LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Volume 125, No. 12
199 C125
ISSN 1742-2272
L E G I S LAT I V E C O U N C I L
OFFICIAL REPORT
RECORTYS OIKOIL
Y C H O O N C E I L S LAT T Y S S A G H
PROCEEDINGS
D AA LT Y N
(HANSARD)
Douglas, Tuesday, 26th February 2008
Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. © Court of Tynwald, 2008
Printed by The Copy Shop Limited, 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man
Price Band B
200 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Present:
The Hon. President of the Council (The Hon. N Q Cringle, OBE)
The Attorney General (Mr W J H Corlett QC),
Mr D Butt, Mrs C M Christian, Mr E A Crowe, Mrs P M Crowe, Mr A F Downie,
Mr E G Lowey, Mr J R Turner and Mr G H Waft,
with Mr J King, Clerk of the Council.
Business transacted
Page
Orders of the Day
1. Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved ................................................................................................201
2. Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried .........................209
Quorum of the Council – Motion lost – Date of next sitting decided...............................................................................215
Good wishes to retiring Members: Mr Lowey; Mrs Christian; Mrs Crowe; and Mr Turner ............................................218
The Council adjourned at 12.35 p.m.
All published Official Reports can be accessed on the Tynwald website
www.tynwald.org.im
Official Papers/Hansards – please select a year
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Legislative Council
The Council met at 10.30 a.m.
[MR PRESIDENT in the Chair]
PRAYERS
The Chaplain of the House of Keys
Orders of the Day
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill
Third Reading approved
1. Mr Downie to move:
That the Income Tax (Pensions) Bill be now read a third
time and do pass.
The President: Hon. Members, no apologies this
morning, so we turn straight to our Order Paper, Hon.
Members. Item 1 is the Income Tax (Pensions) Bill. The
question is, Hon. Members, for Third Reading.
So, Income Tax (Pensions) Bill for Third Reading: Mr
Downie.
Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President.
Before I begin the Third Reading of the Bill, I would like
to advise Members that I have circulated a memorandum
which gives, quite clearly, the definition of a ‘dependant’. I
did promise to do that.
I would also like to clear up the matter regarding clause
17, which arose within the committee stage.
Clause 17 is a subsection for section 50B of the Income
Tax Act 1970. Section 50B was originally inserted into
the 1970 Act by section 8 of the Income Tax Act 1995 and
introduced international occupational pensions into the
Island’s legislation. Clause 17 is almost a direct lift of the
old section 50B, but with international personal pension
plans included.
Tax neutrality of international pension arrangements, here
in the Isle of Man, allows significant benefit to employers
and members using these schemes, but the restrictions
already imposed on the Assessor under subsection (3) and
the reporting requirements to the Insurance and Pensions
Authority, under the Retirement Benefit Schemes Act 2000,
already tightly control this area of Manx law.
Mr President, the original section 50B(6) provides for
the Treasury to make regulations restricting the Assessor’s
power. Currently, there is no requirement for these
regulations to be approved by Tynwald. As a matter of fact,
no regulations have ever been made under this section in the
past 13 years and, whilst future regulation may be required,
none is envisaged at this time.
It is not uncommon for there to be legislation where
201 C125
regulations do not require Tynwald approval. Whilst this
may have been an acceptable practice in the past, it is not
acceptable today. When regulations are made by the Treasury
that do not require Tynwald approval, the regulations will be
laid before Tynwald with a motion to approve, and I want to
make that absolutely clear for Hansard.
This policy can already be seen to be working in respect,
for instance, of income tax extra-statutory concessions: in
the past, they may have been agreed and published by the
Treasury; now they are laid before Tynwald with a motion
to approve.
The two extra-statutory concessions in respect of
pensions that were issued by the Treasury in June last year are
a prime example. Both of these were approved by Tynwald
and are now brought within primary law by this Bill.
Mr President, I can confirm the Treasury position is
that regulations made under section 50B will be laid before
Tynwald with a motion to approve. It was debated at our last
meeting that an amendment to this Bill may be proposed
to include this requirement within clause 17, but I hope,
with this explanation of the Treasury policy, this will not
now be necessary and therefore prevent any further delay
in this much supported and urgently required pensions
legislation.
