H O U S E O F K E Y S O F F I C I A L R E P O R T
R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L Y C H I A R E A S F E E D
P R O C E E D I N G S
D A A L T Y N
HANSARD
Douglas, Tuesday, 24th January 2017
All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:
www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard
Supplementary material provided subsequent to a sitting is also published to the website as a Hansard Appendix. Reports, maps and other documents referred to in the course of debates may be consulted on application to the Tynwald Library or the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office.
Volume 134, No. 8
ISSN 1742-2264
Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © Court of Tynwald, 2017 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Present:
The Speaker (Hon. J P Watterson) (Rushen); The Chief Minister (Hon. R H Quayle) (Middle); Mr J R Moorhouse and Hon. G D Cregeen (Arbory, Castletown and Malew); Hon. A L Cannan and Mr T S Baker (Ayre and Michael); Hon. C C Thomas and Mrs C A Corlett (Douglas Central); Miss C L Bettison and Mr C R Robertshaw (Douglas East); Mr D J Ashford and Mr G R Peake (Douglas North); Hon. K J Beecroft and Hon. W M Malarkey (Douglas South); Mr M J Perkins and Mrs D H P Caine (Garff); Hon. R K Harmer and Hon. G G Boot (Glenfaba and Peel); Mr W C Shimmins (Middle); Mr R E Callister and Ms J M Edge (Onchan); Dr A J Allinson and Mr L L Hooper (Ramsey); Hon. L D Skelly (Rushen); with Mr R I S Phillips, Secretary of the House.
______174 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Business transacted
Leave of absence granted ...... 177 1. Questions for Oral Answer...... 177 1.1. Budget process – Public engagement ...... 177 1.2. Disability Living Allowance – Differences from UK ...... 179 1.3. Meat Plant – Long-term viability ...... 179 1.4. Flexi-time policy – Impact on frontline service delivery ...... 184 1.5. Recycling – Policy for Government waste ...... 185 2. Questions for Written Answer ...... 187 2.1. Agricultural Development Scheme – Applications in 2016 ...... 187 2.2. Special Constables and community volunteers – Hours served in last five years ...... 188 2.3. Illegal parking on taxi ranks and bus stops – Penalty notices issued in last four financial years ...... 189 Order of the Day ...... 190 3. Bills for First Reading ...... 190 3.1. Income Tax Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2017; 3.2. Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017...... 190 4. House of Keys Standing Orders Committee ...... 190 4.1. Standing Orders Committee – Committee of the Whole House – First Report of the Session 2016-17 received and recommendation approved ...... 190 5. Bill for Second Reading ...... 195 5.1. Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Second Reading approved ...... 195 6. Consideration of Clauses...... 198 6.1. Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Clauses considered ...... 198 6.2. Treasure Bill 2016 – Clauses considered ...... 200 7. Leave to Introduce ...... 207 7.1. A Bill to restate abortion law – Leave to introduce granted ...... 207 The House adjourned at 1.16 p.m...... 235
______175 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
PAGE LEFT DELIBERATELY BLANK
______176 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
House of Keys
The House met at 10.00 a.m.
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]
The Speaker: Moghrey mie. Good morning, Hon. Members.
Members: Moghrey mie, Mr Speaker. 5 The Speaker: In the absence of our Chaplain, I shall lead us in prayer.
PRAYERS The Speaker
Leave of absence granted
The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Members. I have given leave of absence to the Chaplain to attend the excitement of the Archdeacons’ Conference.
1. Questions for Oral Answer
TREASURY
1.1. Budget process – Public engagement
The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Hooper) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
What plans he has to improve public engagement with the Budget process?
10 The Speaker: We now turn to Questions for Oral Answer. Question 1, I call on the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister for the Treasury what plans he has to improve public 15 engagement with the Budget process?
The Speaker: Treasury Minister to reply.
______177 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Cannan): Mr Speaker, one of the objectives laid out in our 20 Programme for Government is that we have open and transparent Government which engages effectively with Tynwald and the public. In that respect, Mr Speaker, I can tell the Hon. House that immediately following the Budget, the following day, I will engage with an invited audience at a business network briefing which will take place on February 22nd. I will also engage with a business breakfast on 24th February. I 25 will be appearing on Manx Radio’s Sunday Opinion on 26th February and taking questions from the public who choose to phone in. I will also be attending a Positive Action Group meeting on February 27th in the evening, where again I will be able to engage directly with members of the public about the Budget. In addition, the Treasury will also be helping produce a special distribution on the Budget which will be published by Isle of Man Newspapers. 30 As a signatory to the Programme for Government, I recognise that having some form of budgetary consultation process is increasingly becoming normal amongst some local authorities and some governments. I have already discussed this matter with the Treasury officers and we will continue to give consideration as to how we might bring matters further forward in this respect. 35 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for that long list of post-Budget engagements he will be 40 undertaking with the community. I am also very supportive of his budgetary consultation process. The question I have got is: has the minister considered participatory budgeting, whereby a portion of the Budget is left open to a public vote, which can be spent on projects raised by the local communities? This is a system that seems to work very well in larger jurisdictions – places 45 like Boston or New York – and I would ask the Minister if this is something that forms part of his plans for encouraging greater participation in our small jurisdiction?
The Speaker: Minister.
50 The Minister: Mr Speaker, as I have already said in my Answer, I recognise that having some form of budgetary consultation process is increasingly becoming normal amongst local authorities and some government bodies. I have already discussed this with Treasury officers. We are looking carefully at that situation to see whether it could apply effectively to the Isle of Man. 55 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Moorhouse.
Mr Moorhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister be visiting secondary schools over the next couple of months to discuss, 60 with the economist, the intricacies of the Budget process?
The Speaker: Treasury Minister.
The Minister: That is not in the plans at the moment, Mr Speaker. 65
______178 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
1.2. Disability Living Allowance – Differences from UK
The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Ashford) to ask the Minister for the Treasury:
What the difference is between the rates of Disability Living Allowance payable in the Isle of Man and in the United Kingdom; what assessment he has made of the implications of that difference for a disabled individual trying to purchase a mobility vehicle in the Island; and if he will make a statement?
The Speaker: Okay, we move onto Question 2. I call on the Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 70 I wish to ask the Treasury Minister what the difference is between the rates of Disability Living Allowance payable in the Isle of Man and in the United Kingdom; what assessment he has made of the implications of that difference for a disabled individual trying to purchase a mobility vehicle in the Island; and if he will make a statement?
75 The Speaker: Treasury Minister.
The Minister for the Treasury (Mr Cannan): Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Douglas North for his Question. On average, Isle of Man rates of Disability Living Allowance are currently just under 8% lower 80 than those payable in the UK. However, it should be noted that the higher rate of the mobility component is only 4.8% lower. I am fully aware of these issues, Mr Speaker, and I have already spoken to the Hon. Member, and I will make a full statement as part of the Budget at next month’s Tynwald in respect of this matter.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
1.3. Meat Plant – Long-term viability
The Hon. Member for Douglas North (Mr Ashford) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:
What action he and his Department intend to take to ensure the long-term viability of the Meat Plant?
85 The Speaker: Question 3. I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, what action he and his Department intend to take to ensure the long-term viability of the Meat Plant? 90 The Speaker: I call on the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture to reply.
The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Boot): Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______179 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Meat Plant, or the business, has struggled since the last of the EU derogations in 2010, 95 which previously allowed the restriction of the red meat imports. Following the loss of this restriction, some of our UK-based retailers and some local wholesalers have chosen to import much of their products and therefore local consumption of Manx meat has declined markedly since this time. As has always been the case, farmers continue to have the freedom to seek other markets 100 and export their stock. However, they previously only received headage payment if their animals were sent to the Meat Plant. The move away from headage has therefore increased the pressure on the business to pay livestock prices which are comparable to the UK. The resulting reduction in throughput and the more profitable local sales has reduced the business’s ability to compete on a scale and cost with larger commercial meat plants in the UK 105 and Ireland. A succession of Meat Plant chief executives had attempted to fix the problems at the Plant and the plan to phase withdrawal of Government subvention has not yet been possible. In 2016, June, in light of the continuing issues at the Meat Plant and, importantly, in recognition of a statement by the board of the Fat Stock, as it was then, which stated that they did not believe 110 the current FMA business structure was fit for purpose, my Department commissioned a review of the operation. To undertake the review, we formed a steering group consisting of DEFA officers, Isle of Man Meat directors and Manx National Farmer Union representatives. The Agricultural Marketing Society has also latterly been invited to have a seat on the group. The remit of the group was to 115 look at alternative ways of delivering local meat to the Island with or without a Meat Plant. We have worked with a consultant who gathered the required data and looked at the feasibility of various options, which were shortlisted to around 10 initially and now four. The Department has arranged an industry meeting in the next few weeks to discuss these four options with industry and has acknowledged that, subject to those discussions, we are currently 120 minded to seek tenders from potential commercial operators. This reflects our expectation that a commercial operator, possibly still with a degree of subvention, could achieve a step change in operational efficiency and supply in management whilst improving the market focus, both on and off Island.
125 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister mentioned there about a commercial operator; in the event that such an option actually fails – a nice, simple question, hopefully – is the Department committed to the long- 130 term future of the Meat Plant – yes or no?
The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: Yes 135 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine.
Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to consider paying Manx farmers equivalent prices to UK abattoirs in 140 order to incentivise throughput at the Isle of Man Meat Plant?
The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: Thank you.
______180 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
145 Equivalency is one of those very difficult subjects and it has been something that is banded around quite frequently. There used to be a headage payment which incentivised throughput to the Plant. That has vanished with the introduction of the new ADS schemes, so there is no direct incentive to put animals through the Plant. So when we look at equivalency, yes, a simple idea, but where do we get the comparisons 150 from? Prices vary from region to region. Some are gross while some are net of the cost of the moving animals around or commissions. Much of the stock that gets exported at the moment does not meet the real market specification we want on Island for the Meat Plant, so there is an element of that going and it would probably go anyway. If you look at equivalency, where do you select that from? If we look at the markets in 155 Northern Ireland, prices there are routinely a lot cheaper than they are in the UK. If we go to some areas of the United Kingdom, they fluctuate a lot. Do we take a basket or do we look at the high market price in some markets? That is the way farmers tend to be selective, and frequently they forget about the cost of exporting the animals. That comes later and when you start looking at the equivalency that I have looked at through the Department, the price paid by the Meat 160 Plant is, on average, when you deduct travel costs and commissions from exporting, fairly much on the mark.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
165 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the issues the Minister identified in his Answer was companies not willing to purchase Manx meat, instead purchasing from off-Island. So what plans does the Minister have to encourage businesses to purchase and sell on Manx meat?
170 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: We used to have a red meat derogation, which basically obliged people to buy meat locally. That has gone: anti-competition laws for the European Union, etc. have said goodbye to that. Now we have to compete with the market generally. Some suppliers, 175 particularly our friends at Shoprite, do sell a lot of Manx meat. At the moment we have no Manx meat in Tesco’s but we are talking to them, and we would like to see Manx meat back in our large supermarkets. Where that is going remains to be seen, because we have to be competitive in the market. So it would be nice and we all want to eat Manx food. I think there have been programmes to 180 encourage people to eat Manx meat and Manx produce, but we cannot force people to. All we can do is put a good product in front of them and hope that they will engage.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Baker.
185 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister agree with me that one of the best things that the Isle of Man as a whole could do is to buy more Manx meat?
The Speaker: Minister to reply. 190 The Minister: That is obviously a no-brainer, and we would like to encourage that. I think DEFA is well behind that with our Food Strategy.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw. 195 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______181 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining some of the complexities of equivalency. Could he advise us: where Manx farmers do make live exports, do they tend to focus on a particular area in the United Kingdom – one abattoir or abattoirs close to the port of disembarkation for the 200 animals?
The Speaker: Minister.
The Minister: The honest answer to that is: I am not sure what markets they concentrate on. 205 If you would like me to investigate that, I would be happy to do so and write to you or speak to you later.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine.
210 Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the Meat Plant did not pay the local hauliers that bring animals to the plant in a timely fashion, which does not demonstrate good business practice? In fact invoices were not paid for six months, I am told. Is the Minister confident in the Meat Plant’s management? 215 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: I was not aware of that. Obviously the Department is not involved in the day- to-day running of the Meat Plant. That is a matter for them on a commercial basis. 220 However, we have of late as a Department secured funding going forward for the next 12 months to ensure that the Meat Plant has sufficient capital to operate during that period. We have also made a commitment to underwrite the cost or the price to farmers of any livestock that goes through the Meat Plant, in the event of the Meat Plant closing for up to three months, so that there are some protections in place to give confidence to the market. I understand that 225 at one stage, farmers were concerned that the Meat Plant would be closing.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 230 In his original Answer and in the supplementaries, the Minister had mentioned the removal of the derogation in 2010 due to European Union competition laws. Subject to obviously a vote in Westminster, as has been announced this morning, the UK will be withdrawing from the European Union. So at that point, is it something that the Department would consider re- introducing, when we are no longer subject to those particular laws? 235 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: There are sensibilities around that, because we need access to the UK market and we obviously do not know where Brexit is going, in terms of access to the European market. 240 I did raise this matter with the Justice Committee when they were on Island, that we did have a derogation at one stage and there are perhaps some special reasons why some markets should be protected on the Island because we face competition from larger producers and our costs of production and slaughter are higher on Island, undoubtedly. Whether that will gain any traction remains to be seen. As we know, the Chief Minister is spending a lot of time in the United 245 Kingdom and various places looking at the implications of Brexit, and until those are somewhat clearer I can proffer no opinion on that.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
______182 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 250 I appreciate the Minister’s earlier comments on market forces, and I welcome the Department’s support for Manx meat. But my earlier question was: what action is he taking to encourage businesses to buy Manx meat? I appreciate that we have to remain competitive, so what actions is the Department taking to support the sector in this regard? 255 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: We will encourage local buyers to buy Manx meat. We will encourage – and we do encourage – farmers to produce meat to the specification that is required by the local 260 market. But there is no compulsion to buy local meat. Campaigns have been run to engage and at the end of the day, the marketing of the meat is the Meat Plant’s responsibility. So it is up to them to devise a marketing strategy, and they are indeed doing that. They are aware of the situation. I hope they will get better at that, but it depends on what comes out of the process that we are running through at the moment, with the consultation. 265 The Speaker: Final supplementary on this one, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his pragmatic approach to the Meat Plant, and also his 270 views on protecting the meat industry on the Isle of Man. I think what most farmers on the Isle of Man want is a level playing field, because at the moment meat is brought over without any estimation of its transport costs, and allowed to compete with home produced products. What I would like to see is actually farmers and consumers on the Isle of Man bearing in mind that often supermarkets are bringing meat over as a loss leader and are actually damaging our local 275 produce.
Mr Callister: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Minister to reply. 280 The Minister: Well, I cannot disagree with those comments. Whether supermarkets are selling meat as a loss leader or not is also an opinion and something that the Manx Farmers’ Union have raised with us, but there is little evidence. The fact of the matter is that supermarkets are big buyers and they are able to secure large discounts in a bigger market than 285 ours. In terms of where we go with that and protectionism etc., as I said earlier, that depends on what happens with Brexit and where we go with the United Kingdom in terms of access to their market for other products as well as meat. Remember, it is not just meat that we are talking about here, when we have access to markets in other places.
______183 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
POLICY AND REFORM
1.4. Flexi-time policy – Impact on frontline service delivery
The Hon. Member for Onchan (Ms Edge) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:
What impact the flexi-time policy has had on frontline service delivery?
290 The Speaker: Question 4, and I call on the Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister for Policy and Reform what impact the flexi-time policy has had on frontline service delivery? 295 The Speaker: Minister for Policy and Reform to reply.
The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Thomas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Flexi-time is a form of flexible working, and a model scheme exists for many public servants 300 employed in the Isle of Man Government. This allows Departments to introduce a flexible system of attendance for staff, providing it does not have an adverse effect on the overall efficiency of the office or service it provides to the public and to other Departments. The model scheme has been in place for over 20 years and operates across Government. As far as I am aware, it has had no impact on front-line service delivery and operates successfully. 305 However, if the Hon. Member has any examples where she believes it has had an impact, I would be happy to discuss this with her at our planned meeting next month.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.
310 Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that some members of the public are concerned that many Government counter services are not available between nine and five? On reviewing the flexible working scheme that is in place currently, the core working hours for public servants is 10 till 12 and two till four. Can the Minister advise that he will look into this and the recording of the 315 scheme, as it appears to be operated differently throughout the service? During times when we are trying to encourage businesses to come to the Island and people to operate differently, I feel that the policy needs looking at, to ensure that we do have these counter services open for the public?
320 The Speaker: Minister to reply.
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously we will consider any specific issues at our meeting next month, but in summary, flexible working under the flexible working scheme is different from operational shift patterns to 325 make sure that things like public counters are open appropriately, so in some areas of Government, flexible working schemes would not be appropriate and we would have to look at different ways of working with staff and managers to actually secure the public service or the service to other Departments.
330 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______184 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Would the Minister agree with me that there is a very slight difference between flexible working and flexi-time, and that in relation to any potential issues around counter service it 335 might not necessarily be the flexi-time policy – there could be other policies within that particular Department? Would the Minister agree with me?
The Speaker: Minister to reply.
