (Laughter) blimey! (Mr Malarkey: Social media!) They have many articles, some of them from faceless wonders who are anonymous and then they go and make an article of it! (A Member: Hear, hear.) I would 730 like to know, when are these people going to put their names to it? (A Member: Well said!) The time comes that we have got to say, ‘Do you know what? We stand for what we are’. If we constantly go on and on criticising ourselves and saying that what we are doing is wrong, then that is what the people are going to believe. What trust will the people have in all of us if we are constantly chipping and navel-gazing, saying, ‘Do you know what? I think we should be 735 like this county in the UK’. ‘I have looked at Jersey; look what they are doing.’ ‘I have looked at Guernsey.’ We can go to any of these jurisdictions and say likewise, ‘Do you know what? We do this better than any of them’. And yet in this Hon. Court we are going on, saying, ‘We should change just for the sake of change. The people will see us doing something; it may not be right, but at 740 least we are doing something’.

Mr Ashford: Bring back the Clerk of the Rolls.

Mr Shimmins: Bring back the birch! (Laughter and interjection) 745 Mr Cregeen: The great and notorious Lord Lisvane: how many times do we hear everything that comes through, that changes in the Isle of Man should come down to what Lord Lisvane says? It was quite interesting during the Brexit debate in the House of Lords: Lord Lisvane, the 750 oracle of all change, but what has he actually changed in the United Kingdom government? Very little. But the people of the United Kingdom voted for Brexit. Now, here we go:

And the third from the splendidly bewhiskered Lord Lisvane, former Clerk to the Commons, drawing the analogy of three timorous maiden aunts who, having voted to go to the cinema, discovered that the only films on offer were Reservoir Dogs or Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Should they not, he mused, be allowed to reconsider their decision?

Now, we had Lord Lisvane come over here, and he had a look at what we were doing. We can take it or leave it – it is his opinion, his very short opinion of a visit to the Isle of Man from his point. 755 Quite frankly, Mr President, over the time that I have been in this Hon. Court, there have been memorable moments when the Bishop has had some very wise words that have actually brought the reality back to Hon. Members of some of the things that we should be looking at. And it could be said with many Members of the Legislative Council, especially Mr Lowey in his day reminiscing over many years. But I think we tinker with these things at our peril. And like the 760 Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan said, is there a rush for this? I do not think there is. I think there is plenty of time. We could regret this over a long time. Let’s give it great consideration and take the time to see what we will be missing and what we would be losing. Mr President, I will not be supporting the amendment for the Bishop to lose his vote. I think 765 we need to take time and really ensure that what we do will be right for the people of the Isle of Man.

The President: Hon. Member, I understood you indicated you would be seconding Mr Cannan’s amendment. Is that not the case? (Mr Cregeen: No.) Not the case. 770 In that case, I call Mr Thomas.

______Hansard Extract Page 17 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr President, and I will second Mr Cannan’s amendment. (Several Members: Hear, hear.) The first point to make is to repeat what the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and 775 Malew just said, which is there are excellent, well-informed, helpful remarks often made by religious people in this Court and elsewhere, wise words. I have full respect for our Bishop and have quoted His Graces, the Lord Archbishops from York and Canterbury in my Budget speeches, until this one this last year, because they have been passionately behind issues that I am behind. I could not help but note that the maiden speech of our Bishop when he arrived in the Isle of 780 Man was about the living wage, which is an issue that I find very important and I was delighted to listen with some encouragement from that perspective. Secondly, I would like to say that for me the tradition of the Diocese of Sodor and Man, going back to Nidaros in Trondheim, going back to Dublin, going back all over the place through history to unknown times is a very important tradition for the Isle of Man. 785 Then the third general point I would like to make at the beginning is I am a bit like Jeremy Corbyn in this, (Several Members: Ooh!) (Laughter) when he was asked about what he thought about his republican beliefs about the Queen. What he replied was that there are much more important issues for the Labour Party than the Queen; there is poverty, there is housing, there is income and all of those sorts of things. That is how Mr Corbyn justified his position, as not 790 making a major issue of his republicanism and the Queen during the last election. But having a wise voice and having important things to say is not the same as having a vote in this Hon. Court and the historical tradition is quite clear, which is that representation of the Church has become over the centuries much less common, in fact more or less non-existent, and so therefore we have got an important issue to consider. 795 I just want to make two or three very specific points about this. The first one is that like Mr Hooper, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, and Mr Ashford, the Hon. Member from Douglas North, I have looked very closely at His Grace’s letter and there is option A and option C, and like Mr Ashford I am focusing on option B as being what does that really mean? For that we have to look at His Grace’s words. He talks about ‘incorporated into an English diocese’, which is not the 800 same as becoming part of an English diocese. So I looked again at how it is organised in Jersey and Guernsey, and I am not an expert in any way for ecclesiastical arrangement or ecclesiastical law, but my understanding is that the arrangements in Jersey and Guernsey are separated from the diocese with which they are associated. They are not quite the same as being just part of one diocese. So there is a lot to explore about that very point. 805 The second point I wanted to make about this on a technical level is that there are many religious people in parliaments around the world who have been voted to those positions either directly or indirectly and therefore they earn, using Mr Hooper’s definition of the right to be voting in a parliament, that right because they do have a mandate for their position. So there is nothing contradictory, and in fact I think I made it in my submission to Lord Lisvane, about 810 having a parliament set up with functional representation for the vote, in which case the Bishop or anybody else from a religious faith would be entitled to exercise that vote. But that is different, for me, than just having the voice. The third technical point I wanted to make on this vote for the Bishop matter is that I do not think it suits the Hon. Treasury Minister, the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, to sit on the 815 fence, because I think the amendment from Mr Shimmins, the Hon. Member for Middle, actually achieves the purpose that was put to it by the Hon. Member who wanted to sit on the fence. For instance, what the amendment says is that the Standing Orders Committee will come back by October 2018 with a suggestion for a Bill; but we are already to the 12-month timescale. The amendment does not say whether the Bill will be introduced into the Legislative Council or into 820 the House of Keys. To me, there needs to be lots of investigation and lots of discussion about this and I actually think the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael should come off the fence and support the motion in respect of recommendation 2 because it achieves precisely the purpose that he is advocating for it.

______Hansard Extract Page 18 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

I think I said three, but in fact there is a fourth technical point, (Interjection) which is that 825 there is a credible risk – I am not using my own words, I am using the words of the person we do not dare mention in this Hon. Court – to the Bishop from having a vote, because research by Mr Edge and Mr Pearce of a period in Tynwald between 1961 and 2001 found that on 53 occasions the Lord Bishop’s vote was critical in a political decision, and so there is a risk involved in that. 830 I suppose also I get frustrated. I take the other Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael’s point about the fact that the Committee is working diligently and with intelligence and thoughtfully in coming up with a consensus view in a difficult matter, but I think the suggestion of an odd number and the bit about a quorum was a bit mischievous in terms of the analysis and the recommendations. For instance, the person we cannot mention because he comes from another 835 place – it begins with an L, ends with an E and has got a V in the middle – said that the situation of the Bishop was sui generis, which means something like unique, and should not be taken into account in the situation of any of the other Members of the Legislative Council, but that is exactly what this Committee did. He said that the issue about the quorum was worth further consideration and it is dismissed in this Report without any analysis of the arguments involved. 840 In terms of the amendment about pay that I have just seconded, I just wanted to again say a couple of points. The first one is that this seems to me like a perfectly regular job evaluation and then grading process. It is pretty hard to do a job evaluation when the job has not exactly been precisely specified, but that is what we are into, that is how you would approach it from a human resource perspective. Job evaluation grading systems do not cost a great deal of money. 845 There are quite a few consultants who work for Government who could easily do this sort of work, specify the job, talk to people, profile it, grade the different parts of the role and then we would come up with a system. I know singletons are an issue that perplexes many Members of this Court: people who have high pay with nobody reporting to them directly and working for them in their line. Look around 850 us: how many of us actually manage people? Are we not singletons in human resource terms? The Annual Report of Tynwald for the last few years and again the Budget document yesterday show the public and us very clearly that the employee costs of Tynwald are flatlining for decades, but Members’ costs are shooting up. In terms of pensions, we do have the issue that the Treasury has imposed a 15% employer’s contribution on the Clerk of Tynwald for all of us, 855 but that 15% contribution for this employer does not cover the costs of our pensions. We have got to take a look from a value, value, value point of view with the whole way that we organise democracy. So they are two other perspectives that I would hope that this Committee would take into account as it looks at pay and I encourage Members to support both of the amendments that 860 have been debated. Finally, I just wanted to say that we just heard from the Chair of the Committee looking at Lord Lisvane’s recommendations that we are moving now to the final report in May and that –

The Speaker: I did not say May. 865 Mr Anderson: He did not say May.

Mr Thomas: Did you not say May? (The Speaker: No.) Okay, I misheard. When will it be?

870 The Speaker: We do not know. (Laughter and interjection)

Mr Thomas: Okay, we are now moving to the final stage of the reporting for the Lord Lisvane Committee, and it is just worth, I think, making a number of remarks in that context. The first one is I was thinking through what might be relevant as a quote to try to define and 875 describe Tynwald reform, and I remember a quote that is very important for me from a John

______Hansard Extract Page 19 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Lennon song, which is ‘life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans’. The reality, and everybody knows this is the reality, is Tynwald reform is what is happening as Juan Watterson is busy making other plans. Tynwald reform is now going on quite substantially. Previously, between 1986 and 2006, 21 out of the 23 MLCs had served mostly quite a long time 880 as MHKs and the average age of going in was 63. There were four in their 70s, eight in their 60s. Now, of the 14 candidates we currently have, not one of them has been an MHK previously and that is quite a profound reform of Tynwald. In December 2017 we passed a recommendation in this Hon. Court from this Committee and then later on that month we put into place legislation to change how the Chief Minister is 885 elected. There are many issues of Tynwald reform which have come up in recent months – for instance, how secondary legislation is considered in the Branches of Tynwald; what is in primary legislation and what is in secondary legislation; how the Policy Review Committees and the Public Accounts Committee, the Committees of Tynwald, work is to me an issue of Tynwald reform that is a live issue. 890 I think Mr Speaker is a great politician, great speeches yesterday, but I think and my feeling and my view of history is that he was pushing the limit of what presiding officers have done in recent decades by intervening so much in Government’s Budget, so we need to look at the whole question of presiding officers –

895 The President: Hon. Member –

Mr Thomas: – and the role of presiding officers.