As I have stated previously, this Bill has been highly
consulted on. It has had two periods of public consultations
with responses, including the issue of the draft Bill. It has
also been discussed in detail at seven different presentations
to more than 650 delegates, being from the pension industry,
tax profession and the general public.
This Bill introduces a modern and relaxed approach to
the taxation of pensions. It contains, as I said last week, 19
clauses.
Clauses 1 and 2 allow a member of an approved
personal pension scheme to draw funds directly from the
scheme, rather than purchasing an annuity, and confirm the
longstanding position that, when a pension is paid out, it
must be subject to income tax at sources.
Clauses 3 and 4 allow for regulations regarding the
investments that an approved pension scheme may invest
in.
Clauses 5 and 6 allow a whole pension fund to be paid
out as a lump sum, where the amount is too small to purchase
an annuity or withdraw directly from the fund.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 increase the lump sum available on
retirement from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, and remove the
statutory cap of £150,000.
Clauses 10 and 11 allow a member of a pension scheme
to take a lump sum before the normal retirement date and
to continue to work without triggering the payment of the
pension.
Clause 12 allows a member to take his pension at the
normal retirement date and continue to work for the same
employer.
Clauses 13 and 14 introduce an annual allowance limit
of £300,000 for contributions and a minimum allowance
of £3,600.
Clauses 15 and 16 deal with the necessary consequential
amendments.
Clause 17 amends the Income Tax Act 1970. It extends
existing provisions that allow the Assessor to approve
international pension schemes set up by employers to include
international schemes created by individuals.
Finally, Mr President, clauses 18 and 19 deal with the
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
202 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
interpretation, short title and commencement of the Bill.
There is no doubt in my mind that this new Bill, when
enacted, will revolutionise the pension industry in the
Isle of Man. It will encourage many more people to make
provision for their retirement and provide a much more
flexible approach to the whole pensions market. This Bill will
ultimately put the Isle of Man at the front of the field.
Mr President, I beg to move that the Income Tax
(Pensions) Bill 2007 be read for the third time.
Mr Waft: I beg to second, Mr President, and reserve
my remarks.
The President: Seconded by Mr Waft.
Mr Turner.
Mr Turner: Yes, thank you, Mr President.
I am very pleased to support this Bill. As I indicated
at the Second Reading stage, the industry says this is long
overdue and we have to encourage people to make savings.
It is something that I know is quite low on priority for
younger people, and this is something I think needs to be
pushed, that they should be making provision for retirement.
I think that is a problem, particularly with people who may
not have surplus funds to invest for later life, but I think that
is something we have to try and push home and make sure
they make adequate provision.
This, of course, will enable people to do that without the
restrictions of the original arrangements that were in place.
I am very happy to support this Bill.
The President: Mr Butt, Hon. Member.
Mr Butt: Thank you, sir.
I have a query for the mover which I think he can answer,
I would like confirmation on. In regard to section 10, the
lump sum for early payment: I see that employers can set up
a scheme in which they declare the normal retirement age.
I just would need confirmation that they could not set up a
scheme, in effect to abuse this Bill, by saying the retirement
age would be 30, or 35, or 40, so that people can retire, take
a lump sum early, and then keep taking lump sums which
presumably will not be as taxable as other schemes.
So I would like to confirm that this could not be abused
by setting a low retirement age for the benefit of taking out
lump sums on a regular basis? I think the mover can answer
that for me.
Thank you.
The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: Thank you, Mr President.
Just one query regarding the general guidance on
‘dependant’. It is a person who is financially dependant
on the member or dependant on the member because of a
disability. I presume this is, in legislative terms, throughout
legislation, because it would seem to me to be rather lax,
insomuch as someone could be dependent for a very short
period on a person who has passed away and may not have
any entitlement to the pension. So that was just a query and
I am sure that can be very simply answered.
