REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
To the Hon Noel Q Cringle, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Members of the Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled.
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Background
At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 16th January 2002, it was resolved that -
(1) It is not necessary for all Members of the Legislature to have positions in Departments of Government or Statutory Boards; (2) Consideration should be given to whether the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts should not have positions in Departments or Statutory Boards; and (3) Subject to (2) being approved by this Honourable Court, that a select committee of three Members be appointed and should liaise with the appropriate Tynwald and Government bodies and report on the implications, with recommendations, at the April 2002 sitting of Tynwald.
After a ballot Mr Gelling, Mr Rimington and Mr Speaker were elected.
At the first meeting Mr Speaker was elected as Chairman.
The Committee has held seven meetings.
C/MPAC/p1b/gmw
PART 2: STRATEGY
2. Introduction
2.1 Your Committee acknowledges the first part of the Resolution, that -
'it is not necessary for all Members to have positions in Departments of Government or Statutory Boards'.
Therefore no further consideration has been given to it.
2.2 In order to reach a conclusion on the second part of the Resolution your Committee determined to:
(a) Summarise the considerations for and against excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Expenditure and Public Accounts (`PAC') from any position within Government Departments or Statutory Boards.
(b) Consider the existing Standing Order of Tynwald (Order 5.7) governing membership of the PAC.
(c) Invite Members of Tynwald to submit written and oral evidence.
(d) Invite members of the public to submit written evidence.
(e) Obtain views of Government Departments and Statutory Boards.
(f) Investigate the membership of PACs (or equivalent committees) in other jurisdictions.
(g) Obtain a thorough overview of government financial control systems in order to understand how the PAC and its membership relates to these.
2 C/MPAC/plb/gmw PART 3: ENQUIRY
3. The considerations For and Against excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee from holding any position in Government Departments or Statutory Boards.
3.1 Your Committee noted that the considerations could also be applied to any member of the PAC in relation to their role in a Government Department or Statutory Board.
3.2 Considerations for exclusion could include:
(a) Exclusion need not produce insoluble problems of a lack of available Members to fill Government posts.
(b) Exclusion may increase impartiality of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC.
(c) Exclusion may ensure the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had more time to devote to the work of the PAC.
(d) Exclusion may permit a greater degree of expertise in government scrutiny to develop among the Chairman and Vice-Chairman (albeit that the work of the PAC is in relation to policies and expenditure already implemented.)
(e) Exclusion may increase public confidence in the ability of Tynwald to scrutinise the work of Government.
3.3 Considerations against exclusion could include:
(a) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman may make it difficult to fill all Government posts.
3 C/MPAC/plb /ganw
(b) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman may well mean that experienced Members would not be available to serve in Government.
(c) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from Government posts would have a financial implication for them.
(d) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman has not been regarded as necessary in the past.
(e) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman may decrease the overall quality of Parliamentary scrutiny due to the Members lack of up to date inside knowledge of the workings of Government.
(f) The exclusion of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman may be unnecessary given that Standing Order 5.7 prohibits a Member sitting in the PAC when the accounts of any body of which he or she is a member are being considered.
4. Existing Standing Orders Governing the Public Accounts Committee
4.1 The implications of the existing Standing Order of Tynwald governing the membership of the PAC, Standing Order 5.7, were considered.
A copy of this Standing Order is attached as Appendix 1.
4.2 From this examination, your Committee identified that there are a number of Members who are presently ineligible for membership of the PAC. Those ineligible are:
(i) Mr President(1)
(ii) Mr Speaker(1)
(iii) Members of the Council of Ministers(10)
4 C/NIPAC/p1b/gmw
Exclusion of these individuals or groups means that a total of 12 Members are already excluded from membership of the PAC out of the 35 Members of Tynwald.
(iv) In addition your Committee noted that when the accounts of any body of which he or she is a member are being considered, that Member shall not sit.
All other Members of Tynwald, including the Bishop and the Attorney General (23), are eligible to serve on the PAC.
5. Evidence from Members
5.1 All Members of Tynwald were written to and invited to submit evidence in writing regarding the Membership of the PAC. Written submissions were received from: Hon R K Corkill MHK, Mr E A Crowe MLC, Mrs H Hannan MHK, Mr R W Henderson MHK, and Mr R E Quine MHK.
All submissions were given in a personal capacity as against any Governmental or Parliamentary position held.
5.2 Your Committee felt it appropriate to invite Members who had replied in writing to submit oral evidence. The Committee took oral evidence from Hon R K Corkill MHK, Mr E A Crowe MLC, Mrs H Hannan MHK, Mr R W Henderson MHK, Mr R E Quine MHK and Hon J P Shimmin MHK (who requested to give oral evidence although he had not made a written submission)
5.3 Letters inviting Members to supply written evidence and their replies are set out as Appendix 2.
5.4 The Hansard transcript of the oral evidence is set out as Appendix 3.
5 C/MPAC/p1b/gmw
6. Evidence from Members of the Public
6.1 The Committee invited written evidence to be submitted by any interested member of the public. There were 3 replies.
6.2 The Public Notice inviting members of the public to submit evidence and the submissions received are set out in Appendix 4.
7. Evidence from Government Departments and Statutory Boards
7.1 In response to part 3 of the Tynwald Resolution, all Ministers and Chairmen of Government Statutory Boards were invited, on behalf of their Department or Board, to submit evidence in writing concerning the proposal that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the PAC should not be Members of Government and the implications of any such change.
7.2 Ten written and one oral reply had been received by 30th April 2002. The oral reply was received from Mr E G Lowey MLC on behalf of the Arts Council. He indicated that while ideally the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC might not be Departmental members, the small number of politicians available to fill all Governmental posts may make this impractical.
7.3 The letter inviting submissions and the replies received are set out in Appendix 5.
8. Public Accounts or Equivalent Committees in Other Jurisdictions
8.1 The Committee examined the composition of Public Accounts and similar Committees in the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Irish Parliament and the Channel Island Parliaments.
6 C/MPAC/plb/gmw
8.2 Members of Government are excluded from Membership of the PAC in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, while in Northern Ireland there are restrictions on the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee who must not be Members of the same political party as the Finance Minister or junior finance ministers. In the United Kingdom there are no restrictions in the membership of the PAC.. In the Isle of Man, however, there is a fundamental difference with the political systems of Scotland, Wales, Eire, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in that no party political system operates.
8.3 Proposals to alter the structure of government in both Jersey and Guernsey may see the establishment of Public Accounts type committees.
8.4 The Committee noted a major difference between the Isle of Man and the other jurisdictions where ministerial systems of government exist; namely that in the Isle of Man there are no junior ministers. Departmental Members are not equivalent to junior ministers, with specific delegated authority from the relevant minister being given.
8.5 A summary chart showing the various systems used elsewhere in the British Isles is set out in Appendix 6.
9. Government Financial Management
9.1 Your Committee examined the overall system of financial control within government from the initial planning stage to the final auditing of accounts, and the role of Tynwald in relation to the Government system. It was felt this was necessary to understand fully the environment within which the PAC works.
9.2 Due to the complexity of the structure already in being within Government, and its relationship to Tynwald, your Committee felt it would be helpful to provide a diagrammatic illustration of the overall financial control system.
9.3 The summary diagram showing the overall structure of the financial control system is set out in Appendix 7.
7 C/MPAC/p1b/gmw PART 4: CONCLUSIONS
10. Introduction
10.1 Before reaching any conclusions in relation to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC, your Committee felt it is important to note the following:
(a) The integrity of the Chairman Vice-Chairman and Members of the PAC and their ability to carry out their responsibilities independently and impartially of any Government role they may have is not in question.
(b) Within the Manx Parliamentary system, and especially due to the absence of a party political system of Government, Members are frequently required to undertake work which may them involve being critical of Government. For example, directly acting on behalf of constituents or through membership of a Parliamentary committee, or by promoting a policy of their own. These responsibilities are discharged without any hindrance consequential from the Member also being a member of Government. This is especially so in relation to Members who are not members of Executive Government, i.e. the Council of Ministers.
(c) Due to the size and nature of the Manx Parliament it is felt that it would be undesirable for additional Members to be automatically debarred from having any role within Government. To do so would, we believe, have two implications;
(i) If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC were excluded from holding any Government position they would be denied the financial benefit which is derived from holding a Government post. This may discourage Members from being willing to serve as Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the PAC.
8 C/MPAC/plb/gmw We are aware that, at present, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman could decide if they wished not to serve in a Government Department or on a Statutory Board. However your Committee is aware that this would lead to a reduction in their remuneration.
In consequence, if the change as proposed in the Resolution at Part 2, were implemented then it is likely that it may be necessary to provide financial remuneration for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC.
Such a change is likely to have implications for the whole range of remuneration paid to Members in relation to their work. However this would be a matter for the Joint Committee on Emoluments of Certain Public Servants to consider.
(ii) In total there are 24 Members of the House of Key and 10 Members of the Legislative Council (excluding the President) able to fill Government posts. The Speakers' role is, by Statute, very limited in this respect and the Bishop and the Attorney General, by convention, are not given posts. The total number of Members of Tynwald available to serve in all Government Departments and Statutory Boards is therefore 31.
A further limitation is that Standing Order 5.7 already prohibits the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC from holding ministerial positions. There are currently 10 Ministers (including the Chief Minister), 23 Departmental Members(some of whom serve on two or three Departments) and in addition 12 Members serve as Chairman of Statutory Boards or serve on other government bodies( this excludes Mr Speaker's position as Chairman of the Manx Heritage Foundation).
There are therefore in the present system a total of 45 Government posts to be filled by the 31 Members of Tynwald who are eligible.
9 C/NIPAC/p1b/gmw This therefore indicates to your Committee the undesirability under the present system of formally excluding a further 2 Members of Tynwald from being available to serve within Government.
For clarity a table setting out all posts in Government currently held by Members of Tynwald is attached as Appendix 8.
(d) It has to be recognised that the Manx Parliamentary system is unique, in that there is no party system and there are no Government junior ministers. As noted earlier, Members of Departments only have specific delegated powers from their Minister. This underpins the ability of Members to perform their Governmental, opposition and Parliamentary roles.
10.2 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee
10.2.1 In the light of these issues, your Committee therefore concludes that in relation to the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC there should be no change to Standing Orders.
The two posts should continue to be filled by Members of Tynwald who are not Ministers. The independence of these Member of Tynwald is not in dispute, but formal separation from Government at ministerial level enables there to be no opportunity for criticism that these Members were in any sense restrained by considerations of loyalty or common interest.
10.2.2 Your Committee also concluded that to continue to exclude the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from Ministerial posts permits these two Members to develop greater expertise in Governmental scrutiny and devote more time to the work of the PAC. However their inclusion in Government as Departmental Members or Chairman of Statutory Boards enables them to retain a knowledge of the workings of Government which your Committee believes to be beneficial in undertaking their role on the PAC.
10 C/MPAC/plb/gmw 10.2.3 Given the limited number of politicians available to fill executive posts, your Committee believes that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the PAC should continue to be eligible to serve as Departmental Members or as Chairman of Statutory Boards in addition to their membership of the PAC.
It is your Committee's opinion that any suggestion that the ability of Members to fulfil their Parliamentary duties and responsibilities is compromised by membership of a Government Department or Board is unfounded.
After considering all the evidence presented, we have been unable to identify any area where the Members' position is compromised by being both on the PAC and serving within Government, Your Committee is not aware of any case in which a Member has resigned either from the PAC or from Government because they have felt compromised by being part of both.
10.2.4 Your Committee is of the view that to exclude the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC from holding any Government post may discourage Members from being willing to consider serving in these capacities. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were only to serve on the PAC, presently they would receive no additional remuneration and further they would be denied the opportunity and experience of working within Government.
10.2.5 Your Committee believes that if the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were excluded from holding any Governmental office, then it is likely that Government may be deprived of the opportunity to utilise the services of highly experienced Members.
10.2.6 During debate, the idea of replacing the PAC with non-political scrutiny of public accounts was discussed. The concept of non-political scrutiny is one that your Committee does not regard as either attractive, desirable or viable. Political accountability of Government to Parliament is a vital aspect of a democratic system.
10.2.7 Your Committee is of the view that the good and effective scrutiny of Government is not hindered by the present structure of the PAC.
11 C/MPAC/plb/gmw 10.3 Standing Order 5.7 and Eligibility to serve as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee
10.3.1 Your Committee is of the view that the President of Tynwald should remain ineligible to serve on the PAC.
In evidence it was suggested that the President should serve as Chairman of the PAC. It is clear that this view was put forward without understanding the basis of the role of the President of Tynwald. The President's role is, and should continue to be, non political and therefore it would be totally inappropriate for the President to become involved in such a way as this proposal suggests.
10.3.2 During Tynwald debate and in evidence received, your Committee also gave consideration as to whether the Speaker should continue to be ineligible for membership of the PAC. The conclusion of your Committee is that the role of Mr Speaker, in this area, should remain unchanged as it is important that the Speaker should not be directly involved in such a major area of direct Governmental scrutiny.
10.3.3 In considering Standing Order 5.7, the Committee identified that the Bishop and the Attorney General are not specifically excluded from membership of the PAC. As a result your Committee concludes that the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald should be invited to give consideration to amending Standing Order 5.7 to specifically exclude the Bishop and the Attorney General from membership of the PAC.
Such an amendment would, in effect, merely formalise what is already custom and practice, however your Committee feels it would be helpful to clarify the position..
10.3.4 The existing requirement, under Standing Order 5.7(5) for a Committee Member not to sit when accounts of any body of which they are a Member is being considered should be retained, thereby underlining the maintenance of impartiality.
12 C/MF'AC/pibiginw 10.3.5 Your Committee has concluded, however, that the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald be invited to consider amending Standing Order 5.7 to cover the case of a Member of the PAC who has, at a material time, been connected with a body whose affairs are under examination but who no longer serves on that body.
10.4 Summary
10.4.1 Having given careful consideration to the question of whether the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC should be excluded from all Government positions your Committee feels, in recognising our present Governmental and Parliamentary system, that the position of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the PAC should, at the present time, remain unchanged. Your Committee found no strong evidence or justification for the proposition that membership of Government adversely affects the ability of a Member of Tynwald to work effectively as either the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or indeed a Member, of the PAC.
PART 5: RECOMMENDATION
Your Committee recommends that:
(i) that there should be no change at present to the status of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
(ii) The matters raised in paragraphs 10.3.3 and 10.3.5 be referred to the Standing Orders Committee of Tynwald for their consideration and report.
J A Brown (Chairman) D J Gelling J Rimington June 2002
13 C/IMPAC/013/pnw
APPENDIX 1
Extract from the Standing Orders of Tynwald
Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
5.7 (1) There shall be a Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
(2) The Committee shall have -
(a) a Chairman elected by Tynwald, (b) a Vice-Chairman elected by Tynwald, (c) four other Members elected by Tynwald,
and a quorum of three Members.
(3) Presiding Officers and Members of the Council of Ministers shall not be eligible for appointment to the Committee.
(4) The Committee shall -
(a) (1) consider any papers on public expenditure presented to Tynwald and such of the estimates as may seem fit to the Committee, and in particular consider how, if at all, the policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically, and to examine the form of the papers and of the estimates presented to Tynwald;
examine the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Tynwald to meet the public expenditure and of such other accounts laid before Tynwald as the Committee may think fit,
and report to Tynwald;
(b) be authorised in terms of section 3 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and the Standing Orders to take evidence and summon the attendance of witnesses and further to require the attendance of Ministers for the purpose of assisting the Committee in the consideration of its terms of reference. (5) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and any member of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts shall not sit when the accounts of any body of which he or she is a member are being considered.
APPENDIX 2
Invitation to Members to Submit Evidence and Replies Received
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYNWALD Legislative Buildings, Douglas, Isle of Man, British Isles, an 3PW our ref: C/MPAC03/plb
12th February 2002 All Members of Tynwald
Dear Member Evidence to the Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts The above Committee, which was established in January 2002 by Tynwald resolution, is seeking to gather evidence about Members views concerning the composition and membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts. Members are invited to submit written evidence to the Committee by Friday March 1st 2002. The Committee also wishes to invite any Member to give oral evidence if he or she so wishes, and any Member wishing to do so should seek to inform the Committee in writing by Friday March 1st 2002. To assist Members in making written or oral statements, a summary of the Tynwald Resolution establishing the Committee and its remit, and a copy of Standing Order 5.7 governing the composition of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts are enclosed. Yours sincerely
Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk to the Committee
Telephone: (01624) 685500 Email: enquirieslikynwald.org.im Fax: (01624) 685504 isle of Man Government Rerri WM Yaryan THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER Oik yn Ard-sbirveisbagb Tel No: (01624) 685702 CLIME MINISTER: Government Office, Douglas Fax No: (01624) 685710 Hon R K Corkill, B.Pharm. M.R.Pharm.S. MHK • Isle of Man, IM1 3PG email: [email protected]
Our Ref: CM
1 March 2002
Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk to Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS IM1 3PW
Dear Mr Cornwell-Kelly
Thank you for your letter of 12 February.
I wish to make comments for the committee to consider.
The resolution passed on 16 January cuts to the issue of scrutiny and the balance to be struck in a small legislature such as ours, between executive government and effective scrutiny. Opinions will differ and political interests will vary that opinion, perhaps on a variable basis dependant upon members' agendas of the day!
Commenting on the motion -
Para 1 of the motion :- As stated in Tynwald, members need not accept arty executive appointment nor be offered the same.
That would inevitably, lead to matters regarding remuneration for Members; therefore if the committee wishes to see certain Members of Tynwald completely and compulsorily detached from any Government role or Tynwald Board, there is a need to ascertain a view from the "Emoluments of Certain Public Servants" committee on how this would impact on the whole structure of remuneration for Members. I would expect any report to contain a conclusive view on that issue ie. To include a revised remuneration structure for the work done by all Members and their responsibilities. This issue should not be under estimated and Members without appointment have complained in the past about "1/2 pay". Without doubt it will have a bearing on the outcome of any report produced.
Para 2 of the motion:- With so few members in the Legislature and the lack of party politics, it is probably impractical to go down the route suggested. I can perhaps understand the principle of not having a Treasury Member on the Public Accounts, because obviously Treasury has an executive scrutiny role. On the other hand a Treasury Member can help the work of the Public Accounts Committee by providing first hand knowledge of issues and there will always be a need for Tynwald members to declare an interest on specific matters, from time to time - that is reflective of life on a small Island.
Much of the work done is historical in nature and so a Chairman or Vice Chairman could still have had a direct involvement in whatever is being considered, regardless of whether they are detached from current executive government functions.
The search for truly independent scrutiny is very worthwhile, but fundamentally depends upon the size of the Legislature. The numbers don't work in favour of a UK style of scrutiny.
However, I would not favour non-political appointments - accountability to the public works both ways, even for those who choose to scrutinise only.
I wish to comment further on the current S/O 5.7 on the Public Accounts Committee. Recent revisions have strayed the committee into the area of policy scrutiny which is unhelpful to the true role of this committee. I would like to see the Committee refocus on the previous remit.
Yours sincerely, 61.05,1.14:11
Hon R K Corkill, B. Pharm. M.R. Pharm. S. MHK Chief Minister :ye u:liamo.:,s 1.ou2las isle- of Man IM1 3PW British Isles
10th March, 2002
Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk to the Committee, Tynwald Office, Legislative Building, Douglas.
Dear Malachy,
Evidence to the Select Committee on the Committee of Expenditure and Public Accounts
I refer to your letter dated the 12th February, 2002 inviting Members to submit written evidence to the above committee.
My Motion is founded on my concern that there is an unhealthy imbalance in authority vested in Parliament (Tynwald) and Executive (Government) which detracts from the democratic legitimacy of our Parliamentary System of Government. This imbalance has been accentuated since the formation of the Ministerial System of Government which, for reasons given below, has created the perception, if not the reality, of a single party system of government.
It is fundamental to the Parliamentary System of Government that the division of authority between Parliament and the Executive be arranged with the ultimate control resting with Parliament. This is not to deny the Executive the ability to govern but it should be subject to a system of 'checks and balances' that leaves ultimate control with Parliament. An adequate system of Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's policies and activities is essential and is not presently in place.
This need can be demonstrated by reference to the United Kingdom Parliament and Executive, where 'checks and balances' are applied through several different mechanisms. In common with the Island there is a bi- cameral system; some would say that the Island has a tri-cameral system, albeit it affords no additional 'checks and balances'. The United Kingdom has a Party Political System, which provides strident scrutiny of the Government, for which there is no Island equivalent.
The United Kingdom has an expansive system of Standing Committees in both the Commons and the Lords which carry out exacting and timely scrutiny of policies, activities and expenditure. The Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts is the nearest the Island has to this committee system but its structure, capacity and detachment from the Executive bears no comparison with the United Kingdom. The Island has the Petition for Redress of Grievance but this is subject to a Member picking up the petition and Tynwald sanctioning the setting up of a Select Committee, neither of which is a foregone conclusion.
The United Kingdom National Audit Office provides close scrutiny of Government expenditure and, in so far as policy impacts on expenditure, also policy. This body is independent from the Government and works to Parliament, and to some extent collaborates with the Standing Committees of Parliament. The Island has the Internal Audit which is part of Treasury. The United Kingdom have a Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Island does not.
It is true that the Members of Tynwald have the ability to ask Questions in Tynwald, Keys and the Legislative Council but Question Time does not provide for a searching investigation of the subject matter. Members of Tynwald also have the capability to seek to introduce legislation and set up Select Committees, but the absorption of all Members in Government, coupled with collective responsibility at CoMin, Board and Department levels, make this competency rather cosmetic.
Part of the Motion is an acknowlegement of the present situation, for the Presiding Officers are already excluded from Government. However, there is the all important question of whether other Members need to be in Government for the purpose of discharging the essential legitimate political functions of Government. I stress essential legitimate political functions which does not extend to tying down votes in Goverment's favour.
By any object measurement all Members (other than the Presiding Officers) do not need to be in Government, and I would point out that from 1991 to 1996 five Members of Tynwald excluded themselves from Government. It is my belief that the membership of Tynwald is sufficient for the Chairman and Vice Chairman, indeed all members of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee, to be outwith Government.
There is an issue as to whether Members of Tynwald can afford to be outside of Government because of the structure of Members' remuneration. While some Members would be willing to undertake exclusively non Government tasks and forego the additional remuneration this would fundamentally affect the impartiality of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee.
While excluding the Chairman and Vice Chairman from positions in Government would strengthen the impartiality of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee, it also would enhance the capacity and efficiency of the committee. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman each lead one or more investigative teams and their ready availability would strengthen and to a limited extent increase the capacity of the committee as a whole.