The President: You are very much wandering off the point here (Several Members: Hear, 900 hear.) and off what is on the paper before us. Please confine your remarks back to the motion.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. I will conclude then that Tynwald reform is a process that is going on, there has been a lot of reform, initiatives can come forward in all sorts of areas and I will be supporting the 905 recommendations laid down for items 2 and 3 and of course supporting recommendation 1 as laid by the Committee.

The President: Mr Cannan.

910 Mr Cannan: Can I raise a point of order, Mr President –

The President: A point of order.

Mr Cannan: – before you move to conclude the sitting. I have been asked just to clarify: 915 recommendation 3 that I moved before, I have been queried as to whether the final lines refer specifically to the Members of the Legislative Council. It says:

(b) Members of the Legislative Council; but that changes … for pay and allowances must not result in … overall costs of remuneration of Members of Tynwald.

Can I just confirm to the Clerk and to Members of Tynwald that that line does incorporate both (a) and (b) in terms of the review and the cost, just in case Members were confused.

920 The President: Thank you for that clarification, Mr Cannan.

The Clerk: That certainly was the intention when Mr Cannan and I sat this morning just before the sitting. There is a semi-colon after (b) and then it consciously refers to Members of

______Hansard Extract Page 20 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Tynwald because (a) is about Members of the House of Keys and (b) is about Members of the 925 Legislative Council. That was the intention of the amendment.

The President: It is the semi-colon that is vital (Laughter) and establishes your intent. Thank you for the clarification. Hon. Members, the Court will now stand adjourned – Mr Speaker. 930 The Speaker: I will say that I could probably finish this in five minutes if it was the will of the Court.

The President: Well, you might be able to but I have four more speakers – 935 The Speaker: Oh, my apologies. (Laughter)

The President: – who I think would still like to be called, (Mr Corkish: Hear, hear.) so we will adjourn until 2.30 and Mrs Poole-Wilson will be the first to speak.

The Court adjourned at 1 p.m. and resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m.

Select Committee on the Functioning of Tynwald – Debate continued – Amended motion carried 940 The President: We resume our debate on Item 4 and I call the Hon. Member of Council, Mrs Poole-Wilson.

Mrs Poole-Wilson: Thank you, Mr President. 945 Looking at recommendation 1, it is obviously, I think, important that Members have continuous professional development and I am supportive of the Tynwald Management Committee being responsible for overseeing this. Turning to recommendation 2, the Committee I think correctly states that the main question here is whether the Lord Bishop should retain his vote, as the questions of whether the Lord 950 Bishop should be required to attend, count towards quorum and vote follow from this. A number of Hon. Members have spoken of the value they place in having the Lord Bishop as a Member of Tynwald, and this Hon. Court showed itself in favour of retaining the Lord Bishop’s membership, and I include myself in that. However, while I am supportive of retaining the voice of the Bishop in Tynwald, I am not 955 persuaded that the Lord Bishop should retain a vote. Partly this is for the reason given by the former Lord Bishop in evidence to Lord Lisvane – that the Lord Bishop is required to vote on matters of which he has no opinion, no axe to grind whatsoever, and so should be allowed to abstain. The previous Lord Bishop also highlighted the difficulties of being able to attend sittings at times and suggested that the Lord Bishop should not be part of the quorum. This, and 960 particularly the ability to abstain, speak to the Lord Bishop retaining a voice but not a vote. But more compellingly, I think, this goes to the issue of democracy. The Archbishop of York, in his letter appended to the Committee’s Report, states that the Lord Bishop’s vote is a matter of great importance to the Church of England, and that it mirrors the position of the Bishops in England who sit in the House of Lords. However, as the 965 Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins, has already pointed out, the Lord Bishop is in the Manx

______Hansard Extract Page 21 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

context is much more powerful than the Lords Spiritual in the UK, representing a much greater proportion of the Legislative Council than the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. This relatively more powerful position is particularly significant when we start thinking about it in terms of democracy, when there arise issues on which a Lord Bishop may feel he or she 970 should vote in line with a particular Christian perspective – and indeed, the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas, has highlighted that there are risks here. Prof. Peter Edge highlights this in connection with the Sexual Offences Bill Legislative Council debates in 1992 and discussion of House of Keys amendments regarding legalising homosexuality. In connection with this, the then Lord Bishop stated in debate that:

… a cross-section of Christian people of all denominations, reminding me that in our deliberations here … the Bishop represents as wide a range of Christian opinion as possible. … I would have been neglecting my duties if I did not [draw attention to] the deep strength of feeling … from the majority of Christian people that [this change] is unwelcome.

975 The then Lord Bishop voted accordingly against the amendments which had been passed by a recently elected House of Keys, some of whom had made legalisation a part of their campaign, and against a backdrop of consideration of the Island’s European Convention obligations and a threat at the time of having the change imposed from the UK. Retaining a voice would enable a Lord Bishop to articulate the view of Christians on particular 980 issues, but I am not convinced, particularly given the proportion of the Legislative Council he represents, that it is appropriate for the Lord Bishop to retain a vote. We have heard the concern that loss of the vote may mean the loss of the Diocese as an independent unit and the Committee express the view that this would have a detrimental effect on the Island’s status and influence. The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, has today 985 questioned precisely where this loss of status and influence would arise. I would question whether the situation in the Channel Islands, who do not have an independent see and instead have Deans who are allowed to speak but not to vote, has negatively impacted those islands’ status. They also still have the thing that a number of Hon. Members here do value, a voice representing faith and associated spirituality and moral perspectives. 990 As the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford, has pointed out, this is a potential change, but one man’s change today is another man’s history tomorrow. The history of this Island and Tynwald shows a process of evolution, and the ability of this Hon. Court to evolve further and make decisions about the issues we are debating today speaks powerfully to our status and sense of nationhood. It is this ability that makes us special, that makes us different. 995 So while I do very much value the voice of the Lord Bishop in Tynwald, I am not persuaded by the case put forward as to why he should retain the vote and I will be supporting the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins’ amendment. Turning to recommendation 3, in terms of the proposed pay review, I do think that should take full account of the different roles that Members of Tynwald can play. As the Hon. Member 1000 for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan, pointed out, the Committee did expressly draw a distinction between the pay for MLCs and the pay for MHKs and I do think this is an issue it is important to take account of – not least recognising the difference between MHKs and MLCs in terms of MHKs day-to-day constituency workload and the associated time and expenses involved. The Committee also states that the terms of reference expressly allow for the role of a 1005 Member of the House of Keys and a Member of the Legislative Council to be considered separately, to enable a full range of options for review, and I am supportive of this, particularly because this should include the opportunity to take into account the potential evolution of the roles of Members of Legislative Council. For example, to act as a critical friend to Government working cross departmentally or to support and scrutinise implementation of particular policies, 1010 or, as others have suggested, perhaps to take on a sort of non-executive roles attached to Departments.

______Hansard Extract Page 22 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

A review of roles and evolving responsibilities, linking that with pay, would enable greater transparency and an opportunity to take account of equal pay requirements as well. I am supportive of the Hon. Member for Douglas North’s amendment that this review should 1015 be conducted by the Emoluments Committee of Tynwald, and I will be supporting that amendment. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Members may remove jackets, if they wish. 1020 I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett.

Mrs Corlett: Thank you, Mr President. I rise in support of Mr Shimmins’ amendment. So much has already been said and therefore I will be very brief with my remarks. I have listened to both sides of the argument but I have not 1025 changed my mind on the issue. I am of the opinion that a Member of Tynwald has the right to vote because they have been through the election process. I cannot support the right to vote if that process has not been applied. This for me is not about religion or faith, but it is about something just as fundamental: it is about democracy. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I simply believe that an appointed Member should 1030 not have the right to vote. Thank you.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.

1035 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr President. I shall try to be as equally brief. For me, actually it is about religion, but in a broader sense. I am not what I would call a practising Christian, because I am an agnostic. I believe in something; I cannot hang my hat on what it is exactly I believe, and I think I have an advantage because I can go into any church in the world and worship, because all roads go to the same place at the end 1040 of the day, in my opinion. But I do value – and it does not matter which religion it would be, they all come from the same place – it is the voice of, I suppose, humanitarianism, the voice that cares. It is about caring about people, looking after people and embracing everybody, whatever religion, whatever colour, whatever it is. All of the religions bring us back to those fundamentals. And I think, to me, that is why the voice of the Bishop is very important because he reminds 1045 us – and we all do need reminding at times – of why we are here, what we are meant to be debating, particularly if things get out of hand a bit, which they do at times. He can remind us of why international aid is important, why poverty is important to eradicate, all of these things. These are just the basic, humanitarian things that sweep the whole spectrum and belong to everybody. 1050 I have to say, I have found this decision one of the most difficult that I have had to make since I became an MHK, because I was so in favour of the Bishop keeping his vote and have been until fairly recently, when I have actually thought is it inhibiting that voice – that voice that we really need in here? A lot of people say you should not mix politics and religion and you should not have somebody voting who has not been elected, etc. Does that stop the Bishop or whoever 1055 would be in that seat speaking for humanity? Does it stop him from actually speaking? Because there would be times where I am sure he would be thinking, ‘I would be voting on this one way or I would be voting on this the other way, but if I speak I am going to influence and maybe I should not be influencing when it is something that is not a humanitarian issue. And I felt over the time, particularly with the previous Bishop, that he has been … we have spoken 1060 afterwards, and he has said what he thought, and I felt that he was inhibited. I think if we had a Bishop without a vote I would hope that we would hear a lot more of the sense – the good common sense for good humanitarian sense – that we need in this Court, at times.