I also just did want to comment on the preamble to the
Third Reading, when Mr Downie did comment that this
had been subject to presentation by numerous people; it
Orders of the Day
had been out to consultation; 650 people had listened to the
presentation on this Bill – as if to deter anyone in Council
from making a comment or amendment to it. I just think
sometimes that there should be… It is recognised that it is our
role to scrutinise this legislation in a detailed manner, and I
think that should be appreciated sometimes by the officers.
The President: Mr Crowe, Hon. Member.
Mr Crowe: Thank you, Mr President.
I, too, am pleased to support to the Bill as it will encourage
more residents of the Isle of Man to save for their retirement
through a pension scheme. It will also encourage nonresidents of the Island, through the formation of international
personal pension schemes, as outlined in clause 17.
The key factors to this Bill are simplicity, flexibility and it
is progressive: simplicity, such as removing the compulsion
to purchase an annuity when providing a pension and also
allowing for full commutation on the grounds of triviality.
It gives flexibility by widening the scope of investments
in a pension scheme and allowing for lump sums to be taken
earlier than on the retirement date, whilst allowing for the
pension scheme member to continue working and paying
into that scheme.
It is progressive by increasing the tax-free lump sum to
30 per cent from 25 per cent, and by changing the rules on
tax relief, so that deductions from income other than earned
income will be allowed and, for the first time, allowing
people with low earnings or low income to claim a minimum
deduction of up to the minimum allowance of £3,600. I feel
sure that this Bill will encourage more people to save through
a pension scheme, and I am happy to support the Bill.
I do agree with Mr Downie’s comment that it will
revolutionise the Isle of Man pensions industry.
The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Thank you, Mr President.
I, too, support the principles of the Bill. I think it is
welcome, in the sense that we are looking ahead, what
will improve the situation for pension… encouragement to
pension provision in the future.
However, I would like to test the issue with Council as
to whether or not the regulations referred to by the Hon.
Member should be approved by Tynwald.
If we look at page 21, it is clear that, in this section, the
Assessor has a power to approve a scheme and primary
legislation sets out, in subclause (3) of the new 50B, those
parameters which he shall grant approval under. So he is
given a framework under which scheme approval may be
made – or shall be made.
Then we are saying that the Treasury may alter this
by setting up different criteria or specifying particular
circumstances in regulations. We all know what the criteria
are for the Assessor: they are set out here in primary
legislation. We are not going to be given opportunity to
have any say, or Tynwald is not being given any opportunity
to have any say, in the way in which Treasury might seek
to modify the rules under which the Assessor approves a
scheme or not.
Although the Hon. Member has said there are many
regulations which are not approved by Tynwald, I have
never had a conscious awareness of that. I do not know
whether he can illustrate the sort of regulations which are
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
not approved by Tynwald. Generally speaking, when we go
through legislation, there is a requirement for Tynwald to
further approve the secondary legislation.
So, Mr President, notwithstanding the fact that he says
this is an important piece of legislation and notwithstanding
the fact that there have never been any regulations made,
the fact is that regulations could be made. I would wish to
move an amendment, Mr President, to test the mood of the
Council on this, which will read:
Clause 17
Page 22, after line 14, insert –
‘(8) Regulations under subsection (6) shall not come into
operation unless they are approved by Tynwald.’
I beg to move the amendment, Mr President.
Page 22: it follows subclause (6), which says Treasury may
by regulations restrict the Assessor’s discretion. Perhaps…
Would it be helpful if I read it again, Mr President?
The President: It is in effect the same wording – what
you are proposing, Mrs Christian, is exactly the same
wording – as is in clause 16(8) on page 20, Hon. Members.
It has (8) there and, in fact, what Mrs Christian is proposing
is that it becomes (8) in clause 17, using the same wording
as on page 20: ‘Regulations under subsection’, and instead
of (7), it would be (6), ‘shall not come into operation unless
approved by Tynwald.’
Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: I will second the amendment to get it onto
the floor of the Council for discussion.
If I heard the mover right, Mr President, he gave a
categorical assurance that any regulations made by the
Treasury are to be laid before Tynwald for a positive
affirmation. In other words, it has got to be approved by
Tynwald.