340 The Minister: Yes – thank you, Mr Speaker – I would agree with the Hon. Member for Douglas North. It is important to be clear about what we mean by flexi-time as opposed to flexible working, since the latter term is enshrined in employment law. An employee who has been continuously employed for at least 26 weeks has the right to apply to his or her employer to request flexible working in order to enable him or her to care for 345 a dependant, for instance. The legislation does not give a right to flexible working but does require the employer to give the request proper consideration. So this is another dimension that needs to be looked at in the context of the delivery of every service to the public and to other Departments from around Government.
350 The Speaker: I call on the Member for Onchan, Ms Edge.
Ms Edge: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for his response. A policy that was introduced in the 1980s for flexi-time and was recently updated in 2014 … and I am fully aware of the implementation of the Employment Act legislation in 2006 for a 355 flexible working system. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is going to look at this, because two different policies operating with the same goal needs to be looked at. The most important thing is that we have these frontline services open for the public, for businesses to come to the Island. A registry office that does not open until 9.30 in the morning is not satisfactory in this day and age. 360 The Speaker: I am not sure I found a question in there, but Minister, would you care to respond?
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 365 I think the question was whether or not Government takes seriously the obligations to the public and to other Departments when providing a service, and the answer to that is yes. There are parts of Government that have had to use operational shift patterns and are still trying to develop operational shift patterns to provide the service that the public needs. If there are examples where the public or another Government Department is not receiving the service, 370 that should be looked at locally inside general Government policies of HR and also provision of service to come up with a better solution. Based on specific examples, we can take discussions further forward.
1.5. Recycling – Policy for Government waste
The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr Hooper) to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform:
What the Government’s policy is on recycling its own rubbish?
The Speaker: Question 5. I call the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
______185 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 375 I would like to ask the Minister for Policy and Reform: what is the Government’s policy on recycling its own rubbish?
The Speaker: Minister for Policy and Reform to reply.
380 The Minister for Policy and Reform (Mr Thomas): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some might argue that we had an Election on 22nd September that dealt with that issue! (Laughter) There is currently no cross-Government policy on recycling. There are, however, a number of separate initiatives across Government for the collection and recycling of waste – for instance, aluminium cans, non-confidential paper, ink cartridges and batteries are collected for recycling 385 at many sites across Government. Of course, a separate initiative might be connected to other initiatives in all sorts of ways – through individuals, or collection or disposal routes, for instance – but generally we have no Government policy and I do not believe we need a Government policy.
390 The Speaker: Hon. Members, that brings us to the conclusion of Questions for Oral Answer. Item 2 is Questions for Written Answer, and those will be circulated in due course.
______186 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
2. Questions for Written Answer
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
2.1. Agricultural Development Scheme – Applications in 2016
The Hon Member for Ramsey (Mr Hooper) to ask the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture:
How many applications for the 2016 Scheme Year of the Agricultural Development Scheme were (1) approved; and (2) refused as the applicant did not meet the definition of an 'Active Farmer’; and how many recipients of payments from the scheme in 2015 did not submit an application for 2016?
The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture (Mr Boot): Mr Speaker, in direct answer to the Question: (1) 344 applications have been approved and, (2) 27 have been refused as they 395 did not meet the definition of active farmer; (3) 34 of the applications that received payments during the 2015 Scheme year did not apply to the Scheme in 2016. Further context is provided in the figures below. As detailed in Table 1 below, that out of a total of 413 applications received for the 2016 Agricultural Development Scheme, 373 were initially deemed eligible for payment. Officers then 400 considered all applicants with regard to the new ‘Active Farmer’ criteria, according to the ‘Definition of Active Farmer’ (GC No. 2015/0008) and have contacted 35 with a request that they provide additional evidence of farm business activity, demonstrating that they fulfil the criteria. To date, six of the applicants were able to provide appropriate information showing they met the criteria so will remain in the Scheme. A total of 27 were unable to demonstrate they met the 405 criteria so have been removed from the Scheme. The Department is still determining the outcome of two applicants. Rejection from the Scheme does not prevent these applicants from submitting a claim in the future if their situation changes to meet the eligibility criteria.
Table 1. Applications to the ADS in 2016:
Total Applications Received 2016 413 Received application forms – advising of no claiming 31 Ineligible applications (not enough eligible land) 8 Outstanding issues (land eligibility) – still to be determined 1 Approved ADS at the start of the Scheme Year 373 Ineligible as don’t meet ‘Active farmer’ rule 27 Outstanding ‘Active farmers’ ruling 2 Eligible ADS Applicants (January 2017) 344
Table 2 shows the differences between the total number of applications received and the 410 number of eligible applications that received payment in both the 2015 and 2016 Scheme years.
Table 2. Comparison of 2015 and 2016 applications:
Total Applications Received 2015 410 Total Eligible Applications 2015 401 Total Applications Received 2016 413 Total Eligible Applications 2016 (January 2017) 344 ______187 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Thirty-four of the applications that received payments during the 2015 Scheme year did not apply to the Scheme in 2016. For information, six of these applicants either wound up the business or are now deceased. Eleven new claimants applied to the 2016 Scheme year. Table 3 shows the differences in acres claimed between 2015 and 2016 Scheme years which 415 allows comparison of total land area claimed in recognition that a moderate turnover in claimants has only resulted in a small change in the area of land claimed.
Table 3. Acreages claimed in the ADS. Note 2016 figures include land that still has some outstanding confirmation required before payment can be made.
2015 Scheme – ALL applicants BML acres 73,264 AML acres 24,164 2015 Scheme – all eligible recipients of payment BML acres 73,247 AML acres 24,164 2016 Scheme – ALL applicants BML acres 73,401 AML acres 24,265 2016 Scheme – eligible & outstanding recipients of payment (Jan
17) BML acres 72,129 AML acres 24,264
HOME AFFAIRS
2.2. Special Constables and community volunteers – Hours served in last five years
The Hon Member for Ramsey (Mr Hooper) to ask the Minister for Home Affairs:
How many hours have been served by (a) special constables and (b) community volunteers in each of the last five years?
The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Malarkey): (a)There is no statutory requirement for the hours worked by Special Constables to be recorded on a single database. Special Constables may 420 work as little or as often as they wish. However, the Police have managed to obtain data for one year. For the year ending 31st October, 2016, Special Constables worked a minimum of 2964.75 hours. It should be noted some officers chose not to record the hours that they worked. On 12th January 2017 the Chief Constable met the Special Constabulary to discuss with its 425 members a new policy, which will include a requirement for Special Constables to work a minimum number of hours each year. The draft policy is subject to ongoing consultation. (b) Regrettably this data is not held.
______188 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
INFRASTRUCTURE
2.3. Illegal parking on taxi ranks and bus stops – Penalty notices issued in last four financial years
The Hon Member for Douglas North (Mr Ashford) to ask the Minister for Infrastructure:
How many penalty notices have been issued by (a) police officers and (b) traffic wardens and enforcement officers for illegal parking on (i) taxi ranks and (ii) bus stops in each of the last four financial years?
The Minister for Infrastructure (Mr Harmer): The Department of Infrastructure is responsible 430 for appointing traffic wardens and parking controllers. Both are authorised to issue fixed penalty notices for illegal parking on taxi ranks and bus stops. The table below details the numbers of fixed penalty notices issued by traffic wardens and parking controllers for illegal parking on (i) taxi ranks; and (ii) bus stops, in each of the last four full financial years.
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Parking on taxi rank 56 107 74 78 Parking on bus stop 54 43 35 36
435 The Department has also recently authorised a bus inspector to issue fixed penalty notices in order to provide improved enforcement at bus stops. Although police officers are empowered to issue fixed penalty notices in relation to parking on taxi ranks and bus stops, the Department of Home Affairs has advised that separate records are not retained for what is likely to be a small number of occasions when such tickets are 440 issued. As a result, these records are not available without an unacceptable utilisation of Police resources.
______189 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Order of the Day
3. BILLS FOR FIRST READING
3.1. Income Tax Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2017; 3.2. Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017
The Speaker: Item 3, Bills for First Reading. I call on the Secretary to the House.
445 The Secretary: The Income Tax Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2017; Member in charge, Mr Cannan. The Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017; Member in charge, Mr Cannan.
4. HOUSE OF KEYS STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
4.1. Standing Orders Committee – Committee of the Whole House – First Report of the Session 2016-17 received and recommendation approved
The Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew (Mr Cregeen) to move:
That the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee First Report for the Session 2016-2017 – Committee of the Whole House (PP No 2017/0003) be received and the following recommendation approved:
Recommendation That the following Standing Order be adopted: SO 4.4A: (1) The House may, on a motion without notice, interrupt any legislative business and resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House; the Committee of the Whole House shall sit until it resolves that the business be resumed; whereupon, the business that was interrupted shall immediately be resumed. (2) A Committee of the Whole House may take oral evidence, but no amendment or motion relating to any Bill shall be moved.
The Speaker: We move then to Item 4, the motion regarding the Standing Orders Committee First Report for the Session 2016-17, and I call on a member of the Committee, Mr Cregeen, to 450 move.
A member of the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee (Mr Cregeen): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon. Members, this Report recommends that we establish a Committee of the Whole House 455 as an optional part of the legislative process. This recommendation is the result of our investigation into the possibility of relaxing the rules about speaking twice to a motion. Particularly during consideration of a clauses stage, there have often been times when I have felt that it would be helpful to be able to discuss a particular clause or an idea in greater detail than the rules currently allow. A Committee of the Whole House would allow us to do just that.
______190 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
460 A Committee of the Whole House is quite simply a device that allows all Members of the legislative body to have a committee-style discussion during the course of a normal public sitting. This means that there are fewer or no restrictions on the number of times Members may speak, which allows more scope for discussion and examination. Although the idea of the Committee of the Whole House has its origins in the UK’s House of 465 Commons, we have considered its use in a number of other parliaments and found that it can be used in a variety of other ways. We have therefore tailored it to our own particular needs of the House of Keys. For example, unlike the House of Commons, the Speaker would remain the Chair and his powers and responsibilities would be unchanged. He would preside over the debate in the same way as at any other time. We believe that it would be useful to have the ability to refer 470 a Bill to a Committee of the Whole House at any stage of the legislative process. This would happen on a motion without notice, which, if agreed to by a simple majority, would interrupt the main legislative business and give the opportunity to discuss anything that needs to be discussed in closer detail. When the matter had been resolved, we would resume business as usual. This would allow us to benefit from a committee-style discussion on the Bill, but without 475 causing significant delay to the Bill’s passage. Another benefit to the Committee of the Whole House is that we would be able to hear evidence during the sitting from the drafter of the Bill, which would further help to clarify any complexities in the Bill. It is important to note that no substantive motion or amendment would be able to be moved in the Committee of the Whole House; it would simply allow us to take a break to discuss a 480 particular point in greater detail … therefore, moving back to the main business. Hon. Members, I believe that this new procedure will help us to scrutinise Bills much more effectively. I would therefore urge Members to support the recommendation of this Report. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
485 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
Mr Ashford: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas. 490 Mr Thomas: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I commend this excellent initiative. I just wanted to clarify two points, briefly. The first one is that my understanding is that the proceedings of the House and the role of different people inside the House would not be affected in any way by this move, which I think 495 the Minister made quite clear when he was moving it. The second one is I noticed that the intention is to be able to give the drafters the chance to contribute to the debate when the committee was in the whole committee, but a plain reading of the motion would be that the House could take oral evidence – but it does not actually specify only the drafter. So I would like to think that this House, if it did want to take evidence from 500 anybody else, would give reasonable notice and would follow due procedure so that there would not have to be Government officials hanging around in here in the Gallery to be called upon at any moment.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Boot. 505 Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tradition has evolved Standing Orders and the way we debate in this House and another place. There is a sound rationale behind this. I am sure everyone here has sat on a committee of some sort. Committees can be formal or 510 informal where discussion and decisions are made. In terms of parliamentary procedure, with
______191 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
our Standing Committees evidence can be called and then recommendations made to parliament. This is a sound and tested process. In my experience, a committee of one is great for making decisions quickly; but on a more serious note, committees of eight, 10 and 12 become difficult to manage, and a committee of 24 515 enthusiastic debaters, as indeed this House would constitute, is indeed daunting. The Standing Orders under which we operate allow Members to come prepared with a speech that can of course be amended as they hear what other Members are saying, but they have to prepare properly and not respond on a whim to what other Members say. The mover of any motion has the opportunity of sweeping all this up and taking from it what advice he or she 520 wishes at the end of the debate. Even under this system, some debates can take several hours. Can you imagine what it would be like if at a whim – and that is the way the motion reads – with a motion with no notice, for the House to turn itself into a committee and then take evidence – from whom? Are we going to have people on standby? Are we going to have to wait for them to arrive? I dread to think where 525 this could lead in terms of the time it could take to debate. I am aware of why this motion has come forward, but looking to the future, if we adopt this amendment to Standing Orders, this will set a precedent that can be used at any time during our proceedings on any Bill or motion. This in my opinion is not a good precedent. If Members wish that an Item be considered by a committee, then we can propose a motion 530 that such a matter be referred to committee, be it three or five Members, or a Standing Committee. This is the route for committee consideration and that committee then reports back to parliament, who can accept or reject the recommendations debated in the normal way. You may gather from this that I do not support the motion and will be voting against it. I would like to ask other Members to think very carefully before they vote to basically change the 535 way we do business. There will, if we adopt this Standing Order, I am sure, be unexpected consequences in the future. The red herring thrown at us has been, ‘This is how they do business in the Legislative Council.’ That is a red herring. The Legislative Council comprises less than half the number of this House, and that constitutes what I call a robust committee. We are 24 and we should remember 540 that.
The Speaker: Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft.
Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 545 I will be supporting the motion before us today, because I think the likelihood is that it is going to make better legislation, and that is what we are here for. We are not here to decide, ‘Oh, we don’t want it because it’s going to take too long.’ (Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.) We have a reputation of passing the buck to Legislative Council and just nodding things through. Well, I think this would address that. We are meant to be here all day. We are very 550 rarely here till after lunchtime. We have got time to do this and to do it properly – and it could actually stop Bills going to committee. If there is one little bit that is causing concern, we can go into committee for that bit and then proceed. It may stop Bills going to committee in the first place. So I will be supporting. I would hope in the future, though, that the Keys Standing Orders 555 Committee will look at pre-legislative committees. This means that something goes to committee before it comes here, so that a lot of the problems and maybe things that need clarifying, a lot of that has been done before it gets to here. They do this in Southern Ireland and it does make for better legislation. So whilst I will be supporting this, I would like the committee to look at pre-legislative 560 committees. Even if it is found that they are not appropriate for here. I would like them looked at and the facts made known on that. Thank you.
______192 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
565 Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unsurprisingly, since I seconded the motion, I will be supporting this here today. I think it is a very good change actually. Just having listened to the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Boot, it is a system that is used widely in different parliamentary democracies around the world. In fact the UK uses it. The Hon. Member is suggesting about a committee of 24: in theory, in the 570 House of Commons they have a committee of 650, and the worked has not caved in! They have still managed to get legislation through. As for the idea that this will be done on a whim, well, at the end of the day, a vote to move into committee requires a vote of this House, or in the case of Tynwald, a vote of Tynwald. So it is hardly going to be done on a whim – there has got to be majority support amongst members 575 to move into committee and equally to move back out again. So I do not see how it can be suggested that that it is going to be done on a whim. As far as I am concerned, it ensures greater scrutiny of the legislation before us, and I think sometimes, it has been easy to kick things off to committee, but a committee does slow things down. Certainly, with some legislation, you may not have a problem with the entire legislation. You 580 may not be wanting to put the whole piece into committee. You may be setting up a committee to consider only one or two individual clauses. In some cases, from my point of view, that is a waste of time, when the debate can be had in a committee of the House. So I think, personally, it is a great way forward, and I think it will actually expedite business, not hold it up. So I am of the complete opposite view to the Hon. Member for Peel and 585 Glenfaba.
The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 590 I will be supporting this motion, but I just want to address the comments from the Member for Peel and Glenfaba. He may or may not have a number of cautionary notes which we need to take account of, but the point I would make is that what we set up we can take down. I think this is something that we should try and if we decide collectively that it is not working, then we will change it back. 595 What I would also like to comment on is the idea that somehow this would replace committees. I think the role here is somewhat different to that of a committee of the House, set up specifically to achieve certain things. So with that, Mr Speaker, I will be supporting.
600 The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome any innovation which improves the effectiveness of this House. I would like some clarity though on how this would work in practice. [Technical interference] … Does this provide a 605 filibustering opportunity for people to delay matters proceeding? … [Technical interference] What controls and what comfort can the mover give … ? [Technical interference]
The Speaker: I call on the mover to reply.
610 Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank my seconder, and for answering some of the questions from the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba. Mr Speaker, as both yourself and I are probably the longest serving Members of this Hon. House here, we have seen probably more Bills coming through this House than any Member
______193 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
615 here. Part of the issue is that some Hon. Members, because they have not got the clarity on a clause or any part of that legislation and they do not feel that they have been satisfied, may vote against it just because they have not had the clarity. So it actually will be helping the legislative process. I do not see this actually slowing things down. I do not see it as filibustering, because 620 ultimately Mr Speaker is the presiding officer. Like any debate in this House, the presiding officer will have the say on when a Member has spoken too much, or when he wants to draw this to a point. On the point of who will be called for evidence, it will be at the discretion of Mr Speaker. He can decide if an officer has to be called when we are actually having to … We may have to 625 adjourn the Bill until the next sitting, until that officer can attend. But ultimately, I would hope that either the mover of the Bill or the officer who will be attending at that time will be able to give that advice. As usual, with any Bill, there are the drafters and the Members from the Department who have helped draft the Bill in this Chamber. The pre-legislative committees: yes, I think the Committee would be interested in having a 630 look at that, because what we need to do is ensure that we have proper legislation. I would urge Members to actually support this. I think this is a big move forward for this House. We will be able to do our job, I think, with more rigour than we have in the past, because the system did not give us that chance to scrutinise legislation as closely as we possibly should do. So therefore, Mr Speaker, I beg to move. 635 The Speaker: Right, Hon. Members, the motion before us is at Item 4 on the Order Paper: that the House of Keys Standing Orders Committee First Report for the session relating to a Committee of the Whole House be received and the recommendation approved – the recommendation is there on the Order Paper. Those in favour, please say aye; those against, no. 640 The ayes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mr Boot Mr Ashford Mr Baker Mrs Beecroft Miss Bettison Mrs Caine Mr Callister 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 Mr Speaker Mr Thomas
The Speaker: With 23 votes for, 1 against, the ayes have it. The ayes have it.