Even working as sub-committees there is difficulty in finding dates when Members are available for meetings e.g. a very recent attempt by one sub- committee to identify two days for taking oral evidence resulted in four half days being identified over a period from late March to mid May. Given the greater availablity of the Chairman and Vice Chairman the obtaining of dates for meeting would be assisted.
There are two further aspects on which I would offer comment: the order of election for the appointment of the Chairman and Vice Chairman and the period of time for which they should hold office. In my view the order of election should be Mr Speaker, Chief Minister, Ministers, Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman should hold office for two and a half years, provided that the Vice Chairman may serve for a further two and a half years if elected Chairman. This arrangement would offer the prospect of continuity in office of the ChairmanNice Chairman for a maximum period of 5 years. Both the Chairman and Vice Chairman should be Members of the House of Keys.
I would make it clear that while I am the present Chairman of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee this submission is made on my own account. The Committee is considering this matter but no decision as to whether a not to make a submission to the Select Committee has been taken.
Yours sincerely,
R. E. Quine, MHK EVIDENCE TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
My evidence relates to the proposal that the Chair and Deputy Chair form no part of Government. In an ideal world, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee on Public Accounts would not take part in any Government Department, Board or committee work, and would in an ideal situation chair the committees and sub-committees. However, Tynwald is a small parliament, the public being very close to their representatives, expect their representatives to work, not only in parliament but also in Government to improve the quality of life for them. Every five years the House of Keys goes to the electorate, the electorate elects someone who they expect will work for them, and therefore the only suggestion that I could make is that, if the Committee decides that two members of the Expenditure and Public Accounts Committee are not to form any part of Government then possibly two members of Legislative Council should form the principal posts of this Committee.
The shortcomings that I see with that is that, even Legislative Council Members will be frustrated by the inability to get together with Members who are busy in Government Departments, on other Select Committees, and therefore I do not know how the proposal that has been made will work to the satisfaction of even the Committee itself. I do however believe that on balance the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts works reasonably well. Having a knowledge of Government Departments and how Government Departments work, is I believe essential to the work of this Committee, and if even two Members were away from the workings of Government for five years, the experience would not be available to this Committee. One suggestion I would make is that maybe membership could be increased to investigate issues from time to time. However, Ministers are exempt from membership of this Committee and therefore it does limit the number of members who can actually take part in the work of this Committee. I would however re-iterate that the responsibilities of the Legislative Council could be confirmed as the revising role and therefore their responsibilities would be revising legislation, acting as a break in Tynwald, sitting on the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts, and also overseeing secondary legislation prior to it going to Tynwald. It is just a thought that the Committee may like to develop further.
I would be quite happy to meet the Select Committee to discuss any of these issues.
434 Hazel Hannan M€FIK 27 February, 2002 I,EGISLATIVE BUILDING-E ISLE OF MAN Our Ref: RWH/ecw 3P ;u
25 February 2002
Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk to the Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS
Dear Mr Cornwell-Kelly Thank you for your letter dated 12th February 2002 regarding evidence for the Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
Please find set forth below my views on the subject. • No Tynwald Members should have another job within Government if they are a member of the Public Accounts Committee. • Members of the Public Accounts Committee should be remunerated in the same way as Members of Government Departments. • The Chairman should be remunerated in the same way as the Chairman of Tynwald Boards. • Standing Order 5.7 requires reviewing to: a) reflect more fully the role, power and requirements and duties in more detail; and b) reflect changes from any recommendations. • The Members of the Public Accounts Committee should be carefully selected and elected — Members of Tynwald should all receive an invitation from the Clerk of Tynwald to join this Committee so that those invited can put their name forward for nomination in Tynwald, and the correct procedures can then be followed. Not as currently happens with the election of this Committee, and other committees, which seem to be a joke and a farce where it is blatantly obvious that people are nominated out of spite, or as a joke, or to get back at someone. It must look awful from the Public Gallery. • The powers of the Public Accounts Committee require reviewing to assess if they are sufficient and appropriate to conduct the Committee's business effectively and cover the remit that they wish.
Yours sincerely
R W Henderson MHK 22 First Avenue Douglas Isle of Man IM2 6AZ
21 February 2002
Our Ref: 62A8
Mr Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk to the Committee Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear Mr Cornwell-Kelly
Evidence to the Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
As a current member of the Public Accounts Committee and having served continuously since 1995 I would like to make the following submission in response to the Resolution that was approved on 16th January 2002.
Item (1) is a factual statement and it is of course up to individual Members whether they wish to participate or not in Government. At present all eligible Members of Tynwald participate in Government as Members of Government Departments and/or as Members of Statutory Boards.
In regard to item (2) I believe that we should consider our situation in the light of Tynwald being a Legislature having a small number of Members and taking into account that quite a number of Members of Tynwald are ineligible due to being Members of the Council of Ministers or Presiding Officers. The other side of the coin is that excluding two Members of Tynwald from participating in Government would lead them into a path of being reactive rather than proactive.
Another question is at what point in time would the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be selected, before or after the selection of the Council of Ministers?
In regard to my own situation I have not had any difficulties with being a Member of a Department and with also being a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee has been structured so that the full committee considers all issues but investigations are conducted through the use of sub-committees thus avoiding any conflict if a Member's Department is the subject of particular scrutiny. If it is decided that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should not be a Member of Government it would allow both members to devote more time to the Committee but this would still leave the other members of the Committee with Governmental responsibilities. The Select Committee, as part of their deliberations, may wish to consider whether all of the members of the Public Accounts Committee, not just the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should not serve in Government.
There is an added dimension in that whoever is chosen to serve as Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will, at some time in The past, have served in one or more Departments.
Item (3) is factual.
I would be available to give oral evidence, if required.
Yours sincerely
Alan Crowe MLC APPENDIX 3
Hansard of Oral Evidence Given by Members
Printed (by Authority} by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road. Douglas. isle of Man.
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Held in the Millennium Conference Room Legislative Buildings, Douglas, on Monday, 18th March 2002 at 10.15 a.m.
Members Present:
Hon J A Brown SHK (Chairman) Mr D J Gelling MHK Mr J Rimington MHK with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly (Secretary) I
Oral evidence was taken from: Mr E A Crowe MLC Mr R W Henderson MHK Mrs H-Hannan MHK Hon R K Corkill MHK Mr R E Quine MHK HonJPShimminMHK
Evidence of Mr E A Crowe you can expand, is the issue where you make the point in your letter that - and I quote: 'In regard to item 2 I believe The Speaker: Good morning and I thank Mr Crowe that we should consider our situation in light of Tynwald for coming along to give evidence to the select committee. being a legislature having a small number of members' The select committee, as you know - just to confirm - was and 1 think maybe you would like to expand on that; would set up and a resolution of Tynwald which was confirmed you expand on that? by Tynwald approved on 16th January 2002 and the main part of which is in fact two parts Tynwald was of the Mr Crowe: Yes, well, as you all know, Tynwald has 35 opinion it is not necessary for members of the legislature members and when you remove the presiding officers, The to have positions in departments of government of statutory Bishop, the Attorney-General and all those people serving boards, and the second part says consideration should be on the Council of Ministers, you end up with, I think it is, given to whether the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the 21 members who can serve. I think it would be difficult to Committee on expenditure and Public Accounts should not achieve having a permanent chairman and a permanent have positions in departments of statutory boards. Then, vice-chairman not having positions in government. of course, Tynwald agreed to set up the select committee Obviously, anything is possible and anything is achievable. which is before you. Mr Crowe, Member of the Legislative A difficulty, I feel, is they all have a history of serving in Council, you have written in and given evidence. I do not government. Now, just in my own example I have served think there is any need for introductions as you know us with the Department of Education, the Department of Trade all well, so can I approach you for your evidence, Mr and Industry, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Crowe? Forestry, the Department of Local Government and the Environment. Now, my period of office in Tynwald has Mr Crowe: Well, thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, as you only been about less than seven years, but I am sure all say, I submitted evidence because I felt it was important members of Tynwald have served on many departments, that I did so. Just on my background, as members will and the longer the service the more departments a member know, I was elected to the House of Keys in May 1995 is likely to have served on, so there is always going to be a and I was elected to the Public Accounts Committee in history, whoever is appointed to the Public Accounts June 1995. I was re-elected to the Public Accounts Committee, of serving in a department as a government Committee after the 1996 election and again after the 2001 member as well as a Tynwald member. election,. so I have served continuously for nearly seven Now, just to.go on, the way that it is organised in the years as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and Public Accounts Committee: although there are six would like to say that it is a very important committee members, and, as you know, there is a chairman and a and one that I enjoy serving on. vice-chairman and four ordinary members, the committee The main objectives that I see are to scrutinise the is organised that in the past there have been three sub- expenditure of government and to bring to the attention of committees, so that if there is any conflict with department Tynwald areas of concern which require an inquiry, to set interests or previous department interests, the member up such inquiries and hire specialist advisers if necessary would not serve on that committee, and then there is some and to report to Tynwald on such enquiries and, at least scrutiny that takes place with a full committee, so I believe annually, to report to Tynwald on issues that we have it is well organised so that it avoids any conflict of interest considered and which we are satisfied with, to review all Now, just again, a slight history on this is that, because of the internal audit reports and consider whether further of having served under three different chairmen, I served action should take place, and to liaise with the external first of all with Mr Cain who was the then Speaker, this auditors, the internal auditors and the Value for Money was up to the November 1996 election and, as members will recall, the full matter of the Public Accounts Committee. So I see the Public Accounts Committee is Committee became the Public Accounts and Expenditure very important; it is a high-level scrutiny committee and I Committee, so the then Speaker was the last presiding believe it operates in a satisfactory manner as presently officer to serve because there was a change in Tynwald so constituted. I am not sure if you would like to ask me that the presiding officers could not operate, so I served questions on my evidence? with Mrs Christian, Mr Luft, Mr Quine and Mr Waft, who were on the committee. The Speaker: Yes, that is fine, Mr Crowe. We have The second five-year period was under the chairmanship your evidence, both the oral evidence you have given now of Sir Miles Walker and it had Mr Cannan, Mr Luft, Mr and the written evidence which you submitted by letter on Duggan, Mr Waft and then, when Mr Luft retired, Mr 21st February 2002. I think the first point you made, just Shimmin came in and when Mr Cannan became Speaker, to clarify, is that item 1 of the resolution of Tynwald in Mr Quine came back onto the committee, and currently, fact is the factual statement anyway that nobody has to after the election for members in January this year, Mr serve on the government department or statutory board. Quine is the chairman, Mr Gelling, as you know, is the vice-chairman and Mrs Hannan, Mr Earnshaw and Mr Mr Crowe: Right. Karran are members along with myself. Now, I do not need to go into all the work that the The Speaker: And the second part that you then go committee have done; I have actually brought along all into, really, and I think maybe would be helpful for you if the six years of the committee and what they have done and what I have been involved in as part of this committee inquiry not being held; it has all been completely open - I am happy to leave these as, if you do not have these and supported and I think it recognises almost the unique documents, you might wish to go through them. There is way the Isle of Man operates, in that you have your quite a comprehensive coverage of various scrutinies that parliament, your government which are, as we know, totally the Public Accounts have completed and it is, as I have separate, but they work together and Tynwald has the said, very satisfying to be on it. It does not receive a high overall authority anyway. The government, which is 10 profile because we tend to act and meet in private. It is out of 35 members of Tynwald, has to go to Tynwald to rarely that the Public Accounts Committee meet in public get its financial motions and orders and everything generally on an inquiry where it is of public interest, so I approved in Tynwald. So Tynwald, the parliament, is the will leave these documents behind when I depart. prime body, and the Public Accounts Committee, which is a parliamental committee of Tynwald, has a very powerful The Speaker: Thank you. Could I just ask, Mr Crowe: and responsibe job. Now the danger, I see, if you take out in your long experience of being a member of the Public your chairman or deputy chairman or vice-chairman you Accounts Committee, have you seen any obvious conflicts are then almost setting up an opposition role rather than a or any areas where in fact any member who has been on •scrutiny role because, again, if you did this or thought of the Public Accounts generally, I think, and has been a doing this and recommended doing this, you would have member of government has caused a problem? And do to obviously reward them commensurate with membership you, just following on from that, see any obvious benefits of a statutory board or a government department, so again for the chairman and vice-chairman not being members of you have got a financial issue there that you may like to government or statutory boards? With those two questions consider. maybe you could help with your experience. The Speaker: So do you see any obvious advantage Mr Crowe: Well, in the seven years I have not seen from your experience of the chairman and vice-chairman any difficulty probably of a minor involvement where a not being eligible to be on a department or board? member of the Public Accounts Committee has been a member of a department so they would not go on the sub- Mr Crowe: No. committee. They would say, 'Well, you were involved in that at the time so obviously you cannot sit on that sub- The Speaker: Could I just ask: standing order of. committee; we will put somebody else who was not Tynwald 5.78 excludes the chairman or vice-chairman or involved.' And I think, serving in a department of any member of the committee from considering any issue government is very useful because you are always exposed of which the member of any body - I am not reading it to the machinations of government anyway. The worry I exactly as it is but that is the general gist of it - do you have is that if you set up a chairman and vice-chairman think there is any need for that to be changed and the basis totally excluded from the government department you are of thought is in fact where they are a member of any body actually sidelining them from the role of participating in or have been a member in recent times, for example taking government, and I think that with the whole Isle of Man on a position - you used to be a member of Local way that government operates the edges are blurred a bit, Government and the Environment, you are now not, but if but I think it is down to Mr Gelling, who brought in this an issue came before the Public Accounts Committee and consensus arrangement where every member of Tynwald you are not a member of that body but you might have who is eligible to go into government serves on been at the time when the issues considered, under standing government. Now, it works very well because you have orders you do not have to step aside. Presumably you would got the consensus government, you have got teamwork. feel that you should, but do you think standing orders Now, there are frictions and differences and, going back maybe should clarify that? It could even go back five, eight to the point of the question that people feel so concerned years to when you were a member of another board or about whether they should serve in a government department of government. department or statutory board, they have not that right, they can say, 'No, I opt out.' Mr Crowe: Well, I think it should be clarified, because for a member logically to remain in Tynwald for many, The Speaker: Can I just ask there: you made the point many years they would cover every department eventually, about the consensus government, but have you found it in so you would almost throw yourself out and after, say, 30 your experience on Public Accounts that in fact that has years you night not be eligible to go on the Public Accounts held back any member of the Public Accounts from actually for an issue that might come up. saying what they should do or believe in in terms of investigation into departments or bodies of government? The Speaker: Well, presumably you would only be logical if it was an issue they had actually had and Mr Crowe: No, absolutely not. participated in.
Mr Speaker: You are not apprehensive? Mr Crowe: Oh, of course, yes, so it could be clarified.
Mr Crowe: No, they are all forthright, they have no Mr Speaker: Could I go to my colleague, Mr reason to withhold any inquiry or to try to influence an • Rimington.
2 Mr Rimington: Yes, I was going to ask virtually the The Speaker: It is not, really. same question. As a member of a department and within that department there are obviously various functions and Mr Crowe: - it is a peripheral issue, because if you obviously speaking on your own experience in the reach the ultimate that all members of Tynwald had served Department of Local Government and the Environment, in all departments. . . Mind you, I think that is slightly for instance, you were in planning, which actually took stretching a point. you to one side of the other functions of the department, so presumably if the question came up now in relation to, The Speaker: Stretching it a bit far. Right, okay. say, housing or environmental health, in relation to the Public Accounts Committee you would not see a conflict Mr Rimington: Can I just test and push you further on of serving on that committee? what you described as the vice-chairman and chairman might become somewhere in opposition, how do you see Mr Crowe: Well, let me clarify: in fact the way in every that within the role of the Public Accounts Committee and department I have worked upon where you might have its standing orders which limit its functions to accounts divisions of each department - and the local government and the expenditure? Now, I know that the standing order department is a good example where, as you know, as has expanded in recent years to the underlying policies Chairman of the Planning Committee and Chairman of behind that expenditure, but would its function as a Public the Planning and Building Control Division, which is Accounts Committee not give the opportunity for separate from the environmental health and separate from developing the role of opposition as it is purely there, really, the Housing and Estates Division, then there was the Waste as scrutiny? Management Division as well. But monthly the department would meet and would look at al] of the separate divisions, Mr Crowe: I think you are always contriving the so collectively the minister and the members of other and situation of creating an opposition through the medium of separate division responsibilities would meet and be aware the Public Accounts Committee. I think if, in this of what the whole department was doing. So in those sort parliamentary democracy, it was felt by members that they of situations where the responsibility and, I think, in law should start an opposition and opt out of government, that the minister is the department, the way it is operated in my is a decision that they and the group of members might experience is that the minister and the members collectively wish to take, but I do not think it should be blurred with agree on the policy of the department and move forward the parliamentary committee on the Public Accounts in that direction. So - I know this is a bit of a long-winded Committee. If you are looking at one to reach another answer - I think the answer to Mr Rimington is that if avenue of an opposition by way of the Public Accounts something from the Public Accounts Committee came up Committee I think we must look at the Public Accounts in the three-year period that I was on it, I feel that I would Committee as it stands at present and, as I mentioned have to rule myself out because if I was not directly before, as part of a whole scrutiny of government. We have involved in the division I was aware of it through the got the external auditors who look at all the accounts of monthly department meetings. government, the internal auditors, we look at the Value for Money Committee and we have the Public Accounts The Speaker; Will you accept that even though the Committee, so we have all these various bodies scrutinising minister and the members - if I can just come in, John - government. The Public Accounts Committee, whoever is might collectively sit down and talk through a policy and in it, as I said, is a high-level committee which has to eventually there is an agreement on that policy, whether consider and, as you know, you have your brief there. What by a majority of what as such, ultimately the responsibility I am saying is that in my experience it works, I think it is that it rests alone with the minister? In other words, if works well and we should retain.the status quo. That is my he or she does not approve that policy, it does not happen view. regardless of the other members. The Speaker: Mr Gelling. Mr Crowe: Absolutely, the minister is the department. Mr Gelling: First of all, can I put the straight question: Yes, so it is getting the members together, The Speaker: you agree there should be scrutiny, testing, prodding. but ultimately the minister has to be content. Mr Crowe: Yes, absolutely. Mr Crowe: Yes.
The Speaker: Right, okay. Thanks. Mr Gelling: Do you see that the ministers in their collective authority as the Council, which is executive Mr Crowe: This is digressing slightly. It occurred to government, are the ones that should be scrutinised? I am me that whether the Public Accounts Committee should trying to pull you out from what is the difference between consist of all Tynwald members, there might be a reason the executive and government. Can we separate ministers for including non-Tynwald members. The committee might from members - the scrutiny of the policies at the moment like to consider that as. .. I am not quite sure if it is in your and the financial control of the executive, which is the brief of not, but - Council of Ministers? Is that how you.see it?
3 Mr Crowe: Well, the way I see executive government accountability? In other words, people in Tynwald in some is really the Council of Ministers, the body of ten, are in way are either directly elected or elected to the upper House effect the driving force behind the government. But the by the body that is directly elected, so they are accountable scrutiny is not just through the Public Accounts Committee; to the people. If you had a Public Accounts that was purely scrutiny is in Tynwald itself. Every financial motion, every and simply from outside of government, how could you resolution is scrutinised by the members in Tynwald in have them accountable to the people? open debate, so Tynwald is the place where scrutiny starts. Even questioning - questions and answers are part of the Mr Crowe: Well, the simple answer is that it would scrutiny mechanism. Public Accounts is another avenue not be. I mean, I believe the Public Accounts Committee of scrutiny (Mr Gelling: Right.) where it can be looked at should be totally consisting of Tynwald members because closely and it can be dissected and referred and debated in you are in the heat of the fire, Tynwald is where you will private; we can have external financial advisers and be burned alive or you fingers singed or something, so I specialist advisers. The resources available to the think it has to be Tynwald members. committee are quite huge, but in Tynwald the debates are immediate, they, I am sure, are all forthright and deal with Mr Gelling: In your experience of seven years in the the immediate situation and generally, apart from motions Public Accounts, it has changed from a body that was which are deferred or adjourned, motions go through there looking at history and looking at the finance of what had and then and are scrutinised in Tynwald. Public Accounts happened; then was introduced the situation of perhaps is more a case of 'Well, let's spend some time on this, let's the strategies and policies that were being applied. Has look at whether that decision was right; was that that been something that in fact the Public Accounts had expenditure right, had somebody gone off the rails, can an opinion on? we improve something?' There is a whole series of things and, as I said the Public Accounts Committee is not just a Mr Crowe: Yes, is it an interesting change of one-off opportunity; there are the external auditors, the perspective. As you say, the original Public Accounts internal auditors, the other bodies and other scrutiny Committee purely looked post mortem; if things badly went mechanisms. off the rails then the committee would go back into the history and would try to find out what went wrong and Mr Gelling: So you would agree that Tynwald is would then make recommendations as to how it should be another line of scrutiny as a fourth line of scrutiny, as it improved for the future. The question now is that the Public were, of the executive? That is what I was really trying to Accounts Committee can look at ongoing current situations get your opinion on. So therefore ordinary members of which are before Tynwald, coming before Tynwald or, in Tynwald have the opportunity to scrutinise on the floor of fact, they can look at any of the accounts which are Tynwald. presented to Tynwald, so it has a wide remit. There has been debate within the committee as to whether there Mr Crowe: Absolutely. should be in fact two committees: a Public Accounts Committee and an Expenditure Committee. This, I think, Mr Gelling: Therefore ordinary members of was in the last annual report or the previous annual report government who are members of departments are already and there has been no discussion taken on this. It would in a position to scrutinise freely, without fear or of favour mean that you would have two committees instead of one; on the floor of Tynwald. They then become members of you are doubling up on numbers and would there be a clear the Public Accounts Committee and therefore, in your division as to what is history and what is ongoing? In spite opinion, you would say that those members, as long as of maybe some roughness round the edges, I think one they were not ministers, are free to actually scrutinise the committee can cope with that. In fact, if the work became executive without any problems of conflict unless they are so onerous and so time-consuming the committee have in specifically involved with the case that was going to be their power to go back to Tynwald and ask for a special subject to the review or investigation as a member inquiry and ask for new members to be appointed. So if, politically responsible in the department from whence they for instance, an issue came before the Public Accounts have come? Committee and they were dealing with two or three or half a dozen other issues and it was felt to be of such major Mr Crowe: I agree absolutely. importance that a special committee should be set up, a resolution can be put to Tynwald to ask for a further three Mr Gelling: You did say about what the situation might or five members to look at that particular issues, so this be of having a Public Accounts Committee without any considers the time issue, the resources issue of members' political member from Tynwald at all; it could be non- time. Tynwald members. Did I understand that correctly? That is what you said? The Speaker: I have just got a couple of things: conscious of the time, but 1 just want to get clarification if Mr Crowe: Yes, is it moving towards that? I can, Mr Crowe. Firstly, could you just confirm for us your time as a member of Tynwald through to date? Mr Gelling: Could I ask you, then, just to perhaps give the committee your opinion as to what would be -the Mr Crowe: I was elected in May 1995 - The Speaker: To the House of Keys? about at all and, if it meets with the support of Tynwald, a special committee can be set up, so I think the availability Mr Crowe: Yes, and then in 1998 I was elected to the of scrutiny on any issue, not only just financial issues but Legislative Council. policy issues, is huge.