My difficulty today is we are not dealing… I certainly
do not doubt the Hon. Member’s words or his intent or the
Treasury’s words and intent. But we are dealing here with
primary legislation, and there is no doubt at all that primary
legislation is paramount. In other words, if it says you shall
do things, you will do them, anyway.
If we leave it as it is and the mover of the amendment
is saying that they are… She wants chapter and verse and
comfort to know that these things will happen as of course.
Notwithstanding the assurances that have been given, it
is always better to have it in primary legislation for the
avoidance of doubt, because Members of Legislative Council
come and go; members of the Treasury team come and go.
Whilst they may say today, ‘That is what we are going to do’,
if it is written in law, they know they have to do it, no matter
who the personnel. So it is not a personal thing at all; it is one
of trying to get the thing on a proper sound footing.
Can I just come back off the amendment onto the Bill. I
welcome the Bill: I think it is a positive piece of legislation
and I think, for all the reasons that have been spelt out by
Members and the mover, it is right.
It does seem a little ironic that we want to encourage
pensions. In last week’s Budget, we actually stopped the tax
allowances for the payments. But that position was clearly
spelt out last week and why: the benefit is hardly worth the
candle. I recognise that and the advantages that will come
by simplifying things in tax structures are good all round.
203 C125
So I have no difficulty marrying the two.
But somebody out on the street will say that is strange:
one week in the Budget, there… It would appear. I know the
reasonings for that and it has been explained quite clearly.
So I just wanted to put that on record that I think that this
Bill is a practical worthwhile mechanism of support.
I am tended to support the amendment, because I think
on reflection that, unless the mover can explain to me that
the intent of the Treasury can be covered… and why is it
that it is in other clauses that you do it and yet it is not in
this particular clause? There is no logical reason why, if it
applies there, it should not apply here, and we should try and
apply logic when we are doing the legislation.
So I would think on reflection and careful thought, I
would give Mrs Christian support on this one.
The President: Hon. Member, Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: I was in two minds about the necessity for
the amendment, I must say. I thought maybe it would give
flexibility to Treasury for the introduction of new schemes
speedily. But as I think has been pointed out, it is primary
legislation. It actually does not make sense that it is in on
page 20, to clarify exactly what happens there, and then we
turn over the page which is very similar and it is not. It is not
consistent. I think that is what people look for in legislation
is the consistency.
So I am minded at the present time, I must say, to support
the amendment. But I wondered if perhaps the mover of the
Bill could tell me: if it was delayed by a mere week or so,
would that be causing Treasury some dreadful problem?
I would think not, but I do think it is important to have
consistent legislation presented.
The President: Mr Turner, Hon. Member.
Mr Turner: Yes, just speaking to the amendment, I just
wonder whether we are in the same situation as we were with
another part of this, where the approval is given in the 1970
Act, where it states… whether we could look that up.
The President: I do not think so.
Mr Turner: It is not?
The President: Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: I would oppose the amendment, because I
think what we are doing is substituting one 50B for another
50B. In the original 50B of the 1970 Act, it does not need
Tynwald approval. We are just repeating the –
Mr Lowey: Could I just take that point on?
Surely the Member has already said the 50B is amended
for international trade; he told us that in his summary, so we
have altered the 50B. All we are doing is having consistency
of approach, and I would have thought that would have been
better for the people who use this.
It is not for us to use it. It will be the pension industry
that will be using it and therefore, I think for consistency
purposes, it should be the same the way through – unless
there is a categorical… Remember, all this is we are going
to get it laid before Tynwald, in effect. What we are arguing
about is it is going to be laid before Tynwald for approval.
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
204 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
We are saying it will be. There is a positive approach and it
is consistent throughout the Bill.
I do not see where you… We have interfered with the
old clause 50B by inserting international bits in it anyway,
so –
The President: Mr Lowey, I do not want to cut across
you, but let us just be correct.
On page 20, if you look at page 20, in clause 16, in
subsection (8)… The amendment Mrs Christian is proposing
reads: ‘Regulations under subsection (6) shall not come into
operation unless they are approved by Tynwald.’ They will
not be just laid before, Mr Lowey; it is for the approval of
Tynwald which is Mrs Christian’s –
Mr Lowey: Seeking – yes, I agree.