______Hansard Extract Page 23 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

It may sound a bit circular, if you like, and very different to other people’s points of view, but that is my opinion on the matter and how I came to it. So I will be supporting Mr Shimmins’ 1065 amendment, but because I want to hear more from the Bishop. Thank you.

The President: I call on the Lord Bishop.

1070 The Lord Bishop: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. Hon. Members perhaps will not be surprised to hear that I will not be saying anything on recommendation 1 or recommendation 3 but will just address my remarks to recommendation 2. I thank Hon. Members very much indeed for their contributions to this discussion, which I 1075 have found fascinating and interesting in every way. I recognise the variety of opinions, I recognise the conviction of opinions, I recognise the strength of opinions and I acknowledge that. I am not, I think, in the position of one who is called upon to respond to a debate but rather one who is perhaps called upon to reflect back into that discussion to address some of the points that have been raised and to offer my own perspective on my work and my role here, as 1080 indeed one or two Hon. Members have invited me to do. I will not therefore address directly the questions of everyone, but I think there are one or two comments specifically raised by Hon. Members that I would like to address. First of all, the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford, who raised the very interesting comparison, which has indeed been picked up by others, of the Channel Islands and their 1085 separate ecclesiastical status. He stated the fact that the Channel Islands are part of the Diocese of Winchester. In fact, that is no longer the case. A couple of years ago the Channel Islands were removed from the Diocese of Winchester and they now receive pastoral care from the Diocese of Canterbury, exercised by the Bishop of Dover. The reason for that, without going into further detail, has to do with pastoral breakdown. It has to do with the difficulty of an isolated, offshore, 1090 separate diocese, or jurisdiction that should be a diocese, being looked after from somewhere else. I think I would make the point that the diocese is the basic unit of the Christian community, not the parish but the diocese, and therefore if you have something that is geographically distinct but that is looked after pastorally from somewhere else, there will be fragility built into that, a fragility and indeed some fault lines that have been exposed over the past couple of years 1095 in the case of Guernsey and Jersey. I suspect also that some of that fragility is what lies behind the wording of the Archbishop of York’s letter. In other words, he is reflecting not directly on this particular issue, although clearly he has a thought on that, but rather on the fact that a place like the Isle of Man, for ecclesiastical and pastoral purposes, does have its own challenges. It is small and with limited resources and 1100 therefore its status as an independent diocese has to be contingent upon certain things, upon I suppose what we might call that discourse of a community at peace with itself, to repeat again the Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw’s felicitous line from yesterday. Therefore the Archbishop of York is not, I think, willing to say that this is a question of natural consequences. I think rather he is expressing a pastoral concern for us as the community in this place, from his perspective the 1105 Christian community in this place, and acknowledging the fact that probably it needs to have these structures which have served well in the past to enable it to do so in the future. I reflect also on the fact that in 1875 when the Anglican Diocese of Liverpool was established there was considerable concern that the Isle of Man, Sodor and Man, would be incorporated into that diocese, and in fact I have in the various press cuttings and books in the library at the 1110 Bishop’s house a considerable amount of press correspondence on this, a real concern that this Diocese would lose its independent status and would be incorporated into the newly founded Diocese of Liverpool. Clearly, if that were to happen, as the Hon. Member, Mr Cannan indicated, there would then be a question of a visit from the Bishop of Liverpool. I do not think it would be

______Hansard Extract Page 24 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

every five minutes, which I think was the phrase; I think it would be more like every five or six 1115 months. So I think some of those deeper concerns about the nature of the Diocese lie underneath the Archbishop’s letter and clearly he is not willing or wishing to put any pressure upon us at all; I think simply to state the fact that there have been concerns in the past about the sustainability of this Diocese and to introduce those into our current debate. 1120 The Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine, raised, I think, three points that I would like to respond to. One was that it would be wrong of all things for me to vote on this particular amendment, and clearly I assure this Hon. Court that I would have no intention of doing that. Mrs Caine also had a concern, I think, that without the Bishop the Legislative Council might be seen as being somehow morally defective. I think again I would wish to reassure the Hon. 1125 Member none of us would think that. With the best will in the world the fact remains that the Church has in the past cultivated and always wished to cultivate a moral and ethical understanding that many people do not have time to cultivate for themselves, and that I think is what I would regard myself as bringing to the Legislative Council. The third concern the Hon. Member expressed was that there had been no Manx 1130 involvement in my appointment as Bishop of the Diocese. That also is not true, in that, as with all episcopal appointments, there is a lengthy consultation period before anything really happens in terms of process. Out of that, from the Diocese, members are invited to apply to belong to the Crown Nominations Commission, which is the body that interviews and appoints bishops. Therefore, those who interviewed and appointed me for this role came in large part 1135 from the Isle of Man, they were resident here as worshipping members of the Diocese of Sodor and Man, and indeed within the interviews around this post a large amount of the discussion had to do with the role in Tynwald. So, whilst that clearly is not the same as being elected to this Hon. Court, it does, I think, allay that concern that there has been no Manx representational input into my appointment. 1140 The Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan, asked me to reflect perhaps on my own experience here, and I would say this: I have already in fact reflected and written quite widely on the enormous privilege that I regard it to be to sit in Tynwald. I regard that as an immense and enormous privilege, not one that I take at all lightly and one that carries with it, as others have rightly identified, a significant responsibility. The role of the Bishop – as the role of any minister 1145 of religion, I would say – is to be both prophetic and pastoral, prophetic in being able to speak into situations and pastoral in exercising care for those entrusted to us. A constant challenge for me inevitably is to hold those things in balance, but I do not see a conflict in doing so in terms of my current position and I can reflect on a couple of instances of pastoral cases that I work on at the moment where I have a responsibility to those in the wider society and a responsibility to 1150 those who are involved within Government, and for me I would say to be a stakeholder in that process is of great significance and value. To the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins, who raises the amendment, thank you very much indeed for the breadth of the case that you put forward. Rightly, you sought to identify parallels and the parallel that you came up with was England and the role of the bishops, the 1155 Lords Spiritual, in the House of Lords in Westminster. You are correct, I think, in that it is not necessarily a Celtic tradition or a Norse tradition, it is perhaps something that has more in common with the English tradition, but the point perhaps to be made is that the Church of England is established, rightly or wrongly, by law and that is reflected within this Diocese also, whereas in the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church that is no longer the case. 1160 One can make a case for or against establishment, but if one has establishment of the Church then a corollary of that is the involvement and engagement of the Church within the everyday processes of legislation and government. I would say also there is one point further than that as well, which is that there is probably something I would say distinctively Anglican about this and we acknowledge that the Diocese of 1165 Sodor and Man as part of the Church of England, part of the Anglican Communion, which has

______Hansard Extract Page 25 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

always based its understanding of ministry not on doctrine, not on dogma, not even on conversion, but on pastoral care. It has to do with pastoral care and out of that comes the parochial system, the system of parishes whereby everyone who lives in England or on the Isle of Man belongs to a parish and has the automatic right of claim upon that parish for baptism, for 1170 funerals, for weddings, for rites of passage and for pastoral care. For that reason I am interested in everyone who lives on the Isle of Man and any member of my clergy is interested directly and completely in anyone who lives within their parish. It has to do with that pastoral care, which is exemplified, as I say, through representation in the structures of government, of education, which is why we have hospital and university chaplains, for example, and healthcare and 1175 elsewhere. The hon. mover sought, I think, to address the question of whether or not this was a Manx tradition and at this point I think I probably need to go back to some of the earliest Manx traditions, so I go back to the earliest known text in Manx Gaelic, which Members may well be aware is called the Account of the Isle of Man in Song – Coontey Jeh Ellan Vannin Ayns Arrane – 1180 sometimes known as the Manx Traditionary Ballad, and this is the oldest example of Manx Gaelic. There are two manuscripts, both dating from about 1770, in the Manx Museum, one of them written by John Kelly, whose other claim to fame was that he was the transcriber of the Manx Bible and indeed, when shipwrecked between Douglas and Whitehaven, saved the manuscript from being ruined by holding it above the waves for five hours, the Manx manuscript 1185 of the Old Testament from Deuteronomy to Job. But I go back to the account of the Isle of Man in Song. It consists of 57 stanzas and I just give us stanza 13:

Eisht vannee Parick Karmane noo As daag eh eh nyn Aspick ayn Dy niartagh yn Credjue ny smoo as ny smoo As Cabballyn ren eh anrick ayn

which effectively tells the story of how Patrick, having brought the Christian faith to this Island, handed it over to German as first Bishop of this Island in 447 and it was German who then established the chapels, the little keeills that we know so well across the Island. 1190 This is the background to the sort of fascinating conversation that I often have with the Hon. Member the Minister for Policy and Reform, who asks me questions like why do we have so many keeills across the Island, or how do we articulate now our link with Trondheim, or who might the patron saint be of the Isle of Man. These are not just academic questions; they are questions about those things that have shaped and continue to define our identity. They 1195 continue to define our Island identity and it is an identity that is unique, and Tynwald is an institution that is unique. Again, to go back to the hon. mover, if the only comparison is with the House of Lords in Westminster then perhaps it is no coincidence that Tynwald and Westminster are the world’s two longest continuous parliaments and that they represent that continuity, that discourse 1200 which arises from a settled and civilised population that has not undergone significant revolution and change but has managed to look after its own domestic affairs spiritually and pastorally as well as politically and economically. I have taken us there in that stanza back to the beginnings of the Manx Church and to the keeills, and the next stanza talks about how Maughold, as the successor of German, then 1205 translated that further into parishes, dividing the Island up into the parishes that we have today in one form or another. It is that spiritual tradition that has given us our structures and those have endured until the present. It has also, of course, given us our social and our moral and our ethical priorities and principles, and that Judeo-Christian tradition which underlies those principles and has done so for centuries does so not just here but across the western world. I 1210 happen to think that in this place it does so particularly well, for reasons that I and others have today already identified, but that Judeo-Christian tradition has sustained us and continues to do so in almost every field of life in which this Hon. Court has decisions to make. And so, for