______194 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
5. BILL FOR SECOND READING
5.1. Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Second Reading approved
Mr Boot to move:
That the Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2016 be read a second time.
The Speaker: Moving now to Item 5, Bill for Second Reading, Dogs (Amendment) Bill, and I 645 call on the Hon. Member for Peel and Glenfaba, Mr Boot.
Mr Boot: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am slightly worried now! (Laughter) A resounding defeat! The main objective of this small Bill is to amend the Dogs Act 1990 to require the keeper of 650 every dog in the Island to ensure that their pet is microchipped and to abolish licensing and duty regimes for dogs in the Island. The Dogs Act 1990 currently requires every dog, subject to certain exemptions, to be licensed, which requires it to wear a collar and identification disk when away from its place of residence. In practice, however, these legal requirements do not provide a failsafe way to 655 identify and trace the owner. The fitting of an electronic transponder to the pet – commonly referred to as ‘microchipping’ – is now recognised by animal welfare agencies, including the MSPCA, as the most effective and secure way of permanently identifying a pet and the proposed changes in the 1990 Act contained in this Bill will accommodate that. 660 Owners of dogs are currently required to pay a fee of £20 annually for a licence for their dog. This amount is halved in respect of microchipped dogs, and there are certain dogs that are exempt from payment, such as guide and assistance dogs. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current licensing system generates income for Government, it is also true to say that there are costs involved in producing the paper-based licences and the tags required for the system. 665 In addition to the staffing costs to operate the system, it is accepted there will be a reduction in income to the Government should the mandatory microchipping being introduced. This will in part be offset by enforcement efficiencies and the fact that annual reminders will not need to be sent out. Microchips are inserted once; there is no need for costs associated with re-applications or insertions. 670 The current licensing system is somewhat antiquated and does not fully address problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Accessing details of ownership of dogs on the existing database is slow and unreliable, and there are no records of ownership of all dogs due to the aforementioned exemptions. There can, therefore, be delays in returning stray dogs to their owners. The current licensing system database is no longer supported by Government 675 technology services and any malfunction or failure could result in significant operational difficulties with the likely cost of thousands of pounds to replace it. Compulsory microchipping has been introduced in the devolved jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, which means animals coming to the Island should be microchipped and their owners identifiable through the data systems available under various microchipping companies. This 680 follows on from the legal requirement to have pets microchipped which are moving between the United Kingdom, the EU and other countries. Animals moving to the United Kingdom presently are not required to be microchipped on the Island. It is expected that compulsory microchipping will improve animal welfare by making it easier to reunite a stray dog with its owner. The period of confinement for microchipped stray dogs 685 may be reduced, which will subsequently reduce the level of stress for a dog when separated
______195 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
from its owner. It will also develop further responsible ownership by introducing improved traceability of owners as well as assist in establishing liability and proving ownership. The ability of the Department to access databases provided in the Bill will assist control measures in any instances of diseases that may be transferred to humans from dogs. This new 690 regime should also act as a deterrent against dog theft. The microchip relates the dog to its owner and therefore it can be determined if the dog is stolen. The new provisions are expected to relieve pressure on DEFA’s dog wardens and the MSPCA, who provide kennelling and a limited out-of-hours service in the short to medium term. This should subsequently help to reduce costs involved and the number of strays and dogs that will 695 require re-homing. All dog owners will have a greater chance of getting their dogs back, if lost. The current contractual arrangements with the MSPCA to provide kennelling and an out-of- hours dog warden service to complement the service provided by DEFA’s officers in working hours is to continue. Any investigations into dangerous dogs, urging dogs to attack and dogs worrying livestock will continue to be carried out by the Isle of Man Constabulary. 700 My Department undertook lengthy and detailed consultation on the proposal to introduce compulsory microchipping and received majority support for the initiative. Mr Speaker, I beg to move this Bill be read for a second time.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Perkins. 705 Mr Perkins: Mr Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford.
710 Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is in relation to clause 4 and I wonder if the Department may wish, before we get to clauses stage, to actually consider the wording. It is a bit of a pedantic point, but when you are dealing with the law I do not think anything can be too pedantic. Currently under clause 4, Power to Seize Dogs, it states in part 1:
A constable, dog warden or authorised officer shall –
715 – not ‘may’, ‘shall’ –
– seize any dog found outside the curtilage of a dwelling house.
Surely it should read, ‘seize any unaccompanied dog’! (Laughter) Otherwise dog walking is going to become an extreme sport if this passes in its current format, to be done at about 11 o’clock at night in pitch black – if you see anything light you run for cover. So I would hope that the Department will take that on board and before we come back that it 720 might consider an amendment there, particularly since this is replacing part 1 of the 1990 Act, which to my mind, actually having read that, is a bit more clear. Other than that, I am fully supportive of the Bill. I think it does move us into the 21st century, but that clause might move us a few centuries ahead of that.
725 Mr Cregeen: Move to committee. (Laughter)
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 730 I am glad the Hon. Member for Douglas North has identified that particular clause. It has made my speech a heck of a lot shorter, I can tell you.
______196 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
There is one concern I have with the Bill as currently drafted, actually which again is in clause 4. It is to do with the £50 fine that is being suggested. The explanatory notes suggest that this fine will be raised for anyone who does not collect a dog within three hours, but the Bill is the 735 exact opposite of this, so that everybody will be fined £50 on collecting a dog. I think the Minister might want to look at this to make sure it is what they intended. The first thing that did strike me about this Bill when I read it, which was a little while back now, was the creation of a centralised dog data base. (Laughter) I did wonder if this was Government’s plan to try it out on the dogs and then move on to people. (Laughter) 740 In all seriousness though, it did get me thinking about the kind of information that would be contained and stored in this database. I am not overly concerned about the dogs’ privacy here but more that it could be an opportunity to introduce recording of dogs’ DNA in order that dogs that worry sheep, as the Minister has already identified, or cause any other such damage can be tracked. As an aside, it could also be used towards tracking dog fouling, as is happening in a few 745 UK councils and much further afield. As I say that, it just occurs to me that I have become the first MHK of this new House to talk about dog fouling at a national level! (Laughter) (A Member: Shame!) My understanding of that part of the process is that it is actually quite cost effective, reasonably cheap and the cost could be recovered from the dog owners themselves. I did not 750 see anything relating to this in the notes themselves and I just wonder if the Minister would be considering that as part of the regulations that will be brought forward at a later stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: I call the Hon. Member for Garff, Mr Perkins. 755 Mr Perkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While we are bringing dog fouling to the floor of the House, (Laughter) (Mr Hooper: I apologise!) I would say it is essential we challenge all aspects of anti-social behaviour, wherever they occur on the Island. 760 It could be in the Bill. By way of introduction of the regulations, we could possibly introduce DNA profiling. This is being currently discussed and could, if adopted, undoubtedly have a big impact on the realities of dog fouling enforcement. To date, the dog wardens have been largely ineffective in this area. In the UK the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the introduction of the Public Space Protection 765 Orders (PSPOs), amongst other things, enables local authorities to identify the offending dog through faeces and prosecute the irresponsible dog owners who do not pick up after their dog. Internet research indicates – and I kid you not, Mr Speaker – the London Borough of Barking (Laughter) are becoming the first local authority to introduce DNA testing, along with other areas in Singapore and the United States. I also understand Gibraltar has introduced compulsory 770 dog chipping and DNA testing. The mere threat of which has reduced dog fouling greatly. The law of unintended consequences mean we must fully evaluate all aspects of any new proposed regulation. Some dog owners will undoubtedly say, ‘Big Brother is watching,’ but many responsible dog owners will welcome this as they are sick and tired of being tarred with the same brush – some even removing and disposing other owners’ bags. 775 In the spirit of the UNESCO biosphere and the Programme for Government’s ‘A special place in which to work and live’, if we can reduce fouling and identify individual dogs that attack farm stock by the implementation of DNA profiling for a reasonable cost to the owners, I believe we should.
780 The Speaker: No other Member wishes to speak. I call on the Minister to reply.
The Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was not a lengthy debate, but thank you very much for your contributions.
______197 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
First of all, I would like to thank the Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford, for his 785 observation and I am sure that will be addressed in due course and I hope we will be on the case, as they say. Then Mr Hooper, Member for Ramsey, the £50 and the intentional consequence – I will look at that. I will try to deal with the DNA testing raised by Mr Perkins at the same time. To be honest, 790 this was not considered as part of the Bill. We have not consulted on this and it is not our intention to bring this in at the same time or make any amendments at the moment. This Bill is primarily about the animal’s welfare and the owner being able to trace their dog and have them returned – and at the same time abolish a system that is antiquated. I am quite happy to commit to look at DNA testing at a later date and look at the problems 795 surrounding that, because I think it does require some detailed consultation with dog owners. There will be some that favour it; some that do not; there are costs involved, and it is a complex subject. I have looked at evidence on the aspect of enforcement as a result of DNA: it is not quite as clear-cut as it seems. We will look at it, but it requires a different approach to this particular Bill. 800 With that said, thank you very much for your contributions and I beg to move.
The Speaker: The question is set out at Item 5 on your Order Paper, Hon. Members: Bill for Second Reading, Dog (Amendment) Bill 2016. Those in favour, say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
6. CONSIDERATION OF CLAUSES
6.1. Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill 2016 – Clauses considered
Mr Shimmins to move.
805 The Speaker: Turning now to Item 6, Consideration of Clauses. The first Bill is the Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill, and I call on Mr Shimmins to move.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon. Members, I would firstly like to take the opportunity to respond further to a query 810 raised by the Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford, at the Second Reading. This was whether we would mirror UK regulations in relation to fraudulent activity. I can confirm that we will mirror all secondary legislation that the UK produces in the same way that this Bill is a copy of the UK primary legislation. The United Kingdom high street banks are represented on the Island and they will expect 815 electronic cheque presentation by or to their branches wherever they may be located. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have the same legal framework to allow the clearing banks in the Isle of Man to clear cheques electronically for the benefit of customers. We are in contact with HM Treasury and the Cheque and Credit Clearing Company Ltd. They are working with financial organisations across the UK on introducing the technological capabilities that are 820 required before the new future cheque clearing model can be fully introduced. The Cheque and Credit Clearing Company have stated that cheque imaging, when introduced, will have inbuilt security techniques that will help prevent fraud, and innocent victims of fraud who have abided by their account’s terms and conditions will be protected as they are now. Indeed, one of the benefits of using electronic imaging technology is that it
______198 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
825 provides more opportunities to combat fraud and tackle security threats that currently affect cheque users. A specific timescale for the project to complete will be announced by the UK in due course and we will work alongside the UK implementation dates. Any regulations that we do make under this Bill will have to be approved by Tynwald before they come into operation. 830 Mr Speaker, turning to the Bill itself, with your permission I will take the first three clauses together. Thank you. Clause 1 gives the short title to the Act which results from this Bill. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Act which will be through an Appointed Day Order. 835 Clause 3 is the expiry clause, and once all of the Act’s provisions are in operation the Act will expire. This is a method of tidying up the statute books for, once the amendment is complete, the effect continues in operation but the Act itself expires. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 1, 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill.
840 The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: The motion is that clause 1, Short title; clause 2, Commencement; and clause 3, 845 Expiry, stand part of the Bill. Those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4, Electronic paying in of cheques.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 850 Clause 4 inserts Part 4A which is made up of six sections numbered from 89A to 89F into the Bills of Exchange Act 1883 to permit the use of the same systems for the handling of cheques presented to a banker on the Isle of Man as apply in the case of cheques presented to UK bankers. Section 89A would set out the terms under which the cheque might be presented for 855 payment electronically by providing an electronic image on the front and back of the instrument. Provision is included to allow Treasury to make regulations in due course to describe the type of paper instrument which can be presented by an electronic image. For example, these would include the cheque, banker’s drafts, postal orders and traveller’s cheques. Regulations will also limit the use of presentment by image in case new types of instrument 860 or new types of dealing with existing types of instrument are developed. For a presentment of payment made by electronic means under this section, then any existing requirements for paper presentation or delivery are disapplied whenever such requirements arise. However, provision is included to ensure that the duties of the bankers involved in presentment and payment are the same as they would be if the paper instrument were presented. 865 Section 89B defines what types of payment instrument the new proposals can refer to. They are drawn very widely and beyond what are commonly thought of as cheques, as set out in the previous section, but it does not include bank notes. Section 89C provides that the new method of presentment is not available where a banker imposes terms on a customer which require the customer to provide an image of the instrument 870 for paying in and prevent the customer from providing the instrument itself to the bank. Section 89D enables Treasury to make regulations requiring the paying banker to provide a copy of the instrument to the payer and that the copy provided is evidence of receipt of payment by the payee. Section 89E gives the Treasury the power to introduce regulations for compensation if the 875 electronic system fails in any particular instances.
______199 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Section 89F contains supplementary provisions about the making of regulations under Part 4A including the need for any regulations under this Part to be approved by Tynwald before they come into operation. Subsection (3) of clause 4 inserts wording into section 52(4) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1883 880 to make reference to the presentment of instruments by electronic means. Subsection (4) omits section 74B of the 1883 Act which provides for alternative means of presentation of cheques for payment by a banker. Subsection (5) inserts wording into section 87 of the 1883 Act to make reference to the presentment of instruments by electronic means. 885 Subsection (6) clarifies that the provisions for electronic presentation of instruments apply to any paper instruments presented after the provisions have commenced. That includes the presentation of any instrument created before the date of commencement. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 stands part of the Bill.
890 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks.
The Speaker: No other Member wishes to speak. 895 The motion is that clause 4, Electronic paying in of cheques, stands part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes the clauses stage of the Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill 2016.
6.2. Treasure Bill 2016 – Clauses considered
Mr Peake to move.
The Speaker: We move on to consideration of clauses of the Treasure Bill 2016, and I call on Mr Peake to move. 900 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would first like to thank those Members who raised various points during the debate at Second Reading on 6th December 2016. I will respond to those matters in due course. As outlined in the Second Reading, the Treasure Bill 2016 will introduce modern legislation to 905 ensure that discoveries of artefacts of significance to the story of the Isle of Man are reported and preserved; that there is a clear procedure in place for interested parties to follow; and that the finder is treated fairly. Mr Speaker, moving to the specific clauses in the Bill: clause 1 gives the short title to the Act which will result from this Bill. 910 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 1 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Do I have a seconder?
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second. 915 The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Shimmins. As no other Member wishes to speak, the question is that clause 1 stands part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, Commencement.
______200 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
920 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 2 provides for commencement of the Act which will be through an Appointed Day Order. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 2 stands part of the Bill.
925 The Speaker: Hon. Member for Middle, Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 2 stands part of the Bill. Those in favour, say aye; 930 against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, Interpretation.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 3 sets out interpretation of the terms used in the Bill, including that ‘the Trust’ means 935 the Manx Museum and National Trust. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 3 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
940 Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
Mr Speaker: The question is that clause 3, Interpretation, stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4: Meaning of ‘Treasure’. 945 Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Clause 4 defines what is meant by ‘Treasure’. A time limit has been introduced where an object has to be at least 300 years old. The time limit has been introduced to focus the legislation on ancient and historical objects and to lessen the possibility of the object having a 950 known owner. Mr Speaker, this is in keeping with other jurisdictions and in particular with the Treasure Act in England and Wales. I know this clarifies the query raised by my Douglas North colleague, Mr Ashford, at Second Reading as to why the 300-year limit has been specifically chosen. The categories have been widened to include groups of coins and objects made from base 955 metals as well as gold or silver and any objects that are associated with those. This is to allow for items such as non-precious metal prehistoric artefacts, i.e. objects that date from the end of the Manx Iron Age, which the Trust interprets as around AD 500 or earlier. The clause allows for Treasury, by order approved by Tynwald, to designate other objects of historical, archaeological or cultural importance not covered by the above categories as 960 Treasure. Treasure does not include works of natural objects, minerals extracted from the natural deposits, wreck or other objects which may be excluded by Treasury by order – again subject to the approval of Tynwald. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 4 stands part of the Bill. 965 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I beg to second.