The President: Okay, right, as long as –
Mr Lowey: But the hon. mover of the motion has given
a categorical assurance that they will be laid for affirmative
vote by Tynwald. That is the point I was making.
The President: Mr Butt, did you wish to comment,
sir?
Mr Butt: Yes sir, I would just briefly say, I support the
logic of Mrs Christian. It seems to make sense, but I wonder
what the Attorney’s view is, because I can see him nodding
and shaking his head.
Mr Downie: Mr President, before we get the Attorney’s
view, it is very difficult for me to deal with this, because I
do not know whether this is – we are in committee now – so
I would like a little pop back here (The President: Yes.)
because Members are leading themselves up alleys here, in
my mind totally unnecessarily.
There are a number of sections within the Income Tax
Act 1970 where Treasury can make regulations without
Tynwald approval: section 48C, medical insurance relief,
does not need Tynwald approval; section 54, relief on double
taxation.
The point Mr Lowey made about tax relief: tax relief is
still available for pensions; life insurance relief was abolished
in the Budget. So there is a difference there and everything
has not gone out with the bath water.
But what I tried to do in my preamble was to say that we
can revisit all this old legislation, we can go back to 1970,
we can go back to 50B, the relief for superannuation funds.
We are trying to pull together the strands of old and new
legislation here, and I have given an assurance today that all
of these regulations will have to come to Tynwald.
If you do not trust us, then the amendment is the other
alternative. But that is why I made it clear to Hansard,
because people will listen to what took place here today, and
my fear is that all we are doing really is trying to reinforce
what we are doing, but at the same time, I do not see the
requirement for that.
I have told you that there have never been any regulations
made under that particular section. In this day and age, you
would not allow an Assessor to sit down and do a deal with
some private individual –
Mrs Crowe: Precisely what the amendment is saying!
Orders of the Day
Mr Downie: – without regulations coming to Tynwald.
It could not happen –
The President: Well, now hold on –
Mr Downie: Our financial –
The President: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Can I thank the Hon. Member for
illustrating that there are some regulations that do not have
to have Tynwald approval.
However, by saying that the Treasury is committed to
bringing these regulations to Tynwald, he is supporting the
principle. If he is supporting the principle, I find it hard to
understand why he is objecting to the amendment.
It is not a question of not trusting the Treasury. If in 10
years’ time someone new in the Department says, ‘What do
we do with these regulations?’, what do they do? They refer
to the legislation. They do not read Hansard to see what we
said at the time. In my view, it would be unlikely, I would
suggest. People will say, ‘Well, these are regulations that
have to be laid before’, or ‘These are regulations that have
to be approved.’
I really feel that there can be no harm, if that is what
the Treasury have promised to do, in incorporating it in the
legislation.
Mr Lowey: Could I –
The President: Could I, just before we do, I think Mr
Butt asked for Mr Attorney’s observations. I think Mr Butt’s
question was in relation to consistency. Mr Butt?
Mr Butt: Yes, could I amplify that for the benefit of Mr
Attorney.
From my reading of it and from what Mrs Christian has
said, the regulations which are to be made by the Treasury
can actually change what is primary legislation, restrict the
ability of the Assessor to do the things specified in here. So
these are regulations which can change primary legislation,
I think that is the point and I wonder: are there any previous
examples of that and has that been ever done before? I think
that is where the Attorney might be able to assist.
The President: I think the regulations to which Mr
Downie referred in the 1970 Act are actually for relief, not
changing the law. Mr Attorney.
The Attorney General: Thank you, Mr President.
Mr President, the Hon. Member, Mr Butt, is absolutely
right. At page 22 of our Bill, if you see there, on line 4:
‘The Treasury may by regulations restrict the Assessor’s discretion to
approve a scheme under this section by reference to such criteria or
circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.’
So the Treasury is given a very wide scope of discretion
there, to restrict a discretion which has already been given
at the preceding page 21, line 4.