______Hansard Extract Page 26 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

example in education, whether we think back to Augustine talking in the fifth century about cognitive processes and learning, or the early Christian humanists at the beginning of the 16th 1215 century who invented modern education as we know it and paved the way for the modern world, or Cardinal Newman in the 19th century writing about what it means to be a university and how does one educate the human mind at that higher level … So education, health, the beginnings of the National Health Service and the welfare state, social care, our understanding of the sanctity of life, our understanding of end-of-life care, of crime and punishment, of how 1220 and when and why we go to war, all of these things have been defined and undergirded and sustained and described by that Judeo-Christian tradition. And so the explanation underneath all of that is that we are spiritual beings. We are physical beings, we are intellectual beings, but we are spiritual beings, perhaps first and foremost we are spiritual beings, and that spiritual tradition, that spiritual deposit should be incorporated and 1225 brought to bear on our deliberations and our decision-making in which we have moral and ethical responsibility for the people, for the people who have elected us but also for the people who have been entrusted to our care, and that is the way that I would describe it. That may not, as you have so rightly said in many cases, be built into the democratic process but actually it is what underlines the democratic process, it is what has defined the democratic process, it is what 1230 undergirds it and it predates it. So indeed the democratic process on which rightly we set so much store has been generated by that Judeo-Christian tradition and for that reason it seems to me that to separate those two things is a complex and complicated thing to do. It is not, I think, for me to justify my position and I hope I have not done that, I have sought perhaps to explain some of the parameters upon which I see it resting, and it is not either for me 1235 to ask anything of this Hon. Court, but it is, I think, perhaps for me to offer my reflections at this early stage in my ministry so that you at least have an idea of how I see myself working and what I believe myself to be doing when I come here on Tuesdays, and indeed sometimes on Wednesdays. (Laughter) Perhaps in conclusion, then, I would say simply this, that the vote in itself is significant 1240 because the tradition that it represents is vital. I use that word ‘vital’ in its literal sense from the Latin vita: it is essential to life. That tradition is essential to our understanding of life and how this Hon. Court enshrines that understanding, that spiritual deposit and tradition in its own processes is, I think, for this Hon. Court one of the most significant questions that it has to consider. 1245 Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.

The Speaker: Follow that! 1250 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr President. Let’s get recommendations 1 and 3 out of the way. I fully support recommendation 1, and the Hon. Treasury Minister’s amendment to recommendation 3, because this is a parliamentary issue – it is certainly not a Government issue with regard to pay. So just to get that one out of 1255 the way before we get on to the main issue of the day and the great debate over our Lord Bishop. It has been an interesting one, certainly for somebody like … And I hate doing this all the time, having to go back and reminiscing back to 2006. I remember coming in here saying, ‘Right, the Bishop loses the vote; the Chief Minister gets elected by the public; the Legislative Council 1260 gets voted in by the public because this is what the people of the Isle of Man want, because this is what it says in the papers; this is what we all need’. Then 12 years later, no, we have not done any of that, because it is not always what is in the papers that the people of the Isle of Man want. If they really wanted it I do not think it would have taken us 12 months to get to this debate today.

______Hansard Extract Page 27 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

1265 So I am afraid, from the mover of this amendment today with regard to what people in the paper would want, or whether the Bishop should lose his vote, I think plays very little part of what we are discussing today. We are discussing the future, the heritage of the Isle of Man; you are talking about how we as a parliament operate. We have heard very good arguments for both sides on why the Bishop should have a vote 1270 and to be honest, I can honestly say, for long enough I have been on the fence as to whether the Bishop should have a vote. But where I am not on the fence is whether we should have a Bishop, and there is a marked difference today. You could have any thoughts you want on this issue, but the bottom line is when this is over do you want to have a Bishop representing the Isle of Man, or don’t you? 1275 The arguments we have had here: I do not see that what has come forward from the letter from the Archbishop of York saying we may well lose the Bishop for the Isle of Man … We have had Mr Ashford, Mr Shimmins and Mr Hooper, the Hon. Members, saying ‘I don’t think so’. Do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don’t think so. We might lose the Bishop if we take the vote off him, or we might not. So we might be changing history by a simple vote 1280 today by taking the vote away from the Bishop. I cannot emphasise in my experience in this Hon. Court how important I have found input from various Bishops, over the years, to debates. I have had the pleasure of working with three separate Bishops, like several other Members in here have done, who have all had different opinions. They have always had great input into debates, certainly some of the ones over 1285 homosexuality and other emotive debates which at times have got a little bit heated in here and you always find … We used to have – and I think the Hon. Member, Mr Cregeen, said – Mr Lowey used to always put a bit of a levelling slot on to all the debates. But certainly the Bishop would always come in and give us his view of what he thought on how a debate should be going and put a little bit of Christianity, if you like, into the debates and keep us stable. 1290 Now, with the greatest respect to this Hon. Court, there are 12 brand-new Members in this House – or 13, including the one in the Upper Chamber. You have only had the experience of a Bishop for five sittings, we only had this new Bishop join us this year and we were without a Bishop for 12 months. The poor gentleman has not even had a chance to put into debates yet. Remember how everybody was in that first year when we get elected for the first time, getting 1295 drawn into debates and getting involved? And now you are 12 months into the job you are getting more into debates and you are you getting involved in debates. You have not had that experience of what spiritual and other guidance can come from having a Bishop in this Hon. Court to help with debates. It is not just about our heritage, but it is also the input that they have, and that input could be 1300 lost just by taking his vote away. I am not saying whether he should have a vote or whether he should not have a vote, I have always sat on the fence with that one, but I keep going back to I do think we should have a Bishop. I do not think honestly that you are giving him a chance. I do not think you have been in here long enough, personally, to find out how important he is to debates. You have got another three and a half years before election, if you think that is what 1305 the people of the Isle of Man want and that the Isle of Man Newspapers are right that they are all saying they want the Bishop to lose his vote. All I am saying … and you heard the Treasury Minister saying, what is the rush now of taking the vote off? Because once you take the vote off there is a consequence, and the consequence is we could lose the Bishop; and when the Bishop has gone, the Bishop has gone and he will not be 1310 coming back again. I think to me, the best quote of the day came earlier on, which I wrote: ‘unintended consequences’. I absolutely could not put it better myself, because one vote today could have … You are talking of the history of the Isle of Man. Why do we want to be the same as Jersey and Guernsey? We have a history of being different. 1315 You have heard all this said by Members: we are unique in what we do. So we are unique because we have a Bishop with a vote. Why change it? What is the rush? I really cannot see one

______Hansard Extract Page 28 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

today, Mr President, why we have to have this decision today about taking the Bishop’s vote away. Because I am going to keep repeating it: when it has gone it has gone, and when the Bishop has gone you are not going to get him back. You are changing the slant of our history 1320 going forward, because we may well in the future not have a Bishop solely representing the Isle of Man. So just be very careful today when you are making this decision; if you are on the fence, slide off the fence and wait for two or three years, come back and if you still feel the same way let’s have the same debate again. There is no rush to go along with the amendment today. Let’s stick 1325 with recommendation 2, let the Bishop keep his vote. Let’s find out how he performs for the next three years – Lord Bishop! (Laughter) I don’t know, they might change their minds! But what I do not want to happen today is when you have only been in the job five months, everybody judging you and saying you should not have a vote, when you have not had a chance to prove yourself and prove to everybody else exactly what you are capable of doing, sir. 1330 The President: Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Harmer.

Mr Harmer: Thank you, Mr President, and thank you for an excellent debate. I thank also the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins, in his speech. I thought it was an 1335 excellent speech and well considered, and in some senses it is the heart of democracy that is really important and something that I am very passionate about. I am also reflective on the Member for Douglas Central, in terms of when he talks about Jeremy Corbyn and the issues that matter in this world; it is pensions; it is day-to-day living and in this context some of what we do is naval gaze far too far, going round and round in circles. 1340 Really nothing is ever smooth. They say the path of love is not smooth, the path of history is not smooth and in terms of our history it is not smooth. If you talk about how we and why we are an independent nation, we have had almost historical accidents and historical issues that have happened along the way, for example, the 1765 Revestment Act, things that could have gone differently and if they had gone differently may have unsettled or changed our democracy. What 1345 we have here today is because of our history, it is because of our past, and it is because of Patrick coming to this Isle, it is because of that establishment. We could, if you like, make things into boxes, square off every single issue. I am sure there are constitutional issues with the Queen and so forth, that we would not necessarily, in a perfect square box, think of democracy in that way. But it is not about boxes, it is not about straight lines, it is about history and it is 1350 about what we would lose. I do believe – because I think the argument has been very much misrepresented – it is not a case of the Archbishop of York, or whoever, saying that if you do this this will happen. What he is telling you is the natural consequences of something that is fragile, and when you remove the vote you remove, if you like, the essence, the reason why the Bishop is here. In effect, I have 1355 absolutely no doubt that a vote today for the amendment of Mr Shimmins will mean loss of the Bishop. I think that is much more fundamental to our sovereignty, it is much more fundamental to our identity and it is much more fundamental to our sense of place that we will lose something of ourselves if we were to vote for the amendment. Where I differ, in essence, with the Committee is I do actually believe it would be right that 1360 the Bishop has, and should retain, his vote. On this I go back to Lord Lisvane, and I think a lot of what he said was excellent. (Two Members: Hooray!) (A Member: Hear, hear.) I do, and I think he has raised the debate. In one of his paragraphs he says:

I can find no compelling reason to remove the vote from the Bishop, nor the Bishop from the Legislative Council. On the contrary, I think his membership is desirable.