The Speaker: Okay, that is fine; and - I am not being The Speaker: Again, I presume you can confirm that rude but just want to ask the question because it is an issue any member can in fact refer any issue to the Public that is often put to us and it would be helpful for you to Accounts Committee without going to Tynwald? clarify it - do .you feel you are beholden to anybody as a member of Tynwald? Mr Crowe: Absolutely, yes. It can be referred by Tynwald, it can be referred by any member, it can be Mr Crowe: No, I swear an oath to act without fear or referred by people who are members of the public, the favour. Public Accounts Committee can themselves determine to examine any issue they may wish to take on themselves. The Speaker: Thank you. And also, as a member of So there is total input into the Public Accounts Committee government and as a member of the of the Public Accounts if people want to do that. Committee, can you confirm whether or not you feel inhibited in any way whatsoever in undertaking your duties The Speaker: And the Public Accounts Committee, you as a member of the Public Accounts Committee? can confirm, is free to investigate any issue within the remit of the standing orders? Mr Crowe: No, I feel totally able to conduct my responsibilities in government and my separate Mr Crowe: Yes. responsibilities for Tynwald and the Public Accounts Committee and in fact to any committee I presently serve The Speaker: Which covers alI public expenditure? on. So I feel, and I am sure that all members feel the same way, that they are acting in the best interests of the Isle of Mr Crowe: And policy, 1 believe, yes. Man and do so to the best of their ability. The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr Crowe. I do not The Speaker: Thank you. And just finally, it has been know if you wish just finally to add anything? put to the committee that there is no adequate system of parliamentary scrutiny within the Manx parliamentary Mr Crowe: I think I have touched on specialist advisers; system. Would you like to comment on that? the committee have the power to call any witnesses either in public or in private. They have power and the resources Mr Crowe: Well, I think I have answered that question: to recruit specialist advisers where they feel that is parliamentary scrutiny is through Tynwald. Every month appropriate. Mr Chairman, I think that covers everything we meet, everything is debated, every financial motion or I would like to say. resolution has to go before Tynwald, every member has an opportunity to speak, there is no inhibition on members The Speaker: That is fine. Thank you very much, Mr or no restriction on members that speak in Tynwald, so the Crowe, and thank you for coming and giving oral evidence scrutiny is there every month. to the committee and also for your own submissions.
The Speaker: But some would say it is not in-depth Mr Crowe: Thank you, Mr Chairtnan, and thank you scrutiny - in other words, within the public forum of for giving me the opportunity. Tynwald, or the House of Keys for that matter, asking questions, making a point on a motion before Tynwald in The Speaker: Thank you. fact does not give you the opportunity, because of standing orders and because of the system, to actually investigate in depth and scrutinise in depth an issue. What would your Evidence of Mr R W Henderson comment be to that?
Mr Crowe: Well, if they feel there is not enough time The Speaker: I now invite Mr Henderson. or the ability - and again, as we all know, parliamentary privilege applies so there is absolutely no restriction on Mr Henderson: Mr Chairman. what a member can say - if they feel that Tynwald does not give them enough opportunity, there is the Public The Speaker: Member of the House of Keys for Accounts Committee which is set up exactly for scrutiny, Douglas North. and in fact I am sure you have the remit of Tynwald - I do not need to repeat it, I am sure you have it clearly before Mr Henderson: That is correct. you - the scrutiny is there and, if it is not strictly relative to the Public Accounts Committee, members have the right The Speaker: I do not think there is any need for to put a motion down on any issue they have any concerns introduction to the members, I think you know us all, so
5 we will save a bit of time on that as we are a few minutes then there should be some sort of appropriately attached behind. priority by way of remuneration put to this committee, Can I just confirm for you the resolution under which otherwise it will be difficult then to try and have some sort we are working, which was Tynwald's resolution of 16th of membership of it under the ideas that have been put January 2002, which is 'Tynwald is of the opinion that (1) forward. it is not necessary for all members of the legislature to I would also see it that it should be members canvassed have positions in departments of government or statutory to see who would be interested in going on this committee, boards; (2) consideration should be given to whether the because at least then it is a parliamentary role rather than a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee on government role. It might be that not everyone is interested Expenditure and Public Accounts should not have positions in that, and it would mean we could get folk that had a in departments or statutory boards' and, of course, that genuine interest rather than some of the election methods Tynwald determined to set up this select committee of three that we have where people are sometimes, I feel, nominated members. So that is the basis of the remit that we have to not for the right reasons when we have voting for work to. We have received from you written evidence dated committee membership in Tynwald, so the way of having 25th February 2002 in which you make a number of points, nominations for this committee, I would say, should be and from here it is over to you, Mr Henderson, to add to reviewed to some extent to see if there is a way of obtaining what you have written and expand on any points in relation membership or possible candidates to be put to Tynwald, to the remit before the committee. perhaps, as some new way of building up the membership. So those are my main points, Mr Chairman, really. I Mr Henderson: Okay, Mr Chairman, thank you for that. certainly feel there should be a review and I am just glad I will just do that in some brief overview points, I think. I there is a select committee looking at it felt some sympathy with the Tynwald motion and certainly feel that, with our current political system and small The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Henderson. If we can membership of our parliament, members have such an then try and build on that and ask a number of questions, important committee, which really is a scrutinising if I can first just touch on a point you raised, you indicated committee, to look at what I would see as some of the there were problems fitting in time for parliamentary work most important issues that affect the Island in terms of in relation to this committee. Can you just confirm to me budgets and so on, such as the new hospital and things that you are not a member of the Public Accounts like that. I feel that those members of that committee could Committee? well be compromised or feel pressurised in trying to perform that role and perform the function in government Mr Henderson: No, that is right, I am not, Mr departments at the same time. Also, there are a couple of Chairman, although I do know members of it. other points that I have not put in my written evidence but it is quite obvious that this position is onerous, time- The Speaker: Right, so this an expression from consuming and so on, and I know very well that members members who are members and have been members of of past committees have found difficulty in trying to slot that committee? Public Accounts work in, balanced against diary dates and commitments for government roles and so on, and I would Mr Henderson: Yes, that is right, and I can see it from see that being members of just one committee rather than my own observations from four years working within trying to spread themselves over one or two other Tynwald and my experience of parliamentary work and government departments to give the priority that I see this trying to balance government work. I am well aware that committee deserves. the Public Accounts Committee role can be quite onerous Also, I fee] that there is a view held by some members and, if there are any special remits or requests from of Tynwald, or certainly members- with government- Tynwald to undertake any further investigations on top of departmental responsibilities, that perhaps Tynwald is just their normal meetings and so on, then that again will be a place for the executives to have its rubber stamp placed, more time in the diary to be blocked out, and the higher and I think, if we go some way to having this motion the chance to clash with any other commitments that they successful, then that will readdress some of the balance in may have. that and give the balance of power or prestige back to Tynwald in that way, and certainly the committee would . The Speaker: So, could I just ask: everybody who is be truly independent and able to crack on with the work in Tynwald and undertakes a function, whatever that is, that it is directed to undertake, and I would see that the has the problem, clearly - and not just in Tynwald but in role of the committee should be reviewed and certainly, if life - of balancing up their diaries for commitments. There there are any changes, then standing order 5.7 needs to a slight difference here, would you not accept that in fact reflect more fully that role. It may be that they could take parliamentary work is of greater importance or should be on more responsibilities under a new system. As I have given higher priority by a member than their government stated in my written evidence, I think, if we are going to work? make any changes, then we need to look at some remuneration package for the committee. If any or all of Mr Henderson: I fully support that view, Mr Chairman, the members are not going to be in government departments and that is the understanding I have always had and it has or have the chance of serving on government departments, been impressed upon me by the presiding officers of the
6 Court and the House of Keys. I do not know where that whatever those changes may be if recommendations are may be written in standing orders but, having said that made for change and then those changes are obviously though, I have to report to this committee that on numerous acceptable, but also I think in 2002 I certainly feel that a occasions in my short time as an elected member the review of the committee undertakings should be done in opposite has been put to me: in fact it has been frowned any case and of the standing order to ensure that it is up to upon where I have tried to undertake parliamentary duties date and in keeping with the functions. Are the functions when some members have seen it quite clearly that now correct? Should there be more? Should there be government duties are the way forward and more important adjustments to them? And when was the last review of and that the department is more important at times, which any undertakings of the committee carried out in the point I have tried to express in my comments this morning. of effectiveness, efficiency and so on, and the I would see the Public Accounts Committee duties, as I appropriateness of all levels of what the committee do. have said, one of the most important duties, but I think it understand that the Public Accounts is not a separate body could well be one of those committees that could take up to Tynwald, it is a part of it and the functionings of our more time than maybe some others, and in that respect, if parliament, and I fully accept that. However, I would query a member of the committee also had a department role as when the last time a review of the undertakings of the PAC well which can be time-consuming, then I could quite easily was undertaken. What I am really driving at here is, are see that there would be conflicts and this should take we in sync in 2002 with the requirements now and so on precedence and, to take the pressure off the person in the and in fact, if recommendations do flow from this role on Public Accounts, perhaps they should only be committee's scrutiny of the situation, would it be undertaking that duty and then they would not be under appropriate then to examine the undertakings of the any other pressures and they could perform the functions committee to see if they could take more on. If the without fear or favour. membership was going to be just of the select committee or the presiding officers, as the resolution says, would that The Speaker: Could I then just add to that? You talked mean then that the committee could take on some more about the examination of issues by the Public Accounts responsibilities or that Tynwald may feel that they could Committee; my understanding is that the Public Accounts ask the committee to do a bit more under those Committee in fact examine issues after they have been circumstances? implemented - in other words, where something has already been approved by Tynwald and something has happened The Speaker: Could I just interject there and just ask, or a concern has been expressed in relation to a policy or without wanting to put you too much off your train of expenditure that has already taken place, and the Public thought, do you feel from your observations and the Accounts Committee, as far as I am aware again, does not comments you are making, really, that the Public Accounts examine every issue of expenditure or every policy. How Committee is failing to serve the public. do you link that up in terms of carrying out the role of the Public Accounts? In other words, it is not a replacement Mr Henderson: Not as directly as that. The Public for Tynwald it is a body of Tynwald, appointed by Tynwald, Accounts Committee does the best that it can and the people to carry out a function on its behalf, so it is not a body with who have served on it have worked hard, there is no its own life, it is doing a job for Tynwald. Could I just ask question of that, but I feel perhaps the public of the Island you to expand on how you see the problems presently with could get more benefit from it if it underwent a review the existing Public Accounts Committee set-up in carrying and certain road changes so that the committee members out that function? You specifically refer in your letter of and certainly the presiding officers.were 'freed up', because 25th February 2002 that standing order 5.7 required it is quite obvious, and I have heard it before from members, reviewing to (a) reflect more fully the role, power, that if there is an idea to charge the Public Accounts requirements and duties in more detail, and (b) to reflect Committee with another obligation to look at something changes from any recommendations? Could you expand else there are groans all round of 'Well, where do we fit on that, because I think that all ties in? that in? How do we accommodate that'? And okay, it may mean that there are extras hours work to do but it does Mr Henderson: Right, yes. apply the pressure and I do think a review of the functions and the time involved, especially at points where there may The Speaker: I think it would be helpful to understand be several big undertakings for the committee to become where you are coming from. involved, balanced against what government department roles they have as well, all comes in to play there and the Mr Henderson: Right, if you could interrupt me at any point, Mr Chairman - you have given a huge overview actual effectiveness and efficiency not compromised but seen in general there and put the question on to that large certainly put under a degree of pressure that perhaps we background, so if I have missed anything, please pull me need to look at now and see if that needs changing. back. I think, if we start with that paragraph of my letter, what I am trying to indicate there is that if, coming from The Speaker: Could I just again ask then, are you aware this committee; there are recommendations, changes, then of any situations where the Public Accounts Committee obviously standing order 5.7 has to reflect those changes has in fact had to determine not to investigate an issue and that would be reviewed itself so it is in keeping with because it has not had time to do it?
7 Mr Henderson: No, I have not, Mr Chairman. Perhaps the same as it would in any other department or any other I have not made myself clear. If 1 had that evidence I would committee. Are you suggesting in 5.7 that whatever these certainly put it to the committee this morning but no, I changes might or might not be they should be changed so have not. It is just that I get the feeling from Tynwald that it is a requirement rather than just an understood thing members and past members of the committee that at times that you would do that anyway? there are pressures, and casting an analytical eye on it, I would say that if some of those pressures were removed Mr Henderson: I would prefer it to be a requirement, we could have a much improved running of the committee. Mr Gelling, so that there is not that situation there where somebody has to declare an interest. I think I would like to The Speaker: Okay, that is fine, but it was just see the committee as truly independent as possible, following on from what you were saying, which to me although that person may well be and there is no contention was indicating there was a problem with the Public of mine to insinuate otherwise, but I would see it in the Accounts being able to carry out its function, but you general public perception that a committee so formulated clarified you have no evidence of that, so that is fine. I would indeed be true and unbiased. mean, I am happy with what you said - Mr Gelling: Would you therefore agree that, although Mr Henderson: Only the comments and observations you are looking for impartiality and independence, to have of myself. a Public Accounts that is not made up of elected people would not be acceptable - in other words, an outside body, The Speaker: That is fine. Okay. Mr Gelling. purely and simply to act as a PAC in your opinion, would not be acceptable or would be acceptable? Mr Gelling: Can I just follow on from that? You mentioned members should be canvassed - that rather Mr Henderson: No, I have not made that comment in intrigued me as to whether they were being canvassed to that sense, but can I just touch on this departmental thing be a member of an impartial Public Accounts or were they of government jobs again? I have seen it where somebody going to be canvassed as to be anti-executive? What is with dual departmental roles has been in direct conflict your thinking when you said 'canvassed'? Is it an interest and that has caused them severe problems, and I have seen Or -? it in other areas and it is just a tug that could happen to somebody who is a member of the Public Accounts Mr Henderson: No, it would be an interest, Mr Gelling. Committee; although they try their best to declare an Perhaps I have used the wrong terminology there. What I interest there is a tug there though, and I would see it as was trying to look at is the way that committees are maybe it would be better removed altogether. sometimes picked and how they are elected in Tynwald, As for unelected outside folks being on the membership and I think many people at the table this morning would of this committee, I would see that certainly the senior agree that sometimes some committee members seemed officials of the committee would have to be members of to be picked not for the right reasons and nominated on Tynwald, although I am aware we are a small parliament the day. It would be nice to devise a system, certainly for as such arid we do have committees and boards around this committee, where all members of Tynwald could be serving Tynwald that do have members of the public on: sent a letter - I have used the Clerk of Tynwald as the person doing it - to see if they would be interesting in serving or Mr Gelling: So you would perhaps agree that they some other way of gaining an interest so that perhaps some should be accountable and therefore they should be elected names could be put together of people who are really keen, Tynwald members? they had had previous experience or skills to offer, and perhaps those names could be put forward to Tynwald for Mr Henderson: The majority of them, certainly. The a nomination in that kind of way. department I am serving on now, for instance, on planning has members of the public serving on that committee but Mr Gelling: I was just wanting you to enlarge on that chaired up by a member of Tynwald. because it came over as if they were being canvassed into a position rather than being impartial, because we The Speaker: Could I just pick up, if 1 may, on a point obviously want a good balance in the Public Accounts to you made, Mr Henderson? You gave an example of actually advise Tynwald, so that was the first point. members who are on boards now who sometimes, when they are on more than one have this conflict pulling against Mr Henderson: Yes. each other. Clearly that is quite obvious if in fact there are two different policies within those two departments albeit Mr Gelling: The second one was, do you agree about - and I am sure you will accept it - that the minister will the way in which the Public Accounts works, whereby, if have a final determination and therefore the member is a member of a department felt they had a conflict because free in some way, although maybe involved in discussions. they had been a member of a department into which now It is slightly different with the Public Accounts, though, the Public Accounts are inquiring, they will obviously say because under the Public Accounts Committee standing they have a conflict and remove themselves? That is just a order 5.7(8) it makes it absolutely clear that no member, standing thing that happens, I think; in the Public Accounts • including the chairman or vice-chairman, shall sit when
8 the accounts of anything of which that person is a member properly and as considered as possible and they should be are considered, so in fact they are not polled in that way honest and as up front as possible in a new situation. because they are not allowed to be involved. Do you accept that? The Speaker: It does not take away the conflict, you accept that, because they may well be investigating an issue Mr Henderson: Yes, that is what it says. where in fact they were in government in the last -
The Speaker: It was just that I know what you were Mr Henderson: Yes, and that is why I am saying they doing was giving a picture of a problem that Public should be honest and up front with the committee or Accounts is specifically - however to present that situation. It could still, but as time went on then the problem of that situation would diminish, Mr Henderson: It does state that, Mr Chairman, but I of course. think, as I said to Mr Gelling, however well intentioned that person would be, I would like to see them operating at The Speaker: Potentially, if somebody purely stayed such a level that they would not even have to refer to that; on the Public Accounts and nothing else. Is that what you that tug would be off them. are anticipating might happen - that somebody could get elected to the House of Keys, for example, and may well The Speaker: Well, it is, because they are not allowed become a member of the Public Accounts Committee and, to be involved. through their whole parliamentary life, stay on that sort of committee? I am just expanding from you have said, you Mr Henderson: Yes. see, so I am just trying to pick up your thoughts, really.
The Speaker: So you are saying that by not being a Mr Henderson: Yes, I have got that marked down as member of government that is fine. In other words, you one problem with that: would you go with just Mr Quine's have taken away that tug by them not being - idea of just two presiding officers or the two senior members of the committee and to give a chance to others? Mr Henderson: Yes. The problem is that it is a parliamentary role; you would not get your government experience, or should members The Speaker: Right, if I can just expand on that then, of the PAC. .. should there be a shorter life span than five if you take, let us say, your own position in the last years, and I can see the problem because in a few years' parliamentary from since you have been a member, you time you could be called back to serve on it and you may were on departments of government. Let us say if after the well have served on a department. It is something that needs general election of 2001 you had become a member of the to be looked at, but I do feel, though, in overall terms that Public Accounts Committee and then they were we could do better at showing and illustrating impartiality investigating a board of which you had been a member in in this 'tug', as I call it. the last House, surely then you would still have that tug, if I took your point literally? The Speaker: I presume we are really relying on the integrity of the members. Mr Henderson: Yes, can I just clarify, Mr Chairman, how would I be a member? In what capacity would I be a Mr Henderson: That is right, and if we could support member of the PAC? that, I think that could be supported better.
The Speaker: If we went along the road that you are The Speaker: Mr Rimington. suggesting, which is that a member of the Public Accounts Committee should not be on any government department Mr Rimington: I just want to explore the role of how but you had been in the previous House and then you were you see the Public Accounts Committee sitting within our investigating, because Public Accounts investigates parliamentary system, so first of all can I just ask, in the expenditures and policies and so on that have happened, parliamentary democracy we have, what do people vote you might well then still be free within the Public Accounts members in for? Why are people elected? Committee that you are now not a member of government in any way whatsoever, but in fact investigating an issue Mr Henderson: when you were a member of government. Could I ask how You have lost me, Mr Rimington. you see that? That does not take away that 'tug' as you call it. Mr Rimington: Well, last November we all went out and fought an election and the lucky ones were elected; Mr Henderson: No, that could be seen to be there, I why were they elected? suppose, in a way. If there was a review which suggested these kind of changes, whether you would have to weigh Mr Henderson: Why is a member of the House of Keys that kind of a thing up, I can see a problem there, but then elected? again a member who has been involved in a government department should have been discharging their duties as Mr Rimington: Yes, why do we have elections?
9 Mr Henderson: Democratic process. Mr Henderson: Well, currently the Council of Ministers, but of course, it was a board system before that. Mr Rimington: Yes, but what are they supposed to do once they are elected? Mr Rimington: Yes, but do you appreciate that the primary purpose of elections is that after the body of people Mr Henderson: There is a heavy charge on the Tynwald who are elected a government is formed? member in general, you mean? Mr Henderson: That is one of the reasons. Mr Rimington: Well, whether it is in the UK or here or in Ireland, why do you have an election? What is at the Mr Rimington: As opposed to anarchy. end of that process? Mr Henderson: You are trying to put words in my Mr Henderson: Well, the end of an election is that mouth, Mr Rimington. One of the reasons for elections is somebody is elected, Mr Rimington. There may be several obviously to have a democratically elected parliament from candidates fighting it out. I can only answer that from my which then a government can be called, but you still have own point of view - why did I bother going into elections? your parliament as well. Some members may not wish to be of that particular government, but they are elected Mr Rimington: Once all those members, wherever they members to the parliament to form the balance. are, whichever country, are all elected, whatever party or persuasion or independents, when they arrive in their Mr Rimington: Yes, okay, well, I can see we are parliament, what is their purpose? running into difficulties there!
Mr Henderson: You mean the functions of a politician? Mr Henderson: It is not surprising!
Mr Rimington: The functions of a parliament, a The Speaker: Well, to clarify it, in fairness, the people politician being part of it. You have stood for election so I of the Isle of Man especially elect the members to the House presume you know this basic.. . of Keys, which is the legislature -
Mr Henderson: Yes, I am unsure of what angle you Mr Henderson: That is correct. are fishing for. I can tell you the functions of a politician; I am not sure of the angle that you are wishing me to The Speaker: - from which afterwards Tynwald elects proceed down, though. Once, say, someone in the House a Chief Minister - of Keys is elected there are obviously their parliamentary functions and the issues for which they stood for election Mr Henderson: That is right. on in the manifesto that they would wish to progress • through the House of Keys and Tynwald and special interest The Speaker: - who then forms an executive projects, and they may have an interest to serve on government, who then form members of government who parliamentary committees and bodies and so on. They may work with the ministers. I just want to clarify this because have an interest to serve on a government department; that I do not want to spend too much time because we are is all part of their role. It is also part of their role to represent already behind, but ultimately, as it said in the motion the constituency and to look after the individual before Tynwald which was approved, in fact members of constituents of that constituency. That is all implicit in an the legislature are free not to serve on government MI-EEC's role. departments.