It seems to me, Mr President, that there are two points I
should make. First of all, in relation to statutory interpretation,
there is a rule which is along the lines that, if you include,
specifically, a provision in one part of a Bill and you exclude
it in another, or you make no mention of it, in another part of
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
the Bill, it must follow that you have deliberately excluded
the provision, if that makes sense. So, if you make a specific
inclusion in one part of the Bill, as we have in this – if we
look at page 20, line 25, we have an amendment, admittedly
to the 1989 Act, which says, quite explicitly:
‘Regulations under this section shall not come into operation unless
they are approved by Tynwald.’
Therefore applying the rule of interpretation I have tried
to explain, it would follow from that, because we have made
an express inclusion of a provision like that, that it follows
that the whole purpose of the Bill is to exclude Tynwald
approval from the regulations which are to be made by the
Treasury.
It seems to me, from what Hon. Members have said, that
the modern approach, and one which has been approved by
Tynwald more recently, is to give explicit mention in any
legislation that regulations must have Tynwald approval.
Notwithstanding what the hon. mover is saying – and of
course, I would join with other Hon. Members, I am quite
certain there is no question of Treasury wanting to go back
on its word – the fact is that, if the whole of the purpose of
the Bill or the legislation is that an assurance or undertaking
is given by Treasury, why is that not included in the Bill, in
the same way as we have at page 20, line 25?
So for those two reasons Mr President – first of all, the
rule of statutory interpretation; and secondly, because it is
the modern approach to explicitly give Tynwald approval to
regulations – I would respectfully advise that there is much
force in the amendment moved by the Hon. Member, Mrs
Christian.
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: History sometimes comes round your neck
like an albatross! I had a feeling of déjà vu: I have been
here before – not on legislation here, but Mr Downie will
remember when Government amalgamated both electricity
authorities. In Tynwald Court, we had a big debate – and Mr
President will certainly remember it – where we all, to get the
amalgamation approved, gave consideration in the Court on
the floor, in the debate, and Government assured everybody
that there would be a period of 10 years, where the Douglas
users of their electricity would be given a phased-in period
to get up to scratch with the MEA.
When we put it into legislation, that was not included.
When I remember raising the question, ‘Hang on, but when
we had the debate everybody was assured that this would
actually happen,’ we were told then by the Attorney, ‘Well,
the primary legislation which you have approved now, just
after that, to amalgamate them, did not include that.’ It is
no use saying what was said in Tynwald Court; it is what
is in primary legislation, and that is what gives force to the
argument of…
By the way, the end result was we changed the primary
legislation to include it, by rushing the Bill through in
three Readings very quickly, as we can do, to meet the
requirement.
So the reality is – and it is not a personal thing at all;
nobody doubts the Treasury at all – personnel do change and
the primary legislation goes on. Some of the legislation we
are dealing with is from 1970. There are not many people
in the Treasury today who were there in 1970, when it was
done, so time does march on.
205 C125
So that is the reason why it should really be in.
Mr Downie: Mr President –
The President: Hold on, Mr Downie, because you will
get a chance to –
Mr Downie: Well, I was going to try and be helpful
here now –
The President: Alright, okay.
Mr Downie: – because the only reason it was not in
the –
The President: We have a bit to go yet, sir.
Mr Downie: Right, well, the only reason it was not
included in this present draft was that it was not in the original
50B. It was not intended to exclude Tynwald approval in
any way, and if Members feel that they want the security of
having Mrs Christian’s amendment added, I will give way to
that. I have no problem, so we can move on, if you like.
The President: I think that is what you said in your
opening brief.
Notwithstanding that, I think Mrs Christian at this stage
wants to have a little bit of clarity over the wording of your
amendment, in relation to Mr Attorney’s comment – is that
right?
Mrs Christian: No, Mr President, if I could just ask for
clarification from the Attorney that it is not covered under a
general provision in the 1970 Act. I would not wish to have
to send it back to another place, but I think it is not, is it?
The Attorney General: Mr President, I think I am right
in saying that we looked at that last week –
The President: We did.
Mrs Christian: We did; I just want confirmation of that,
that is all.
The President: Yes, I think we checked them all through
and last week at that stage we said that we needed to look at
this one in clause 17 –
Mrs Crowe: Yes, because you were going to amend it
then, weren’t you?