That is what Lord Lisvane has said. I mentioned when we talk about credible risk, some of that credible risk has gone back to 1957, to 1974. The credible risk today does not exist; I do not

______Hansard Extract Page 29 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

1365 believe it exists. In actual fact, when I have seen debates today in this Court they have been enhanced, improved, made better because of the Bishop, because of the Bishop being here, because of him being able to give that moral and spiritual perspective, particularly on things to do with poverty, to do with sometimes things to do with climate change and so forth. What it is interesting – and it is not really sometimes when the vote is close, it is more a case when the 1370 vote is not close – sometimes his moral direction gives us perspective and an enfranchisement of a wider context. I do think it is absolutely important. So, in essence, what my amendment would do is he would retain his vote but, as the Bishop said in his evidence to Lord Lisvane, he felt that there was an excuse for him to abstain, I think there are incidences where that could be the case and it is not without precedent here with both 1375 our presiding officers. But I would also agree with the point made in the report about the quorum because quorum is important. That is why in the amendment he would still be a part of the quorum and I do think you would get some positive effects, that the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, talked about when the President will be sometimes siding with the Keys in a close vote and I think that is a good thing. 1380 So I do think this achieves both, but most importantly, I think that today there is no doubt about it and this is why it is a very difficult subject we are dealing with. We are dealing with, if you like, the purity of what we call democracy and we are talking about sovereignty, identity and history. It is a difficult thing to balance, absolutely difficult, because on the one hand I would agree and stand up and say yes, absolutely, it has to be fully democratic, but if you look at the 1385 world, you look at those establishments, you look at those jurisdictions that have the best tradition of democracy, they are, we are, and the United Kingdom are first-class examples. I would say we need to retain that and that is why, on balance, I do believe that the Bishop should retain his vote. I think a vote for the amendment, and looking at the amendment this is not kicking anything in the long grass; this is now. This will bring forward legislation by October. It 1390 would make almost the Bishop’s position untenable, I think voting for the amendment you will lose the Bishop, and you will not lose him in the future, you will lose him now. So, on that basis, I put forward my amendment, which I hope somebody will second and, as I say, I beg the Hon. Court to support history, support and keep our identity and our sovereignty. Thank you.

Amendment: In Recommendation 2 to insert after the words ‘The Lord Bishop should retain his vote’ the words ‘but that he should have the right to abstain’; and to leave out the words ‘Any Member of Tynwald who has a right to vote should be under the same duty to exercise that vote as any other Member; this applies to the Lord Bishop.’ (And renumber paragraph c).

1395 The President: Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Ashford. You have spoken; I assume you are speaking –

Mr Ashford: On Mr Cannan’s amendment, Mr President.

1400 The President: On Mr Cannan’s amendment.

Mr Ashford: Speaking to Mr Cannan’s amendment, Mr President, I do have a few concerns with the way it is laid out. My amendment simply moved it to the Emoluments Committee; this one rewords the 1405 recommendation itself and puts all of the recommendations around paying allowances, salary, benefits under the Keys, but nothing under Legislative Council. So whereas I thought the Recommendation 3 itself was worded very well to begin with, in terms of we were looking at the whole picture. In this case, with the amendment here before us from Mr Cannan, it is saying that

______Hansard Extract Page 30 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

the salary and benefits should be sufficient for the House of Keys, but it does not suggest that 1410 for Legislative Council. Mr Cannan spoke, when he was moving the amendment, about potentially moving Legislative Council on to a day rate, and I am wondering if this amendment is trying to push that. I do not see how that would now work, considering – against my wishes, I certainly did not vote for it, but – in the previous Lisvane Report, Tynwald voted that MLCs should remain as 1415 Department Members, so how do the two marry up? I think the original wording of Recommendation 3 is much better because it allows whoever looks at it – be it Isle of Man Government in the original motion or the Emoluments Committee if my amendment is accepted – to be able to look at the whole piece. One thing I would say is Mr Cannan mentioned, quite rightly, that the original wording and 1420 one of the things his amendment was trying to deal with was the fact that Members’ pay should be linked to the Civil Service and he said, should there not be disparity in pay between Legislative Council and the MHKs? That can still happen. Just because it is linked to the Civil Service does not mean it has to be linked at the same scale. There can be a different scale. So personally I have still got concerns about this amendment and what it is actually going to 1425 achieve.

The President: Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Perkins.

Mr Perkins: Thank you, Mr President. I beg to second the amendment and reserve my 1430 remarks.

The President: You cannot reserve your remarks, but …

A Member: You cannot reserve. 1435 Mr Perkins: Oh, I cannot reserve. I beg your pardon.

The President: You can speak to the amendment.

1440 Mr Perkins: I rise to support Minister Harmer. I think this absolutely neatly solves the problem that we are wrestling here today. It gives us a bit of breathing space and I think it will retain my Lord Bishop. I initially came into this debate not wanting him to have the vote, but I think with the situation that is now put forward, he can abstain and he can vote in spiritual matters as and when he feels fit. I feel that we will retain the Bishop in our Hon. Court and it is a 1445 very neat answer to the problem. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.

1450 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr President. I was rising originally to speak to Mr Cannan’s amendment, really just to echo a number of the concerns that Mr Ashford has just raised, in that I think splitting out between Members of Keys and Members of Council, the way the amendment is laid out, it implies that the salary for Members of Legislative Council should not be sufficient to allow anyone to be able to serve and 1455 should not reflect the enhanced executive or scrutiny roles that are being laid out, because those bullet points are not repeated underneath his reference. Again, my concern surrounds, as with the Hon. Member for Douglas North, is this an intention to move Legislative Council Members on to a day rate or an hourly rate? My concern here is that my view of Council is that it is a full-time job. Scrutiny is a full-time 1460 job and I think it is quite essential that the pay should reflect that. If you move Members of

______Hansard Extract Page 31 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Council on to a day rate, the incentive then is to not perform a full-time job and just turn up for the meetings that you are getting paid for, which I do not really think is the right direction we are going in. Turning to the amendment by Mr Harmer, it seems that Mr Harmer is trying to argue that the 1465 Bishop should keep his vote because it is so important that the Bishop has a vote, but also he should not actually have to use it. That seems to directly contradict itself: either the Bishop has a vote and he is required to use it as is anyone else, (A Member: Hear, hear.) or the Bishop does not need to have a vote and so therefore is not obliged to use it. This halfway house seems to be taking the worst of both worlds and throwing them together in what is, quite honestly, quite a 1470 badly thought out amendment, in my view. Just a final comment from me on this is a number of Members have called for another 12- month delay, another review, another let’s wait and see what happens. It is interesting that Mr Cannan is one of those Members calling for that after only yesterday calling Mr Speaker the king of the long grass. (Laughter) 1475 Thank you very much.

The President: Hon. Members, in inviting Mr Perkins to rise and he seconded the amendment, I was incorrect in allowing him to second the amendment because he had previously spoken. He would have been quite entitled to speak to the amendment having 1480 previously spoken in debate, but not second. So at this point in time the amendment remains un-seconded. Mr Boot.

Mr Boot: I rise and I am very happy to second the amendment. And if I may, Mr President, I 1485 will speak at the same time to the main motion, as I have not spoken yet.

The President: At the same time to?

The Speaker: The main motion. 1490 Mr Boot: The main motion and the amendment.

The President: This is the first time you have spoken?

1495 Mr Boot: Yes, it is, sir.

The President: You can speak to anything you like. (Laughter)

The Speaker: Within the motion! Please, no cooking recipes! 1500 Mr Boot: I will bear that in mind. I think it has been an excellent debate and I have to say it was good to hear directly from the Lord Bishop his view because he is a new Lord Bishop, I have not had time to speak to him and, to be honest, I think a lot of us do not really understand the process of his appointment. I was 1505 very pleased to hear that it is perhaps slightly more democratic than we thought, there is some representation from the Isle of Man and thank you very much for making that clear to us. Now I refer to the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins’ speech. I listened with great interest. As a Member of the Select Committee I can assure Hon. Members that we have taken careful note of the instructions we receive as a Committee from this Hon. Court, taken evidence 1510 and fairly represented it in the Report. When the Hon. Member talks about the majority of people on the Island not wanting a Bishop, I wonder where his evidence is for that, or the Bishop not to vote.

______Hansard Extract Page 32 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Mr Harmer: Not the Bishop to vote. There is a big difference.

1515 Mr Boot: Yes, all right, I will go to the Bishop to vote. I have been in this Hon. Court three years now and no one has ever written to me, phoned me up, emailed me or put anything on my web pages asking me to address the issue of the Bishop’s vote. I was a commissioner for a while before that in German, where we have the Royal Chapel and Tynwald Day, and no one ever mentioned it to me then when I was canvassing. So I do not think this is a big issue and I 1520 challenge your evidence, not the evidence that we have put before the Court in that respect. Now I will talk about Lord Lisvane. My hon. friend, Mr Cregeen rightly said he came to the Isle of Man, he dipped his toe into Isle of Man politics and scurried off and prepared a report. We can take or leave that report. There are some things in it that do make sense; there are others that do not. But I am going to repeat what my hon. friend, Mr Harmer said. As a quote it is worth 1525 quoting again:

I can find no compelling reason to remove the vote from the Bishop, nor the Bishop from the Legislative Council. On the contrary, I think his membership is desirable.