970 The Speaker: The question is that clause 4 stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it.
______201 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Clause 5: Power to amend the meaning of ‘treasure’.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 975 Clause 5 allows for amendments to the meaning of ‘treasure’, subject to consultation with such persons as it considers appropriate, and is subject to the approval of Tynwald. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 5 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins. 980 Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 5 stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 985 Clause 6: Treasure to vest in the Treasury. Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 6 provides that treasure vests in the Treasury in trust for the Crown, but the rights of 990 the original owners or their heirs, where known, are fully protected. I would like to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for the time and effort that you have personally committed to assisting us to clarify this clause. Treasure in the Island vests in the Crown as the successor to the Lords of Man because it was one of the aspects of sovereignty going back to time immemorial. This principle is recognised in the current Treasure Trove Act 1586 and the Bill 995 confirms that the Crown will enjoy the same rights over treasure as it did in respect of treasure trove. It should be noted that it was only comparatively recently that treasure found in the Isle of Man remained here. Prior to the 1970s treasure found here would go straight to the British Museum. In 1971 the British Treasury agreed that the Manx Museum should have a pre-emptive 1000 right to the acquisition of items of treasure found in the Isle of Man. Since that time the Trust has developed an excellent working relationship with the British Museum and the situation now is that it would only be in the event that the Trust did not wish to acquire treasure that it would end up being offered to accredited museums elsewhere. This position is strengthened under the Bill. 1005 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 6 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you. 1010 I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 6 stands part of the Bill – Treasure to vest in the Treasury in trust for the Crown. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1015 Clause 7: Transfer, disposal and disclaimer. Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 7 enables the Treasury to transfer, dispose of or disclaim items designated as 1020 treasure. The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, raised a concern at Second Reading about the procedure for Treasury obtaining title to an object as treasure and its ability to disclaim objects before an inquiry by the Coroner.
______202 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Following that sitting we had a very productive meeting with Mr Hooper which has allowed 1025 Treasury to refine the Code to make the position clearer. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Hooper for his valuable feedback. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 7 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins. 1030 Mr Shimmins: Thank you. I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 7 stands part of the Bill – Transfer, disposal and 1035 disclaimer. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8: Duty to notify the Trust. Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1040 Clause 8 requires a person who finds or acquires an object which they believe to be treasure or has reasonable grounds for believing, to notify the Trust within 14 days. A person who fails to do so shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than 12 months. However, it would be a valid defence if the defendant could show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing 1045 to notify the Trust; for example, the finder had reasonable grounds for believing the object not to be treasure. Where it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed under the provisions of the Act, it is always for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 8 stands part of the Bill. 1050 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
1055 The Speaker: The question is that clause 8 stands part of the Bill – Duty to notify the Trust. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 9, Delivery of objects to the Trust. Mr Peake.
1060 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 9 requires that anyone notifying the Trust of a find must, if the Trust requires, deliver the object or arrange for its delivery to the Trust. The Trust must provide a receipt for and an image of the object. The Trust must notify the Treasury and the Coroner. The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, raised a concern at Second Reading about a 1065 person who finds an object being responsible for costs incurred in delivering a substantial find to the Trust. I can clarify that under the Code of Practice, if a person detected something large then they must obtain appropriate archaeological supervision. This allows the Trust the opportunity to carry out the archaeological excavation of the remainder of that find. Therefore, we do not envisage finders ever having to pay substantial delivery costs for large finds. 1070 The Trust has discussed these costs with representatives of the metal detecting clubs on the Island and they have stated that they have no concerns in this regard. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 9 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins. 1075
______203 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 9 stands part of the Bill –Delivery of objects to the Trust. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1080 Clause 10: Inquiry.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 10 requires the Coroner to hold an inquiry to determine whether an object is Treasure unless the Treasury has disclaimed its title under clause 7. The inquiry must be held in public and 1085 without a jury unless the Coroner directs otherwise. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 10 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
1090 Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 10 stands part of the Bill – Inquiry. Those in favour please say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 11: Notification requirements. 1095 Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 11 sets out the procedural notification requirements in connection with an inquiry and defines who may be regarded as ‘interested parties’ in the procedure. 1100 Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 11 stands parts of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second. 1105 The Speaker: The question is that clause 11 stands part of the Bill – Notification requirements. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 13: Acquisition by the Trust. Mr Peake. 1110 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 12 requires Treasury to ask the Trust whether it wishes to acquire any items of treasure to which it has title. Where the Trust does not wish to acquire the treasure, other museums may be approached and may acquire the treasure in accordance with directions to be 1115 given by Treasury. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 12 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
1120 Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 12 stands part of the Bill – Acquisition of treasure by the Trust. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 13: Custody of other objects. 1125 Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______204 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Clause 13 applies to objects disclaimed by the Treasury and/or which, for a number of reasons, are not believed or determined to be treasure, and requires the Trust to inform certain 1130 persons that an object is to be released to the person who made the notification, unless a written objection is received within 28 days. If there is a written objection, the Trust will retain the object until any dispute has been resolved. The clause details those persons who may be informed. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 13 stands part of the Bill. 1135 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
1140 The Speaker: The question is that clause 13 stands part of the Bill – Custody of other objects. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 14: Rewards. Mr Peake.
1145 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 14 sets out procedures for monies to be paid as a reward to those involved in the discovery, recovery and reporting of finds and details what level any reward should be equal to, who may be eligible for a reward, and when all or part of a reward can be abated. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 14 stands part of the Bill. 1150 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
1155 The Speaker: The question is that clause 14, Rewards, stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 15: Rewards, treasure transferred. I call on Mr Peake.
1160 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 15 enables Treasury to decide on rewards paid by off-Island museums. In the event of no accredited museum on the Island being able to or choosing to acquire objects of treasure, the objects may be offered to other accredited museums, even if these are off-Island. This is to aid the preservation of the objects. As part of a museum collection that 1165 conforms to national standards, the objects will still be conserved and made accessible to the public and researchers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 15 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins. 1170 Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 15, Rewards: treasure transferred, stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. 1175 Clause 16: Code of practice. Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______205 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Clause 16 provides that the Treasury must make a Code of Practice relating to treasure, keep 1180 that Code under review and revise it when appropriate. Before making the Code or revising it, Treasury must consult interested persons. The Code or any revision to it must be laid before Tynwald and the Treasury must publish the Code in an appropriate manner. The Code of Practice was drafted alongside the Bill in 2015 to facilitate the public 1185 consultation exercise and was subject to close consultation with the Coroner, the Island’s metal detecting clubs and other interested organisations and individuals. The Code of Practice contains more detail on the categories of objects, procedures to be followed, how rewards should be assessed and possible reasons for abatement of rewards. It also gives guidance on the care of objects discovered and gives contact information for advice 1190 and assistance. Mr Speaker, it is Treasury’s intention to lay the Code before Tynwald at the earliest opportunity dependent, of course, on the smooth transition of the Bill through this House and receiving Royal Assent. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 16 stands part of the Bill. 1195 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
1200 The Speaker: The question is that clause 16 stands part of the Bill – Code of practice. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 17: Transitional provisions. Mr Peake.
1205 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 17 contains transitional arrangements. Nothing in the resulting Act is to affect any object found before it comes into operation. Any such object will be treated in accordance with the law previously in operation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 17 stands part of the Bill. 1210 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: I beg to second.
1215 The Speaker: The question is that clause 17 stands part of the Bill – Transitional provisions. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 18: Amendment of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act 1959.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1220 Clause 18 makes amendments to the Manx Museum and National Trust Act 1959. The definition of ‘archaeological object’ in section 2(1) of that Act is amended. Section 20 is amended so as to tidy that provision up and remove references to the option of reporting finds of an archaeological object to a member of the Police. The penalty is also amended so it is in accord with the level of the penalty in clause 8(3) of 1225 this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 18 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
1230 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, and I beg to second.
______206 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Speaker: The question is that clause 18 stands part of the Bill – Amendment of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 19: Repeal of the Treasure Trove Act 1586. 1235 Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 19 repeals the Treasure Trove Act 1586. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 19 stands part of the Bill. 1240 The Speaker: Mr Shimmins.
Mr Shimmins: Thank you, I beg to second.
1245 The Speaker: The question is that clause 19 stands part of the Bill – Repeal of the Treasure Trove Act 1586. Those in favour say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 20: Repeal of section 18 of the Coroner of Inquests Act. Mr Peake.
1250 Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clause 20 repeals section 18 of the Coroners of Inquests Act 1987. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 20 stands part of the Bill.
The Speaker: Mr Shimmins. 1255 Mr Shimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second.
The Speaker: The question is that clause 20, Repeal of section 18 of the Coroners of Inquests Act, stands part of the Bill. Those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have 1260 it. That concludes the clauses stage of the Treasury Bill 2016.
7. LEAVE TO INTRODUCE
7.1. A Bill to restate abortion law – Leave to introduce granted
The Hon. Member for Ramsey (Dr Allinson) to move:
That leave be given to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to restate, with amendments, the law relating to abortion; and for connected purposes.
The Speaker: We turn to Item 7 on our Order Paper, Leave to Introduce. I call on the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson, to move.
1265 Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Dear Hon. Members, 2017 marks 50 years since David Steel brought in legislation which legalised abortion in the UK. It was not until 1995, now 22 years ago, that this Parliament addressed the issue with its own Termination of Pregnancy Act. Since then many things have changed, especially society’s attitudes and expectations. Now is the time for us to bring our
______207 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
1270 legislation up to date and ensure it provides protection and healthcare for the women of this Island. Our laws regarding abortion still rely on the Criminal Code of 1872. Section 71 makes it an offence for a woman to procure her own miscarriage and makes it unlawful for anyone to assist her. The subsequent section 72 makes procuring drugs to induce an abortion a crime with a 1275 maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment. 1872 saw Ulysses S. Grant become US President after commanding the Union army of Abraham Lincoln in the American Civil War; the Mary Celeste was found mysteriously abandoned in the Atlantic Ocean; and the Jesse James gang was still robbing banks in Kentucky. Over 220 individual sections of this Code have been repealed or amended in the intervening 1280 years, but the sections on abortion still stand. They stand alongside laws regarding grave robbing and manufacturing gunpowder. I would like to take a few moments to describe how we arrived at our current laws on abortion. In 1938 the Manx Infanticide and Infant Life Preservation Act made it legal for abortion up to 1285 28 weeks if this was done to preserve the life of the pregnant woman. This followed the British judgment of the Crown v Bourne which dealt with the prosecution of a surgeon who had carried out a termination for a 14-year-old victim of rape. He was acquitted as it was judged that he had acted in good faith in preserving the life of that young woman. By 1983 the Island’s medical profession were increasingly worried that they were liable to 1290 prosecution if they counselled a Manx woman about abortion and helped make arrangements for this to be carried out in England. Amniocentesis had become available to help detect genetic or chromosomal abnormalities early. But provision of this medical technique was, to a degree, pointless as termination was not offered as an option. Dr David Moore, MHK for Peel and a lecturer in Psychology, sought to bring in a Private 1295 Member’s Bill to amend and clarify the Law. He was persuaded to withdraw this Bill and it was progressed by the then Health Services Board through a period of public consultation which lasted until 1985. Unfortunately, the Bill was never progressed. The excuse given was lack of legislative time and the impending general election. There was little progress on any abortion law until 1993 when the issue was referred to the 1300 Social Issues Committee. They consulted widely and commissioned the Liverpool University Health Consortium to survey public opinion. This survey proved that the majority of Isle of Man residents held pragmatic attitudes towards abortion: 70% believed that it depended on the circumstances and 7% were neutral. Only 9% strongly opposed abortion and 13% described themselves as in favour. 1305 Following a report by the Council of Ministers in 1993, 10 years since the medical profession had expressed their real concerns, a draft Bill was eventually brought to Tynwald for discussion. I have gone through the transcripts of the long debates on this Act documented in Hansard. It is quite clear that at the time the parliamentarians, which included just one women out of 24 Members of the House of Keys, rejected the British legislation and any concept of what was 1310 termed ‘abortion on demand’. They wanted to bring in legislation that would legalise abortion, but restrict access to it in every way possible. Their main motivation was to protect the medical establishment from laws dating back 50 years or more, rather than further the rights of women and social justice. At the time it was estimated that approximately 250 women were leaving the Island every year to 1315 travel to the UK for terminations. The 1995 Act would only assist a very small minority to have terminations on the Island, perhaps five or six. The social and economic costs of terminations would continue to be borne by Manx women, especially those from poorer backgrounds. So if I may, I would like to explain the Act that we currently have to work around on the Island. I say ‘work around’ as I see it as an unjust and unfair Act which is meant to guarantee the 1320 legal safety of the medical profession and the state, but at the expense of pregnant women.
______208 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Abortion is legal and can be carried out only in an NHS hospital by a surgeon if they and another medical practitioner form the opinion, ‘in good faith’ that either: ‘the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a substantial risk … to the life of the pregnant woman …’ or the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to either the physical or mental 1325 health of the woman. If the abortion is for mental health reasons the other agreeing medical practitioner must be a consultant psychiatrist. Section 3 of the Act relates to terminations past 24 weeks when it is the duty of the surgeon ‘to perform a termination in such a manner as is best calculated to preserve the life of the child …’ 1330 Our Attorney General has recently questioned whether it is legal for a consultant obstetrician to refer a pregnant woman to a tertiary centre in the UK for termination if she is even one day over this 24-week cut-off. Section 4 allows termination up to 24 weeks if the surgeon is ‘of the opinion, formed in good faith, that there is a substantial risk that if the child were to be born at full term it would suffer 1335 from such physical or mental abnormalities’ either to be ‘unlikely to survive the birth’ or to be ‘seriously handicapped’. Tynwald debated the wording and meaning of this term endlessly and concluded that ‘serious handicap exists if … that handicap is not capable of being cured or substantially relieved by treatment or the passage of time’. 1340 Clause 5 refers to the 1872 Criminal Code and gave the medical profession indemnity from prosecution for performing an abortion in cases of rape or incest. In the 1990s we will never know how many women were victims of abuse, but abuse continues to this day and there has been an increase in reporting of historical cases of abuse in the Island since the issue was highlighted by the investigations into Jimmy Savile. 1345 But to ask for a termination if you have been abused, a woman must be less than 12 weeks pregnant, produced an affidavit or other evidence under oath that the offense occurred, has to make a complaint to the Police – and even then can only have a termination if the doctors believe her. So that is the Act doctors, midwives and pregnant women have to work around on the Isle of 1350 Man. It has remained unchanged and unchallenged since 1995. So if a woman comes to see me in my surgery on Friday morning and has found she is pregnant, what does she do? She has made the personal decision that she cannot continue with the pregnancy and wants a termination. In the absence of any obvious physical problems, the only way I can organise an NHS termination for her on this Island is if continuing the pregnancy 1355 would, ‘cause grave permanent injury to her mental health’. I had a case recently where a woman in her 30s broke down into tears and explained how she had felt suicidal and desperate when she found out she was pregnant. So to help this woman I need to refer her to a consultant psychiatrist, and we do not have many on the Island. They need to see her, confirm her mental anguish and then I can refer her on to an obstetrician who 1360 hopefully will carry out this termination. Each of these steps can take days or even weeks – time this woman cannot afford. What I actually do is apologise for the appalling provision of service on this Island and counsel the woman about the medical and surgical forms of termination available. I explain the convoluted system on the Island and the barriers it erects, and steer her towards the British 1365 Pregnancy Advisory Service or Marie Stopes clinics in Liverpool or Manchester. BPAS give excellent telephone advice and actually offer a slight discount for women coming from the Isle of Man. A private termination can cost between £500 and £1,700. However the costs of the procedure are compounded by the price of ferry crossings or flights off the Island. Sometimes it can cost several hundred pounds to fly to the UK at short notice or bad weather 1370 can make any travel impossible. Having to choose between paying your rent, clothing your children or feeding yourself, rather than paying for a private termination in another country cannot be a civilised and just situation for women and their families to face in the 21st Century.