The President: That is what we said. Now just take it
steady.
While Mr Attorney is looking that up, Mr Waft, do you
wish to make a contribution?
Mr Waft: Yes, I just think we might, to a certain degree,
be getting our wires crossed with regard to 23A. It states
that:
‘The Treasury may by regulations require the administrator of a scheme
to give written notice to the Assessor of happenings of such events or
matters as specified in the regulations…’
The other thing is it says he shall not approve a scheme
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
206 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
under this section, unless all these things take place; and then
it has to go to the Treasury to get the nod or yes or no; and
we are asking now that it should go to Tynwald as well. So
there is a slight difference between the previous clause and
this one, with regard to the regulations.
In other words, they have already got the scheme up
and running, in the previous one, and they are wanting to
change regulations; but in the other one, they are actually
approving a scheme. If the scheme is approved… We all
know that some pension schemes come and they go, and
some go quite ignominiously. We have to take care that we
are up to speed with this.
But I do think that, with the approval of the Assessor
and then the approval which has to be given by Treasury, I
would have thought that would have been sufficient to cover
all the corners, inasmuch as the finance sector changes all
the time.
Thank you, Mr President.
The President: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: I think that the Hon. Member has just
picked one section and he has not looked at the section before
that. There is a provision there for the Treasury to change
definitions – change the definition of ‘relevant earnings’.
I think just to reiterate what was said before: there are
guidelines set out for the Assessor in the primary legislation
which are going to be changed by regulations. If we are
looking at the primary legislation, then I think we should
also be looking at the changes of controls on the Assessor,
in relation to the approval of the schemes.
The President: Okay, could I just then, Hon. Members,
so that we are not going around totally in circles… I think
we have got the gist of where every Member is coming from,
but Mr Attorney was asked again to check in the 1970 Act,
as to whether or not the regulations are covered there. Mrs
Christian made the point that we just wanted to be sure.
Mr Attorney.
The Attorney General: Yes, Mr President.
Well, certainly, it would seem to me from a reading of
the 1970 Act, that there is not a general requirement for
Tynwald to approve regulations. In fact, it is interesting that
in relation to section 44 of the Income Tax Act 1970, which
deals with deductions in respect of life insurance premiums,
an amendment was made – at least, a new section 44 was
substituted by the 1991 Income Tax Act. That expressly states
that regulations made under that section shall not come into
operation unless they are approved by Tynwald.
So that fortifies the proposition that there is not a general
requirement for regulations to be approved by Tynwald.
The President: Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: Just to throw stones in the water, is the
learned Attorney – ?
The President: Now is the time to throw them in!
Mr Crowe: From what Mr Attorney has said, in the 1970
Act, which we are proposing to amend by this new 50B,
what you were saying is, in the Act of the 1970 Act, there
is a general presumption against approval by Tynwald of
Orders of the Day
regulations. (Interjection) No, no, let me finish!
So that is your base point: that there is a general
presumption against approval by Tynwald in the 1970 Act.
Then you have gone on to say, in the 1991 Act, there was a
clause 44 amended, which gave an exception.
So what you are saying is are we in this consideration,
to have approved by Tynwald under the new 50B Act, are
we going against the grain over the 1970 Act or are we are
being more compliant with the 1991 Act?
I am not sure if Mr Attorney can cut through the Gordian
knot.
The President: Mr Attorney.
The Attorney General: Mr President, I think I can go
a little bit firmer than a presumption against not requiring
Tynwald approval. The 1970 Act expressly does not include
any provision for Tynwald approval. What I am saying is
that when this 1970 Act was considered again in 1991, in
the context of relief for insurance premiums, the regulations
which were inserted by the new Act of 1991 said that those
regulations limited to that particular section do not require
to be approved by Tynwald.
Mr Crowe: Did you say do not require?
The Attorney General: Do require – I am sorry, do
require Tynwald approval.
So just to summarise Mr President, the 1970 Act does not
generally require regulations to be approved by Tynwald. The
specific provision I referred to, at section 44, which deals
with relief, in the 1991 Act, said that those regulations do
require to be approved by Tynwald.