To me, that is fairly unambiguous and informative to this debate. Then we move on to the Archbishop of York and his observations and reply to the Committee. I should say he is not going to turn round and try and blackmail us. He has subtly and diplomatically laid out the situation and his final paragraph sums it up:

To conclude, I consider the voice and the vote of the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man on the Legislative Council of Tynwald to be extremely important, both for the Isle of Man and for the Church of England. If the Lord Bishop’s vote were to be removed, in my view this would significantly undermine the case for Sodor and Man being a separate diocese.

1530 The Lord Bishop has alluded to this and we have heard about the situation with regard to Jersey and Guernsey. My hon. friend, the Minister for Home Affairs very passionately put the risk to us that if we remove the vote today we risk losing the Diocese of Sodor and Man and it could become part of the Liverpool Diocese, when our five minutes turns into five months and that will probably turn into nine months to a year. I for one do not want to see that traditional 1535 link broken with the Church of England. Not a lot of ambiguity there. Then we move on to the assertions by the Hon. Member Mr Shimmins that other democracies are somehow more democratic than our democracy, and he quoted Jersey and Guernsey. I am not sure that he really believes that they are better democracies than ours just because they do not have a bishop that votes. I have spent time in both jurisdictions and I find 1540 their parliaments difficult and opaque, they have different layers of membership and no, they are not better democracies than ours. That is probably why we are perceived as a beacon parliament. I hear that all round the world (A Member: Hear, hear.) when I go to Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings: we are a beacon parliament. And here we are trying to destroy part of that tradition. One vote – that is all it will take – and we have lost it. 1545 Then the Hon. Member, Mr Shimmins talks about the percentage of the vote the Bishop has. Well, if we remove his vote then the outcome of that logically is that as a percentage of the vote the Legislative Council Members will have more, a larger percentage of the vote. I think it is a complete red herring. We all have a larger percentage in terms of our power compared to the UK Parliament, for instance, because we are a very small parliament, so definitely a red herring. 1550 I am not a very religious person but when I was elected to this Court and found out about the traditions that go with it, I was honoured to be part of that tradition and the mythology that goes with it. I signed up and I work with that tradition; I am not trying to undermine it all the time and for some reason believe that we will be a better democracy if we destroy some of the tradition that we have.

______Hansard Extract Page 33 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

1555 I think I have probably said enough because others have said an awful lot, but I will just speak to recommendation 1, which I support, and I am very happy to support Mr Ashford’s recommendation 3. When it comes to the amendment tabled by my hon. friend Mr Harmer, I am very happy to support that; I think this gives us the best of both worlds. Some of the Members here believe 1560 that the Bishop should not have a vote on everything that goes through the Legislative Council and I think he himself would probably admit there are some things that he probably does not want a vote on. At the moment, he can walk out of the Legislative Council and not vote, and that is a way of abstaining but this formalises that approach. So, if he feels that there are matters that he does not want to vote on, that conflict with the open democratic process or political 1565 process that he is not really involved in, then he can do that. So I fully support Mr Harmer’s amendment. Thank you.

Mr Perkins: Hear, hear. 1570 The President: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson.

Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr President. It has been quite a long debate. If I could just thank the Lord Bishop again for his 1575 contribution, (Two Members: Hear, hear.) because I think it is very important that you are part of Tynwald and take part in debates, even when it may be quite difficult to do so, so I would like to thank him for that. The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen, wondered what makes Tynwald special. I think part of that is the debate we have just had, the standard of debate here 1580 and the way we conduct ourselves. One of the mottos of the Isle of Man is, ‘Where you can.’ Where you can question traditions, where you can change the structure and function of Tynwald, where you can challenge perceived wisdom, but also where you can respect other people’s opinion, but still disagree with them. It has been a very steep learning curve being on the Select Committee, and I am sorry that 1585 some people were disappointed with the Third Report and the recommendations, but actually what we have tried to do is condense some of these discussions, and I think you can now see why, because there is no right or wrong answer when you are dealing with constitutional reform. There are lots of options and what we have tried to do is flesh out some of the unintended consequences of that. 1590 Last year, the Hon. Mr Corkish did make the point that if we lost the Bishop’s vote were we in danger of losing the Diocese, and so one of the jobs of the Committee was to substantiate that and ask that very question of the Archbishop of York. What we are dealing with here is very much a historical post. The power vested on the Bishop is gifted by Tynwald; we have the ability to give but also to take that power away. The 1595 Archbishop of York was quite clear in the difference between the presence of the Bishop and his power. Now, I would advocate that his power is in both the articulation of his views and the way they change debate, but also his power in terms of his ability to vote. As many Members have said, we have the ability to take that voting power away and if this Court decides that is what we want to do, we will do that, but there may be unintended consequences for that. 1600 However, what I would also say is whether we keep or lose the Diocese actually is not in our hands. That is a decision for the Church of England to make, and I do not think that decision should necessarily stop us from making the right decision today, in terms of democracy. (A Member: Absolutely.) The Church of England are responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for their own administration and they will make their mind up, whether that be 1605 because of a decision we make today, whether it be a financial decision maybe a year or so in the future. But we are here to decide on the structure and function of Tynwald, on how we

______Hansard Extract Page 34 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

conduct ourselves and how we arrive at decisions. I hope that you can now perhaps agree that this Third Report has helped condense and focus some of those decisions so that we can make the right ones. 1610 Thank you, Mr President.

The President: The Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins.

Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr President. 1615 I rise to speak to Mr Harmer’s amendment. First of all, I think it is admirable that Mr Harmer is seeking a good compromise. I think I always see that from Mr Harmer, in many things that he does, he tries to find the middle way and that, I think, is absolutely commendable. Unfortunately, Members, I would suggest this is not really one of these things that you can have a middle way on. And in terms of the wording of the amendment it feels fundamentally 1620 flawed, to me. It feels actually worse, democratically, that we retain the Bishop’s vote but he can play the hokey-cokey and decide, ‘I am in one week, I am out the next week’, (Laughter) – how does that work? No other Member, who is elected – remember they are elected by the people of the Isle of Man – would have that privilege. So, once again, the Bishop, who we have already established is the most powerful political Bishop, becomes even more powerful, because he can 1625 turn up when it really matters, he does not have to turn up every week. So, Members, while I absolutely understand where Mr Harmer is coming from, I think it is flawed and I would urge you please to reject the amendment. Members, also just to suggest, we have been discussing and debating this for several hours now and many good points have been made and I am sure more are to come. It has been 1630 suggested that we might come back and revisit this in six to 12 months, I would suggest, let’s not do that. I think the general public out there – who actually do have a strong view on this, regardless of what other people might say – might say, for goodness sake, get on with it, make your decision, do not come back in 12 months and do this. So if you are thinking of being on the fence, I do not believe that is a tenable position. I think we have gone through all the pros and 1635 cons, you need to be able to make a decision and ultimately this is democracy versus ancient tradition. Do you want to live in the times of St German, St Maughold or 2018? I choose democracy. Thank you.

1640 The President: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Quayle.

Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr President. I am speaking to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Harmer. If I could just clarify on a few points, I think there are various elements already 1645 covered by other speakers, which I am not going to try and regurgitate, but I just wanted to comment on a few things I heard in the debate. One of them was it is not democratic, I hear, that the Bishop has been appointed not by Tynwald – he is up there without any say from the people of the Isle of Man, it is an off-Island organisation that hoists him on to us – but that is not correct, as the Bishop has said. But also I 1650 will go one further in that, as Chief Minister, the committee who decided, who were appointing the Bishop, came to see me as Chief Minister, to ask my views on what the Island was looking for as a Bishop. As a Methodist, not Church of England, but they came to me and I do not know if there were any officials; I am sure the President and the Speaker were asked for their views on what the Isle of Man was looking for as a Bishop to take the Island forward. So I just wanted to 1655 clarify that point, that it is not some magic cluster elsewhere that makes the decision. People of the Isle of Man were discussed in various ways too. It has also been commented that the Bishop is the most powerful Bishop in the UK, I hear from my good friend and colleague for Middle. But let us remember, if we disagree with the

______Hansard Extract Page 35 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Legislative Council we can recall the vote and a majority vote will happen, as happened 1660 yesterday during the Budget on a couple of topics. That would not happen to a Bishop in Westminster, so let’s bear that in mind, that his vote can be overruled. Another thing, as maybe someone who has been here a little bit longer than the average person, with the exception of some of my colleagues, none of my constituents have raised the Bishop with me. I know my hon. colleague that I share the constituency with, Mr Shimmins, has 1665 been contacted, but he quoted a Douglas person. Maybe if one of us is known for having a certain opinion, then people that follow that opinion will contact us to give support. That does not necessarily mean that the whole of the Island backs that opinion. I think there is a silent majority out there who are content, because it certainly was not raised with me when I went round door-knocking. 1670 It is not a tradition having a Bishop – speaking for me anyway – and why I am going to be supporting the Bishop (a) staying in Tynwald but (b) having a vote; it is what I believe in. Having that view and feedback and input into politics, sometimes we can get carried away in heated discussion, we look at the political elements and I need to have that sort of outside influence to make me think again, maybe; am I doing what is right rather than my political beliefs and having 1675 that vote just to put a marker down, for me, is personally important. So it might be just a tradition for some of you, I do not know, but I think it is well known I have a faith. Some traditions of legislation do need to be changed, and we do change. All I am saying is let’s not change for change’s sake. So the tradition of being able to shoot a Scotsman wearing a kilt on the beaches was changed: yes, it needed changing – and I am not saying that because my 1680 good colleague is from there; (Laughter) I am saying it because my wife is Scottish – and I would get shot if I did not agree to that! So, yes, we need to modernise our legislation. We need to make it more relevant but there are certain areas I think we should hold on to because they are important to us. If I could just say – one of the things that probably upset me the most, being passionate about this Island – we 1685 are not Jersey, we are not Guernsey, we are not England, we are not Ireland, we are not even Wales or even Scotland, thank the Lord. (Laughter) We are the Isle of Man! We are unique, where we do what we want and where we believe what is right, we do it – a truly special place to live and work.