Mr Rimington: Can I then put the question to you more Mr Henderson: That is correct. directly as you have not answered it - The Speaker: They could be purely a legislative Mr Henderson: Well, I do now know what is it you member, a parliamentarian. are after! Mr Henderson: That is quite right, Mr Chairman, and Mr Rimington: Would you not agree that the primary it is what people put in their manifestos as well. function of elections, the outcome, is to form a government? The Speaker: So a person could stand, get elected and say Now I am not going to take part in government.' Mr Henderson: Yes, you could say that, and that is what happens after the general election we have just had. Mr Henderson: At that point in time, they have that Then the new Council of Ministers was formulated right to do that, although they may - following on from that, but we do have to have the elected members for the House of Keys as a body. The Speaker: Or they could resign.
Mr Rimington: Out of which the primary function is Mr Henderson: No, no, what I am saying is, you are to form a government. quite right, if they were offered a position that they felt
10 uncomfortable with, they have the right to say, 'I do not mentioned the point that there should be no members of wish to serve in government at this point in time,' but they Tynwald on government bodies, departments, boards et may well wish to take the reigns up at another point as cetera, who should be the full membership of the Public well. Accounts Committee and they should be remunerated in the same way, member to member, if they were a The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr Rimington. department member or a Public Accounts member and chairman to chairman. Do you envisage in such a system Mr Rimington: Right, with the premise that people that the members of the Public Accounts Committee, taking expect a government to be formed after an election, how on board that parliament as supreme, should, if went into then can you reconcile the point that has been made in a system like this, be elected to their positions prior to the evidence just then, that the membership of the PAC would government being formed? be a mechanism by which there would be truly independent members of the parliament if they were outwith any Mr Henderson: You are going to have to clarify that a government department? Why are they truly independent bit, Mr Chairman. You have mentioned about the and people who are either ministers or serving in a remuneration idea that I have put forward - department or statutory board not truly independent? The Speaker: Yes, I just went through those, but the Mr Henderson: Well, I have already elucidated on that, only issue that I am asking you is, do you believe that Mr Rimington. The point I am trying to drive at is the Tynwald should first elect the Public Accounts Committee perception to the people of this Island and so on, so before it elects its government, its Chief Minister? somebody who was not a member of a government department but a member of the PAC would be seen to be Mr Henderson: Well, that is the first function that independent and, as I have said, I was not pointing at the Tynwald performs following an election. integrity of anybody in particular at all, I am just saying that I agree with the resolution or motion that the situation The Speaker: Now, but do you believe the members needs some sort of review. who wish to serve because of the system you are proposing, those who wish to serve on the Public Accounts Committee Mr Rimington: Or would you then say that the role who are not going to be eligible for government in any that you foresee PAC taking is a role of opposition? form whatsoever if this system was adopted, should be elected first so that we know exactly what -? Mr Henderson: No, not at all. I disagree with that. Mr Henderson: I Mr Rimington: Well, if they are outwith the am not proposing any radical government - and that will be six members who could be revolutions, Mr Chairman, whatsoever. All I am pointing in our system who have to be outwith the government, the out is that there are issues that could well do with being two senior and the four others - presumably they would reviewed and, if the committee at the end of the day comes have been chosen out of those that were not in the Council up with 'Well, that was not such a good idea; we took all of Ministers and the Chief Minister and the presiding account of evidence in but we will continue,' so be it, but officers - how would that place them as truly independent I think in the round, I do not know whenever the last time versus the opposition role? the functions and duties of the Public Accounts Committee of our Tynwald were ever reviewed, so that is the kind of Mr Henderson: I am not looking at versus or thing I am driving at, but I am not proposing radical opposition; that never entered my mind. What I was after revolution by any stretch of the imagination. was a body from our Tynwald that could be seen to be operating as a scrutinising arm of Tynwald in a truly The Speaker: But the question before the committee, independent fashion. Opposition had not come into my accepting part of that because - it depends how you look head. at this - it could be seen as somewhat radical, but regardless of that, the motion that was approved by Tynwald and the Mr Rimington: And do you think that the way the resolution we are considering is whether or not the Public Accounts Committee is formed should be based on Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee of the the perception of people outside or upon the actual reality? public accounts should in fact be free of government. If that is the case, then, to put it another way, do you believe Mr Henderson: Oh no, that is one element again. I was talking about the tug that may or may not be on they should be elected before the Chief Minister? members, or certainly there could be a pressure; whether you are the most honest person ever, you still could have Mr Henderson: No, that would flow on afterwards, I that pressure and it would be more effective to see if there would say, but again - were ways of reducing that on any member of the Public Accounts Committee. The Speaker: So would you not see the potential of a frustrated member of Tynwald who did not become Chief The Speaker: Just a few questions I would like to ask Minister then wanting to become Chairman of Public you. In your written evidence of 25th February you Accounts?
11 Mr Henderson: Well, you could throw all sorts of Mr Henderson: And we have no party system either possibilities at this one. As I say, my main thrust of this is, which of course . . . as I say, to have this reviewed by all means, but at the end of the day 1 think we do need to look at what I call the tug The Speaker: Just going back to your last statement., and the pressure that are currently on members of the PAC you indicate - I think I am right - that we do not have and, if there is any way that the committee comes up with proper scrutiny because we are not independent of that can alleviate that so the committee can, as I say, operate government is that basically what you said? in a truly objective fashion, then I think it is worth looking at. Mr Henderson: Any sort of committee I am looking at. There is the parliamentary system. I have to say, Mr The Speaker: Right, okay. Just finally, because I am Chairman, I know you have pointed out the time issue here, very conscious that we have got Mrs Hannan who is next but there have been a couple of questions that I felt were to give evidence and we are a bit behind for her, for which trying to tease out that I am after some revolution here. I do apologise, but I think it is important to try and just clarify issues that have been raised, could I just ask you to The Speaker: No, no. I just want to understand the clarify and confirm when you became a member of comments - Tynwald, when you were elected to the House of Keys? Mr Henderson: The system of our Tynwald I fully Mr Henderson: Yes, 1998, July 2nd. support, and that is one of the reasons why I became an MAX. The fact that Tynwald functions as a scrutinising The Speaker: And can I just ask, because it is a question body is excellent and I have no problem with that at all. that I think is relevant to this and one I have asked Mr Crowe who gave evidence before you, do you feel you are The Speaker: Okay, so you are content that they are beholden to anybody within the government/parliamentary independent of government. system? Mr Henderson: The way Tynwald operates, yes, Mr Henderson: Not as such, Mr Chairman, but I did certainly, but as for committees and so on, I am uncertain. illustrate earlier that there have at times been certain pressures in the past where you feel - and I have certainly The Speaker: Okay, that is fine. I was just trying to get heard it said - that departmental work can sometimes nudge clear where your thoughts were coming from, really, which out parliamentary work. it is important for us to understand. Thank you, Mr Henderson, for your evidence - The Speaker: But in your decision-making, your policy-making, your own - Mr Henderson: Okay, thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Henderson: In my own self, no, I try my very best The Speaker: - and for giving your time to come along to act as impartially as I possibly can. this morning, and for the written evidence you have given us. The Speaker: And finally, it has been put to the committee that there is no adequate system of Mr Henderson: Thank you. parliamentary scrutiny within the Manx parliamentary system. Do you agree with that? The Speaker: Right, we are just going to have a break for about two minutes. Mr Henderson: That sounds like a phrase of Mr Quine's perhaps, but could you could just re-read that for me? Evidence of Mrs H Hannan
The Speaker: It has been put to the committee that The Speaker: Can I welcome you, Mrs Hannan, and there is no adequate system of parliamentary scrutiny apologise for quite a delay. Unfortunately it is one of those within the Manx parliamentary system, and I asked whether things, when we are trying to examine, as you are well or not you agreed with that statement? aware from being on select committees, that it is important to give the greatest opportunity possible to members or Mr Henderson: Well, it could, yes, because it is tying members of the public who wish to give evidence to try in with what we are at here and the information you were trying to tease out of me this morning in as much as whether and clarify their thoughts, and I think it was important that there is a committee or branch of Tynwald or whatever set we have been able to do that, apart from there being a up that is not connected to government but is performing slight delay, unfortunately. some sort of scrutinising role, and the answer is there is Can I welcome you anyway to the committee. The remit not anything like that at the minute. which I have read out to everyone is that Tynwald resolved that Tynwald is of the opinion that it is not necessary for The Speaker: That is an easy statement - all members of the legislature to have positions. in
12 departments of government or statutory boards; (2) of being or having been on government departments, then consideration should be given to whether the Chairman maybe the committee could go back to Tynwald, if the and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and committee was suggesting, to look for different members Public Accounts should not have positions in departments to look at a particular issue, maybe under the chair or the or statutory boards' and then of course it resolved to set deputy chair. up this committee and we are now carrying out that remit. I think those are the main issues which I feel are relevant Item (1) of course is already clear that it is not necessary to my comments. However, I have said - and I think it is and I think that was confirmed during the debate, so our outside the remit of this committee - that it could be that main consideration, really, is in relation to item (2). We the Members of the Legislative Council took a more received written evidence from you dated 27th February revising role and that might be part of their responsibilities 2002 which we are appreciative of and want to hand over within their revising role that they would also look at to you to expand on the evidence you have given and add secondary legislation, they could look at other things as anything else you may wish to add in terms of your views well as being involved in the Public Accounts Committee, in relation to this matter. but that, I think, would make a major change as to how it is at the moment, because it tends to be made up of the Mrs Hannan: I suppose I should start off by saying majority of the Members of the House of Keys. that in an ideal world what is being proposed is something that would happen, because it would actually include The Speaker: Right, thank you, Mrs Hannan. If I could members of the parliament, wherever that is, in the ask, in relation to the point you made in your letter, you overseeing of government affairs and making sure that say, 'Having a knowledge of government departments and money was well spent, that the scrutiny was there in a how government departments work is, I believe, essential more detailed form and not just on the floor, but I could to the work of this committee' - that means the Public say that we are not necessarily in an ideal world. Members Accounts Committee - 'and if even two members were are elected to Tynwald and the public expects us to carry away from the workings of government for five years the out a job of whatever sort, and I think that tends to be a job experience would not be available to this committee.' or a place within the Government of Man, and the part Would you maybe like to just expand a little bit on that? that is played by parliament itself is little recognised really by the public, so if a member was elected and went straight Mrs Hannan: I think, if members had never been on a into a parliamentary scrutiny role, playing no other part government committee, then that they would not know than just overseeing government, I think the public might some of the frustrations of being on a government have difficulty in recognising that that is what they elected department, how government departments work, the someone to do, and so I think in an ideal world, yes, but it relationship between members and officers of the has difficulties. department and the law that guides government What I have suggested is that if the committee thought departments. I think many of these issues would not be that it was necessary to have two members who were not available to members. Because the membership of the involved in any way with government - and as you said in Public Accounts Committee now is six members, these your introduction, members are not expected to take up a members that are on that committee do have quite a great government position - they are invited to and they are free deal of knowledge of the workings of government, right to take up that invitation if they wish. However, we do across government, so they are bringing that knowledge have a Legislative Council and it could be that Legislative to bear into the operation of government, but using it in a Council members would be appointed to the role of Chair parliamentary way. and Vice-Chair of the Public Accounts Committee but, even saying that, it then leaves the chair and the deputy chair The Speaker: Right. Could I just clarify, have you ever with, I would suggest, time on their hands because of been a member of the PAC? • getting a committee together. Scrutiny cannot go on day after day unless you are looking at different issues and Mrs Hannan: I am a member at the moment. you have got administrative officers that can follow things up, not only within parliament but also within government The Speaker: You are a member now, that is right. departments, that you are chasing up to get information, to feed information into the parliamentary committee. Mrs Hannan: Only for about three months. So in an ideal world I would say yes, that facility should be there, but it would cause problems, I think, in the same The Speaker: That is right. I had forgotten you were way as you have got members of the committee who are elected recently_ That is your first spell on it, though, isn't serving on a government department and are members of it? the Public Accounts Committee, and then they have got to find tine to work in with the chair and the deputy chair Mrs Hannan: My first spell, yes. who are giving all their time to this committee. So that, I see too, could also cause frustration with the two officers, The Speaker: Ah, early days yet! the chair and the deputy chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Mrs Hannan: I have been in various departments where I think, if there is any criticism because of maybe the officers have been and given evidence to the Public length of time or because of members' interests, because Accounts Committee.
13 The Speaker: And are you aware that they felt that Mrs Hannan: Well, I disagree with that. I think from members of the Public Accounts Committee over time have 1986 to now the scrutiny has increased and the information felt inhibited because they are members of government in that members have received over that time has also asking questions or investigating issues? increased. Now, I would say, it is easier to be a member of Tynwald, than it was then. We used to have to go and look Mrs Hannan: No, not to my knowledge, no. for information whereby now the information is there and all you are seeking then is clarification of the various issues. The Speaker: Just to clarify, you have been a member So over the time I think government has come to realise of Tynwald since...? that information to members is very helpful and that it helps in the scrutiny and the responsibility that members Mrs Hannan: Since 1986. have to their constituents and to parliament.
The Speaker: Since 1986, okay, and again the question, The Speaker: Right, so as a member who, albeit now as you have heard I am asking, is do you feel as a member recently joined the PAC, has not been a member until of Tynwald that within the system, if I use that term, you January, I think it was, have you ever felt that the Public are beholden to anybody? Accounts Committee has not been able to serve you well as a member of Tynwald in carrying out scrutiny in Mrs Hannan: No. undertaking its responsibilities? Have you felt that it has not been able to do that effectively because members have The Speaker: You have never felt that? been members of government?
Mrs Hannan: No. My responsibility, first and foremost, Mrs Hannan: No, I do not think so. I think the only is to the House of Keys. difficulty comes about when something is sub judice and it is actually talked round about the Public Accounts The Speaker: And have you found, being a member of Committee, but obviously the Public Accounts Committee government, that you have ever felt inhibited because of cannot do anything until the Court has a part to play as your membership of government, whether at executive well. level or as a department member? The Speaker: Right, okay, and do you see any obvious Mrs Hannan: Oh, yes, I have, yes. advantages to the chair and vice-chair not being members of the government in any form? I mean, ministers are The Speaker: Right, and have you found that that has automatically debarred anyway, but as members as either caused you a concern in carrying out your parliamentary boards or members of departments? role? Mrs Hannan: Oh, I see an advantage, but I also see a Mrs Hannan: To some extent, but then I balance that frustration, that they would be meeting once or twice a up, in that if I do not like or if I take great exception to month to look at issues with their membership, and if all following the majority of the Council of Ministers, then I members were not without government it would be difficult do have it within my power to resign from the Council of I think for them to get members together. We meet on a Ministers. So it is something that does come to the fore regular basis, time is set aside in advance so there is not a every now and again and you weigh that up and you either- problem there about meetings. I would say that Public stay or you go. Accounts Meetings come first.
The Speaker: And do you feel that same pressure as a The Speaker: But, like anybody, presumably they member of a department and not as a minister? schedule their diary for the year ahead.
Mrs Hannan: Yes, it is quite different when you are a Mrs Hannan: That is right, yes. member of the department because you can then refer to the minister and say 'Can I play a different role within the The Speaker: So members know where they are. Okay. department because I do not agree with the decision?' Yes, Thank you, Mrs Hannan. Can I go to Mr Rimington. Have it is different, but, it is something I have not had to do very you any questions? often. Mr Rimington: Yes, following on from that very last The Speaker: Right, but you ultimately can, if you point, because of the difficulties, if the chairman and the wish, determine your own destiny in these issues? vice-chair were not members of boards and the others were, are you saying in practical terms it is better if the vice- Mrs Hannan: Yes, that is right, yes. chair and the chair could not meet without the members anyhow? So you are saying in practical terms they would The Speaker: Okay, and the point that was being put either have to all be out of government or not? to the committee that there is no adequate system of parliamentary scrutiny within the Manx parliamentary Mrs Hannan: That is right, yes. They could meet every system - could I ask your views on that? day if they did not have any other responsibilities except
14 being in Tynwald, but then you have got to look at it from that I think every parliament of every country actually has the point of view that you need officers within the a position because of politics and democracy that cannot parliamentary set up to administer such a committee; you be perfect, but would you not think that perhaps, because would also need officers within government who could of the way in which people find out and scrutinise, it has furnish that information and keep it coming to them. changed in such a way that our system gives many, many opportunities for scrutiny? Now, whether the members Mr Rimington: It would mean quite a significant extra actually take that up and scrutinise, it is still up to them to staff requirement, wouldn't it? do so. So really my question is, do you not think, with the Public Accounts and the Value for Money and the Internal Mrs Hannan: Yes, yes, and I am not suggesting that Audit and the External Audit and parliament virtually, with there would be anything gained by that, but what I am no inhibition, that members actually have very many suggesting is that it could be seen as being separate because opportunities to scrutinise, that the opportunities are there many parliaments do work like that, that they have a body and to exclude two people out of that and put them totally that is totally separate, but I am suggesting that maybe in a to one side to be scrutinising all the time is not really going small place such as ours there would be frustrations not to be a big advantage unless you have that scrutiny getting only from the members themselves, as they are not able to out to the people - in other words, if the people do not influence government or whatever, other than being in a know what they are scrutinising? I am trying really to say parliamentary place, and that the members of the public to you, do you not think the Island, when you look at many tend to see successive members of Tynwald as being of the other countries of the world and, in fact, the United something that they have achieved for their constituents_ Kingdom, the scrutiny actually in the Isle of Man Government system is pretty good? Mr Rimington: You have obviously raised the issue of the Legislative Council and two members possibly being Mrs Hannan: Yes, it is pretty good, but you suggested the candidates for the chair and vice-chair if they were that maybe the public do not know that and I think possibly going to be outwith government, and then later on you there is a shortfall. There was a comment the other day could start bringing in the other areas that could confirm about a debate that took place in the House of Keys, I the role of the Legislative Council and start looking at think it was, that had not been reported anywhere, and this overseeing secondary legislation et cetera. You were is the difficulty that I think the House of Keys has - making little jumps there; were you thinking of that being part of the Public Accounts Committee role or just the The Speaker: And this committee today, I think. Legislative Council taking on that role independently of the Public Accounts Committee? Mrs Hannan: Right.
Mrs Hannan: Yes, yes, I am just looking at maybe Mr Gelling: Well, unless this gentleman is the media, giving them a broader responsibility. there is no media here today and we are investigating whether or not, as you say, 'the people expect,' - well, Mr Rimington: That was not focusing on the Public they do expect, but unless it got out there - Accounts Committee. Mrs Hannan: I am not saying they expect scrutiny Mrs Hannan: No, it was probably outwith your necessarily, they expect something to be done for them deliberation! and they see it in something which is very tangible within their community. That is what they see. I consider, after Mr Rimington: Interesting nevertheless. Thank you. canvassing again, that is what people look to see - what the successes are. Some just look to see how they have The Speaker: Mr Gelling. been represented, but other people like actually to see something in bricks and mortar, that sort of thing, and Mr Gelling: Yes, I think there were two statements you therefore if you were just saying that all you are doing is made which certainly I wrote down: 'the public expect,' making sure that government is working constructively you said, and 'the parliament is their representative of the and within the bounds set by parliament, I think some public.' Do you believe that the public are not getting what people would say, `Oh, well, not doing a big job then are they expect in scrutiny at the moment throughout you?' but again you have to get that information over to government or do you believe that there is more openness people and I think that would be a big change. The other now for them to understand, but we rely very much on the thing I think that would happen is that if for two members media, obviously, to get that out, because we do not have of Tynwald all their position was to scrutinise, it does come the long debates now on legislation, for argument's sake; over as being in opposition to government' and I do not you used to see the full debate in the newspaper where necessarily, in a consensus parliamentary governmental people could actually make up their own minds whether set-up, think that that would be necessarily to the advantage or not they liked what their members were saying because of the Isle of Man. they saw it in there. That does not happen any more, so we have got a totally new situation, and then you did say that Mr Gelling: So if I can ask just one more, Mr Speaker? of course we are not in a perfect world. I might suggest Therefore, in your submission in writing and what you
15 have said this morning - I am just coming back to this The Speaker: Thank you. Can I first of all apologise perfect world - what would you see our position to be if for the delay. we had that perfect world? Would you then change perhaps your attitude to having the chairman and vice-chairman Mr Corkill: That is no problem. and perhaps the whole committee outwith government - not ministers, but outwith being a member of a department The Speaker: We get a little bit behind, which can as well? happen on these issues, and it is important to endeavour to give as much opportunity as possible to members of the Mrs Hannan: Yes, and I think that the public recognises public or members. that some of these parliamentary committees have a very important role, which the Public Accounts Committee does. Mr Corkill: Can I say, it says in my diary to be a few What I am saying is that there is an expectation out there minutes late! which is different from the parliamentary position and, as it works at the moment, the members of the committee do The Speaker: That is fine! Could I just clarify with not look at the workings of a committee which they have you as to whether or not the evidence you are giving is as Chief Minister or whether it is as Mr Corkill, M:1-IK for been involved with or are serving on at the moment. So Onchan? there are these issues which I think have been recognised in the past in the setting up of the Public Accounts Mr Corkill: It is in my personal capacity as a member, Committee and, as I said, in an ideal world, yes, you would although I suppose my current role as Chief Minister get this body because you would have loads of obviously, perhaps, heightens my interest in the parliamentarians out there and you would want to give deliberations of the committee, so certainly I think I would them something to do, and while they are not in have been in touch anyway regardless of my executive government, they would be on a committee which is role, but I think my awareness of the issues is probably looking at public accounts, foreign affairs, transport or heightened because I am Chief Minister and the operation whatever - of the Public Accounts Committee, but I am here as Richard Corkill, MILK for Onchan. Mr Gelling: Thank you. The Speaker: I just wanted to be clear on that so it is The Speaker: Right. That is fine, Mrs Hannan. I do not the evidence of the Council of Ministers; it is you in not know if you wish to add anything? your own right.