______209 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
And yet this is the situation faced by an estimated 105 Manx women every year. I say ‘estimated’ as some may travel across and give a UK address to access free NHS care. Others are 1375 obtaining Mifepristone and Misoprostol online and carrying out their own medical terminations at home. The Isle of Man Post Office routinely searches mail for imported drugs and pharmaceuticals and are reporting increased numbers of women arranging their own terminations in this way. Contraception, family planning and terminations are an intrinsic part of women’s healthcare. 1380 Terminations are part of healthcare. The new Manx National Health and Care Act 2016 states that healthcare should be comprehensive and available to all. But it is clearly not. If you find yourself pregnant on the Isle of Man and have sufficient financial resources, you have lots of options to arrange a termination in the UK. However, if you are in an abusive relationship or socio-economically disadvantaged you face a stark choice between having to 1385 obtain or borrow over a thousand pounds to buy services in the UK or to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. This is no choice at all. It was only last year that I learnt a family secret. In the 1950s my late mother worked extra shifts to raise money. A close family member had got pregnant long before the pill was available. My mother worked night shifts so that they could afford to send her to a private doctor in Harley 1390 Street for a private abortion. More than 60 years later women on the Isle of Man face exactly the same hard choices. I really believe that now is the chance to change our law. The fundamental problem with the way our law was created in 1995 was that it was based on legal arguments to protect doctors, rather than a moral argument to protect women. It aimed to reform laws from the 1800s rather than scrap them and concentrate on healthcare reform 1395 which would allow the provision of safe, timely terminations by the NHS on this Island. I stand before you today asking for your permission to draft a new Bill – a Bill which recognises that the majority of abortions now carried out in the UK and Europe involve administering two pills to induce a miscarriage. Access to early medical abortion is extremely safe and effective. A new Bill would allow abortion to be an option up to 14 weeks if requested 1400 by a woman who is distressed at finding herself unintentionally pregnant. From 14 to 24 weeks abortion should be available if there are serious maternal health concerns, serious social grounds or severe foetal abnormalities. Late terminations over 24 weeks are incredibly rare and account for only 0.1% of all abortions carried out in the UK. They should only ever be available if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, where there are fatal foetal abnormalities or where 1405 there is a substantial risk of severe disability of the foetus. I completely understand that many people have problems with late terminations, but in practice any woman who requires one would be referred to an appropriate foetal medical specialist in the UK for full counselling and discussion of all options. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest she should not be compelled to 1410 report the crime, swear any kind of oath or affidavit, or undergo any medical examination just to permit an abortion. Appropriate victim support and counselling must be offered as well as information on how to report the crime should the woman wish to do so. There are some aspects of our present 1995 Act which I would wish to keep. The fact that it is for women resident on the Island is important. It has a clause regarding conscientious objection 1415 – the right of medical professionals including GPs, nurses and midwives to choose not to be involved in the provision of abortion should be retained. However, doctors must be aware of their legal responsibility to make appropriate referral to another professional as detailed by the General Medical Council. I also fully support the NHS provision of unbiased counselling to be provided so that women 1420 have the full facts about their options including continuing with the pregnancy, abortion or adoption. They should be supported in making an informed decision and supported afterwards if necessary. Abortion is not just an issue for women. As a father, brother and son this affects me. As a society we have to make difficult decisions about services we provide and human rights we
______210 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
1425 protect. As a doctor I have a duty to serve my patients in the best way I can. However, I must always respect their autonomy and informed choice. It is that sense of respect which I hope to enshrine in our legislation. If you support my motion today it gives me leave to sit down with one of our legal drafters to create a Bill to bring back to you for debate. 1430 Some people have criticised me for bringing a Private Member’s Bill. They have argued that such a matter should be bought to the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee for a full discussion and consultation. My problem with this idea was that a committee stage was tried in 1984 and led to a delay of more than 10 years before the matter finally came before Tynwald. Only last week we heard that referring a matter to the committee would be seen as, ‘kicking the 1435 issue into the long grass’. What I beg your leave to do is to go away today and start a consultation with medical professionals about how we provide a better, cost effective service for the women of this Island. To work with our legal drafters to look at how other members of the commonwealth have created laws to tackle this difficult medical and moral issue. 1440 I will give you a commitment that any Bill will go out for full consultation when it has been presented to this House. I would support it being discussed by a scrutiny committee at a later stage in the legislative process to ensure that it provides the service women on this Island need. But let us have something concrete to debate. Let us put our energy into creating good and fair legislation, rather than return to the same old arguments of previous decades. 1445 You will have all received emails warning that I want to adopt a Canadian model of abortion law. Canada is one of the few countries in the world to have no law restricting abortion at all. They did reform their law in 1969 but it proved to be unfair and, after a series of high profile legal cases, was thrown out by their Supreme Court. The Canadian parliament have not had the courage to create a replacement and there is a legal vacuum which theoretically allows abortion 1450 on demand until term. The reality is that even in Canada 90% of terminations are carried out within the first 12 weeks and only 2% to 3% are done after 16 weeks. I am not advocating this failure of legislation or any other model. I want us to debate a system which will work for women on this Island and which is acceptable to all. Other people have criticised me for re-starting the debate on abortion laws. They feel that 1455 the 1995 Act is already too lenient and liberal. In the UK a 2010 opinion poll looked at social attitudes towards terminations: 36% responded that they believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 55% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and only 3% that it should be illegal whatever the situation. Some of you may be worried that reforming the Abortion Law will somehow open the flood 1460 gates and increase the number of women having terminations. Paradoxically, the opposite is true. Worldwide the provision of adequate contraception for men and women, and more effective sex education is leading to lower teenage pregnancy rates and lower abortion rates. Most abortions now requested in the UK are from women in their 20s and 30s and the vast majority are due to the failure of contraceptives, rather than not using them. Those countries 1465 with easier access to safe, early abortion on request have lower abortion rates as women are able to make an informed choice without stigma or shame. I have never met any woman who has not found having a termination one of the most difficult decisions they have ever made. Many regret it in the future but still accept that at the time it was the right option for them. What we should be doing is allowing our medical 1470 professionals to support and counsel these women, and as a society accept and recognise this difficult issue. In 2017 women should not be ashamed to make healthcare decisions, nor should they be criticised or rejected by others. Perhaps in light of the discussions we have had about the financing of the Department of Health, some people will think that reproductive healthcare is just something we cannot afford. 1475 For decades, women have travelled across at their own expense for expensive private abortions. Can we ignore the financial cost to them or their families? The time taken off work, the excuses
______211 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
they make to their friends and families? The provision of safe, early abortion services at Nobles will save money. We do not know how many women will take pills purchased on the internet today to 1480 terminate an unwanted pregnancy. We do not know whether these pills are legitimate or fake. What we do know is that these women are taking their health in their own hands, often without sufficient information or support. Are we going to wait until one of them ends up in intensive care before we act? Will we wait until a woman dies of a haemorrhage on her way back from an abortion clinic in Liverpool before we see that safe provision of abortion services on this Island 1485 should be an intrinsic part of healthcare? The Isle of Man is a forward-thinking, progressive and inclusive society. We have led the world in votes for women and those over 16 years old. We have civil partnership legislation far more progressive than that in neighbouring islands and our soon-to-be-debated Equality Bill has the potential to be one of the best in the world. 1490 Now is our chance to lead the way in abortion law reform. To show those campaigning in Ireland and elsewhere that a small jurisdiction can have the political courage and strength to create a just law which recognises religious and moral beliefs but provides for safe and effective reproductive healthcare for women. In a week when millions of women marched across the world in support of their rights, would 1495 it not be seen as a sign of hope if this House agrees to listen to Manx women and support abortion law reform? I would like to thank you for your time today to consider this difficult issue. I ask you to support the motion and to send a clear sign that this is a Government for change, for action, progress and hope. 1500 Thank you and I beg to introduce this Bill in my name.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Miss Bettison.
Miss Bettison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to second the motion and reserve my 1505 remarks.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1510 I rise to move an amendment in line with the memorandum circulated to Hon. Members yesterday and which is before you now. In all the duties faced by an elected Member of this House, I can think of nothing more onerous and difficult than that which faces us now: the need to review and reconsider the form of our legislation in respect of abortion. It impacts on the emotional, it impacts on the 1515 profoundly personal and it impacts deeply on psychological, ethical and medical matters. The mover, the Hon. Member for Ramsey, has shown courage in facing up to the matter and provides us with his proposed way forward, but is this the right way to deal with such a complex issue? I would argue it is not. His motion asks us to embark on a journey down a particular road, with opportunity to a 1520 degree to refine details and adjust elements along the way, leaving us as individual Members within the context of a formed Bill searching out as best we can what information, advice and guidance we can each find along the way. The road, however, is chosen for us and the destination clear. The amendment before you proposes an alternative way forward. It requires a committee of 1525 this House to search out, to identify and collate all relevant information and advice from all available quarters and report its findings, in order that Hon. Members will have the best possible resource available to them such that, when debated, it might be possible for us to actually choose a well-informed path to reform.
______212 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Mr Speaker, I would put it to you that we all need to be party as far as possible to choosing 1530 the road to be taken, to finding the destination we believe is right for the Isle of Man. It is for these reasons, I propose the amendment before us, and it is in order to ensure that the select committee has the widest range of views and opinions within it during its work that I believe it should consist on this occasion of five Members. Mr Speaker, I ask Hon. Members to resist the temptation to send the proposed Bill to 1535 committee at some later stage during the Readings. Please do not waste drafting time. Be clear about the need to fully evidence the important issues at a very early stage through the services of a committee of the House. Thereafter, this Hon. House will be in a far better position to proceed to a Bill stage, after it has had the opportunity to consider recommendations placed before it. 1540 It is right to review our legislation, and I think in that respect, the Hon. Member for Ramsey is absolutely right, in this sensitive area, but let us ensure, Mr Speaker, that we do it in the right way. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the amendment in my name:
Leave out all words after ‘That leave’, and add, ‘should not be given to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the law relating to abortion until sufficient evidence has been collected to establish the need for a change in the law; and that a Select Committee of five Members be established with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to report to the House on the need for any change in the law relating to abortion.’
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft. 1545 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to second the amendment by Mr Robertshaw, because I think it is the most appropriate course of action to take at this moment in time, and I would like to explain why. There is absolutely no doubt that this is one of the most emotive subjects, and one that 1550 divides people more than anything else in their opinions. We have two groups on the Island who are very strong and very vocal, and at complete opposite ends. When we come to this House, we all wear various hats. Mine today, I have got a number of them: I am a woman; I am a mother; I am a wife; I am a grandmother; and I am Minister for Health and Social Care. It is as Minister for Health and Social Care, that is the hat that I am 1555 wearing today in this House. Any legislation that we bring forward should be based on evidence. So I went to the Department, and I asked them what evidence did we have, to see if it supported one side or the other of the two arguments. Whilst evidence is there, it does not come down clearly on either side – if it is medical evidence. I think that is the point: that from the Department’s point of view, 1560 we have to look at medical evidence, and there is none to support either side. It does not come down clearly either way. So what we are left with is reasons for a change of legislation, based on – as Dr Allinson said – societal attitudes and expectations, and the changes of them. We do not have that evidence. We have evidence of people with very strong opinions, very strong feelings either way, but we have 1565 not heard from the majority of people in the Isle of Man, what do they think. This is such a fundamental change that I do not think it is right to go straight into producing draft legislation – I really do not – that is there for debate afterwards. Yes, all legislation goes out for consultation, but that is very different to what Mr Robertshaw is proposing, that we take evidence first. That has to produce better legislation in the long run – something that we were only just talking 1570 about a few short minutes ago this morning. We want good legislation, we want appropriate legislation and we want legislation that is based on fact and evidence.
______213 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
I have made some notes to talk about today, and I think that really has covered them all from the Department's point of view. Obviously, anybody can talk at length about this, about the research, about what people feel, and everything else, but it boils down to, as I have said, there 1575 is not the evidence to support the leave to introduce. I certainly think it is an issue that requires five Members and I congratulate Mr Robertshaw on being perceptive and bringing that forward. So I beg to second.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey. 1580 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the Member for Ramsey for bringing this forward today. (Mr Robertshaw: Hear, hear.) It is an extremely emotive subject. It is not a politically sweet subject for anybody. Had he not done so today, I just wonder how long we would have 1585 waited, going through the next four and a half years before somebody had the courage to bring this motion forward today. I can see both sides of the argument. I will stake myself to the mast: I do believe that the abortion laws in the Isle of Man are in need of reform – very much so. Having said that, the amendment brought forward today by the Hon. Member, Mr 1590 Robertshaw, is right. It does need to go to committee. Whether we put it to a committee at this stage or at a later stage is a debatable point. Some of these committees – the Social Affairs Committee – are so bogged down with work, how long is it going to take for anything to come out of it? At least if we have a select committee from this Hon. House, we might get some progress a bit quicker. 1595 What I did not like about the amendment was there was no timescale on it. I did not want another situation where it was kicked in the long grass for the next five years. So you will notice the only difference in my amendment coming forward is that I have put a timescale for any committee, should you be minded to go with the amendment, that it has to be brought back by December this year. What I would not be prepared to support is a committee with no timescale 1600 on it, because five years down the line, we could be sitting debating the same subject in one direction and then the other direction. So I say to you, if you are minded to go with the amendment from Mr Robertshaw today, please go with my amendment: at least it has a timescale on it, and it has a date for coming back. 1605 At the same time, you could go with Dr Allinson’s leave to introduce today. He has promised to take it to committee at some stage. I worry that we might be wasting legislation time, if we do not get it absolutely right, and certainly if … I would hope that if the committee came back with the right recommendations that I believe in my heart that we do need to do, going forward he will still be able to take a Bill in the future forward, to bring the abortion laws in the Isle of 1610 Man up to date. So all I say, Mr Speaker, is if people are minded to go with the amendment, please go with my amendment, put a timescale on this. I have not got a seconder, I only brought this forward after I read Mr Robertshaw’s and realised there was no timescale on it. So I would appreciate if somebody would second this amendment this morning. 1615 Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In the amendment in the name of Mr Robertshaw after the words ‘to report to the House’ to insert the words ‘by December 2017’.
The Speaker: I call on the Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen.
Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
______214 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
I am happy to second the amendment (Mr Malarkey: Thank you.) from my colleague in 1620 Douglas South. The Hon. Member for Ramsey was very eloquent and very passionate about why he wants to bring this legislation forward. My concern was that he said that he would go out to consultation after this proposed Bill had come to this House. I cannot agree that you go to consultation after it has come to this House, because you are too late, you have already got your draft Bill. It has 1625 already come here, so what is the benefit of going out to consultation after you have presented the Bill for First Reading? By sending it off to a committee, the committee actually has greater powers to gather evidence from all sections. It would also give the Hon. Member a better chance to get his legislation right, because he can then pick up from the recommendations of the select 1630 committee to draft his Bill. Somewhere down the line, this will have to go to a committee. I do not think that we should be in a position where the legislation then comes through there and then we do regret some of the decisions, because it has not been properly discussed, properly thought out. A committee, whenever, really does have to happen to ensure that all the medical profession and all the 1635 people involved have their say. Unfortunately sometimes when people say they are going out to discuss matters with professional bodies, it does not actually include all of them. People will feel left out, whereas with a committee of this House, there will be public notices, there will be calls for evidence and that evidence will be given in public. It gives a clear steer, I think, for the Member. I think it will 1640 be of more assistance to the Hon. Member to have the work done by this committee before he drafts this Bill. So with that, Mr Speaker, I am pleased to second.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Ashford. 1645 Mr Ashford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to say that I will not be supporting either of the amendments, and I would like to explain why. Firstly, I am happy to support the Hon. Member for leave to introduce, because I think it is a 1650 fundamental parliamentary principle that Members should be able to come forward with Private Members’ Bills, have them properly considered and in this case actually be able to come up with a draft Bill. Just having listened there to the Hon. Member for Arbory, Castletown and Malew, Mr Cregeen, I quite agree, this does need to go to a committee, and I think it needs to go to a full 1655 public consultation as well, which the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson has given assurances on. But I am a bit confused by these amendments as to what this committee is actually going to be considering, because at the moment there is nothing to consider, because there is no draft Bill. Or is this committee just going to have a wide ranging brief to discuss abortion in all its details, and be trying to report back to December? To me, there should be a 1660 draft Bill and then it gets referred to a committee and goes out for full public consultation at the same time. That to me is the way it should work. (A Member: Hear, hear.) I also see from the amendments that it is wanted, a select committee, rather than going to the Review Committee. Taking the words of the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey, saying that if it went to the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, of which I am a member, it 1665 would be kicked into the long grass – well, I am glad in the last week I have convinced him, Mr Speaker, (Laughter and interjections) without uttering a word, apparently! (Mr Malarkey: Your words!) Because a week ago, he did not believe me when he voted against my motion to have a select committee – the same with Mr Robertshaw, the same with Mr Cregeen. So I am very glad that my powers of persuasion, of silence for a week – 1670
______215 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Mr Cregeen: You are a bit late. (Interjection by Mr Malarkey)
Mr Ashford: – has worked so well! I must have psychic ability! But moving back to the topic in hand, I would like to say, just because I am happy obviously 1675 for leave to introduce, that does not mean I would be necessarily supporting the Bill, and the Hon. Member for Ramsey should not necessarily read that into it, because for me, it would depend what is actually in the Bill. I am very pleased that he has clarified, I would not want to go down the Canadian route, because like himself, I know fully well, in Canada, there are no controls, and I think that would 1680 be absolutely ridiculous. For me, it is all about protection and safeguards, and I certainly would be looking in the draft Bill to see what protection and safeguards are being put in place, because I do not believe that we should be just going down the route of ‘an abortion on demand’ situation. Equally, he has reassured me that there are still going to be time limits within the draft Bill, 1685 which I think is absolutely essential. I do believe the law needs updating. I stated so during the election. I stated that there need to be protection safeguards, but we do need updating, particularly around counselling services and aftercare provision, which I think at the moment is very, very much lacking. So at the moment, I am willing to give the Hon. Member for Ramsey the benefit of the doubt 1690 and actually support leave to introduce. But as I say, whether or not he garners my support on any Bill that comes forward will depend on the wording and the safeguards and protections within that Bill. As I say, Mr Speaker, I cannot support either of the amendments because I am not quite sure what these committees are actually going to be discussing without a draft Bill to be available. I 1695 note again the comment, I think it was Mr Robertshaw who stated it would be a waste of drafting time. Well, I would just like to point out, Mr Speaker, it has never bothered Hon. Members in this House before, when at Second Reading or clauses stage, they have referred matters to committees. So I take it that means that in future, we will not be having quite as much legislation referred to committee. 1700 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Garff, Mrs Caine.