1690 Mr Crookall: Hear, hear.

The President: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.

Mr Malarkey: Yes, briefly, just to the amendment by the Member for Glenfaba and Peel, 1695 Mr Harmer, which I find is a great compromise, I really do. Just to take you back again to what I said before. I think, Mr President, Lord Bishop, there is nobody in this Hon. Court that wants you to go! It is not about you not being here this afternoon; I think everybody is agreed it is really as to whether you should have a vote or not. (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is about: if we vote you do not have a vote, we might lose you; if we 1700 vote you do have a vote, hopefully we get to keep you. And now we have a compromise. We have an amendment here and I am not really too sure where the Hon. Member for Middle … I am assuming he will be coming in with his hokey-cokey – and I am quite sure the Bishop could do it if he tried – the hokey-cokey. But it quite clearly says that:

Any Member of Tynwald who has a right to vote should be under the same duty to attend and count towards the quorum …

and this applies to the Lord Bishop as well. So we will not have the hokey-cokey – he will have to 1705 be here, like he is supposed to be here. The only thing he will have is that if he considers that a

______Hansard Extract Page 36 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

matter in discussion is not something that is really in the remit of the Church, he has a chance to abstain, and if he thinks it is a matter for the Church then he can vote. Nothing more. I think by just doing that little amendment today, we can hopefully keep the Church happy so that they will not take him away, and hopefully keep those sitting on the fence who do not quite 1710 know which way they want to go today … So, Mr President, I find this is a very good compromise and I would urge people to go with the amendment put through by the Hon. Member, because – and I am going to keep saying it – when the Bishop has gone, he has gone, and we will not be getting him back again. So please vote very carefully. 1715 Two Members: Hear, hear.

The President: Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan.

1720 Mr Cannan: Thank you. I rise to speak to the amendment from the Member for Glenfaba and Peel, Mr Harmer, and I think the amendment does go some way to deal with some of the issues that have been raised this morning. But I do, in supporting this, have to disagree with my hon. friend that this is not a subject that we cannot revisit. 1725 I do endorse the points which have been made in relation to this specific amendment and, having listened to the Lord Bishop himself, the loss of the bishopric on the Isle of Man would be too high a price (A Member: Hear, hear.) for our cultural, spiritual and historical identity. I therefore believe the amendment that Mr Harmer has brought forward does provide some solution towards dealing with these issues. Therefore I think it is an amendment worth 1730 supporting. As I said before, if this amendment fails then I would recommend that we continue to support the Committee until such time as a person, or people, feel so inclined as to bring this matter back to Tynwald. The other thing I like about this amendment is that it kind of reflects, Mr President, the same kind of ethos that my amendment actually brings to this Hon. Court – clarity. It does provide a 1735 way forward, it really simplifies things. I think, like my amendment, it goes in line with what was in the Report, and I think Members should vote for both (Laughter) of these amendments. Thank you, Mr President. (Interjection)

The President: Good try, yes. 1740 Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.

Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr President. I have been sitting debating whether I should say anything today; however, I do feel that it is important that I do stand and speak, particularly with regard to something that I have found has 1745 caused me concern in the past, but particularly brought up by Prof. Edge, insomuch that the Bishop’s vote did on 53 occasions change the will of the elected Members. I do find that difficult to comprehend and that is one reason why I do not feel that the Bishop should have a vote. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, said there are 13 new Members in here. Yes, there are 13 new Members in here, and within a month’s time there might be another five, or four, 1750 whichever. I do not see that as a reason why anybody in here today should not be voting for change. Are we not a progressive Government that is going to do the right thing for the people? Also – I think I am right here – but I think the Chief Minister was perhaps not quite correct in what he stated, but the Lords is overruled by the Commons and it has been since 1911. I also believe that in here, the Keys from 1961 has been in the same situation. So the Isle of Man was 1755 better than the UK and I am not sure the Chief Minister’s comments were right. I also just want to speak briefly on Members’ pay and I will be supporting Minister David Ashford, Member for Douglas North’s amendment. I do have concerns that if it was to go to an

______Hansard Extract Page 37 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

independent or if it was to be decided by Government, we have a living wage coming down the line – how many Members in here say they work so many hours? We have Members that deal 1760 with goats at all hours of the night. We need to be very careful as to how we deal with this and I think that amendment is the best way forward for looking at the pay for Members in this Court. Thank you, Mr President.

The President: Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen. 1765 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr President, and speaking to the amendment from Mr Harmer. One of the things is that, yes, in the House of Keys there is already a button to abstain – Mr Speaker. So it will not be something new, there is already a button for Mr Speaker, as Presiding Officer, to have the ability to abstain. 1770 I think the Hon. Member for Middle will be a bit surprised, I am going to agree with him on one thing, that it is about time we actually made a decision on that, and for that reason, Mr President, I move under Standing Order 3.16 that the motion now be put.

The President: I hear what is being said. I have one more speaker – 1775 Mr Malarkey: Happy to second the motion.

The President: – Mr Thomas, who has indicated to speak on an amendment. (Two Members: Mr Skelly.) Mr Skelly. 1780 Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. I would be happy to second that after I have a word. (Laughter)

The President: Mr Skelly – 1785 Mr Skelly: Eaghtyrane, I have not actually spoken on this particular matter.

The President: No, resume your seat.

1790 Mr Malarkey: I have already seconded that motion.

The President: Resume your seat. It is a procedural motion which I put to the Court if I am satisfied that this does not prejudice fair debate, and for the very reason that Mr Skelly has not spoken, Mr Thomas had caught my eye as one more speaker and I will invite Mr Thomas to 1795 speak to the amendment, then Mr Skelly, and then I will ask the mover to reply. How is that? Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr President. The amendment of Mr Harmer is actually in line, I believe, with the proposal of the last 1800 Bishop, which was felt worthy of further consideration by Lord Lisvane, and in that sense I think it is very interesting and I am looking forward to the vote on that amendment. For clarity, I was wondering if Mr President could give advice on the order in which Mr Shimmins’ and Mr Harmer’s amendments will be taken, because I think it will be very helpful to have them in time order, and as I remember it, Mr Shimmins’ was on the table first, and so 1805 that is something that I also wanted to say. It is very interesting to have a clean amendment first, and secondly the Corbynite amendment, which is that there are other issues that are more important than this one and let’s put it on the road.

______Hansard Extract Page 38 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

1810 The President: Hon. Member for Rushen, Mr Skelly.

Mr Skelly: Gura mie eu, Eaghtyrane. First and foremost, may I thank the Committee for their ongoing work, and we should also thank Lord Lisvane because this is the whole purpose we are having here with regard to the 1815 reform, constitutional reform in many ways, and he has I think given us the foundation for this debate. It is mature, there is no doubt about this. This House and this Court have had a mature debate and this is constantly evolving. First and foremost I would just like to say absolutely happy to accept recommendation 1 and recommendation 3; I am content to accept Mr Ashford’s amendment. But of course 1820 recommendation 2: I am not going to repeat what many people have said but I would like to compliment Mr Shimmins for his presentation and his case put forward. He has done a considerable amount of research and clearly he has won over many Members’ view with this, but what I would say here is – this is the classic case, isn’t it? – politics and religion, bringing those two together you are bound to have a difficult time. 1825 But is this about evolving democracy or dismantling tradition? I think that is where the nub of this debate actually is. And the law of unintended consequences …. Moral fibre we talked about. This Bishop, of course, has not been with us very long. We have not got to know what he has to offer us. I was fortunate to have been part of the last administration with the last Bishop and he contributed enormously – not necessarily what he did in this Court, it is actually what he did 1830 outside this Court. Pastoral care, something that we do not recognise and understand and value unless you actually need it, and that is a value that we could potentially lose. I am absolutely in tune with Mr Malarkey: the law of unintended consequences. With that, Mr Shimmins I am sure would not be disappointed to know that I do have a Manx saying: cre erbee ny leighyn ta manninee t’ad shickyr dy ve arrysagh jeu – whatever laws 1835 Manxmen make they are sure to rue the day. So beware how you vote. (Laughter)

The President: I call on the mover to reply, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I think I am going to get that Manx quote put above the door of this place. 1840 I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee for their perseverance and hard work in an otherwise thankless task. The debate today has indicated that no matter what you do you are wrong. In terms of the amendments that are before us, the Committee has done its deliberation and I do not particularly intend to try and persuade people too much one way or the other in a lot of 1845 cases because people have, I think, in the large extent made their minds up as to where they are going. With regard to Mr Shimmins’ amendment, the only thing that I would say about it that has not come out elsewhere in the debate is that it appears to be a clear amendment but actually it does not necessarily follow through, inasmuch as it says ‘That the Lord Bishop should remain a 1850 member of the Legislative Council and Tynwald’. I think, just again in terms of unintended consequences, if as a result further down the line we did then lose the Lord Bishop, would we then still be happy to have the Dean or whoever was in charge of the established Church on the Island in this place? I think that was something that I struggled to get a feel from the Court as to where they intended to bring that in, because obviously that is something that may have to be 1855 considered when looking at the law that is passed that is requested by that amendment. In terms of Mr Harmer’s amendment, I cannot help myself – he said that the path of true love did not run smooth and the path of history does not run smooth. None of the paths on this Island are smooth, Mr Harmer, and it is your fault! (Laughter) (A Member: Hear, hear.) It is a shame that the motion here is not actually put down as an alternative after the one 1860 that we have already got on the Order Paper, so that if you did not like that one there is the halfway house and then there is the reject it altogether option, and that perhaps would have