Mrs Hannan: No, I do not think so. The only other Mr Corkill: Correct. thing that I do not think we actually covered was about going back and asking for more membership should they The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Corkill. Can I just say, wish to look at an issue which was deemed to be not we have written evidence from you for 1st March 2002. suitable for the members at the moment, and you might go Again, I will just clarify the resolution which Tynwald and try and get, maybe, the newer members who have not passed on Wednesday, 16th January 2002, which was that been involved in some of the issues in a previous House. Tynwald is of the opinion that (1) it is not necessary for all So that might be some of the issues which - members of the legislature to have positions in departments of government and statutory boards, and (2) consideration Mr Rimington: I understand there is that power to do should be given to whether the Chairman and Vice- that already. Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts should not have positions in departments or Mrs Hannan: Yes, well, I am just saying on a particular statutory boards, and the third part of that, which ! will not issue. read out because it is quite straightforward, was to establish this committee. I would add, which I have not before, was The Speaker: Okay, thank you very much, Mrs Hannan. that we hope to report back and have been asked to report Thank you for coming along this morning, and apologies back with recommendations by the sitting in Tynwald in again for delaying you. April 2002. So that is the remit we are working on. If I can then, Mr Corkill, ask you to add anything to your letter of 1st March and put forward to us anything you feel may be of benefit? Evidence of Mr R K Corkin Mr Corkill: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. My letter to The Speaker: We now have Mr Corkill, member for the committee was fairly short because the fundamental Onchan, who has written to us and come along to give issues are, from my point of view, few in number, although evidence, so Mr Corkill, if I can invite you to come forward, I am sure that you as a committee will be.into a great deal please. more than the nuances of what you are deliberating upon. Going back to the motion that was approved, part (I) says Mr Corkill: Thank you, Mr Speaker, hon. members. that it is not necessary for all members of the legislature to
16 have positions in departments of government or statutory would have been a target for a Public Accounts report. It boards, and I think the point I made in the letter was that is quite interesting because it has been a very political, that is fairly self-explanatory. I think it is the current very emotive subject in the United Kingdom from a number situation and it has existed for some years. There are two of angles, but the parts of report I have seen are quite sides to that, of course, because the Council of Ministers analytical of the situation with recommendations as to how appoints the members of departments, it is not necessary government can do better next time around, and certainly for them to invite everybody who is a member of Tynwald I see the role of the Public Accounts Committee as having to participate and it is not necessary for any member of that purpose. Tynwald to actually commit themselves to a governmental Now, if by detaching people in Tynwald from role of any description. government roles it is a move to create a block that will Now that, as was said. I think, during the debate is self- not be cross- party - because it cannot be because we have explanatory, but the core of this obviously is the Chairman consensus politics - but seen as an opposition grouping, I and the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure do not think that will best serve the interests of the Isle of and Public Accounts, and I assumed from the way the Man. Obviously from the seat I possess at the moment, motion was cast that the mover wishes to make sure that some might say that, well, I would say that anyway, it members do not have conflicts of interest and that they are would not help Isle of Man Government in what it is trying kept to one side of the process of government as much as to achieve, but I do not believe it would suit the Isle of possible so that they can have this independent view on Man to have this opposition in this way. That does not things as chairman and vice-chairman. I think in a perfect mean that gOvernment should not have opposing views world that may be quite a good idea, but I really cannot put to it. In fact, it is a good thing that we do. The Isle of see how the practicalities of it in a small parliament can be Man Government is not infallible, no government is delivered. I do not accept either that there has been a great infallible, and to have this analysis of events is very problem in the past of people having roles within important. . . government and, from what I am aware, never having been Also, in terms of the small numbers that we have in our on the committee itself but obviously speaking to members, parliament, you may well find a chairman and vice- as you do, That all the hon. members I have come across chairman who have got no government contact today, but that have had conflicts of political interest or even personal it could well be that in a previous life they have been on a conflicts have all stood to one side within the public department, in which case issues could come to the Public accounts remit and declared an interest. I understand that Accounts Committee that they were involved with anyway the committee sets up sub-committees to deal with specific on a historical basis. In fact, my view is that the motion issues, and so the issue of independence is managed within does not give the clean line that perhaps it wishes to because the committee itself. I think in the Isle of Man we all do, of numbers. as members of Tynwald and in fact many members of The other issue that it throws up - and I wrote this in society, wear more than one hat; it is very difficult not to. my letter to the committee - was the issue of members' We live in that environment and I think hon. members are remuneration. Now, that is not a matter for me or for the pretty good at putting the right hat on at the right time and Public Accounts Committee; there is the Emoluments declaring interests. Committee which deals with those issues, and my I do have a concern that, should the suggestion that is comments in my letter were to say really that if the in the motion be approved to have the independent committee was minded to agree with the motion that is chairman and vice-chairman, two things flow from that. before us and is being considered, then that issue, as painful One is, is this the embryo of a sort of opposition group as it might be for hon. members, I believe would have to within the parliament which would have a standard be addressed, because we have a structure at the moment opposition role opposing executive government? I think where there is the basic pay, there are additions to that would be unhelpful and I was very interested that the remuneration for what members do and their previous member, Mrs Hannan, who just gave evidence a responsibilities, and this is a new element in all of that minute or two ago, mentioned consensus politics, and that and, I would think, would have to be considered in the is the style of politics that we have in the Isle of Man. I do round if this was considered to be a new role. I see later in believe that if there is the need or the desire for opposition the motion anyway, appropriate Tynwald and government groupings, then the way for that to evolve is with party bodies have to be liaised with, and I would hope that that systems; party politics would do that, and I took the committee would be liaised with for their views on that opportunity to refresh my mind about the UK system of particular issue, because I do think members who took up public accounts where it is cross- party. Their role seems quite specific and it is not on the basis of opposing this role as chairman and vice-chairman as described would government policy but really to analyse government policy be compulsorily detached from other roles that they might to see whether it has been effective in terms of the perhaps wish to take on board, particularly new members objectives and to see that public moneys have been spent who would like to see what goes on in executive properly. In fact I looked at the House of Commons' government, and I know as a new member in 1991 when I website a few days ago to see some of the work of the UK was elected my strategy was to see as many departments Public Accounts Committee and what they have been doing of government as possible - within reason, that is - and in recent times, and a situation they have been looking at you might well interfere with that learning process. So is the Millennium Dome, which I guess in any jurisdiction those are the main points.
17 The other issue - and this is because of my former life Mr Corkin: That is right, and that was changed so that as Treasury minister - is with regard to members of had the same status as a statutory board. Treasury on the Public Accounts Committee. I have been giving some thought, and this is based on history because The Speaker: And then there are additions, for example, the previous Chairman of Public Accounts, Sir Miles for the chairman of a statutory board - Walker, was also a member of the Treasury team when I was Treasury minister, and once or twice it did cause Mr Corkill: Yes. logistical problems in terms of separating the work that was meant to be done, but I do think that having a The Speaker: - and a minister. Okay, just because you connection with Treasury is important in terms of had indicated a figure, I just wanted to be clear that as far information that the committee may wish to extract from as a member of a. . . you have indicated the pay aspect, government; it is a useful way to have some connection that it is a 30 per cent addition. and, looking at the House of Commons website - I am not saying we should do exactly what the House of Commons Mr Corkill: Yes. does - I looked at the membership of the Committee of Public Accounts and I was slightly dismayed, actually, The Speaker: Okay, that is fine. because it says, 'Number of members on the committee - 16' and there are only actually 15 names, so someone Mr Corkin: I think I spoke about it in general terms cannot count at the House of Commons but the name Dawn (The Speaker: Yes.) and I made the comment about half Primarolo turns up on the list; obviously she is the UK pay which was an off-the-cuff remark by some members Paymaster-General, and so I have been giving that thought in a previous administration, I think two administrations and I do think it is useful to keep some sort of Treasury ago, where, because members did not have a departmental connection. role and there were reasons for that which I do not need to Those are my immediate basic thoughts that probably I- go into, they received less remuneration, and although it have expanded on from the letter. seems a bit pedantic and perhaps dishonourable even to talk about members' pay in relation to the functions that The Speaker: Well, thank you, Mr Corkin, for that we are expected to carry out as parliamentarians, it still initial evidence. Again, we are a bit behind on our time has to be a factor bearing in mind the structure that already but we will endeavour to move along as best we can Could exists. you just clarify for us when you became a member of the House of Keys and Tynwald? The Speaker: And it becomes a factor if members are not allowed to be on departments or boards of Tynwald. Mr Corki11: I was elected at the November election in 1991. Mr Corkill: Absolutely.
The Speaker: Thank you. Right, whilst acknowledging The Speaker: Or statutory boards. Okay. Could I just that you are giving your evidence as IvIHK for Onchan ask: you gave some indication clearly that it is a matter for (Mr Corkill: Absolutely.) quite clearly you cannot and the Emoluments Committee if this route is taken and it you have not ignored the situation as Chief Minister also. has in fact been also put in evidence to us that all members You are bound to have a sort of view - of the Public Accounts Committee should be considered for not being on any department of government or any Mr Corkill: I cannot help that. statutory board et cetera so that they are totally free; have - you any sort of indication in general terms now that if that The Speaker: - in that capacity. So I think we have to was to happen the members of the Public Accounts acknowledge that, and that is fine. Could I just ask you, in Committee should get the equivalent of, and as if they were, terms of the remuneration in your letter you indicate a a member of a department or if they were the chairman of figure; I just want to clarify for members of Tynwald, if a a statutory board, or do you think there should be a slight member of Tynwald is a member of a department in difference in the remuneration? government and that is all - or, for that matter, it could be two or three departments - in fact their enhancement is 30 Mr Corkill: That is a leading question, Mr Speaker, if per cent on top of the basic pay? I asked it! (Laughter) Yes, I am interested to hear that it is. being stated that all members of the Public Accounts Mr Corldll: Yes, I believe that is the case for most Committee should have no government role, because from members of departments, although - an executive government point of view and the numbers structure of what we do in Tynwald, the House of Keys The Speaker: There are other enhancements, but that and Legislative Council, that will put even more pressure is the Planning Committee chairman - on the practicalities of it but, in terms of remuneration, I do not have a view on that, I have to say, at this stage. It Mr Corkill: Yes, he was a member of the department. would depend, I think, if the role of the Public Accounts Committee evolved into a more time-consuming and a full- The Speaker: Yes, that is the alien one, really. time role, and, I suppose, on what other select or standing
18 committees members of the Public Accounts, they might Mr Gelling: Could you perhaps just clarify for me - also be on. The way members' pay has been looked at in perhaps I am the only one that has not quite understood - the past, there have been reviews of the workload and so it the role of the vice and the chair and then you talk about is hard for me to say what the workload would be. I have the Emoluments Committee; were you perhaps suggesting never actually been on a Public Accounts Committee that the Emoluments Committee might not agree if this myself. I know they meet fairly regularly and sometimes committee put forward that they should be separate from they have a busy schedule of meetings, but I think the and not pay them their - Emoluments Committee really would be the body to get to grips with that. Mr Corkill: No.
The Speaker: That is fine. It was just a general view, Mr Gelling: - I could not quite understand why the really, whether you had one. Emoluments Committee came in; surely they would only considerate it if it was the case? Mr Corkill: I am a former member of that committee and it is a very difficult job to actually itemise a rate for Mr Corkill: I mentioned the Emoluments Committee the job. In fact, I sometimes have a view that really it is because obviously they are the standing committee which wrong, perhaps, to differentiate between members of deals with members' remuneration, and I did feel that your Tynwald at all. The roles that we end up doing are a committee, Mr Speaker, this committee, should know what privilege put to us by the House and by circumstances and their views would be if, for two members of Tynwald as one can argue that they come with the territory. suggested in this motion, this became their job in Tynwald, and as to whether they felt that extra remuneration would The Speaker: Yes, okay. It is a while since you have or would not be justified. I thought that they should be not been a minister now - I think it is about seven years, asked to evaluate that. Now, I am sure it can be put that something like that., or eight years? this committee should determine the functions and any remuneration should follow on. I would also go to the next Mr Corkill: Yes. step, which is the practicalities of members taking into account what the remuneration might be, because certainly The Speaker: Not that it matters that much in terms of history would show that, in one particular instance, the being specific, but clearly in your first period in the House chairman of planning is an issue where there was a you were a member of departments and you moved on to reluctance at one time for people to take that role on• become a minister now you have your present role as Chief because of the time involved, and extra remuneration was Minister. In all that time have you ever found yourself agreed. And you could have a similar scenario evolving in beholden to anybody within the system? this area of two jobs, effectively, that are extricated from the normal run of things and that the remuneration would Mr Corkill: In terms of collective responsibility as a be an issue in members' minds as to whether they would member, I was on the Department of Transport, the wish to do this or not. I do not know the answer to that, but Depai twent of Home Affairs and the Department of Local I do think the Emoluments Committee should have a view Government and the Environment, and the periods of time on it. • I was on those particular departments I felt comfortable with the policies and with the individuals on those Mr Gelling: That leads me very nicely into the only departments. I think there was one particular situation that other question I will ask - I can recall where I disagreed with the department, and particularly with another department of government, and Mr Corkill: I do not know whether I have explained I voted against it in the House, as you have to do from that now satisfactorily. time to time if that is what your conscience dictates. So I did not feel under any undue pressure. It was a hard Mr Gelling: Okay. In that case if this committee was decision but - to recommend to Tynwald and Tynwald did actually approve it and it was their wish that we do have the The Speaker: But you did not get sacked? chairman and vice-chairman outwith being a government departmental member, in what order could you see that Mr Corkill: - No, I did not, but the hon. Mr Speaker election or appointment being made? In other words, if will probably remember what it was all about. you can imagine a general election has just happened, we assemble; as the Chief Minister, whoever that might be, at The Speaker: I remember it well! (Laughter) the moment has the free choice of everybody after they are elected virtually to select as ministers - Mr Corkill: So pressures are there in the normal way of life in politics but you do the right thing regardless, I The Speaker: And the Speaker! would hope. Mr Gelling: Sorry, yes, and the Speaker - where would The Speaker: Quite, that is fine. Right, can I go to Mr you see that nomination, election, lying in the course of Gelling? things?
19 Mr Corkill: I have to say that since the debate I have downside of broadcasting Question Time only and none not given this much thought, but it is a very serious practical of the rest of the proceedings and the way the media reacts consideration to take into account, bearing in mind the to what we do. They will take what is available easily rather outlying procedures that do take place_ Bearing in mind than necessarily cover all the debates. But I do believe the way the elections are done, it would be a matter of there is the opportunity, which is the important thing, for when you exclude these two individuals from anything all members to scrutinize what is going on and I do not else that is potentially available to them in the House. Or think there are inhibitions on any single member; if they it might be that there are members who would pitch, as it feel that there is something that needs to be put right or were, for these particular roles. It would be a new uncovered, then I think that debate usually happens. I environment that we would be voting in, and I have not cannot remember an occasion when it was denied. So I do got a solution to the question that you ask. It is a problem. believe there is the ability for sufficient scrutiny. Whether hon. members always take that opportunity - well, that is a Mr Gelling: Okay, thank you, Mr Corkin. matter for them.
The Speaker: Okay, thank you. Mr Rimington. The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Chief Minister. Mr Corkill, would you wish to add anything else before we Mr Rimington: I have no questions. conclude?
The Speaker: Right, okay. If I can then, just could I Mr Corkill: It was put to me that perhaps membership ask your views on the adequacy or inadequacy, in your of the Public Accounts could be non-political and I put in opinion, over your time as a member of the House of Keys, my letter that I do not agree with that, that accountability of the effectiveness of the Public Accounts Committee? to the public, whether you are in government or whether you are on the side of scrutiny, works two ways; people Mr Corkill: I think I have seen examples of where they need to be responsible for their actions to the electorate. have been effective, and I think of things like capital So I would not accept that as a sensible way for the Public procedure notes in Treasury where I think they have been Accounts to operate, but I think I have covered the points very effective in improving the situation for the Island. I that I came here with. There will be something I can have seen situations where, in my view, they have perhaps remember when I go out of the door, no doubt! wasted their time, but nonetheless the ability for the committee to choose items to scrutinise as well as scrutinise The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Corkill, for your evidence subjects that are put their way is a very important part of as Chief Minister. our democracy. I think there is scope for the Public Accounts to do more but that is a resource issue. As to Mr Corkill: Thank you very much. whether we think providing more resources for more scrutiny and more of it is necessarily best value for everybody is a fine balance. I have not heard the members Evidence of Mr Quine of Public Accounts Committees in the past complain about a shortage of resource, but maybe I have just not heard, so The Speaker: Can I just say that we had two further they have obviously not felt inhibited, but obviously if the representations to give oral evidence which were not rale is to expand, then there is a resource implication and advertised because, at the time of the advert going out, we that is something from a government point of view that had only indications from those people who up to now we needs to be carefully prioritized, because that funding might have heard the evidence from. The committee has agreed do more good somewhere else. So I believe that the amount to allow the two members to give evidence and the first of scrutiny that is done from the Public Accounts aspect is one is Mr Quine, member for Ayre, so if you would like to good. come forward, Mr Quine, please? Apologies for being a little bit behind time but I am sure you appreciate the The Speaker: That is fine, thank you for that. There is difficulties of always trying to be exact in terms of time - a view that in fact we do not have an adequate system for parliamentary scrutiny of government policies et cetera_ Could I ask your view on that? Mr Quine: Yes.
Mr Corkin: I think, if we applied that our structure of The Speaker: - and making sure that members and things to a larger environment or larger parliament, then members of the public have the opportunity to expand on that would be a true criticism but that the fact that we are their comments and views, and of course questions can small compensates for that. We do have scrutiny in the sometimes take a bit of time. parliament itself on a weekly basis and that may not be perhaps seen as widely as it could be. Certainly I think the Mr Quine: Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to be able public perhaps see Question Time as the scrutiny that goes to give oral evidence.. on and do not see the other scrutiny that standing committees do on a regular basis, so that is unfortunate, The Speaker: As you are aware, Mr Quine - again, I but - perhaps I should not digress, Mr Speaker - that is the will just read out - this committee has been set up as a
20 resolution of Tynwald which was passed on 16th January various reasons, of course, that development has never 2002 and there were two important parts, apart from setting takerf place. But it is based on those two foundations that I up the committee and its recommendations to go to really moved this motion. Tynwald: first, Tynwald is of the opinion that first it is not In the following paragraphs I endeavour to set out and necessary for all members of the legislation to have demonstrate, in the main by comparison with the UK, that positions in departments of government or statutory boards; we do not have an adequate system of checks and balances, and second, consideration should be given to whether the and I would like to go through that because I feel it is Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on important. But before I do that, I would just like to add Expenditure and Public Accounts should not have positions one point in relation to the first paragraph there, and that in departments or statutory boards_ That is clearly our remit is this: I do feel that this imbalance, if I can use that term, and we have received from you written evidence, which in the division of power has been accentuated with the was dated 10th March 2002, of which you have expanded formation of the ministerial system. We moved, as we are on your views in relation to this issue. This is an opportunity all aware, from the board system where members, to a large for you to expand further on that orally and, of course, if extent, were free agents. They had obligations, of course, you wish to add anything further, then please do. And as but they were not tied down in the same way as they are you are well aware, we will then question you or seek some now, and to members being tied in with departments, some observations from you, whichever might be appropriate, tied in with at least two departments with the encumbrance so thank you, Mr Quine. of collective responsibility. If not, as a de facto situation certainly, there was an expectation that they will be with Mr Quine: Thank you very much indeed_ I think, in their departments, supporting their departments, and I do putting forward .the motion, I was trying to recognise two not think that has helped. So I think through the ministerial particular situations which I felt should be redressed. The system to some extent we have lost some of that balance. first one was that there is, as I would hold anyway, an We have got the allegiance to government, we have got unhealthy imbalance, as I have said here, in the authority the question of individuals having to promote their interests vested in Tynwald and the executive which detract from through a particular segment of government; there are the the democratic legitimacy of our proclaimed parliamentary remunerative structures which came in with the ministerial system of government. That was the first reason or the system and, as I said, collective responsibilities. fundamental reason that I determined to put this before Now, just moving on, if I may, to this question, which I Tynwald Court, but secondly because, having spent a good would like to do, of demonstrating what I believe is the number of years on the Public Accounts Committee I find imbalance which currently exists - I have taken that it is in fact, to a large extent, an inadequate body in Westminster in the main, not because I am an advocate of terms of providing scrutiny of government policies and everything that goes on at Westminster but I think if we activities. I find it quite inadequate and there are a number held ourselves out to be a parliamentary system of of reasons why. government, at least we can draw some parallels and for Principally, I think, there is the question of the remit, better or for worse. An adequate. system of parliamentary but that is not really an issue here for us to consider today, scrutiny, I have said here, of government policies and but more particularly it is the time that members can make activities is essential and it is not in place at the moment. available to devote to this and also the issue of resource. If I can just speak to that particular sentence, first of all Of course, Chairman, you will recollect that Tynwald, I think there is the issue of whether we have unicameral or going back some little time, had an earlier debate on this bicameral legislatures and of course, both the UK and matter and arising from that Tynwald endorsed as a ourselves have bicameral legislatures. We would perhaps principle an expansion of the activities of the Public claim we have a tricameral legislature, but I do not think it Accounts Committee. At that stage it was primarily adds anything to the question of the balance because of concerned with the ability of the Public Accounts the way that we work and the individuals which are Committee to look at matters coming through on secondary involved. So, that is in common, but what is not there if legislation and European matters; Tynwald approved the you look at it is, which I think is perhaps in some ways a motion in principle but it never got off the ground because very important element - and I am not advocating this but of course the resource has never been approved. So I think at least you do have within Westminster a party-political it is worth noting that this is a matter that has been before system so you have checks and balances, you have scrutiny Tynwald before and Tynwald has, at least in principio, that comes through the party-political system. We do not expressed a view, albeit it does not cover the whole scenario have that, of course, in place. Maybe that we .are not embodied in this current motion. particularly interested in having that in place. In the United Kingdom you have got a system of The Speaker: Could I just clarify? My recollection is standing committees in both the Commons and the Lords. that that then went to the Council of Ministers who took a I think, now, the last figure I saw on the site was something report and then reported back to Tynwald. just over 20 of these committees, and if you take the Lords and the Commons and the ad hoc, quite clearly they provide Mr Quine: That is right. Tynwald endorsed a quite an exact and generally quite a timely sort of recommendation that came back from the Council of examination of government policies and activities. I Ministers that it should be developed as and when suppose the nearest thing we have to that type of committee additional resources could be made available and for is what we commonly refer to as the Public Accounts
21 Committee. I mean, that is perhaps the nearest we have government, but what is important is that we do not have a tzot to that type of committee system, but it would surely number of media sources able to take and taking a different bear no comparison with what exists in the United viewpoint on different political issues. That does not Kingdom. happen here, so we really have nothing in the Isle of Man We have got, of course, the petition for redress of which could be said to equate to the fourth estate in the grievance, but that depends firstly upon a member being United Kingdom scenario. prepared to pick up the petition of grievance and it depends If I may move on now, there is the question of whether on the will of Tynwald as to whether or not a select there is a need for as many members of the legislature to committee should be set up. In recent times we have had be in government as are currently in government. My at least three petitions for redress of grievance, I am submission to you that if we judge that on the basis of advised, which Tynwald has turned down, has not essential legitimate political functions, then the answer is supported, so quite clearly there is a limitation to the value there is no need for those numbers to be in government. of that process. You probably do not want me to do so, but I can revert to In the United Kingdom, we have got the National Audit what I consider to be the loadings within departments on Office and that provides close scrutiny of government's the basis of legitimate political functions. So I think it is expenditure and, so far as expenditure impacts upon policy no defence to what is proposed in this motion to say we upon policy, that body, it is my understanding, is cannot do this because we have not got enough members independent of government and works for parliament, to do it. I do not think that stands scrutiny. We already essentially, and to some extent collaborates with the have members who are outwith government, presiding standing committees of parliament committees. To use the officers et cetera, and what is being suggested here is a term I read in one of these documents, it tends to feed a small extension of that, but again I have written that up number of these standing committees. somewhere, and I am quite happy to leave that. I heard the Then on the Island we have an internal audit which is Chief Minister comment on this. part of Treasury. Now, my own view is that internal audit Of course there is the question of whether members of should not be part of Treasury. And I do not believe a Tynwald can afford to be outside of government. The short department of government should have responsibility for answer is, of course, some members can, some members the internal audit - It is a point I have made before. cannot. There is no straight line there. I am aware that The United Kingdom have a parliamentary ombudsman; there are a number of members who would be perfectly we do not have a parliamentary ombudsman. We have a happy to be outside of government and to assume facility to an ombudsman-type of service in a couple of parliamentary roles and forgo the remuneration, but once areas but not a parliamentary ombudsman. you do that you will have objections from those that say Yes, we can ask questions in the Keys and Tynwald, that that is putting the lanket on the democratic process, there is no doubt about that, or in Legislative Council, and because you are limiting people to who could perform some people do ask in the Legislative Council, but by the particular functions. If, for example, the members of the very nature of the rules that regulate Question Time you Public Accounts Committee or even the Chairman or Vice- cannot carry out any in-depth investigation into the matter Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee were those that you are trying to research. Question Time tends to be who felt that they could forgo remuneration to perform used more for members to publicly make a point rather their task, it would leave them open to the question of the than as an investigative process or as a process of scrutiny. impartiality of those individual members. We have the facility to seek to introduce legislation, There has been the question raised about in what order, but that again depends basically upon the view taken by if we were to have the chairman, the vice-chairman who the administration because that is where most votes rest, would be outwith government, they would be elected and and again we have seen in recent times at least two I have given you in my short paper here an order that I instances where, because government had a different view, propose, which is that you would fill this role, Mr Speaker, permission has not been granted. the Chief Minister and the ministers on the premise that Select committees - the same thing applies. We can seek you want to get as strong a government to carry out the to set up select committees but it is at the will of Tynwald, functions and, following that, you would elect a Chairman which is heavily influenced by the government view on and possibly a Vice-Chairman on the Public Accounts the matters. So they exist but they are, I would suggest, Committee. somewhat cosmetic in large part. I would mention a matter have suggested to you as arrangement which would here which I omitted to mention in my written submission ensure that we did not have the same people sitting to you, and that is that in the United Kingdom we have, performing that function all the time and how you could for want of a better term, the 'fourth estate'. The media do provide some prospect of the vice-chairman taking over have a role to play in the scrutiny of government. We do after the chairman to provide that turnover. There are not have that here. I mean, we have here one newspaper, practicalities over and above that, I appreciate, but at least one publishing company with three titles; we have one it has hopefully given you some food for thought on that radio station, basically, both with heavy injection of score. government support. In the first case, of course, Manx Now, if I could just leave the paper there and go back to Radio get a subsidy from us for probably information one or two afterthoughts that I have occurred to me, I have dissemination, and in the case of. the media and they get dealt with, I think already, my view that the advent of the strong support by way of advertising fees straight from ministerial system has accentuated the imbalance; I do not.