Mrs Caine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson, for bringing this 1705 motion before us today. Do I believe the Isle of Man's abortion law requires modernising? Undoubtedly, yes. Am I concerned about the number of women who are currently forced to travel off Island for a termination? Emphatically, yes. I am very concerned that a lack of provision in this area of healthcare puts women at risk of harm by some obtaining medication online or attempting other 1710 ways of terminating unwanted pregnancies. Dr Allinson has also outlined some horrific consequences of having surgery across and then travelling back to the Island. This subject has generated a lot of correspondence and I feel there is also a lot of misinformation around at moment. (A Member: Hear, hear.) We need facts. So, I have spent some time researching the subject. 1715 Generally I would say the Isle of Man has a broadminded and tolerant population and it is apparent that many people agree our abortion laws needs urgent reform. Getting consensus on how it is reformed will be the difficult part. I think the first thing needed, without any reform, is better access to information and counselling. The Island has an excellent Family Planning Centre but if you search for ‘abortion’ 1720 on the Government website, it comes up with zero results. I find that shocking. Some people finding that or even hearing the current debate on abortion will not access the information and assistance that is available. Many do not realise there is a free, confidential service that could
______216 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
help them prevent unplanned pregnancy. There is a lack of knowledge, a lack of awareness of the service. The message that goes out loud and clear is that you cannot get an abortion on the 1725 Isle of Man. So, we first need to get our act together in terms of improving information on available services. If a patient makes it through the doors of the Family Planning Centre, they receive a very good service and compassionate care. But we need to ensure it is consistent. I am informed one pharmacist refuses to dispense emergency contraception – the morning after pill or coil – 1730 because of their religious beliefs. Medical practice needs updating. Our clinicians' and pharmacists' approach needs standardising, while allowing for the opt-out for religious grounds. The Isle of Man is actually a major success story in terms of its extremely low rate of teenage pregnancy. Whatever reforms are implemented, it would be a shame if that changed and abortion became a means of contraception for teenage girls. 1735 The latest figures I could find showed that in 2013, the UK recorded a rate of 24.5 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17. On the Island, I am told, we had seven pregnancies in the age group 15 to 19 years, not all of which were unplanned. So, estimating a local youth population of approximately 1,000 people in each year, it is likely to equate to a rate of around one pregnancy per 1,000 teenagers here compared with the 24.5 in the UK. 1740 By making abortion more accessible, people may rely on terminations, which are not good emotionally or physically for women of any age. Also, it should be noted that very few Isle of Man women have more than one termination. In the UK it is quite common for a proportion of women to have four or five. So, it is apparent that access to free and straightforward terminations can replace planned contraception – that is the 1745 big issue we must guard against – but that is not to say we can continue with the system we have, where 100 or so women each year have to travel off the Island at their own expense to access a termination; also a system where rape victims cannot obtain a termination without the process adding to their trauma. But are we muddying the waters by considering the moral, ethical and religious arguments in 1750 this case? Isn’t it simply a question of money and the requirement for our National Health Service to provide this essential care for women? Money is a big issue. A termination in a clinic can cost from £450, and more for a termination at 22 or more weeks. When the Island's abortion law is reformed, where will those terminations take place? How 1755 will they be funded? Those are the questions that Dr Allinson must resolve before his Private Member’s Bill is drafted. For the 100 terminations carried out on Manx residents, are we looking at potentially an additional £50,000 on our health budget, excluding travel costs? While I support Dr Allinson's bid to update our legislation, how a modernised service including terminations will work on the Island needs careful thought. I am encouraged to hear 1760 his outline of the provisions to be included in the Private Member’s Bill. But as in so many areas of healthcare, prevention is better than cure. Any reforms will have to provide better access to terminations for Manx residents, better counselling and encourage retention of the Island's responsible attitude to contraception. Whilst pre-legislative scrutiny is essential, I will be guided by Dr Allinson on how he sees that 1765 being achieved. I do not want this issue to be kicked into the long grass. I want to support Dr Allinson to bring in his Private Member’s Bill, to ensure we face up to the issue of abortion in a compassionate way. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
1770 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Peake.
Mr Peake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be supporting Dr Allinson in his wish to obtain leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. At this stage, Dr Allinson is simply requesting leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill. In
______217 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
1775 my view, this is not the time to debate the law relating to abortion, as there is no draft Bill to debate. We have heard today about ‘wasting drafting time’. The Attorney General’s Chambers has the equivalent of two days a month in drafting time set aside, if needed, for drafting Members’ Bills. I firmly believe we should protect the principle which allows Tynwald Members to 1780 introduce Private Members’ Bills, and I would not support any attempt to disrupt this democratic process. I also support the Doctor 100% when he says health of the woman is priority, and termination is part of health care.
1785 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mrs Beecroft, to talk to Mr Malarkey’s amendment.
Mrs Beecroft: Exactly, Mr Speaker. That is what I wanted to address, because normally, I am a person who does like a deadline, a date given in motions. But I hope to hear from the movers 1790 of the amendments on it as to their rationale, because this one, I think, could be slightly different. We have over 2,000 medical professionals on the Isle of Man, all who may want to give evidence, rather than just taking part in a public consultation without the other groups that are affected and have a position on it – who again will want to give evidence. I do not know how 1795 long that will take. That is why I supported Mr Robertshaw’s amendment initially, because how long is a piece of string? The medical professionals are divided on this, which is why I sent the email round earlier, which had been signed by a number of medics, (A Member: Retired.) to show that there is not a consensus. So I would imagine that they would all want to have their say, and to give evidence 1800 to show why. So, I am just wondering, if that was the reason why there was no date, and conversely to Mr Malarkey’s amendment, has he taken that into consideration when he has put December of this year?
1805 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Miss Bettison.
Miss Bettison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the need for our Island to reform its outdated abortion laws. There has been much discussion recently regarding abortion legislation on the Isle of Man. I 1810 am a firm believer that discussion is always a positive thing, as it allows people to develop informed views and I have followed with interest the work of CALM, HEAR, LIFE and many other groups and individuals on our Island. I am heartened that there are many people on our Island keen to fight for what they believe in, and it is vital that we draw the best points from all these groups to inform and develop our abortion policy. 1815 At the forefront of all discussion must be patient care and a human perspective on the issue. How does the current legislation really affect our Island? It may seem an obvious statement to make, but abortion is final. There can be no one who does not realise that: healthcare professionals, patients, pregnant women, all of you, my colleagues sitting here in this Chamber. That is why we need clear legislation on abortion, rather 1820 than the multitude of interconnected legislation that we are currently using to direct our policy. I feel that one core issue is sex education and I agree with Mrs Caine: it is vital we continue to work towards removing the stigma of discussing contraceptive use. A lot of work has been done in this field, but we must continue this vital education. We must also be aware, however, that contraception sometimes fails, and humans are not 1825 infallible. Many of the women seeking abortions within the UK are women in their 20s or 30s, in
______218 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
settled relationships, some with children already. They are not always the irresponsible teenagers we are so often led to believe. It is essential that those who find themselves pregnant without the physical or emotional resources they feel are necessary to raise a child must be equipped with information relating to 1830 all of the options available: abortion, adoption and parenting. This involves the removal of stigma surrounding all of the options, including abortion, to enable a full and frank discussion prior to a decision being taken. The parents must be given time to digest this information, and reach the decision that is most appropriate to them. This will not be the same for everyone and people should be able to make this decision without fear of judgement. 1835 Where, after careful consideration, a woman feels that abortion is the appropriate course of action for her, I would like to see a situation where a woman’s means do not dictate her healthcare options. By ensuring that abortion is a legal option available after careful consideration, we would be able not only to ensure it is carried out safely, but also to offer the appropriate emotional and 1840 physical aftercare and reduce potential mental health complications. Let us also be realistic: we are certainly not going to see women getting an abortion just because they can. We already know that women are accessing abortions in England; in centres that are not being adequately monitored to ensure options available are being fully explored prior to a decision being reached. They are often not given any aftercare. 1845 I can tell you today of a case where a UK woman accessed an abortion in a UK abortion clinic – one which Manx women may have been forced to access as well. She walked in and waited in a sterile waiting room, with many other women equally distressed at the situation they found themselves in. She was taken in for the abortion, which was performed in a very matter-of-fact way. Before leaving, she was given two things: a leaflet advising her of the risks 1850 following an abortion – a ‘what to be worried about’ leaflet, if you will; and an absorbent sheet to put on the seat of the car when going home. That was all. At a time when she needed support, care and counselling, she got a leaflet and an absorbent sheet. Fortunately that woman was not alone, as I was sitting with her – as a friend, as a support and if the need had arisen, as someone who could have got her to hospital. 1855 A woman on the Isle of Man has even more hurdles to jump and risks to take. Having discovered she is pregnant but is not able to continue with the pregnancy for one of potentially many reasons, she will make a decision that no woman takes lightly. She must then attempt to access services that are neither regulated nor monitored by our Department of Health and Social Care. She can travel to England, but it will cost her – financially, mentally and potentially 1860 physically. She will need to pay for flights, or a ferry – and we all know what the costs can be like at short notice. She will need to pay for the abortion. If she wishes to have support during this extremely emotional and difficult time, she will need to pay for a companion. There is no regard for the woman’s ability to pay. Those of lower means may not be able to afford this. We are currently driving people to desperate measures through our outdated legislation: 1865 women using coat-hangers to cause abortion; women using pills bought online from unregulated sources to induce abortion; women throwing themselves against hard objects, or punching themselves in the stomach to cause abortion. In some cases, we do not know the lengths women have gone to to abort their baby in such desperate and tragic circumstances. 1870 These women do not have a voice at present. They do not always feel safe to talk to their GPs due to the current laws. They take risks. When one of them dies due to the risks they have taken, will people sit back and plead ignorance? Will they blame the woman? Or will we take a long, hard look at our failures as a society and as a Government to protect the women in our society at the time they are most vulnerable. 1875 It is clear that evidence shows that mental health is no more affected by being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy or by having an abortion. What there is, however, is
______219 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
evidence of the health risks of taking unregulated medication or when women use the methods such as those I have just mentioned. I do not believe that at this stage a committee process will identify any additional points to 1880 those already discussed in previous debates, public meetings, in hustings, from various campaign groups, in Public Health reports. It will simply further delay the long-overdue amendment of this outdated legislation. We need to change this legislation for the protection of our society. We were elected to make decisions and some of them are difficult. (A Member: Hear, hear.) 1885 This is a matter of protecting the society that we are here to represent: protecting them from a situation where the wealthy minority can access care that is not available to the majority; protecting them from being forced to access unregulated medication and services in an already traumatic situation; protecting them from being demonised in a difficult situation; protecting them from receiving a criminal record in order to access safe healthcare. We need change and 1890 today we have the opportunity to commit to that change. Abortion must never be viewed as a quick fix, but it should not be illegal either. It should be duly considered, appropriately supported, and available regardless of income. The right for a Member to seek leave to introduce a Bill is stated in the Standing Orders of the House of Keys. We can debate and discuss the detail of the Bill that Dr Allinson brings, but 1895 first we must agree on the principle. Review of the abortion legislation featured on the legislative agenda for 2017-18 prior to many of us sitting here being elected; this has not come from left-field. Members have had time to familiarise themselves with the salient points of this issue and the need for change. Without doubt, committees and consultations have a large part to play in the development 1900 of any Bill, but they should be surrounding the detail. At present, the detail is simply that we need to change our legislation; the detail of the Bill will follow. I would challenge anyone who states that there is no need for any change. As I have already stated, the exact detail of the changes will need close examination, but the fact that we know people are being forced to break the law to access vital healthcare should 1905 send out a clear indication to anyone that we need a change of direction. That is what is being offered here today: a chance to make our law more equitable, reasonable and safe. I urge you to vote to allow Dr Allinson to bring a Bill before this House and demonstrate our commitment to safe and effective reproductive healthcare. I second the motion standing in my name. 1910 The Speaker: I think you were talking to the amendment there, Miss Bettison, rather than seconding an amendment, but … No problem, just to clarify. The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper.
1915 Mr Hooper: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have got serious concerns with the amendment that has been put before us today.
That leave should not be given … until …
Surely this goes against the very principle of the Private Member’s Bill process. Should we really be placing restrictions on what private Members can bring before this House? This would set a dangerous precedent, Hon. Members, and I would urge great care with this amendment before 1920 we damage what is a fundamental principle of our parliament. Another aspect of this amendment is the requirement for ‘sufficient evidence’. Sufficient! Who determines what would be sufficient? This is a very subjective determination. What threshold would be set? Who sets the threshold? Do we talk of medical evidence, as the Hon. Member for Douglas South has mentioned, or evidence of changes in social attitudes? Which 1925 would be given greater weight? By setting a threshold of ‘sufficient evidence’ we would be starting down a very dangerous route – could we really ask any committee to truly and honestly ______220 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
state that they have acquired sufficient evidence on this complex issue? This, therefore, will do nothing more than destroy any attempted reform. Moving on from the actual wording of the motion, yes legislation should be evidence-based, 1930 but at this very early, principle-stage exactly what evidence would the Hon. Member be seeking? I would like to echo comments made by the Hon. Member for Douglas North: as we do not yet know what the Bill looks like, gathering evidence on it, I suggest, would be very difficult. The hon. mover, in his speech, did not once mention a pressing medical need to reform the law; that is a straw man. He spoke of social attitudes; he spoke of equality of access; and he 1935 spoke of people being disadvantaged because of their financial circumstances. He spoke of universal healthcare and of safety; preserving aspects of the current Bill that are working. He spoke of unbiased advice and of personal choice and shared with us experiences of real people. He spoke of fairness and of a just law. The only part of the amendment that I would have supported is the call for consultation, but 1940 again I stress this should come at the later stage when we have something to actually consult on. Let us not, as the Hon. Member for Garff has said, muddy the waters by consulting on things that are far outside the scope of the proposed Bill. In that respect, I am glad the Hon. Member for Douglas South has mentioned the email from medics in this regard. In fact, this was an email from one of the lobby groups who are opposing 1945 the reform and did not once mention any medical objections or concerns. The fact it was from medics, therefore, is in many ways irrelevant. This is an extremely complex, emotive and divisive issue that needs to be fully considered and is an issue on which as many views as possible should be sought, but at the appropriate time. This is exactly what is proposed by the Hon. Member for Ramsey, and I wonder if any 1950 Member who has been in this Hon. House for longer than myself could provide some examples of other Private Member’s Bills that have been prevented from being moved in this way: not just voting against the leave to introduce, but also preventing any further Bill being brought before this House. These amendments are designed simply to kick this reform into the long grass – ‘to kill the 1955 Bill’, using the words of other Members in this House from another debate – however, they are dressed up. We have a duty to protect those in our society who are disadvantaged by their financial circumstances and for that reason alone, even without any of the arguments in favour of reform, I will be supporting my colleague from Ramsey. 1960 I will not be supporting either amendment and I would urge Hon. Members to support the original motion. Let us grant leave to introduce and allow this to be taken forward in a measured and sensible way.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Baker. 1965 Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is, as we all recognise, a really difficult issue and I want to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Dr Allinson, on taking the steps to bring this forward today at such an early stage. By taking it at such an early stage it does allow for a considered and measured 1970 debate to take place and still to bring forward whatever reforms may be required in a timely manner. It is clear to me that what we have is far from ideal and there is nothing that I have heard in the debate so far that suggests there is not a need for a good, hard look at this area and probably for some pretty significant reform. 1975 However, having said that, we need to look at the process by which that is best achieved. This is far more than a healthcare issue. This is a social and moral issue. It is complex, it is difficult, and there are views right across the spectrum. This is not just an issue for women. It is an issue for all of us. It is about what sort of society we want to live in.
______221 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
Referring back to how previous Houses have tackled this issue is irrelevant. We are not 1980 previous Houses. We have already shown, in the way that we have operated over the past few months, a different spirit, a different mind-set. I do not believe that whatever process we follow through we are trying to play games or duck difficult issues. This is what we have been elected for: to deal with difficult issues. If it was not difficult, it would have been dealt with before now. What we need is a mature, considered approach that allows the different views of all the 1985 people in our Island to be heard. We cannot afford to have a process that creates winners and losers. We cannot afford people to think that their voice has not been heard or that they have been ignored. In order for that to take place, in my view, we do need a proper consultation process. Dr Allinson has indicated the same. I think we are merely debating the process by which we follow this: whether we consult now and then shape a Bill on the back of it or whether we 1990 shape a Bill for consultation and then discuss it. For me, it is far better to have the discussion upfront and to really get some kind of consensus – if consensus is possible in a subject like this – but if consensus is not possible, to at least get a clear perspective right across the spectrum. I think that is what our Island that we serve is looking for. There are some very vocal people at both ends at the spectrum, but actually 1995 there is a silent majority who need to be able to participate in this in order that we get a solution that is acceptable to the Island as a whole. Excuse me. It is really important to me that this debate is a considered one, it is a grown up one, it is a mature one, and it is a national one – not about special interest groups. It needs to be transparent and it needs to be participative – which are principles that we have discussed at 2000 length in these past few months and which the Programme for Government articulates very clearly. It is not necessarily that by driving through to go the quickest path you necessarily get to the destination in the fastest possible time, and whilst I do acknowledge the passion and desire from many of my colleagues to see change happen, going at it in a direct way may not actually 2005 achieve the objectives that people are seeking. Wherever we end up with this, we cannot have a divided society where people feel that they have lost in something as important as this. This is probably the most fundamental issue we are going to deal with, certainly for a while at least. For me, a process that involves consultation upfront has to be the right one. I support the 2010 move to establish a … (Interjection by Mr Cregeen) No, a select committee.
Mr Cregeen: Oh, a select committee!
Mr Baker: A select committee, thank you. A select committee of five, because that is five 2015 people who can be drawn from this House and who will be representative. It is far better than putting it through the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee, which is only three people, which is quite narrowly drawn and actually, as Mr Ashford keeps telling us, is very busy. (Laughter) This is not about kicking it into the long grass; we have got to be more grown up than this. If every time something goes to committee, we say it is kicking it in the long grass because we 2020 want to get on with something, we are letting ourselves down. It is about having a proper, mature debate on something which is of fundamental importance. So, for me, going down the select committee route is the right one. I am proposing an amendment to the amendment to the amendment, and it is on the back of Mr Hooper’s, once again, very clear and articulate and pertinent comments about sufficient 2025 evidence, because that does open up so many loose ends. There is an amendment in my name which removes an element of the amendment that is in Mr Malarkey’s name: to take out the phrase, ‘until sufficient evidence has been collected to establish the need to change the law …’
______222 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
In simple terms what we are saying is, we put a select committee in place; it has got a 2030 timeline on it to report by December 2017; and it does not need to have sufficient evidence – there is no judgment call around that. It is just the select committee needs to do its job. In terms of that select committee, clearly it is in the gift of this House to determine which five Members will comprise that committee and certainly from my personal point of view I would encourage Members to support Dr Allinson as being a member of that committee. 2035 I think it will actually give him what he is looking to achieve and I think it will probably give it to him quicker and with better resources to support his workload. I would conclude by saying that actually may get us to the right answer more quickly and in a more focused and collaborative manner. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment:
In the amendment in the name of Mr Malarkey after the word ‘abortion’ to insert the words ‘law, until’ and to leave out the words ‘until sufficient evidence has been collected to establish the need for a change in the law; and that’.