______Hansard Extract Page 39 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

made it better for Members in order to say, ‘Well, actually, this is my first preference, that is my second preference.’ But we are where we are. The Committee did discuss and consider that outcome and the Committee rejected that for the reasons in its Report. 1865 Hon. Members have all done a lot of research and soul searching here and we have had a good debate. I think people know where they stand and I do not see what more I can add. We have been over it enough times and today we need to think carefully and make a decision, a decision that is right for this Court and right for our Island on the future of the Bishop. In terms of recommendation 1, I thank Hon. Members for their general support. I think that is 1870 the easiest one to deal with. In terms of recommendation 3, there are just a few comments I wanted to pick out; I did not want to go round everyone Member by Member. Mr Shimmins disagreed with recommendation 3 but I was not sure what his alternative was. Is it that we do not have an independent review at all, we are back to that stage, or … ? I was not quite sure. Building on 1875 that, Mr Perkins’ comments about ‘I would not start from here’, unfortunately this was the task that the Committee was given and so we had to come up with something, a terms of reference for the Court. So there might have been a bit of ‘we wouldn’t want to start from here’, but we did need to do as the Court had requested of the Committee. Turning then to the two amendments, I think as I alluded to in my opening remarks, I 1880 personally agree with Mr Ashford’s amendment and I am happy to vote for it myself. I do feel contractually bound to represent the views of the whole Committee, and the view of the Committee as a whole was to draw on the Government commission in Lisvane’s report, which is the process that was taken at that point, so the Government being the ones to commission it, to do it, to have the resources to fund it and support it, and that was the reason I think that the 1885 Committee went that way in the recommendation. However, personally, I can see where Mr Ashford is coming from. In terms of Mr Cannan’s amendment, I am worried about it because I do not think Mr Cannan really made the implications of it clear as to what he was trying to do in terms of separating it out. I do not think there would be any concern if the motion as we have it before us was passed 1890 that the terms and conditions of Members’ pay could be different between the House of Keys and Legislative Council. However, what I am worried about is which one of the principles that we have laid out is it that Mr Cannan does not feel that the Legislative Council are worthy of, because by removing the Legislative Council from that umbrella it is either that they should not have the salary and benefits sufficient to allow people to serve in Tynwald, that they should not 1895 have the salary and benefits at a level to attract a diverse collection of community members, that they should not have additional roles for scrutiny or executive work being enhanced – so you could in theory have an MLC or an MHK doing the same job, whether that is Member of a Department or Chairman of a Policy Review Committee, but actually getting different pay for it. I do not know if that is what his was foreseeing in changing the order, or whether MLCs should 1900 not have the benefit of linking it to Civil Service salary levels, which as Mr Ashford said, it does not necessarily have to be the same levels or it could be the same plus or minus percentage based on the basic pay of a Member of the House of Keys. So I am not really sure it adds anything and in fairness I think it probably adds more confusion than help. Again, I think Hon. Members have had a good chew over this, I think we have had a good 1905 debate and I leave Hon. Members with their thoughts and beg to move the Committee’s Report, Mr President.

The President: Thank you, Hon. Members. The motion is that set out at Item 4 and we shall vote on each of the three recommendations 1910 separately. We will deal with Recommendation 1. Those in favour of Recommendation 1, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.

______Hansard Extract Page 40 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Recommendation 2 is in three parts, which will be taken successively, but before that we shall deal with the two amendments. We will deal first with the first amendment to be tabled, 1915 which is the more far-reaching amendment, that in the name of Mr Shimmins. If that amendment passes, it forms the substantive motion and Recommendation 2, as amended, will be voted upon. The other recommendation and the motion, as printed, will not be considered if that passes. If Mr Shimmins’ amendment should fall I will put the amendment in the name of Mr Harmer, and if that passes that will become the substantive motion. 1920 So, first of all, dealing with Mr Shimmins’ amendment, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 11, Noes 13

FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mr Baker Mr Ashford Mr Boot Mrs Beecroft Mr Callister Miss Bettison Mr Cannan Mrs Caine Mr Cregeen Mrs Corlett Mr Harmer Ms Edge Mr Malarkey Mr Hooper Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Shimmins Mr Quayle Mr Thomas Mr Robertshaw Mr Skelly The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 11 for, 13 against.

In the Council – Ayes 3, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Cretney Mr Anderson Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Coleman Mr Turner Mr Corkish Mr Crookall Mr Henderson

The President: And in the Council, 3 votes for, 5 against. The amendment therefore fails to carry. 1925 I put the amendment in the name of Mr Harmer. Those in favour of that amendment, please say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 12, Noes 12

FOR AGAINST Mr Baker Dr Allinson Mrs Beecroft Mr Ashford Mr Boot Miss Bettison Mr Cannan Mrs Caine Mr Cregeen Mr Callister Mr Harmer Mrs Corlett Mr Malarkey Ms Edge Mr Perkins Mr Hooper

______Hansard Extract Page 41 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Mr Quayle Mr Moorhouse Mr Robertshaw Mr Peake Mr Skelly Mr Shimmins Mr Thomas The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 12 votes for, 12 votes against.

In the Council – Ayes 3, Noes 5

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson Mr Corkish Mr Coleman Mr Cretney Mr Henderson Mr Crookall Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Turner

The President: And in the Council, 3 votes for, 5 against. 1930 The Clerk: The motion fails, Mr President, there being no majority in the Keys.

The President: That fails to carry. I therefore put the motion as set out, voting first of all on Part a. which reads:

The Lord Bishop should retain his vote.

1935 Those in favour, say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 13, Noes 11

FOR AGAINST Mr Baker Dr Allinson Mr Boot Mr Ashford Mr Callister Mrs Beecroft Mr Cannan Miss Bettison Mr Cregeen Mrs Caine Mr Harmer Mrs Corlett Mr Malarkey Ms Edge Mr Moorhouse Mr Hooper Mr Perkins Mr Peake Mr Quayle Mr Shimmins Mr Robertshaw Mr Thomas Mr Skelly The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, in the Keys, 13 votes for, 11 votes against.

In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson Mr Cretney Mr Coleman Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Corkish Mr Turner Mr Crookall Mr Henderson

The President: And in the Council, 5 votes for, 3 against. Part a. therefore carries.

______Hansard Extract Page 42 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

1940 I put Part b. as set out. Those in favour of Part b., say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Part c. – those in favour, say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Recommendation 2, as printed, therefore carries. Recommendation 3, and to that we have two amendments. I will deal first with the 1945 amendment of Mr Cannan, the more far-reaching amendment. Those in favour of Mr Cannan’s amendment, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 3, Noes 21

FOR AGAINST Mr Cannan Dr Allinson Mr Malarkey Mr Ashford Mr Thomas Mr Baker Mrs Beecroft Miss Bettison Mr Boot Mrs Caine Mr Callister Mrs Corlett Mr Cregeen Ms Edge Mr Harmer Mr Hooper Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly The Speaker

The Speaker: Mr President, 3 votes for, 21 against.

In the Council – Ayes 2, Noes 6

FOR AGAINST Mr Crookall Mr Anderson Mr Henderson Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Turner

The President: And in the Council 2 for, 6 against, that amendment fails to carry. 1950 I put Mr Ashford’s amendment, those in favour, say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 23, Noes 1

FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mr Callister Mr Ashford Mr Baker Mrs Beecroft

______Hansard Extract Page 43 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Miss Bettison Mr Boot Mrs Caine Mr Cannan Mrs Corlett Mr Cregeen Ms Edge Mr Harmer Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly The Speaker Mr Thomas

The Speaker: Mr President, 23 votes and 1 against.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Turner

The President: And in the Council 8 for and none against. Recommendation 3 therefore carries. I now put the whole motion to the vote. [Consultation with the Clerk] That was the Ashford 1955 amendment; I put Recommendation 3, as amended, those in favour, say aye; against, no.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 21, Noes 3

FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mrs Caine Mr Ashford Mr Callister Mr Baker Mr Cannan Mrs Beecroft Miss Bettison Mr Boot Mrs Corlett Mr Cregeen Ms Edge Mr Harmer Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw

______Hansard Extract Page 44 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly The Speaker Mr Thomas

The Speaker: 21 votes for, 3 against, in the Keys.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Turner

The President: And in the Council, 8 for and none against. Recommendation 3 as amended therefore carries. I now put the whole motion as amended to the vote. Those in favour, say aye; against, no. 1960 The ayes have it.

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

In the Keys – Ayes 16, Noes 8

FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mr Ashford Mr Baker Mrs Caine Mrs Beecroft Mr Callister Miss Bettison Mr Cannan Mr Boot Ms Edge Mrs Corlett Mr Hooper Mr Cregeen Mr Peake Mr Harmer Mr Shimmins Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Robertshaw Mr Skelly The Speaker Mr Thomas

The Speaker: Mr President, on the whole motion, 16 votes for, 8 votes against, in the Keys.

In the Council – Ayes 8, Noes 0

FOR AGAINST Mr Anderson None Mr Coleman Mr Corkish Mr Cretney Mr Crookall Mr Henderson Mrs Poole-Wilson Mr Turner

______Hansard Extract Page 45 www.tynwald.org.im/business TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 21st FEBRUARY 2018

The President: And in the Council 8 votes for and none against. The motion as amended therefore carries. 1965 Mr Malarkey: The Bishop can come back – he has still got a job! (Laughter)

The President: Thank you very much, Hon. Members.

______Hansard Extract Page 46 www.tynwald.org.im/business