22 think I need to add further or go into that further other So the availability of members is an inhibiting factor; than to say this: It is a long-held view by myself that we the lack of resource is a serious inhibiting factor. We should do not have a sufficiently clear idea of the role of politicians not be in this situation where political members of the PAC in government. We still have politicians quite extensively - and this has happened on a number of occasions in the involved in management; that, in my view, is not the role past - have to sit down and write reports and do paperwork of politicians. We have politicians chairing committees in order that the PAC can take over, but it has happened. I which do not call for a chairman to be sitting there for the might add that it has happened in relation to select transaction of this work at all. I hold the view, and I said committees too, but that is not the issue that we are this in Tynwald, that we need to take a step back and really, discussing here today. I say that with some experience, I seriously consider to what extent politicians need to be have done, I think now, eight years on the Public Accounts involved in government. I prefer to look, myself, at Committee, so I have covered a lot of investigations over politicians being involved, illustrated by the four points of a significant period of time under different chairmanships, the compass in the sense that you start off at the top and and again, not related to the current motion at this juncture you say 'Right, politicians are there to determine policy' anyway, there is the question of what the remit should be and go to the east and say, 'Politicians are there to ensure because, as I say, it is kind of in limbo at the moment. We that the management is in place in departments and that had a remit, we fine-tuned that about three or four years . the efficiency of that management is adequate for tasks ago which allowed the Public Accounts Committee, except that they have.' Then you need to go south and look at the for just dealing with matters ex post facto, to deal with matter of whether the resources are there for the policy issues and look ahead on certain policy matters. management and the supporting staff to carry out those We had that, and then the third point is, we have had this roles and then go to the west and say, 'Right, now, what is debate in Tynwald where there was an extension of the the product of our evaluation of all that?' which brings role advocated but it has never been implemented. you back to the top where you then change policy if policy I do not think I. need to go back to `do other members needs to be changed. And I think if we could get into our need to be in government?' I have dealt with that and I minds a clearer picture of what the roles of politicians have dealt with the fourth estate. I think, Mr Chairman, I should be, then there would be even less demand for can stop there and if I can answer any questions I will be politicians in government departments. pleased to do so. Just picking up the question of the impact of the ministerial system on this question of scrutiny of The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr Quine. First can I government, basically, there is no other element within just ask you to clarify when you first became member for our parliamentary structure that can provide, in an the House of Keys? organised way with the resources that are necessary, the research that is necessary to effectively come forward and Mr Quine: In 1986. put onto the floor of Tynwald either the product of detailed scrutiny of government policies and activities; individually The Speaker: That is fine. Just one issue that you have we pick up bits and pieces and run with it and we have not covered that is in your written submission which I think select committees occasionally which look at particular it might be helpful if you could just expand slightly on, aspects but, as a standing mechanism, the nearest we have and that is that you mention that both the chairman and got is the Public Accounts Committee which, I would vice-chairman should be members of the House of Keys - suggest, is quite inadequate in terms of that: Neither do (Mr Quine: Yes.) in other words, by principle, and not we have single entity which has the capability, the resource, from the Legislative Council. Could I just ask you to maybe the wherewithal to say, 'Yes, we know government are expand a bit on that? suggesting this policy, going this way, but we have researched this and we believe this is a viable alternative Mr Quine: Yes, it is a very simplistic view, really: I to that.' It is a catch - can situation for politicians here. We feel that if we are talking about a body that is going to be might strike gold, we might not gold but, more often than scrutinising government activities, then it is important that not, if they do strike gold it will be on their own because it has what I would term 'democratic legitimacy' - that is, they are not organised to provide that counterweight. they be properly elected - simple as that. So, as I said, I believe that PAC is, as an entity, certainly essential to the parliamentary process, but in terms of The Speaker: You do not see any restriction on the specific products it has produced some individual, excellent other membership? products; I am quite happy with that But in terms of meeting the total need, then I think it falls far short through Mr Quine: You are well aware I have views on the this issue of the availability of members,• and I have upper House but, no, given the framework that we now demonstrated in my paper quite recently when we started have I do not see a restriction beyond that. off looking for two days to take evidence - and I see Mr Gelling nodding his head because he is aware of some of The Speaker: Thank you. I am just checking my notes this - and we ended up having to spread it over literally and I just wanted to check something with you. As far as two months before we could get members together because the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, I just really of the commitments that they had in other areas over this wanted to maybe get clear from you: you explained that period of time. you feel the Public Accounts Committee as presently set
23 up with its remit is relatively limited in what it can do. of the Public Accounts Committee and the vice-chairman, Could I ask, though, in your time since 1994 as a member and I do not think that would involve a great deal of from what you indicated of the Public Accounts conflict. Committee, have you actually witnessed an inability by the Public Accounts Committee to actually investigate an The Speaker: Is there not a potential danger, though, issue effectively? that if you have the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Public Accounts coming after the election of what is Mr Quine: Yes, not in the sense that if an important seen as the main part of the structure, potentially you could issue came before it they would turn it down, but in the have a disillusioned/frustrated politician who did not get a sense that there are issues coming forward or being position they may like to have got and then saying 'I want identified by members all the time, and the Public Accounts to be Public Accounts or -'? Committee have to take a pragmatic view on those. They will say, 'There are six here; we will deal with (a) and (b)' Mr Quine: If you did, it would be the will of Tynwald and then they may revert to that list later on. In that sense that brought it about and I do not think we could question they are inhibited, and in the sense that they do not go out that. and cultivate. . . I think that quite clearly there is a recognition within the Public Accounts Committee that The Speaker: But do you not feel, if we were going they have a limited capacity. down a road where the chairman and vice-chairman were not going to be members of departments, they should make The Speaker: And the Public Accounts Committee, as that known before the Chief Minister and the ministers and when it requires any sort of support in terms of are put into position? Otherwise is there not a danger of specialists et cetera, obtains that? There is no problem with them saying afterwards, 'Well, if I cannot be there I will that? be in this position'?
Mr Quine: No, well, there is a problem in terms of the Mr Quine: Well, you could say that in relation to funding of that which may or may not be resolved, and various decisions, really. you are aware of the particular issue. But as a matter or principle, there is nothing to stop the Public Accounts going The Speaker: But it is a conscious decision difference, out and saying, 'We will hire somebody to do this task for isn't it? us', and the Public Accounts do that. That tends to generate more work for the Public Accounts; It is not a substitute Mr Quine: That is right, it is a question of six of this for the work of Public Accounts because if, for example, and half a dozen of the other. I do not see any serious risk you have got an individual specialist who may be servicing attached to that. At the end of the day, if there is a the Public Accounts in relation to, let us say, the new disgruntled individual who has lost out on the core of the hospital, when he comes back with a report he will be ministerial stakes, he is not going to be appointed chairman identifying matters which will have to be gone into by the or vice-chairman unless it is clearly the will of Tynwald Public Accounts Committee. That tends to feed and that he should perform that duty, and they will pass generate more work for the Public Accounts Committee, judgement upon that. but you have got to do it because there is no in-house facility, and I think, to be realistic when you are dealing The Speaker: Except the difference is that they would with specialist knowledge, which is quite often the case, have to be personally who is willing to indicate they are we will always have to outsort that sort of exercise. not wishing to be on a department of government, based on the motion. The Speaker: You indicated in your letter of 10th March 2002, that the members of the Public Accounts Committee Mr Quine: Well, based on the motion before us, yes, should be elected after the election of a Speaker, which is that is right. parliamentary clearly, the Chief Minister, ministers of the executive government. You indicated that you felt the The Speaker: It is that aspect I am just trying to get election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Public clear today - Accounts Committee should come after that- because government should have a strong government. Mr Quine: I have also brought in part (3) of the motion recognising that there is an issue of remuneration, because Mr Quine: Yes, I think it is important. We have a very not all members would want to forgo that remuneration. small legislature, we have to exist and compete in a very competitive world, and I think it is important that we allow The Speaker: That is fine, thank you. Mr Rimington? the administration to put together a pretty strong team and so I have suggested, as a matter for, no doubt, considerable Mr Rimington: You say in your letter that there is a debate, that we should, after the Speaker, elect our Chief perception, if not the reality, of a single party system of Minister, as we do, and then put the ministerial team government, i.e. that executive government is seen as a together - I think the ministerial team is too large, but that party. Would you comment, then, on the idea that if there is another issue - and then we go on to look at the Chairman was a standing committee of Tynwald - namely the Public
24 Accounts Committee - with a full-time chairman and vice- anyway. I am not commenting on how it functions, but chairman, if not other members and with the remit that they have got a fairly complete system of scrutiny there, you are proposing or - but they are seeking to look at that afresh.
Mr Quine: Which we have. Mr Rimington: What the UK is doing in extending their system of scrutiny and select committees and so forth Mr Rimington: - well, from a resource looking at not is the historical role of the Public Accounts Committee in only past expenditure but present policy, present the UK, which is looking at expenditure in the past and expenditure, future policy, future expenditure and virtually making judgements on how that has been done and anything that you care to look at, in the public mind there excludes policy in secondary legislation and so forth. is the perception that that is the other party in the party system? Mr Quine: That is right.
Mr Quine: Well, first of all I will make it clear, in all Mr Rimington: So in effect you would be renaming the matters you have mentioned are essentially covered the committee because you would prefer to see all these by the present remit so there is no change there. I have got matters in the Public Accounts Committee. the remit here and I am sure you have got it in front of you. They can look at matters now since the last change Mr Quine: We have already renamed the Public and, in accordance with the approval in principle by Accounts Committee going back to three or four years ago Tynwald, they can look at these other matters, the issue at now when we broadened the role of the Public Accounts Committee to allow it to get involved in policy and future the moment being that we do not have the capacity to look activities of government. So we have already done that at it, and this is just a small step in addressing that issue of and it has been suggested in the past - it was suggested at no, coming to the substance of your question, capacity. But, that time before Tynwald took that decision - that an I do not think there would be any real ground for trying to alternative would be to have two committees, one looking draw a line of comparison between the Council of Ministers at the accounts side of it, which really is not a very on the one hand and a Public Accounts Committee on the productive exercise, and another committee which would other in the sense that that is the second party, for the very be the scrutiny committee, but it was decided, of course, simple reason that if you are talking for the Council of that we should just amend the Public Accounts Committee Ministers you are talking about people who have been and let them continue with both functions, but broaden selected by one individual, the Chief Minister, who has the actual remit. put his team together. That is quite clear and distinct. If you are talking about the Public Accounts Committee you Mr Rimington: My very last question is: at the bottom are talking about Tynwald having expressed a will as to of the second page of your letter you say 'Excluding the which people should perform particular functions on behalf chairman and vice-chairman from positions in government of Tynwald. I do not think there is a line of 'comparison. would strengthen the impartiality of the committee', so therefore there is a conversant to that, that there is a Mr Rimington: And secondly, you talk about the partiality somewhere? checks and balances, and that in the UK the opposition party or parties provide a strident scrutiny government Mr Quine: At the moment? which has no Island equivalent if you except that we do not have any parties, do not those parties also provide Mr Rimington: If you can strengthen the impartiality something else besides scrutiny? there is the suspicion of partiality.
Mr Quine: Oh, I am only addressing it from the point Mr Quine: Yes, from the point of view that if you are of view of to what extent they enter the equation for going to say in the future these two people are not going to scrutiny. Political parties have quite different objectives have any other government obligations and are going to over and above that, but I am not suggesting that we have be solely dealing with this function, by implication that is a political party here, I am just pointing out that on the going to strengthen their impartiality. If they were to remain scale of things, at the moment in terms of scrutiny, by with government or to take on other government functions, drawing this line of comparison with the UK we do not then of course I think the equation would have been quite have anything like the degree of scrutiny which exists in different. So I believe that if you separate them, if you these other places, and in terms of the UK - you have keep them away from government, you are strengthening probably got this already - as part of the modernisation of the impartiality, but equally important - the House of Commons, they are seeking now to further strengthen that scrutiny. The object of any programme must Mr Rimington: Don't you see a contradiction in terms be to enhance authority, to lead national debate on there, for a politician to be impartial? important political issues and to improve the capacity of the chamber and committees to scrutinise government in Mr Quine: Well, speaking for myself, no! (Laughter) its executive actions and in its legislation, so they are Mr Rimington has put we off my remark I was going to seeking now to further strengthen that, although my reading say! Sorry, but I have forgotten it. No, I do not see that of it is that they have got a pretty good, complete system that is really an issue.
