PP 2019/0095 STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019: PETITIONS FOR REDRESS There shall be a Standing Orders Committee of the Court to carry out the duties imposed upon it by Standing Orders 6.8 and 9.1, and to make recommendations to the Court for the revision of Standing Orders. 6.8 (1) The person presiding under Standing Order 3.29 shall, on receipt of a Petition for Redress refer the petition to the Standing Orders Committee. (2) It shall be the duty of the Standing Orders Committee to examine every Petition for Redress to ascertain whether it is in order, and report to Tynwald. 9.1 (4) Any Member dissatisfied by a determination of the President may refer the principle of the issue involved to the Standing Orders Committee which shall report thereon to Tynwald. The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984. Committee Membership The Hon J P Watterson SHK (Chairman) (Rushen) The Hon S C Rodan OBE MLC (Vice Chairman) Mr D J Ashford MHK (Douglas North) Mr D C Cretney MLC Hon G D Cregeen MHK (Arbory, Castletown and Malew) Hon R K Harmer MHK (Glenfaba and Peel) Mr L L Hooper MHK (Ramsey) Mrs K Sharpe MLC Hon C C Thomas MHK (Douglas Central) Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW. Table of Contents I. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019 ................................................ 1 II. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS ............. 4 APPENDIX 1 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019: FULL TEXT................... 5 APPENDIX 2 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS: ANNOTATED LIST ...............................................................................................153 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2018 155 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2017 155 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2016 156 PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2015 159 To: The Hon Stephen Rodan OBE MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD FIRST REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2018-2019: PETITIONS FOR REDRESS I. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN 2019 1. The 25 Petitions for Redress reproduced at Appendix 1 were presented at Tynwald assembled at St John’s on 5th July 2019. We have considered these in the light of the relevant Standing Orders. 2. We note that all but three are in order. We continue to encourage petitioners to seek the advice of the Clerk of Tynwald in a timely fashion in order to ensure that their petitions comply with Standing Orders. We also draw attention to the revised Guidance for Potential Petitioners at Tynwald Hill (PP No 2017/0022) issued by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald in February 2017. 3. The petition of Mr Leonard Trevor Cowin in relation to the appointment of the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration and whether this was unlawful is not in order by reason of Standing Order 6.11(d), which provides that a Petition for Redress must not refer to any matter the substance of which has been determined by Tynwald in the current session. 4. The petition of Mr Alan Jones and others representing Peel Town Commissioners in relation to the actions of the registration officer in removing names from the electoral register is not in order because it is a matter which could have been referred to the High Court by way of Petition of Doleance. The petitioners note that they are time barred from making such a petition but Standing Order 6.11(c) refers to a specific case which could be adjudicated upon by the High Court unless the petition shows that it 1 was not reasonable to expect the petitioner to resort to the High Court. Running out of time does not justify using Tynwald to adjudicate on matters which are properly within the province of the High Court or other tribunal. 5. The petition of Mr Courtney Heading in relation to the HPV vaccine is not in order by reason of Standing Order 6.6(1), which provides that a Petition for Redress may be presented on behalf of a petitioner but that such authorisation shall appear on the petition. There is no such authorisation on the petition. 6. Our conclusions in respect of this year’s Petitions are set out in the following table: Petition of Committee’s finding Millie Blenkinsop-French: Choice and dignity in dying In order Mark Jason Cleator: Law of adverse possession In order Leonard Trevor Cowin: Appeals against Planning Committee In order decisions Leonard Trevor Cowin: Interested person status in planning In order matters Leonard Trevor Cowin: A report by the Tynwald In order Commissioner for Administration (Mr Cornwall-Kelly) Leonard Trevor Cowin: Demolition of Glenfaba House In order Leonard Trevor Cowin: Complaints procedures against In order Ministers etc. Leonard Trevor Cowin: Appointment of the current Tynwald Not in order Commissioner for Administration Peter Dawson: Horse tramway In order 2 Paula Gerrard: Provision for those in the IQ 70+ In order category Courtenay Heading: HPV Vaccine Not in order Stefanie Elizabeth Kerwin: Wireless radiation In order Simon Edgar Mann: Funding and provision of urgent In order medical services in the community Simon Edgar Mann: Isle of Man Health Service In order Independent Review Body Simon Edgar Mann: Standing Orders of Tynwald In order Terence Anthony Miles and Reform of the law relating to welfare In order Heather Hazel Miles: of grandchildren Craig Morris: Provision for ME sufferers In order Michael Anthony Ashley Prosecution of motoring offences In order Osborne: Peel Town Commissioners: Electoral Register Not in order Daniel Richardson: Low impact sustainable living In order solutions Dorothy Salmon and Philip Code of Conduct for Public Servants In order Salmon: Petra Trudi Stetina: 5G technology In order Lee-Anne Elizabeth Taylor: Reform of the law on sexual offences In order Henry George Martin Renewable energy In order Uniacke: David John Watts: Academic performance in schools In order 3 II. PETITIONS FOR REDRESS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS 7. At Appendix 2 is an annotated list of the Petitions for Redress presented in the previous four years going back to 2015. Under Standing Order 6.12 those which are in order and which have not been the subject of a resolution may still be picked up by a Member. J P Watterson S C Rodan D J Ashford D C Cretney G D Cregeen R K Harmer L L Hooper K Sharpe CC Thomas 7th July 2019 4 Appendix 1 Petitions for Redress presented in 2019: full text 5 6 [Signed by M E Blenkinsop-French] 7 8 IN TYNWALD 5th July 2019 To the Honourable Members of the Tynwald Court The humble petition of Mark Jason Cleator Lyonville Stuggadhoo Marown Isle of Man IM4 2AJ Sheweth that Whereas the Manx Government, in failing to adopt The Land Registration Act 2002 as enacted by the UK Government has enabled vexatious and regular application of the law known as Adverse Possession (the occupation of land to which another person has title with the intention of possessing it as one's own), resulting in the legalised theft of land. As demonstrated below, in 1984 the Isle of Man Attorney General concluded that the limitation period for land applies equally to land which is the subject of a trust. The Manx Government, by accepting this opinion without performing further checks as to wider implications (through considering the position of the adjacent Isle or any of the other common law jurisdictions) did fail to ensure the fairness of the relevant Acts of Tynwald. An Act of Tynwald, which enables a person to claim Adverse Possession of land held under a trust, against a life tenant who is not factually in possession of the land, is simply wrong. Similarly, an Act of Tynwald which enables the confiscation of land held in trust on behalf of children or others using Adverse Possession, by implying that the limitation period has run even before the children or others had actually taken possession of their property is also clearly injudicious and in want of reform. The Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984 has allowed just such situations to arise, and this has enabled the theft of property from rightful owners or their heirs and assigns. It is not possible to protect the assets and interests of said persons and consequentially their rightful property is stolen with the Isle of Man Government's agreement and consent. The failure of the Isle of Man Government to ensure the protection of the Manx people has and will continue to lead to property of rightful owners being acquired by others through the use of such Acts of Tynwald and the Manx Courts. It is also the case that as the UK law, which prevents the adverse possession of land which is held in trust does not apply on the Isle of Man, such omission is causing clear and continuous hardship. In addition, Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Court of Human Rights states that "every person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property".