2040 It will be circulated shortly. Thank you.
The Speaker: Just to clarify for Hon. Members, this will be circulated as soon as can be done. It basically deletes the words ‘until sufficient evidence has been collected to establish the need 2045 for a change in the law;’ and also deletes the words after the semi-colon ‘and that’, then replaces all that with ‘until’. So it would say, if I read this right, ‘Leave should not be given to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the law relating to abortion until a select committee of five Members be established …’ etc. We will get that circulated as soon as possible to Hon. Members. 2050 I seek a seconder to that motion. Mr Harmer.
Mr Harmer: Yes, I will second that, Mr Speaker. I think just to congratulate Dr Allinson in moving this forward and for this debate, because the debate is a very sensitive issue; it is a complicated issue. For that reason my point is very 2055 simple: it is about process; it is about doing things the right way; it is about gathering that information. As I say, leave to introduce is quite wide-ranging but we have heard often that we need to consult; we need to get views, and I personally think that with anything of this complexity, to actually say what the answer is before we have talked about it … and I do feel that is coming 2060 though. To be honest, it does not say, ‘Laws relating to abortion with respect to x, y or z.’ It is very general, but at the same time we are asked to support it. I do really think that there is need for reform; it is an issue that needs to be done, but let’s move forward and actually do it in the right process so that we can gather the evidence and consult and actually give good legislation rather than, in a sense, rushing ahead with the drafting 2065 without getting the detail. For that reason, I second it.
The Speaker: The next speaker on my list is the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Cannan.
2070 Mr Cannan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to also congratulate the Hon. Member for Ramsey in having the moral-political courage to bring this very difficult and sensitive issue to the fore. I find the Hon. Member – a respected GP who was elected with a significant majority – to have presented a very strong and clear case for reform. Based on the evidence that he has given, I would suggest that if we do 2075 indeed have a situation where young women on this Island, or women on this Island, are being
______223 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
forced into some sort of underground climate and putting their health and possibly their lives at risk by our failure to provide the right care, then certainly it would appear, based on what we have been told, to be a clear case for reform. I would also point out to the Hon. House, of course, that the Hon. Member who brought this 2080 motion did clearly write in his manifesto that he strongly disagreed with the 1995 Abortion Act and would like to see it reformed and that:
Although abortion is legal on the Island most women are forced to travel and pay privately for terminations in the UK. The current Act is almost medieval in the way it treats victims of rape and has no place in a modern society. As a husband, father and brother I fully support the campaign to modernise the legislation.
That statement in his manifesto was written in bold and I have to say of course that the Hon. Member who brought this received a significant vote in the General Election: 2,946 voters; 47.1% of the vote in total supported the Hon. Member in his election and by virtue of that you 2085 would have to take a reasonable assumption that the majority of people seem to agree with his clearly stated position. Nevertheless, I have also spoken to a number of my constituents and I believe that both sides of the argument need to have equal weight and that also this Hon. House needs some form of confirmed evidence as to the requirements posed to change the law on this matter. I will 2090 therefore be supporting the move by the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, and indeed the amendment from Mr Malarkey to have this matter referred to a select committee to establish the need for a change in the law and to report on the need for any change relating to abortion. I am satisfied from the language that has been used that both Hon. Members want that committee to come back with some full and considered recommendations in that respect. 2095 Just addressing the Hon. Member, Mr Hooper’s remarks in terms of whether this is a legitimate political process – and indeed the remarks of others – I would suggest to him that, no, I have not seen this before in terms of the way a Private Member’s Bill has been treated. Certainly in my experience, which is limited to the last five and a half years, I have found that the Private Member’s Bill, in most cases, has been given leave to progress and in some cases has 2100 been given a straightforward rejection by the House. Nevertheless, that by itself is not an excuse, I would suggest, for the House of Keys not to determine that there should also be an alternative way forward, particularly when we have such significant emotive matters that may have medical, ethical and moral impacts across society. I therefore think and believe that the Hon. House would do well to support the amendment 2105 from Mr Malarkey which does actually give a date associated with any such report. I do not accept the argument that has been presented that putting a date on such a committee would somehow inhibit that committee from getting the evidence that it needs. I do not support that this should be a long and protracted debate. This committee is being formed merely to collect and establish the evidence that is needed for a change in the law and to judge whether there is 2110 indeed such sufficient evidence. I would say to Hon. Members that at the moment much of what has been reported from two very respected sources who have talked this morning, the Hon. Member for Ramsey and the Hon. Member who is currently on the Health Department, Miss Bettison, is that there is a strong and persuasive case, and that some of the underground happenings that our women, young 2115 ladies, are being forced into is unacceptable, and I support that. Nevertheless, we do need to hear from other medical professionals and other experts in the field as to the actual numbers and the possible numbers that may not be appearing on any formal records. I think it would be the duty of a select committee of this nature to try and establish those facts as best as possible and to therefore make the recommendations to the House of Keys 2120 based on a call for evidence and an investigation that includes oral evidence taken from those who were prepared to submit evidence in public. I think it is right that, in the words of my hon. colleague, Mr Baker, we have a considered debate on this matter; that people are allowed to
______224 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
express their opinions rather than the House being forced into a decision just purely based on one Member’s Bill. 2125 Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would strongly recommend to the House that we support the amendments from Mr Robertshaw and the subsequent amendment from Mr Malarkey that will put a date to ensure that we get a report, and that this matter is not, as some may be suggesting, kicked into the long grass, never to reappear during the life of this particular House.
2130 The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas East, Mr Robertshaw, to talk to the amendments in the names of Mr Malarkey and Mr Baker.
Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand, Mr Speaker, because I want to absolutely reassure the House that nothing could be 2135 further from the truth than the idea that anything I am saying is a suggestion or intimates any desire to kick anything at all into the long grass. I cannot be alone in the agonies that I am personally going through over this whole subject, and if we as a House are going to bring together the two sides of this argument – and that is our leadership role – then we must look at this in intense scrutiny and detail. That is our duty; that is 2140 our responsibility. I think Mr Malarkey’s comment that we need a date on this is something I am absolutely content with and I think the period of time he is indicating must be sufficient. I have been deeply impressed with the quality of this debate in the House today. I think it is probably the finest that I think I have been involved in in my time in this House. I particularly 2145 want to congratulate Mr Baker on his eloquence and the clarity of his thoughts. I agree with him that it would be helpful if we did go for a committee that Dr Allinson was on that committee and that would show a determination of intent. Mr Speaker, I am content with Mr Malarkey putting a timescale on this. I do hope that the House choses to support the amendment, and let us move forward. 2150 The Speaker: Thank you. I call on the Hon. Member for Middle, the Chief Minister, Mr Quayle.
The Chief Minister (Mr Quayle): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2155 This is a very emotive issue with firm beliefs on both sides, and as an constituency MHK and as Chief Minister I have heard from CALM, HEAR, LIFE and individual constituents and members of the public on this topic. Mr Speaker, where all parties are in agreement is that there is a clear need for more counselling, education and support for women who find themselves in the position of unplanned 2160 pregnancies. Both sides are fully in agreement on that, and that is good to have some middle ground. Before I go any further, I would too like to comment on the quality of this debate. I think it has been absolutely excellent. In particular, I was very impressed with Mr Baker’s comments, the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michel. I thought they were very good, but equally Dr Allinson’s and 2165 numerous other contributors have given us a really good quality report. Whilst this is a parliamentary matter, as Chief Minister, irrespective of the outcome of today’s vote, I will be pressing to rectify the shortfalls of counselling and to provide better health and support which have been raised by numerous people. I have decided in this instance that I will be supporting the Member for Douglas East. They 2170 had two different opinions, but it is going to be the Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw’s amendment – not as an attempt to kick this into the long grass, which has maybe been said would be an attempt, but because I feel in this instance this is the best way forward so that all options from both sides can be taken into account before drafting legislation.
______225 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
I think when you have got such varied views, if you come up with one already-drafted version 2175 from one side, it is going to be very hard to amend the legislation if it is written extremely to one side, and that is why I have taken this decision. In my opinion, the right to introduce private Member’s legislation is incredibly important, but in the rare instances – and they are very rare … I believe that, given the complexity and the emotiveness of this issue, I can support the amendment and I will then be supporting Mr Baker’s amendment. 2180 Thank you.
The Speaker: I call on the Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 2185 I wanted to associate myself with the perceptive remarks of the Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, when he identified the ambiguity and the difficulty with the phrase ‘sufficient evidence’, and for that very reason, if an amendment is to go through, I would much prefer the amendment of Mr Baker because that removes that potential ambiguity. Mr Hooper also identified the issue around the extent to which a decision today to refer a 2190 request for leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to a committee … has on other aspects of our business. He said it was troubling because it was raising a new precedent. Well, I wanted to bring to this House’s attention to a few other issues that I have with the general principle of referring something to a committee at this stage, and I hope Members do not mind me doing that. 2195 The first one is that this reference to a committee takes away the right of a Member of the House of Keys to have a Private Member’s Bill but it would not take away the right of a Member of the Legislative Council to have a Private Member’s Bill, which I think is something that we have deal with. The second point, building from that, is that for some time now, although not always, it has 2200 been a tradition that policy issues are debated in Tynwald rather than in the House of Keys, and there is an important contribution that the experienced Members of Tynwald Court can bring to all of this. So, as a general rule, and I think this has been discussed a number of times over the three years I have been in this House, it is good to have committees being committees of Tynwald 2205 rather than of the House of Keys – except for legislation, and I will come to that in a minute – and it is a general rule that policy debates should take place in committees of Tynwald rather than in committees of the House of Keys. I cannot think of one in the last 10 years where there has been such a policy committee set up by the House of Keys. The next point I wanted to make along those lines is about Government’s role in this, 2210 because Government does not have a Bill to deal with abortion in its next 28 Bills that are in the Programme for Government. In fact, what we have heard today is that medical evidence is what is being considered primarily by the Department of Health in making up its mind in all of these things, and we have heard that there are many other aspects of evidence that need to be considered: social, in the Social Care part of the Health and Social Care Department; and all sorts 2215 of other reasons to do with costs and the socio-economic situation and the like. There is another issue to do with Government’s role in all of this, which I wanted to make sure I understood properly. What we would be doing, in effect, if we accepted the amendment to move this to a committee, is we would be transferring the drafting of a Bill away from Government’s legislative drafters – which the private Member would have the right to access for 2220 two days a month, as has been explained very clearly in the debate – over to Tynwald staff to draft a Bill, which to me is quite a major consideration in making up our minds here today and is something we should take into account very seriously. The third point is that any House of Keys is going to make up its mind according to the conscience and the evidence presented to each Member on its own basis. Some countries, even 2225 some quite close to us, have a constitution which has this issue covered in the constitution, and
______226 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
on that basis, because it is a constitutional change, they have to have a referendum. But we are not in that situation in the Isle of Man; we do not have a constitutional aspect to this issue. We have Tynwald and the House of Keys, which is a set-up to make decisions wherever it is possible. I did not say, and I categorically do not say, that public opinion is not important. That is 2230 absolutely paramount in all of this, but the House of Keys is elected, and we heard that Dr Allinson, I believe, got the highest vote amongst us with a very clear, bold statement in his manifesto that this was his intention. That is an indicator of public opinion in Ramsey and each of us has got to remember how we heard the debate along the lines of our constituency meetings and our discussions on the doorstep, and the individual promises we made. 2235 The last point along these lines is that although Lord Lisvane has not explicitly been mentioned, people have been talking about pre-legislative committees along the way and they have been hinting at the fact that we need to have consideration of the issues before we come to drafting. I just wanted to remind people that that is not actually what Lord Lisvane said in this context. What Lord Lisvane proposed was a new approach to the initiation of primary legislation. 2240 He basically criticised the consultation process and some unnecessary drafting, and his conclusion was:
It should become the normal practice that every Bill is published as a draft.
‘Many already are’, he went on to say, and then at a later stage should be considered by the ‘relevant major committee’, which I took to be the Tynwald committee. In other words, that is exactly what Dr Allinson is asking us for leave for him to do. He is asking us, in the spirit of Mr Boot earlier on saying the best committee was a committee of one, actually to work with Government drafters to put together something on the table so the debate can take place based on something of substance. I wanted to join with Miss Bettison, Hon. Member for Douglas East, in congratulating the quality of this debate outside this House already. We all know in our hearts that this is a very complicated issue and there are all sorts of perspectives to be taken into account, and what we 2245 now need is to be able to create an opportunity for that perspective to be brought into the debate, once we have something to debate in the form of a draft Bill, and that is exactly what I heard from Dr Allinson. He has got no intention to rush the fences. He actually is looking to use Government resources to put together something such that it can be debated properly. I also want to join with the Chief Minister and Mr Robertshaw, the Hon. Member for Douglas 2250 East, in congratulating this House on the quality of this debate, because I get the impression that most of the issues have been brought to the table and are already on the table. People looking into this House from outside will have noticed that even the Dogs Bill and the Treasure Bill have been properly debated and we have had very perceptive remarks that have changed the way that drafting has taken place. The quality of the amendments that are being discussed with 2255 Government for the Equality Bill is remarkable. We are now looking at five or six weeks to actually consider properly the clauses stage of the Equality Bill, so nothing is being taken lightly. What I take from that is: why would this House be rushed by any Bill? We are perfectly able to consider properly all the dimensions of a Bill, and that is exactly where we will be if we give leave to this private Member to introduce this important Bill. 2260 The select committee stage could take place at all of the stages that you have in the course of our legislative process. It does not have to happen now. What we need now is a well-meaning, good-intentioned, well-informed drafter to put together for this House something to put on the table, so all of us can participate to make the right decision based on the evidence that will come out during that process. 2265 If an amendment goes through I really do hope it is Mr Baker’s amendment, but I strongly hope and I strongly recommend that this House supports the original leave to introduce, and let’s go through with a mature process to have evidence-based legislation making.
______227 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Speaker: I have two Hon. Members wishing to speak before the summings up, and the 2270 next one is the Hon. Member for Ayre, Malew and … sorry, Arbory, Malew and Castletown, Mr Cregeen, speaking to Mr Baker’s amendment.
Mr Cregeen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn’t know my constituency had grown that far! (A Member: You wish!) 2275 Speaking to the amendment from Mr Baker, I hope the Hon. Member from Ramsey, Dr Allinson, will grasp the opportunity of this select committee. It will assist him in gathering his ideas and gathering the thoughts of people out there. I also think that Hon. Members should be aware that if the committee were to go ahead it is up to Hon. Members in this House to actually make sure that this committee would be balanced 2280 and to ensure that it carried out its duty. A committee has more powers than an individual, so the committee can go and get the evidence. I must congratulate my colleague, Mr Thomas, for weaving the realms of Lord Lisvane. I think he must have a shrine in his house (Laughter) to Lord Lisvane which he prays to every night! They must be Facebook friends! Lord Lisvane is a report. It has not been adopted, so it has no 2285 relevance in this House. It is somebody’s idea. It could be Jackanory; it does not really matter. Please do not take the thoughts of Lord Lisvane and what his proposals are as any lead on this matter. The whole process, as a Member who has actually got leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill, can be quite daunting when you are going out to consultation, when you are trying to get 2290 that evidence. With a committee behind you, you will have that support, you will have people backing you up, compiling the evidence. It does not actually mean that this committee has to draft the Bill. It gathers the evidence that the Hon. Member could draft into a Bill himself. If Hon. Members in this House decide to put Dr Allinson and the Member for Douglas Central, Mrs Corlett, onto this committee – or any other Members – they will be the people who are 2295 gathering the evidence and who will be coming forward with that report which will come to this House. Please do not think, as my colleague from Douglas Central says, this is doing away with Private Members’ Bills. It is nonsense. This is just another smokescreen, unfortunately, by the Hon. Member to confuse you. This is not doing away with Private Members’ Bills. This is actually 2300 to assist in a very complex and very emotional matter that I think this Hon. House has done well today to actually consider the areas that we are … I would suggest that Hon. Members would assist Dr Allinson by supporting the amendment by my colleague Mr Baker.
2305 The Speaker: That brings us to the end of the list of people who intend to speak. Just to outline the procedure, which is different from Tynwald, those who have moved amendments to this debate now have the opportunity to respond to the comments that have been made on their amendments. I will first call on Mr Baker, then Mr Malarkey, and then Mr Robertshaw to sum up on their amendments, and then it will be up to Dr Allinson to respond to the overall 2310 debate. Are we clear with that? And then we will move to the voting section. So, first I call on the Hon. Member for Ayre and Michael, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will keep my remarks very short and to the point. I would like to thank everybody for their very positive comments – particularly 2315 Mr Robertshaw and Mr Quayle – to my amendment, which was drafted fairly quickly in response to Mr Hooper’s comments. I believe, as I stated earlier, that this is the best way forward and that it gives Dr Allinson the objective he is trying to achieve whilst putting a timeline on the process, and allows us to mobilise Dr Allinson and other colleagues to work together to drive this forward at pace. So, for 2320 that reason, I … I will sit down again. (Laughter)
______228 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
The Speaker: The Hon. Member for Douglas South, Mr Malarkey.
Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clearly, it has been a wonderful debate this morning. My mind has changed several times 2325 through the debate and through the various amendments. What clearly did strike me was the Health Minister’s comments with regard to the timeline that I put on Mr Robertshaw’s amendment and saying that next December was not enough. It totally shocked me. We have got 200 doctors lining up to give evidence.
2330 Mrs Beecroft: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: If the Hon. Member wishes to give way, he may, but …
Mr Malarkey: I will give way to my hon. friend. 2335 Mrs Beecroft: Thank you and I thank the Hon. Member for giving way. I did not say that. I asked for clarification of whether you thought there was time for that and I asked the same of Mr Robertshaw as well, if you recall. I did not say that I did not think it should have a time limit. 2340 Mr Malarkey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Health Minister. The Health Minister did say that she knew of doctors and all these people … they were very worried about the timeline with the number of people wanting to give evidence. I think Dr Allinson this morning, when he presented, made it quite clear what changes he is 2345 looking for. I am now concerned that if we are going to go off to a committee, this whole thing is going to get blown completely out of proportion. What I will say to everybody is if you are going to support one of the amendments, please keep a timeline on it. You can come back to this Hon. House and report – because it says ‘report’ – that you have not finished, and go away again. If you do not have a timeline on it, we could be 2350 waiting in three years’ time for them to come back. The reason you have a date on it … and it is to report, and you might just be reporting the fact that you have not finished doing your inquiry. But my real concern now is that if this goes off to a committee it is going to get blown out of proportion. Dr Allinson made it extremely clear this morning the small amendments that he thinks are 2355 required going forward, so I am at this stage minded to be supporting Dr Allinson to give him leave to introduce, (A Member: Hear, hear.) and then, when we have got something on paper – and we voted on it this morning – we can go into committee in here and we can have a proper debate in here in committee. We have a way forward, so I would urge everybody at this stage now to take Dr Allinson, allow him to have leave to introduce, put something on paper and then 2360 we will debate it in here, and if we decide at a later date it needs to go to committee we can because we are the House of Keys, who make the decisions. (A Member: Hear, hear.) Thank you.
The Speaker: Hon. Member, Mr Robertshaw. 2365 Mr Robertshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My intention is to support both the amendments of Mr Baker and Mr Malarkey – not necessarily what Mr Malarkey is … (Laughter and interjection by Mr Malarkey) I just reiterate one remark I have already made: that I think it has been an absolutely 2370 excellent debate and I have genuine confidence that this new House is capable, in the form of a committee, of bringing forward a substantial evidence base to help the whole formation of what clearly is a need to reform.
______229 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
I think I will simply close with those remarks, Mr Speaker. I think all that needs to be said has been said. 2375 The Speaker: Dr Allinson to reply to the motion.
Dr Allinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by just thanking all the Hon. Members for their comments. I would also 2380 like to thank them for the dignified and measured way this debate has been handled. (Mr Thomas: Hear, hear.) I also thank those members of the Public Gallery who turned out and, of course, listened to this debate and also have behaved exceptionally well and with dignity for the gravity of what we are discussing. Abortion is a controversial subject, but that is not a reason for ignoring it and ignoring the 2385 plight of Manx women. If I can just go through some of the comments … Mr Robertshaw started off saying this was an onerous and difficult debate and that I showed courage in bringing it to the House. I do not see what I am doing here as courageous in any way; I think it is our responsibility as parliamentarians. The real courage is shown by the women battling for abortion rights on this 2390 Island. You, in an email, accused me of trying to rush through legislation. There is no rush in the legislative process of this House, and I think there is plenty of time for scrutiny and debate with all the laws we go through, whether it is the dogs law or the treasury law. That is the way this parliament has been created and that is probably why we are the longest-serving parliament in 2395 the world. I take issue with your reassurances about your amendment. This is looking for a committee to look at the need for any change in the law in relation to abortion. It is not looking at how we change the law, it is not looking at how we provide better services; it is purely looking at whether we need to do anything in the first place. I am arguing that we do and I am arguing that 2400 there is a vast amount of public opinion, the silent majority, that says that we have a law at the moment which people are working around, which is posing difficulties with medical professionals and we need to change it. So I cannot support your initial amendment on that basis. Mr Malarkey’s amendment to it refined it and brought it up to a timescale to avoid this 2405 happening, as it did in the 1980s, just going year after year, and ‘Oh, there’s an election – we’ll do it after that.’ I thank him for that. I also thank Mr Baker for his amendment in terms of again trying to refine it and make it more precise in terms of doing what it is meant to be doing. What I would argue is that amendment … and this committee is not looking at a new law; it is looking at the need for a new 2410 law. Then we will have another committee looking at a new law and another committee after that about the implementation. One of the reasons I brought a Private Member’s Bill, without being patronising, was to have this debate – to have an open and honest debate so that it was me coming to the House asking for your permission. If I turn to Mrs Beecroft’s comments, I completely agree with you that it is an emotive subject 2415 and it can be very divisive. I would hope that by having an almost packed Public Gallery and by having this sort of dignified debate we can show that on the Isle of Man we can have at least a debate, we can look at all the pros and cons, look at all the issues, look at all the viewpoints and come to an agreement as parliament as to what this country needs. You said that legislation should be based on evidence, you denied any medical evidence that 2420 there needs to be any change and you doubt whether really we need to change that. I understand the difficulties of wearing different hats. I declare an interest, because I was a previous President of the Isle of Man Medical Society and at the Medical Society we did talk about the problems that the abortion law was posing for clinicians on this Island. You said that
______230 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
the medical profession is divided. Actually, in our minutes of one meeting we did mandate that 2425 we needed to look at abortion law reform on this Island, so I do disagree with you about that. There will always be differences of opinion, sometimes within households, sometimes within constituencies and certainly within the profession, but what we as parliamentarians need to do is look for the greater good of this Island and the greater good of provision of services for the women of this Island. 2430 Mr Malarkey I would like to thank for his amendment and for a different timeline on any committee stage, because I think that is very important. It is very important to send out a clear message that this is a Government for change and action, this is not a Government that is just going to let things pass by, that we have serious decisions to make during the next five years and that we are not afraid of making them but we will take our time to make the right decision. I 2435 think that is paramount. I would also like to thank him for his comments at the end. I think you are absolutely right. As a new parliamentarian, I have gone into debates thinking one thing and then have been swayed by the persuasive power of a good debate into changing my mind. That is great. That is what we are here for. That is what parliament is here for. 2440 Mr Cregeen, again I would like to thank you for your support. You questioned the benefits of consultation once the Bill is drafted – I completely understand that; and you also were very helpful in showing that a committee set-up would actually assist and support me. It is a bit of a lonely thing bringing a Private Member’s Bill out – it is a lot of attention, I completely agree with you – but the essence of a Private Member’s Bill is to allow individual Members to change 2445 legislation and I take that on my shoulders. I have got no problems bringing a Private Member’s Bill in, but I completely agree with you that a committee at some stage in the process would give support, scrutiny and assistance that I could probably do with. Mr Ashford, thank you very much for upholding parliamentary procedure and for questioning exactly what a proposed committee would be considering. It needs to have a clear remit, rather 2450 than just look at whether we need to make a decision or not in the first place. Giving me the benefit of the doubt – thank you for that. You also said about the need to have something concrete to discuss and take out for consultation. I agree with that as well. You want protection and safeguards, I completely agree with you. 2455 We could have a very long debate about the pros and cons of termination, about a woman’s right to choose against the unborn foetus’s right to life, but we have had a debate, in 1995, that legalised abortion on this Island. We are different to Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland; we are fundamentally different. What I am looking for now is leave to bring that more up to date because the 1995 law actually is not working for everyone at the moment and we are having to 2460 work round it. Mrs Caine agreed that the Isle of Man abortion law needs revising – thank you for that, and that is what this Private Member’s Bill is trying to do. You talk about better access to information and counselling and trying to tackle a lack of knowledge about contraception and family planning services, which I completely agree with. Whatever your position on abortion is, the 2465 fundamental need is for information and support of a woman who finds herself pregnant. Whether that is intentionally or unintentionally, that support should be there. As I said, there is good evidence that if you provide that support at an early stage, if you give people options, then they have the breathing space to take a step back and see what is right for them – and that can lead to lower abortion rates, so I think you are quite right. 2470 The abortion rate in 2015 in England was 16 per 1,000 resident women. It is higher than some places, lower than others, and certainly I would say that on the Isle of Man our abortion rate is probably lower than that. We do not know the statistics – we do not, because women go across, they do not tell people that they are going for a termination – but I would like to think that, because we have very much what I consider a very supportive community on the Isle of 2475 Man, those women who find themselves unintentionally pregnant would get the support that
______231 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
they need from their families and their communities, and that is possibly why we have a lower abortion rate here. You also talked about repeat abortion rates, and I am not saying you do, but this is sometimes used to blame women for abortion: ‘Well, you’re having one, you’re having two, 2480 you’re having three.’ There are good reasons for women to need repeat abortions. They may have medical reasons that they cannot take contraceptives in the first place. They may have medical reasons that those contraceptives do not work. Failure of contraception is one of the highest categories for women seeking abortion. These are women actually trying to do as much as they can not to get pregnant, but unfortunately even the best contraceptive at some point 2485 fails, and then they need to be helped and supported to deal with the results of that. Mr Peake, thank you for your support and your clarity, and also for your commitment to uphold the principle of Members to bring in a Private Member’s Bill as an inherent part of the democratic process. Miss Bettison, again I would like to thank you for your support and for bringing a very 2490 personal viewpoint on the need for clear legislation and clear support. For far too long there has been this stigma around abortion. It is still, I am afraid to say, a ‘dirty little secret’ that people do not want to talk about but something that is a reality for a lot of women on this Island to happen. Again, you emphasised the counselling and the need for support to remove that fear and that stigma from people making decisions. 2495 Mr Hooper, thank you very much for your support. Thank you for your concerns with the amendment and the way it is worded, and thank you for looking … that any Private Member’s Bill needs any full consideration but at the appropriate time when we have got something concrete on the table that we can debate and consult about, rather than going back to the basic principles and seeing if there is any need to reform the law in the first place. 2500 Mr Baker, again you recognised that the law we have at the moment is far from ideal and needs reform. I completely agree with you that it is not just a healthcare issue, it is a social and moral issue; but what I was trying to argue was that the healthcare part of it seems to be completely separate from the NHS at the moment and I think that that is wrong, both in terms of social justice and in terms of economics. At this House we have debated how people are 2505 struggling to make ends meet, and yet we will all constantly seem to allow a situation go on whereby pregnant women are having to use their own money, or money that they borrow, to procure healthcare. I completely agreed with you that we need to have a mature, considered approach to decide what sort of society we want to live in, and that is why I am bringing this law forward. 2510 Mr Harmer, thank you for your comments. Yes, it is a very sensitive and complicated issue and we have to do things the right way, I completely agree with you. I also agree with you that there needs to be reform. You want to see the detail. Again, that is why I want to bring a Private Member’s Bill, to give you that detail so you can debate it. If you do not like the detail we will change it, if you do not like the whole process we can scrap it, but I want to put something on 2515 the table that we can actually get our teeth into and consult on in a realistic way. Mr Cannan, thank you very much for your comments. Thank you for reminding me about the trust that the people of Ramsey put into me in September. It was a clear part of my manifesto. Some people did not agree with that part but they still voted for me all the same. I think that is one of the benefits of our parliamentary democracy on the Isle of Man, that while people may 2520 disagree with us on certain points of view they will also give us their trust to represent them in this good House. You did side with the idea of having a committee stage beforehand and I respect that point of view; but, as I have argued, that committee should be looking at a law and changes to the law, rather than going backwards and asking again whether the law needs to be changed at all. 2525 I thank the Chief Minister for his clear commitment about more counselling, education and support. I think whatever we decide today and whatever we decide in the next few years, that is fundamental, that women are supported during the early stages of pregnancy whether they go
______232 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
on to keep that pregnancy, whether they have a miscarriage or whether they end up wanting to have a termination. 2530 One of the things that has worried me about some of the screening processes being offered is that they need to be done with full consent. People need to know what they are signing up for. If a woman does not want to have a termination and does not want to know that she might have a child with Down’s Syndrome, she should be able to opt out of ultrasound scans and blood tests. We should not go along with this conveyor-belt medicine where things are done to 2535 people; we should involve them in the process, and counselling and information and support is inherent to that. Mr Thomas, as ever, I would like to thank you for your clarification of the way the parliamentary process works and for taking the time to explain the constitutional aspects of this today. Again, as you say, we are in a representative democracy, and so what we do is not 2540 governed by opinion polls, Facebook likes or other ways of sending things out to referendums. We have been given the trust of the people of our constituencies to help them, to listen to them, but in essence to make up our own minds on balanced views. Back in 1995, Mr Duggan MHK was quoted in Hansard as saying:
This is one of the most contentious Bills we have had before the House. All the time I have been here I have never seen so much correspondence.
Things do not change – it still is. 2545 Dr Edgar Mann stood to raise his concerns – and again, this is in 1995 – and said:
What worries me is the other issue which we really ought to be considering … Are we answering the needs of the 250 … women who leave this Island every year?
The answer then and the answer now is no. Mr Richard Corkill MHK said:
We are simply relying upon the United Kingdom to look after our citizens and as an independent community I believe it shows a lack of capability and maturity. This problem will not go away.
Unfortunately, we have not brought this problem back for debate since 1995. That was my intention today. Again, whatever decision we make today, this problem will not go away; 2550 women will still be going across for terminations. To end my summing up, it has been one of the greatest honours of my life to have been elected MHK by the people of Ramsey last year. Shortly afterwards, I was humbled to be invited by Amnesty International to travel to Belfast and talk about our abortion Act to them, as they are looking at reforming theirs, and for the first time I was introduced as a lawmaker. This title 2555 appeared strange to me initially, but the more I thought about it the more I came to realise that the reason all of us stood for election was to make a change, to make a difference, to make a positive change for our constituents, our families and for the Island. This inclusive Government will pass laws over the next five years which will really improve the lives of Manx people. We will reform old laws well past their sell-by date and pass new laws which protect the population and 2560 allow the Island to flourish. I believe we all share a common belief in equality and a shared passion for social and economic justice. Today I ask for your trust and courage: your trust in our legislative process – through debate and consultation we can approve new laws which protect and serve our people; and your courage to tackle some of the really difficult issues that face the people of the Island, 2565 not to avoid the chance to make real change but to live up to our ideals and our policies, to be lawmakers. Thank you very much.
The Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Members.
______233 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
2570 The Item that we are about to vote on is at Item 7 on our Order Paper. To that we have the rather substantial amendment in the name of Mr Robertshaw and two amendments to that amendment. Putting first the amendment of Mr Baker to Mr Robertshaw’s amendment, all those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The noes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mr Baker Dr Allinson Mr Boot Mr Ashford Mr Cannan Mrs Beecroft Mr Cregeen Miss Bettison Mr Harmer Mrs Caine Mr Moorhouse Mr Callister Mr Quayle Mrs Corlett Mr Robertshaw Ms Edge Mr Speaker Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly Mr Thomas
2575 The Speaker: With 9 for and 15 against, the noes therefore have it. The noes have it. Turning now to the amendment in the name of Mr Malarkey, those in favour, please say aye; those against, no. The noes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mr Baker Dr Allinson Mrs Beecroft Mr Ashford Mr Cannan Miss Bettison Mr Cregeen Mr Boot Mr Harmer Mrs Caine Mr Robertshaw Mr Callister Mr Speaker Mrs Corlett Ms Edge Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly Mr Thomas
The Speaker: It is 7 for and 17 against. The noes have it. The noes have it. Turning to Mr Robertshaw’s amendment without any changes, those in favour, please say aye; those 2580 against, no. The noes have it.
______234 K134 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 24th JANUARY 2017
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Mrs Beecroft Dr Allinson Mr Cannan Mr Ashford Mr Cregeen Mr Baker Mr Harmer Miss Bettison Mr Robertshaw Mr Boot Mrs Caine Mr Callister Mrs Corlett Ms Edge Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly Mr Speaker Mr Thomas
The Speaker: With 5 for and 19 against, the noes have it. The noes have it. Turning then to Dr Allinson’s motion without any amendment, those in favour, please say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it.
A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows:
FOR AGAINST Dr Allinson Mrs Beecroft Mr Ashford Mr Harmer Mr Baker Mr Robertshaw Miss Bettison Mr Boot Mrs Caine Mr Callister Mr Cannan Mrs Corlett Mr Cregeen Ms Edge Mr Hooper Mr Malarkey Mr Moorhouse Mr Peake Mr Perkins Mr Quayle Mr Shimmins Mr Skelly Mr Speaker Mr Thomas
2585 The Speaker: With 21 votes for and 3 votes against, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Thank you, Hon. Members. Just to reiterate comments about the quality of the debate and the process that we have used to get there today, thank you all for your understanding and patience, and congratulations, Hon. Members. 2590 Hon. Members, that concludes the business of the House today. The House will stand adjourned until the next sitting, which will take place at 10 a.m. on 31st January in this Chamber.
The House adjourned at 1.16 p.m.
______235 K134