25 The Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Mr Gelling. that one of the ways in which our legislature could compensate for some of the functions that are presently Mr Gelling: Can I just confirm something at the end - performed, the Legislative Council, was to have this pre- you just repeated it there? `No other obligations,' you said, scrutiny and the position in New Zealand was cited there, these two people, 'No other obligations', and I read with that they have this pre-scrutiny, and I think that could be interest the paragraph where you said about the difficulty built into this too, but that goes beyond what I am in getting people together, and I appreciate that the suggesting here. I learned a long time ago that things have chairman, the vice-chairman were not in any other part of to move along relatively slowly and evolve if you are going government, it would only leave four to have to get a date. to move things. Now, I can understand that, but for those four still to get a date is going to be difficult because of their other Mr Gelling: Yes, but, through you, Mr Speaker, I was obligations. Now, when you said 'No other obligations,' trying to find out what really was his ultimate aim! can I then confirm that the chairman and the vice-chairman, as you see it and as you propose, would not even be Mr Quine: I think it is fairly clear, I am sure on the associated with, on a committee, or chairman of any other floor of Tynwald people know where I am coming from, parliamentary committee -? but I think it is a matter of an objective assessment as it always will be with select committees, of the facts are put Mr Quine: No, I am talking about government. before them. Just one thing further from the point where when Mr Mr Gelling: Right. Rimington cut me off and I lost my train of thought: one of the advantages of having the chairman and the vice- Mr Quine: If it was a parliamentary exercise, it is a chairman not tied up with' government is, of course, this - parliamentary exercise - I think most of you understand this arrangement within the PAC: there is a quorum set for the PAC, it is a quorum Mr Gelling: It is just that one of the greatest difficulties of three and, in order to try and cover the ground better I have got - it is not executive, it is all the parliamentary than we have in the past, for a number of years back now, committees that my colleagues were very kind and voted three or four years back probably, we started to work on a me onto and I cannot get them all fitted in, so that was more regular basis a committee system so we divide into what I just wanted to - teams of three to do a lot of the work - not all the work, but for a lot of the work - and of course the full committee still Mr Quine: Well, that was the vote of confidence in sits and has the final decision on these matters. So if you you. recognise that that is the way that it works, if you have got your two team leaders available, then quite clearly the Mr Gelling: Absolutely, yes. So that was really the first prospect of getting getting the smaller team together is one. So it is purely governmental departments? going to be enhanced to that extent. So it would help in getting your teams up and running because of the way that Mr Quine: Yes. we work with those two teams, because the team leader does not stay with just members A and B; the team leader Mr Gelling: I was extremely interested in your may be handling two or three investigations, and he will observation on the fourth, you said, the media scrutiny, have different members working with him, or it could be because this is something which again is not just exercising different members with different investigations, but some minds of us here in the Isle of Man. I think the whole scene of the members could be struck out by virtue of the fact is changing whereby even members representing a party that they may have an interest in that particular subject. now do not represent the party line: 'I am not a So the practicalities and advantages of this, I think, are not Conservative' or 'I am not a Labour man' because there is insignificant. not any such thing. People are going back now to electing the individual to do what they think will be a good job for The Speaker: Right. Just one question I have asked them. Do you then see pre-scrutiny? In other words, I am everybody as members of the House of Keys, Mr Quine: just trying to get this bigger picture that we now have have you ever felt, because of your involvement in Tynwald and we have Keys and then we have Public government and so on, beholden to anyone? Accounts or whatever after - right? But there is a system whereby, of course, they have the pre-scrutiny and it goes Mr Quine: It does not come naturally to me! I have to a committee before it goes into parliament, and the only had to exclude myself, as we all would, if we have a reason for that is because of the non-scrutiny of members, commitment in which clearly there is a conflict of interest, actually. I just wondered how you see that. we are going to exclude ourselves from those exercises, and I think we have all done this, so to that extent there is Mr Quine: Yes, that is one of the reasons for it. This potentially this capacity for us to come into conflict and was raised, of course, this is essentially the New Zealand be beholden, but I thinkmost politicians will have sufficient system, and you will recollect that, I think it was, in a political nous to declare interest and move around those select committee report this was raised. Oh, I think it was situations. But the potential is there; there is no denying to do with the Legislative Council, and it was said there that the potential is there. -
26 The Speaker: So again, just to follow on that, as a it is not necessary for all members of the legislature to member of the executive government at one stage and as a have positions in departments of government or statutory member of government now, have you found yourself boards; and (2) consideration should be given to whether inhibited in any way in terms of doing your parliamentary the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on work? Expenditure and Public Accounts should not have positions in departments or statutory boards' and the third part of Mr Quine: In the role of PAC? the resolution was the setting up of this committee and the procedures for reporting back. So as we have no written The Speaker: Yes, absolutely. evidence, clearly it is an opportunity for you to put your points of view and your evidence to the committee, Mr Mr Quine: Oh, yes, there have been investigations in Shimmin, so over to you. the PAC which I had to stay away from because I had had a past interest. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I firstly apologise to the committee? With my new role as a minister The Speaker: Right, you only stayed away from the and various floods, et cetera, this committee and the investigations as a PAC member? reference to write passed me by. I therefore heard last week that there was public evidence being taken and I Mr Quine: Yes, yes. approached the Clerk of Tynwald to see if there would be another occasion on which I could come and give oral The Speaker: It has not stopped you from the other evidence or submit a late written letter. He made it clear side then maybe giving evidence if necessary? that he would ask whether I could come today, and I apologise for the late sitting but appreciate the opportunity. Mr Quine: Oh, no. I would still feel free to give I sit here as somebody who arrived in Tynwald just over evidence. five years ago and spent the last three-and-a-half years on the Public Accounts Committee and, like the member, Mr The Speaker: That is fine. Okay. Thank you, Mr Quine, Gelling, referring to during that time, I also had other I do not know if you want to add anything to wind up or if substantial parliamentary responsibilities, and so the you are content with what you have -? workload involved is one that I feel able to comment upon. Throughout the five years I had always had at least two Mr Quine: No, I think I have covered all the governmental responsibilities - either two government information I really sought to put in front of you. I do not departments or a government department and a statutory think there is anything else, but thank you for the board. On top of that, I was the only member who had opportunity to come here and provide the evidence. three substantive standing committees of Tynwald along with numerous select committees. The Public Accounts The Speaker: Okay, thank you very much, Mr Quine. Committee, for the three-and-a-half years that I was on it, I found lacked clarity and was a missed opportunity, and were I still on Public Accounts I would have been coming Evidence of Mr J P Shimmin forward with a view to try and re-evaluate the remit of that committee to try and make a more effective body. Everything in life evolves and over the years, although I The Speaker: Now we have the member for West am not a historian on this as well as the previous Douglas, or Douglas West as they call it, Mr Shimmin, contribution, we now have within this field a Value for who also advised that he wished to give evidence, and again Money Committee, Internal Audit, External Audit, Capital my apologies that we are a little bit behind but, as you will Projects, Treasury itself and Public Accounts. That is on appreciate, Mr Shimmin, it is a little bit difficult to be exact top of all the governmental, departmental work that is on timing. Would you like to take your chair and then we carried out, and I believe that we were losing sight of what will proceed from there? our primary purpose should have been within that committee. The area of resources, both of the members Mr Gelling: Sorry, Mr Shimmin, did we have a letter and their time availability, but also of the Clerk of from you? Tynwald's Office to service the committees and sub- committees, meant that it was very pressurised for all Mr Shimmin: No, you did not, Mr Gelling, my concerned, and when under that level of pressure I believe apologies. that there were missed opportunities to explore things in sufficient detail or that the investigations took longer than The Speaker: I was just going to go over that. We have they would have ideally done. I remember one on had no written evidence from Mr Shimmin, but he did pharmaceutical drugs took over two years from inception indicate to the Clerk that he wished to have the opportunity to actually reporting, and that inevitably means that much to give oral evidence which I was happy to arrange for of the report is then dated. this morning. Again, just to be clear on the remit of the I found that the ability to shadow governmental work committee, as you know, Tynwald resolved on Wednesday, which had been introduced into the Public Accounts remit 16th January 2002 that 'Tynwald is of the opinion that (I) is one which sounded theoretically very beneficial, in that
27 it might actually save the taxpayer money whilst the project For those of you who have not been on Public Accounts, was ongoing by identifying areas for improvement. The you are asked to review internal audit reports - not very most classic example of this was when the Public Accounts complex or detailed and as a useful means of overseeing Committee attempted to shadow the new hospital project, what Internal Audit are doing with regard to investigations and it became very clear that it was both an inefficient and into government departments. You are asked to look at inopportune way forward. It gave the appearance that the previous schemes of departments in order to see if lessons Public Accounts Committee was overseeing the hospital can be learned for the future, and again I think that is the project, yet the Public Accounts Committee were more historic purpose of Public Accounts and there is a periodically getting reports from the department operating role there for those issues that may be duplicated in future it, it was a duplication of work without the skills necessary and therefore, particularly on capital projects or areas where to really evaluate whether or not you could prevent any there are likely to be repeat incidents, I think that is a useful waste of taxpayers' money. If you are going to have a opportunity for Public Accounts to investigate. scrutiny committee that is shadowing what is going on I found towards the end of my time on Public Accounts within government departments, the reality is that there is that the greater dialogue between some of these bodies a great deal of duplication of the officers involved in that looking at audit trails and public accounts meant that you department, and to an extent it undermines the could identify areas that were of more substantial benefit responsibility and accountability of particularly the to the taxpayer and to the government. This was done in minister, the politicians and the chief officers of that liaison with Internal Audit, who identified a number of department whose responsibility it should be for overseeing areas; one I particularly remember was for consultancies each of those projects. For those people to attend Public issue where all government departments engaged Accounts gives a validity which I do not believe was consultants for a variety of reasons. Part of that is to maybe evident from the Public Accounts level of scrutiny. overcome the head count, with the capping level on the The issue of workload of members has been touched head count, but other parts of it are ones where the lack of upon, and I believe that the lack of a clear timetable, where expertise within a government department means that you parliamentary committees, I have always understood, bring somebody in from outside. should take primacy over governmental responsibilities, The same arises with consultancies on Public Accounts. is one which, were a timetable to be drafted some months What we are doing is investing an enormous amount of in advance, would be one where members would be able trust in the individual skills of one or two individuals, and to timetable their diaries around in the same way that we in order to get a consultant to look at the Pharmaceutical do with the House of Keys and Tynwald. I believe we have Drugs Bill, it is dangerous politically to assume that you gone past the stage where ad hoc coming together of have got the expert on the Island who is qualified and committees is a practical or an effective way forward. capable of fairly evaluating all the information contained The select committee that you now represent is asked from reports from the department and other expert views. to look at three items and, in reference to those, the first So I believe that the Public Accounts Committee were quite point I would strongly agree with is that it is not necessary rightly setting off down the road of investigating the level for all members of the legislature to have positions in of consultancies appointed by government, whether there departments of government or statutory boards. That is an was sufficient regard given to the appointment and the opportunity which is already available to the Chief Minister scrutiny of how we set the briefing and the budgets for in government and it is one where, at a personal level, I consultants, and I believe that that is still a useful operation question whether people's automatic election to office from for the Public Accounts Committee. the House of Keys or the Legislative Council gives them a As I have said, I believe that the shadowing of existing divine right to therefore take a governmental responsibility. government departments is not the best use of that So I would strongly defend the fact that it is not necessary particular type of committee. I think it is often one where for anybody to be in government: you are dependent upon the government department to The issue of chairman and vice-chairman not having provide the information, then decide whether they have positions and indeed much of the contribution from your done it appropriately. That in itself offers a lack of previous speaker, my friend and member of my department, confidence that you are getting all the information that Mr Quine, is one where in an ideal world I would agree, you require and you will continue to do what could be and his references to Westminster and the model there - in seen as a witchhunt for many, many weeks in order to elicit an ideal world I would agree, but in a legislature the size the information, thereby deflecting the officers of a of ours on a more practical basis I do not believe that that government department from what they should be doing, is able to be substantiated within the resources available representing and serving the public, to actually providing to the parliament of the Isle of Man. I believe that the information for a committee to see whether they have got opportunity for evolution in the future where members of it right. the Public Accounts Committee, both members and the The co-ordination of others who are already working chairman and vice-chairman - I would say yes, it is a job in this area, I think, would be a fairly simple step forward that could be worthwhile, could be beneficial and should where you avoid duplication of efforts but everybody is be remunerated. However, at a practical level I believe clear over the areas that are being investigated by Value that we can operate within the existing structure, only do for Money or Internal Audit or Capital Projects, and the it more efficiently. The implications are one where you Public Accounts liaison with those to determine who is look at the remit. the best body to evaluate it. We, indeed, passed all the
28 responsibility for shadowing the hospital project to Internal that if you were to expand to a role of six persons separate Audit on the grounds that they had accountants and experts from government departments, it would become a danger in that field who could evaluate the monthly expenditures that that would be the route down which mischievous in order to see whether it was an appropriate control of the investigations were prompted. Much of what we deal with moneys been spent. on the Isle of Man emanates from rumour and speculation In conclusion, I would say that the issue raised by Mr rather than fact and detail, and I think we would be Quine referring to the role and quality of politicians is one embroiling government departments with a level of which, again in an ideal world, I would agree with; bureaucracy and scrutiny which would actually restrict our however, democracy dictates that we have 24 people amounts of work we can do on behalf of the people. elected with the various interpretation of what their political role is, various abilities that they come into the House with, The Speaker: Right, then. Would you see that same and they will, as is evident, weekly in Question Time problem if two members were not part of government? choose to interpret the role of the politician in their own way, and it is their right to do so. As such, to dictate how Mr Shimmin: I fail to fully understand what those two politicians are going to perceive their role, I find, is members outside of government would actually be doing, something I would love to control but I do not think that is because they would still be working with four other a practical way forward. Likewise, Tynwald has the right members, I assume, from Public Accounts. Therefore, if to appoint the members of the Public Accounts Committee. they would not in any governmental role they would have It will determine who it thinks gives a fair and balanced an awful lot of time to fill and, by the normal historic representation on that committee, and if we can look at background, the chair and vice-chair of this committee are the remit and introduce greater resources to the Clerk of historically established and accomplished politicians and, Tynwald's Office, combined with greater co-ordination of as you might see yourself, Mr Speaker, it is somewhat people's diaries for some months in advance, I believe the frustrating at times when you are removing yourself from committee would quite quickly take on an improved and the cut and thrust of political and parliamentary debate, beneficial role. I believe Public Accounts in the eyes of and therefore you would have two really experienced politicians and offices of government is beginning to lose politicians with no other work to do other than to scrutinise its reputation for being a level of scrutiny on government, government. As much as that sounds attractive, I would and I think that needs to be enhanced. Other than that, Mr be tempted to think that it would be a charter to start delving Chairman, I would invite any questions from any of the and digging into things, and that sounds fine, but it is one panel. where it is almost looking for 'reds under the beds' as if there are cover-ups taking place within government and, The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr Shimmin, for that. from my experience, I find that is a nonsense and insulting Firstly, I would like to ask you to clarify your start in the to the officers we have working in government. Therefore, House of Keys. you can always scrutinise and investigate, but I think there should be some grounds on which that investigation Mr Shimmin: November 1996. actually commences.
The Speaker: Thank you. And just based on the points The Speaker: So potentially, really you could see if you made, I think part of what you said is right but I just the two members, the chairman and vice-chairman, were want to ask the question anyway, and that is whether you, to be the only ones on the Public Accounts Committee as part of your evidence is indicating, believe there is no who were not within government; you could see an adequate parliamentary scrutiny of government within our encouragement of the quorum of the Public Accounts being parliamentary system. Is that right? two, not three?
Mr Shimmin: I think it can always be improved. I think Mr Shimmin: I think it would be perceived as a conduit you have to look at the motives of that scrutiny. I think through which disaffected members of parliament or indeed you have to look at the lines of accountability for decisions members of the public would see that as a mechanism by that are taken by government. You have a Council of which they could introduce their own areas of concern, Ministers system where in theory the minister was meant and indeed in Public Accounts that happened on a fairly to become more accountable for the decisions and actions frequent basis where the members, particularly,- were of that government department. If we were to take that at raising with us that we should be investigating certain- face value, then I believe that it is beneficial that the aspects of government procedure. On those that we began minister is clearly the person who takes the responsibility, to investigate, we found that they were actually just as such a scrutiny committee would be able to look at the misunderstandings or mischievous, and I think that that decisions of that department and discuss with the minister would become potentially a conduit where whoever did the appropriateness of those decisions. not like a policy of a government department is not I would welcome greater scrutiny of what happens in concerned about the efficacy of carrying out that policy government departments. I believe that if you were to do but is actually using it to slow down a policy duly appointed that on every decision that was raised with Public Accounts by a government department and being carried out. One by various members you would find that many of those could, for example, cite the incinerator: there would be spurious, mischievous and with poor motives, and I think • numerous people who would wish to reinvestigate the role-
29 of the department in coming forward with the incinerator Mr Shimmin: I think, for clarity for the purposes of and, as somebody who has opposed that for the last four the record, I am not sure whether shadowing would be a years, it is one where, yes, I would like Public Accounts to true role for the Internal Audit Department. The Public investigate exactly what went on, but I think what you Accounts Committee appointed a consultant who was would do is end up log jamming government, continually visiting the site and doing reports for Public Accounts and, re-evaluating every decision it takes which is politically up to the end of my time, that was continuing so that he unpopular, and I think that that would actually slow down was giving the Public Accounts Committee an overview government even in areas that I would like to slow it down. of operations and performance of work on site. The difficulty was when each month or each two months the The Speaker: Right, okay. And could I just ask you, as department would submit large piles of financial data have asked everybody else as a member of the House: information which we had no resource within Clerk of have you found yourself beholden to anybody in terms of Tynwald's or in the committee to evaluate whether or not your work? this was proven useful spending of the money. Therefore, that was passed over to the responsibility where the Mr Shimmin: No, and I think that this again is one department gave it to the Treasury, the internal audit, and where, with a six-person Public Accounts Committee, there they could then compare month on month the actual is the opportunity at any time for people to express a view expenditure and make sure there were no headings which either because they are a member of a department or an were going out of control. area being investigated or because of their previouslyleld positions. If we start off from the position that we cannot Mr Gelling: So - through you, Mr Speaker, in other be independent in a jurisdiction of this size of parliament, words it would be fair to say that Internal Audit were then I do not think we would ever go forward. The tolerance looking at the monetary side but the consultant that was of individual members that we all hold.strong views on a engaged was reporting separately on the progression? Yes? number issues, yet we can sit in the same room and discuss that and other aspects, is one which does not cause me Mr Shinunin: Mainly on the building side and the timetable, and would be in consultation with operatives concern. There are members who have been fiercely from Bovis and from the department in order to identify if opposed on principle and personality and will combine there were any issues. forces when the political reason is there to share their views, and I think that within any Public Accounts Committee or Mr Gelling: So in some ways it was historic, which any sort of issue we have to have a level of trust that people was the old format of the PAC, but it was not historic in will absent themselves when appropriate or to express, as terms that the project is complete, and then you have a will happen in Council of Ministers, that you can no longer look at it; he was actually monitoring it as he was going follow a particular line because of your previously held along. views. Mr Shimmin: I think it highlighted the fact that all the The Speaker: So you have never felt inhibited when rules seemed to be telling us historically what had you have been a member of government? happened, advising us of what he was being told, and if there were anything untoward, what would we then do? Mr Shimmin: No, I think the issue then comes back to We would then contact the department, who were already the quality of the people. Some may consider themselves graphically aware of every issue and more than we were to be inhibited; others will find other ways of doing it, and aware of, and yet we were appearing to give some sort of I have always found that by being fairly quiet publicly I political sop that we were monitoring and in charge of this, can work with and discuss with ministers rather than doing and I think that is where the main deviation of my view of it at a higher political level. That does not mean that you Public Accounts came into question - that I think, unless are inhibited from challenging the Council of Ministers Public Accounts is seen to be impartial, is seen to be capable but you find other ways of potentially influencing them. I of a due level of scrutiny, then I think it undermines all of do not see any example or evidence within government or us because it gives a comfort which does not really in parliament of people who are beholden to others. I think potentially exist. that is a useful media or negative political line to imply that people are climbing greasy poles in order to have self- Mr Gelling: Okay. advancement. I do not see any evidence of that; in fact, I would almost argue the contrary. The Speaker: Mr Rimington?
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Shimrain. Mr Gelling? Mr Rimington: It is a conflict between the question and lunch . . . (Laughter) Mr Gelling: The hospital - you said that Internal Audit were shadowing that. Now, is there not a consultant who The Speaker: The question is more important! is actually shadowing this as well or is that consultant working for Internal Audit? I was under the impression he Mr Rimington: Well, one area which was implied when reported directly to the PAC. you were giving evidence about the different roles of
30 scrutiny of the Value for Money Committee and Internal Audit, External Audit, PAC - how much do you feel there Mr Tomlinson: I would just like to make a very short is a duplication of roles? statement. I do not want to delay you any longer than two minutes. Mr Shimmin: I think through pressure of the Public Accounts Committee to an extent, less so now than maybe The Speaker: The difficulty I have - and I have in the past. It struck me then, although this is still evolving, consulted with my colleagues - is that I would just clarify the Value for Money Committee is effectively getting it both Mr Shimmin and Mr Quine did in fact give earlier on the cheap, internal Audit has a professional notice - last week. albeit that Mr Shimmin had written responsibility to evaluate and has a rolling programme of evidence. My understanding is that it is not normal for a investigations that go on; External Audit, which was member of the public or, for that matter, a member of changed in the time I was on Public Accounts, did not Tynwald who attends such evidence meetings to actually seem to be in the loop at all and the areas that they were just ask at the meeting to give evidence to the committee. I did consult on that. scrutinising were ones which again were professional That is my understanding and think it would be difficult for us to say yes, on issues that were not politically relevant or influenced by Therefore I this occasion, clearly because that would set a precedent the Public Accounts Committee; Capital projects, which I for other committees. However, while accepting that, at a personal level believe has for some years substantially clearly we would be interested in any comments you do under-resourced again in Treasury, had the lion's share of have and I think, if you wish to put that in writing to us, responsibility for capital projects, and I think again this then we would clearly welcome that and we can give that shows the conflict that government departments are using consideration and we are happy to do that. If you can do Treasury and capital projects to validate their own that before Friday, then we will be pleased to receive that. departmental work and, if they have Treasury concurrence, I do apologise but I think it would be quite difficult for or fail to get Treasury concurrence, Treasury become the us to allow yourself; if there were another 20 people in whipping boys or the tacit approval, and I think we have here, the same principle would apply, I think, and we have to move away from that because it undermines the whole to take that on board. Okay, so thank you for attending. I role of government departments and ministers where it is hope you found it interesting. up to a government department to make its case and be responsible and Treasury are only authorising to spending Mr Tomlinson: It was very stimulating. public money or the capital projects is there as facilitator to try to ensure that it gives the extra expertise for schemes The Speaker: Okay, thank you very much. that government departments might not be well experienced in handling, but I do think that capital projects and Treasury too frequently are used inappropriately by government departments and, in the same way, I think Public Accounts was beginning to be inappropriately used by members of Tynwald to scrutinise their own pet projects. I do not know if I have answered your question.
Mr Rimington: Sort of.
Mr Shimmin: Would you like me to carry on?
Mr Rimington: No. (Laughter)
The Speaker: Okay, thank you, Mr Shimmin. Is there anything you wish to add finally or . . .?
Mr Shimmin: Only my thanks, and best of luck.
The Speaker: And our apologies again for keeping you so long after the time. Unfortunately that is the way it goes.
Mr Shimmin: I think I should apologise.
The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Shimmin. Now, I have received representation from Mr Tomlinson who has been sitting there listening patiently this morning, indicating that he would like the opportunity to give evidence.
31
APPENDIX 4
Public Notice inviting members of the public to submit evidence and replies received
SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
In January 2002 Tynwald established this Committee to look into the position of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts. The Committee welcomes the views of members of the public on whether or not the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts should also be eligible to hold positions as members of Government departments and Statutory Boards as at present.
Any member of the public who wishes to submit written evidence is invited to do so by 5.00 pm on Tuesday, 30th April 2002.
Written evidence should be submitted to Malachy Cornwell-Kelly at the address below.
Malachy Cornwell-Kelly Clerk of Tynwald Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings, Douglas Isle of Man IM13PW
INF TO: Classified Advertising Section
Could you please insert the above in the Public Notices section of the next issue of the Courier and Independent newspapers. Please invoice Clerk of Tynwald, Clerk of Tynwald's Office, Legislative Buildings, Douglas.
If there are any queries please contact Mrs Maureen Gray on 685502.
V.. be-4f ri-lr' 614L- Nri ki L ‘ ISA-LICLA14r pas 1-M 1 PA ? vs! VD^& 111,4 el%1
11- out- 61-.
V
fiqiu.ow4Afk_
blaut-- it eXt zi QN-Letr4.4, gar 16-vi tuo-duk- f ry 1644,- (74111-p-tatiS 5 .
12,44k4AX 1641, %sale ,„x Der Lif 1.0,e),_ \fee' gek-'511 ok- 1.4°16.
1et4,14 2,k,,IIAAL "14 RuL;Stel et:krel ti-ojr 1,1 A411/4. pit for" E-Letk, i. Lukievi It‹) r4Lk C 141-1•11-131.
I ill tst Er‘a ikkfitvl Loa*, »12_ t)qcd-kek.
1.40145 6,2hocra)cti 1,ra-044 /1-00 )1"i"11-;-•
LL:K.4).-- Pro 1,4.3 Uttc- )2AAA.ZLei3C‘tet:-. t;„rdy...oto, 4.45z4Ad, " tG +1-15-1/ a% 401 .
ONR- ef 1#41 rug ("j +e (10.0./e/Ji 4etv" atr.so, 4;(s1 waltira%:. 4/1LA. i.s.4 4Kt tirtmi_03, },(%citm
f1,4 Lt tel, 0,1. (N5 LAsk..1%... ch.,41t- 0"-iv•tterl -144td‘utkArt- %AKA. ›re-LeA4
Uk" 6kolu f.xt- sux.— stu,s ko Ltvie crtr jaip•SkeNtl Sex,/ 0, Co,iv:Ast.t. efft_OCiALe 0.ctr 0-5 Lo&JC(1--cli v eget -r re./..., k tr-146 w-e,,-Lers.
(t. t;" 11446"k ("Aka 1Y Lie"- to b2 clsolokAu4 da-ihritwo2,-rox bk-SL
(4,./Utalritt4t- ektit 1G-11 clPe-- Arc eleAteh- r#027^171trfk-W _6 or.- 0.1e_ ap41 env" {his ifewi-`9 tk6Ar /4 fta"41, siLr0-6, k ek.,) .
, /rkis w er-t_ eiusbre404- as a titurpie- - gLav:11- rif,e4-30.re- tsuarcis cto_Ilfkelb.La at 4*3 L4,;e(tt.ky4L6.A-- Co-v...*:t2Cet.
(k ai s o (fail" mgr :,estiiii-uiv1/45 ark- Impitimulk- 1) a.1(14 cal 66- Q.AO t.f.k tres itteretdro.exis kv
iftlx-Jraul r
(1.5. fiqs AkAtiA atztata-is at. 3aleAt. p-eervt a.A4i- AL' tti AbIPAANalla-' p44.91 19 .t5t4-vi,..
( kW rk Kt/ k curia Vcref af4-- (MX eb-rte04--* SI-eLtst Kt"— Front Ms N Matthews -Sat rLett Tau"Lis Road Dou.gLas !sit of Maw 1m2
To maLaoho aorvi.weLL-Kelio cLerie. o&wad Legistative E44111;41.4,66jg DOUSUS. IM13PW
Date 30/04/02
messase Submission for Public Spending Watchdog
Should the public accounts committee hold any government or statutory board role? I am a taxpayer and wish to submit my view.
Government is a service and should be accountable to its customers in the same way as businesses regulated by the financial services acts. It is self evident that you need a totally independent auditor to ensure that taxpayers get value for money. ENRON through a labyrinthine scheme avoided auditor scrutiny. We as a small nation where the business of government is so complex, secretive and unaccountable encourage ENRONic behavior to thrive here.
Politics, nepotism and cronyism dictate and interfere with what should have be a meritocratic democratic process. This was evident in the process of choosing a head of DHSS,a director of education ,clerk of Tywald and aTT compere. Half of the IOM budget (a staggering half a billion pounds) is managed by one seemingly unqualified, unelected and unimpeachable native. Her record of competence is appalling..
Hospital medical staff who should be in control are treated with disregard. Before the last election, a DHSS full-page ad declared that there was no dental crisis. Now officials admit that there is.(lt will now cost me £100 for just a private semi-annual family check up.!) Management of the new hospital construction has been so inept as to beggar belief. Rumour has it that it won't be as good as the present one. Foundations of the new hospital are faulty and have to be added afterwards at great expense.
There are no ongoing checks and balances of government and auditing on behalf of the public. Instead enquiries are held often years after the fact. Circumstances have changed by then and no one is held accountable. Presently we have a one million pound wreck cluttering our harbour and an inquiry about an earlier inquiry into the Mount Murray houses. The IRIS project will require us taxpayers to foot an annual electric bill for pumping sewage uphill. Rumoured cost is £1 million! a year. Then only part of the islands homes will be served.
I can't understand why you are asking the public for an opinion about a public watchdog. This ancient parliament isn't democratic and we don't have any rights as shareholders in the business of government. The most important decisions are made in secret by the Council of Ministers. .My MHKs are silenced by their positions in government, . With all the layers and expense of government I resent being disenfranchised. I've seen little evidence that politicians are truly interested in open accountable government. rvion, tviay 21JUZ pn From: Andrew Jessopp
Mr Cornwall-Kelly, Clerk of Tynwald
If you are still accepting public comments on the review of the 'make-up' of the Tynwald Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts then I would like you to bring this brief comment to the notice of the select committee.
I agree with those people that believe that members of this committee should not concurrently hold any other position in any other government department or on any board. If they are to properly scrutinise government spending, proposed and completed, then they need to be seen to be remote from the policy making decision - well as much as is possible considering they still get a vote in Tynwald. I would also be concerned that their former involvement in a project as a previous member of a dept. or board and private 'business' connections are properly declared (however tenuous) so that no potential conflicts of interest are overlooked. It has also been a concern of mine in the past that the CEPA has chosen not to investigate expenditure/spending by government, even though there is good cause to, because it might embarrass the current executive who have embarked on a scheme that is inappropriate/top grandiose but don't wish for it to be acknowledged. 'Independent backbenchers' may be more inclined to investigate some of these projects and hopefully the confidence of the public can be restored that the government doesn't waste money and get away with it.
Regards,
indrew Jessopp
Page 1 of APPENDIX 5 Analysis of Departmental and Statutory Board Replies Regarding Chairman and Vice Chairman of PAC
Department/Board Date Rcvd View Trade & Industry 03.04.02 No preference on whether PAC Chair or Vice-Chair should be excluded from Govt. posts, but given small size of Manx Hon A Downie MHK Parliament if were excluded may sometimes be hard to fill posts. IOM Post Office 03.04.02 Sees no problem in excluding Chair or Vice-Chair from Govt. posts. Authority Points out may be reform to position of Post Office Chair in future which could remove need for him/her to be a Member Mr E A Quine of Tynwald. MHK Office of Fair Trading 03.04.02 To exclude PAC Chair and Vice-Chair from Govt. would have no effect on Office of Fair Trading. Mr J R Houghton MHK Financial Supervision 03.04.02 Assuming govt. needed 25 people to fill posts, would still be sufficient to do so if PAC Chair and Vice-Chair were Commission excluded from Govt. Mr E A Crowe MLC Dept of Education 04.04.02 Chair and Vice-Chair of the PAC should not be members of Govt. Scrutiny of Govt. by Parliament is very important. Hon S C Rodan There would be no problem in finding sufficient Members to fill Govt. posts. MHK IOM Water Authority 12.04.02 Chair and Vice-Chair of PAC should be impartial - ideally all members of PAC should not be in Govt. but this may make Mrs B J Cannell it hard to find sufficient Members to fill Govt. posts. MHK Civil Service 17.04.02 Chair and Vice-Chair should be filled by the President and Speaker. Commission Mrs B Skillicorn Chief Minister 23.04.02 Would be possible to form a Govt, are enough other members available, but at what stage would PAC Chair and Vice- Hon R K Corkin Chair be elected? Would wish that this should happen only after administration formed. MHK
Dept Tourism 25.04.02 Content with current system but if Chair and Vice-Chair could not be members of Govt. would be agreeable. Hon D Cretney MHK Arts Council 29.04.02 Ideally Chair and Vice-Chair should not be Departmental Members, but given the small number of politicians this may Mr E G Lowey not be practical. MLC VERBAL REPLY Whitley Council 01.05.02 Does not wish to submit any comment on those eligible to be Chair or Vice-Chair of PAC. Mr G H Waft MLC
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF TYNWALD Legislative Buildings, Douglas, Isle of Man, British Isles, IM1 3PW
Our Ref: C/MPAC01/gmw
27th March 2002
Hon R K Corkill MHK Chief Minister Government Office Douglas Isle of Man
Dear Mr Corkill
Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
The Committee is now close to producing an Interim Report. Before it does so, it is anxious to gain the views of the various branches of Government on a recommendation it may be considering regarding those eligible to be Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts. The Committee may recommend that neither the Chairman or Vice Chairman should be members of Government. If this were so, would you consider it a difficulty to find sufficient Members of Tynwald to discharge the responsibilities presently discharged by such members? The Committee would be glad to hear your views on this matter as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Mr Phil Lo Bao Clerk to the Committee
Distribution: All Ministers Chairmen of Statutory Boards
Telephone: (01624) 685500 Email: [email protected] Fax: (01624) 685504 Department of Trade & Industry
Rheynn Dellal as Jeadys Illiam Dhone House 2 Circular Road, Douglas Alex F Downie, MIMgt FFB. MHI( Isle of Man, British Isles isle of Man Minister Government IMI 1PJ Rel.Vs lam Vann Telephone (01624) 685673 Fax (01624) 685683 E-mail: [email protected] Mr P Le Bao Clerk to the Committee 3rd April 2002 Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man
Dear Mr Le Bao
I am in receipt of your letter dated 27th March from the Select Committee on Public Accounts seeking my view as to whether the Chairman or Vice Chairman should be Members of Government.
There are a number of issues to be addressed:- I. Should the Committee recommend that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee not be Members of government departments there is the question of the Member's remuneration to consider and contribution towards their pension.
2. Many newer Members may not wish to serve in these positions on the Public Accounts Committee and opt for the more attractive options which encourage contact with public and business sectors, travel, and the higher profile of working in various government departments.
3. Most people get elected into main line politics with a view to 'getting things done'. This generally means becoming actively involved in various government departments and as more experience is gained, the opportunity to become Minister of a department.
4. Many Members would not have the background or be suited to the type of work carried out by the Public Accounts Committee and therefore recruitment could prove difficult.
5. Perhaps more consideration should be given for a greater involvement by Members of the Legislative Council who should have the experience and background required to occupy these positions.
I have no particular preference myself whether the Chair and Vice Chair are also Members of Government and can see both sides of the argument. But I do feel given the small size of our Parliament and the numbers involved there would be times when it would be difficult to find independent persons for these positions.
Yours sincerely
A F Downie, MIMgt FFB. Member of the House of Keys Your Ref: C/MPAC01/gmw Our Ref: REQ/ak
3 April, 2002
Mr P La Bao Clerk to the Committee Select Committee on Membership of the Committee On Expenditure and Public Accounts Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear 1)6.k • Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
I refer to your letter dated 27th March 2002. It is practice for the Chairman of the Post Office to also have a position in a Department, and there is no reason for this practice to change. An external report on the future organisation of the Post Office recommends that the Chairman should not be a Member of Tynwald. No decision has been taken by Council of Ministers in regard to this matter. Given this backdrop, the requirement to appoint a Member of Tynwald as Chairman of Post Office is not an obstacle to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the above Committee being excluded from Government. The Members of Post Office Board concur with these views. Yours sincerely
R E Quine MHK Chairman, Isle of Man Post Office cc Chief Executive Isle of Man Post Office L3GISL.7- 6:17\7 ISLE OF MAN IMI 3PW
Our Ref: JRH/jw 3rd April 2002 Phil Lo Bao Clerk Administrator Legislative Buildings Buck's Road Douglas Dear Phil Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts Thank you for your letter dated 27 March 2002. I confirm that any such decision taken in the circumstances as described will have no effect on the political operation of the Office of Fair Trading Yours sincerely
John R Houghton MHK k
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE BUILDINGS ISLE OF MAN 22 First Avenue Douglas Isle of Man IM2 6AZ
rd April 2002
Our Ref: 62.50
Mr Phil La Boo Clerk to the Committee Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear Mr Lo Boo
Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
Thank you for your letter of 27°' March addressed to me in my position as Chairman of the Financial Supervision Commission seeking my views on whether there would be sufficient Members of Tynwald to take on the chairmanship of Statutory Boards if. the Select Committee recommend that neither the Chairman or Vice Chairman should be members of Government.
The question is of course dependent upon how many Members of Tynwald wish to serve in future Governments. Currently, we have the situation where all of the thirty-one eligible Members serve, ten as Members of the Council of Ministers and five as Chairman of the Statutory Boards, [F5C, IPA, Fair Trading, Post Office and Water, (the MEA is not chaired by a Tynwald Member)). In the current situation there is therefore no difficulty in filling the posts of Chairpersons of Statutory Boards.
To look at the worst case we should consider the extreme scenario in which only seventeen Members of Tynwald agreed to serve in a Government. If we look at voting patterns any Government needs a minimum of seventeen Members to carry its policies through Tynwald, (bearing in mind that there are thirty-three voting members, including the Lord Bishop). In this example Government would consist of ten Members as Ministers and would have sufficient Members to act as Chairman of Statutory Boards. However, Departments would be severely depleted of Tynwald Members in such a scenario. In reality it would be very difficult for a Government to operate in such a situation as outlined.
In practical terms future Governments will consist of Members of Government prepared and willing to serve and those who prefer to stay out of Government for whatever reason. The position of filling Ministerial roles and Chairmanships of Statutory Boards will simply depend on the number of Members available in a range of seventeen to thirty- one. In my opinion, if Government is to work effectively it requires a minimum of twenty-five Members of Tynwald, participating as follows: -
Chief Minister 1 Nine Ministers 9 Eight Departments with one member other than the Ministers 8 Treasury with two members other than the Minister 2 Five Chairman of Statutory Boards 5
In conclusion, looking purely at the Committee's question from a numerical perspective, if two Members of Tynwald were to be appointed as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Public Accounts and Expenditure Committee and not to be available to serve in Government it would still leave sufficient Members of Tynwald available to act as Chairman of Statutory Boards.
Yours sincerely
A-7
Alan Crowe MLC Chairman of the Financial Supervision Commission DE RTIVi N OF. E DU CAT! C.) I •,!: Rheynn Ynsee
From the office of the Minister St George's Court Shirveishagh Ynsee Upper Church Street, Douglas Isle of Man, IM1 2SG isle of Man Hon. S. C. Rodan BSc(Hons), MR Pharm S., MHK Government Direct Dial No: (01624) 685801 ItyS Van VOISr.in Fax: (01624) 685845 Website: www.gov.im Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Minister/re/M.165
4 April 2002
Mr Phil Lo Bao Clerk to the Committee Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas IM1 3PW
Dear Mr Lo Bao
Re: Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts
Thank you for your letter of 27* March. I am being asked whether I "consider it a difficulty to find sufficient Members of Tynwald to discharge the responsibilities presently discharged by such Members" in the event that the people to be Chairman or Vice Chairman would not be members of Government.
I am afraid I have some difficulty understanding the question and am not sure exactly how far my views as a Government Minister are, in any case, relevant. I don't think there will be the slightest difficulty in finding sufficient Members of Tynwald to be Chairman or Vice Chairman of the CEPA, whether they are to be Members of Government or not. Whether those aspiring to these roles will be wholly suitable is another matter. It will be up to those doing the finding, but it is not clear from your letter who the finders are to be.
What will count as much as anything will be whether there will be any financial disadvantage to those members wanting these posts. I don't think there will be too many candidates if there is not the enhancement to basic IvIHK salary enjoyed by a Member of a Government department.
Personally, I do not think the Chairman or Vice Chairman ought to be Members of Government Departments at all. There should be a clearer separation of the Executive (of which any Government Department Member is, by definition, a member) and the processes of parliamentary scrutiny.
I think our Ministerial system of Government departments has developed very well over the past 15 years, and contributed to the Island's economic success. But there is an inherent deficiency, and that is the failure to develop effective checks and balances to executive power, especially when everyone already serves in the Executive in one capacity or other. Parliamentary scrutiny committees would help plug this hole - alternatively a beefed-up CEPA, which I am pleased to see is now being considered.
If your question means / Re: Select Committee on Membership of the committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts 14th April 2002
If your question means: do I consider that it would be difficult for me to find sufficient Members of Tynwald willing to take responsibility as members of Government — in my case Department of Education — then the answer is no. The work of being a Member of the Executive is as valuable and important for the good government of the Isle of Man as is the work of a member of parliament giving scrutiny to the workings of government, thus ensuring that the practice of "good government" is actually taking place to everyone's satisfaction!
Yours sincerely
Steve Rodan Minister for Education. Lr'E- 31S-1- 21:1r\ 71::
I CI 7 OF 3W
Ref: BJC/ak
12 April, 2002
Mr Phil Lo Bao Clerk to the Committee Select Committee on Membership of the PAC Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear Mr Lo Bao
Re: Select Committee on Membership of the Public Accounts Committee
Thank you for your letter of enquiry of 27 March 2002 with regard to the above and apologise for the lateness of my response.
I believe the Chairman and Vice Chairman should be totally impartial, indeed all Members of the PAC should be impartial and should be seen as such by the public. To this degree it would be inappropriate for such members to hold Department and/or other Chairmanships within Government, although I appreciate that applying this to all Members of PAC may prove difficult in finding sufficient other Members to fill any vacancies which may transpire. Although I have always advocated that each Department could operate effectively with Minister and one or two Members, not three or four as of present.
In addressing your specific question, though I do not think it would be difficult to acquire sufficient Members to discharge the responsibilities of the current Chair and Vice Chair, although I would envisage the Chairman of PAC would be very much missed as a colleague of mine on the DOT.
I hope this goes some way to enlighten you on my views in this regard.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Yours sincerely
Mrs B J Cannel' MI-IK Chairman, IOM Water Authority Civil Service Commission The Personnel Office Illiam Dhone House 2 Circular Road • Barranlys Shirveish y Reiltys Douglas 1 c. Isle of Man 41C\leTTIM t RtOtyr ie.,: 1. :14E' IM1 IPH Secretary Telephone: (01624) 685715 Mrs B Skillicom Fax: (01624) 685736 E-mail: PersonnelOffico@govirn
Mr P Lo Bao Our ref: GP60 Clerk Your ref: C/MPAC01/gmw Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts 17 April 2002 Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear Mr Lo Bao
At its meeting on 15 April 2002, the Civil Service Commission considered your letter of 27 March 2002.
The Commission held the view that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman posts of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts be filled by the President of Tynwald and Speaker of the House of Keys respectively. It is felt that such appointments to those posts would have the least impact of all Members of Tynwald.
I trust the foregoing is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Secretary Civil Service Commission isle of Man Government arleys THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER Oik yn Ard-shinvisbagh Tel No: (01624) 685702 CHIEF MINISTER: Government Office, Douglas Fax No: (01624) 685710 Hon R K Corkill, 13.Pharm. M.R.Pharrn.S. MI1K Isle of Man, 1M1 3PG email: chief,[email protected]
Our Ref: CM 4 22 April 2002
Mr Phil Lo Bao Clerk of Tynwald's Office Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS IM1 3PW
Dear ;'(-*
Thank you for your letter of March 27 regarding the Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
I remain of the view that the real problem of excluding Members of Tynwald from Government by election to the posts under consideration by the Committee, relates to the timing of other selection processes.
To directly answer the question in your letter; it would be possible to form a government as there are sufficient Members of Tynwald available, if only two are barred. However, at what stage do those two Members become elected to the Public Accounts Committee? I would hope that a newly formed Council of Ministers would have the opportunity to arrange with Tynwald Members, Departmental Memberships and responsibilities before any were removed from being eligible for a position in Government. I also remain concerned that the Public Accounts Committee should not become an adversarial opposition political grouping whose main purpose is to oppose Government Policy. The scrutiny of Government in delivering its policy is of course crucial, but I have seen no evidence of problems arising out of Members having certain Government departmental duties, being on the Public Accounts Committee. In terms of opposition to Government policy, I believe Tynwald sittings provide the proper public forum.
Yours sincerely,
Hon R K Corkill, B. Pharm. M.R. Pharm. S. MHK Chief Minister Lobao, Phil
From: Wilson, Christine (DTL) Sent: 25 April 2002 14:17. To: Lobao, Phil Subject: SELECT CTTEE.
Dear Mr. La Boa,
I write further to your recent correspondence to David Cretney regarding Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
Mr. Cretney has advised that he is content with the current system, although if a move was made to making the Chairman and Vice Chairman on Expenditure and Public Accounts non-members of Government, that he would understand and be agreeable to such.
Regards.
Chris Wilson Personal Secretary Dept. Tourism and Leisure Sea Terminal, Douglas ISLE OF MAN IM1 2RG.
Tel: 01624 686704 Fax: 01624 686709
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail transmission was sent, as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the contents of the information contained in this facsimile transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please call to arrange for the return of the documents to us. Thank you. The Personnel Office Illiam Dhone House 2 Circular Road Douglas Yn Oik Skinunee ZCt F45.-3 Isle of Man British Isles e of Man Chief Officer IM1 1PH Government Mrs B. Skillicorn Relays Egon Vaarti., Telephone: (01624) 685000 Fax: (01624) 685736 E-mail: Personneloffice@gov .im
Mr P Lo Bao Our ref: OF.60 Clerk Your ref: C/MPACOI/mlg Select Committee on Membership of the Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts 29 April 2002 Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas
Dear Mr Lo Bao
The Chairman of the Whitley Council for the Isle of Man Public Service (Manual Workers) has asked me to advise you that as the Council is a collective bargaining forum he would not wish to submit any comments in regard to those eligible for filling the positions of Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure and Public Accounts.
Yours sincerely
Secretary Employers' Side Whitley Council
APPENDIX 6 Public Accounts Committees or other Equivalent Committees in Other Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction PAC Party Audit No of Restrictions on Remit Remarks System Cttee Members Membership
None. Post hoc scrutiny of UK Yes Yes No 15 Chief Secretary to the expenditure Treasury usually a member No policy remit The matter of establishing a JERSEY No No No Public Accounts Committee is currently under consideration." As Jersey. GUERNSEY No No No No member of the Scottish Any accounts, reports, SCOTLAND No Yes Yes 7 Executive (minister or documents laid before junior minister) may serve Parliament concerning on the Audit Cttee financial control accounting auditing of public expenditure. No policy remit. No member of the Welsh Any accounts laid WALES No Yes Yes 11 Executive may serve on the before the Assembly. committee. Take evidence on behalf of UK PAC Chair and vice chair must Post Hoc scrutiny of ULSTER Yes Yes No 11 not be members of the public expenditure. same political party as the No policy remit. Finance Minister or junior Finance minister. No committee member can Post hoc scrutiny of EIRE Yes Yes No 12 also be a member of the public expenditure. Executive. No policy remit.
APPENDIX 7
Chart 1 Isle of Man Government Financial Controls Pre Budget Stages
March Treasury 3 year financial targets
Departmental review of policy/objectives/performance/priorities
1 July Review by Chief Minister Treasury Departmental Minister 1 Council of Ministers approval of financial targets and capital programme 1 October POLICY DOCUMENT For TYNWALD APPROVAL
4 Departmental Estimates' 1 Treasury Review of Estimates
March BUDGET For TYNWALD APPROVAL
Chart 2 Isle of Man Government Financial Controls Post Budget Stages
TYNWALD BUDGET APPROVAL (March) PAC
April to March Executive Expenditure -1------4.
Departmental Expenditure INTERNAL AUDIT L i a PAC i Departmental Internal Financial Controls VALUE FOR MONEY s COMMITTEE e
Supplementary Estimates Secondary Legislation Financial Motions Tynwald Approval Laid before Tynwald Tynwald Approval -41--
Ilr July
Unaudited Government Accounts 411-110. PAC laid before Tynwald
4, October
Audited Government Accounts 4111----Po. PAC laid before Tynwald
Notes: • Internal Audit seek to examine, evaluate and report on the adequacy of internal control throughout Government as a contribution to the proper use of resources. Its reports are sent to the PAC by informal agreement to assist the PAC in knowing what Internal Audit is doing and thereby prevent possible duplication of investigation.
• Treasury Value For Money Committee seeks to operate across Government to ensure value for money in the whole of government operations. By informal agreement its reports are also sent to the PAC again to inform the PAC of the areas it has been investigating and possibly therefore to avoid duplication.
• Neither Internal Audit or the Value for Money Committee are servants of Tynwald. Both are Executive bodies.
• The PAC may examine estimates and accounts at any of the stages in the above diagram. Chart 3
The Role of the PAC Within Government Financial Control (Summary)
Internal Audit Value for Money Committee Reports Reports 1 Liaison 1
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Consider unaudited and audited government Consider any papers on public expenditure finances once laid before Tynwald and Estimates laid before Tynwald and consider whether these could be carried out in a more economic way
REPORTS TO TYNWALD
APPENDIX 8
Posts in Government Currently Held by Members of Tynwald
Chief Minister: Hon R K Corkill MHK
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Minister Hon J Rimington MHK Member Mr P Karran MHK
Department of Education
Minister Hon S Rodan MHK Members Dr E J Mann MLC Mr Q Gill MI-11‹
Department of Health and Social Security
Minister Hon C Christian MLC Members Mr D Anderson MFIK Mrs H Hannan MHK Mr A Earnshaw MHK
Department of Home Affairs
Minister Hon R P Braidwood MHK Members Mr Q Gill MHK Mr J D Q Carman MHK
Department of Local Government and the Environment
Minister Hon P M Crowe MHK Members Mr R W Henderson MHK Mr A J Earnshaw MHK Mr J R Houghton MHK
Department of Tourism and Leisure
Minister Hon D C Cretney MHK Members Mr E G Lowey MLC Mr D F K Delaney MLC Mr G M Quayle MHK Department of Trade and Industry
Minister Hon A F Downie MHK Members Mr G M Quayle MHK Mr L I Singer MHK Mr A C Duggan MHK
Department of Transport
Minister Hon J P Shimmin MHK Members Mr J R Kniveton MLC Mr R E Quine MHK Mrs B J Cannell MHK
Department of the Treasury
Minister Hon A R Bell MHK Members Mr E A Crowe MLC Mr D J Gelling MHK Mr J N Radcliffe MLC
Civil Service Commission
Chairman Mr G H Waft MLC
Whitley Council
Chairman Mr G H Waft MLC Members Hon R P Braidwood MHK Mr E A Crowe MLC
Manx Heritage Foundation
Chairman The Hon J A Brown SHK Member Mr P Karran MHK •
Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading
Chairman Mr J R Houghton MHK Members Mrs B J Cannell MHK Mr G M Quayle MHK Financial Supervision Commission
Chairman Mr E A Crowe MLC (holds position as a Member of the Treasury)
Insurance and Pensions Authority
Chairman Mr J N Radcliffe MLC (holds position as a Member of the Treasury)
Isle of Man Water Authority
Chairman Mrs B J Cannel! iviliK
Isle of Man Post Office Authority
Chairman Mr R E Quine MHK
Parliamentary Copyright available from:
The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles June 2002 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail [email protected] Price: £6.80