And just moving on from that, what I am saying is that
when we look at this Bill, it includes at page 20 of the Bill,
line 25… when looking at the 1989 Act, it is saying that
regulations under this section shall not come into operation
unless they are approved by Tynwald, the fact that we
have got an express reference like that to regulations being
approved by Tynwald really fortifies and confirms the view
that the 1970 Act does not require Tynwald approval.
Mr Crowe: Can I come back on that Mr President? (The
President: Yes.)
What we were talking about on page 20, line 25 is the
1989 Act. That Act presumably has the persuading factors
that everything has to be approved by Tynwald then, as the
core in the 1989 Act.
We are looking at, in the amendment by Mrs Christian
is the 1970 Act, not the 1989 Act.
Mrs Crowe: Yes, I think Mr Crowe is right because
in 23A, regulations under this section shall not come into
operation unless approved by Tynwald. That again is in the
1989 Act.
Mr Turner: Is it fair to suggest then, that as these
various Acts have been updated, (Mrs Crowe: Yes.) it has
been tightened up and brought in when it may not have
been normal at the time for everything to be approved by
Tynwald. In this day and age, it is becoming normal that
most regulations are laid before or approved.
The President: That is certainly the way in which it
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
has been moving, and I think Mr Lowey made that point
earlier.
Mr Waft: To what degree do we decide on which
regulations are and which are not? It is –
Mrs Christian: Mr President, if necessary we could
move an amendment to the 1970 Act, put in a general
provision! But I am not going to propose that.
The President: There used to be a thing called a
Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, (Interjections) where we used
to tidy up all loose ends such as this, which were raised in
various Acts.
Mrs Crowe: Well, it is important, isn’t it?
The President: Sometimes it is interesting.
Have we finished our discussion on this particular
measure before I ask Mr Downie to wind up?
In that case, Hon. Members, and just before we do wind
up –
Mrs Crowe: Sorry, could I just clarify one thing Mr
President?
The President: Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: The main difference is that this actually
changes the primary legislation – the regulations. They are
not just regulations that are determining whatever it might
be. These regulations actually change what is in primary
legislation. I think that is really a far more significant area
than in 23A, which is: ‘Treasury may make regulations
to require the administrator to give written notice to the
Assessor…’ Those regulations have to be approved by
Tynwald and, yet, we have a major section of the Bill which
could be modified, just by regulation, and it does not have
to be.
I think that is the point: it is not just a regulation.
207 C125
employer to another employer and brought with him benefits
which were relevant to a scheme which was falling foul
of one side or the other of the 1978 or 1989 Acts? I might
be totally wrong on that, but it just struck me, when you
were making specific comment on someone being able to
continue in employment with an employer, that they could
also be in receipt of a benefit – presumably a pension benefit
or maybe some other form of benefit – which might have
been relevant to the previous employer or part relevant to a
previous employer.
I am quite happy to wait a moment or two, until… I
understand that you may have an answer.
Mrs Crowe: Could I just clarify with you, are you
talking about a pensionable person transferring from one
scheme to another?
The President: No. Before they become a pensioner.
Mrs Crowe: Yes. Before they become… An employee
transferring from one scheme. They have left … No.
The President: No. If you were employed in a scheme
under the 1978 Act or under the 1989 Act, if you are employed
under the 1978 scheme and you move your employment from
one employer… from Mrs Christian to Mrs Crowe, you can
carry that benefit along with you. (Mrs Crowe: Yes.)
What happens then, when you have transferred the
employer and it says, ‘Subsection (1) shall not prevent
the approval of the scheme which permits the receipt of
benefits’? It just seems as if there might be a confusion
between subclauses (1) and (2) in clause 12.
Mr Crowe: Mr President, is this not something to do with
the lump sum payment, where we allow, under the new…?
The President: I do not know.
Mr Crowe: It is under the new Bill. They can take a
lump sum…
The President: Okay. Now, Hon. Members, as I said
before, before I ask Mr Downie… Just for my own interest,
Mr Downie, in your brief, in moving the Third Reading of
this particular measure, you did make specific comment to
clause 12, sir, which is the ‘continuation in employment’
measure. It struck me at that stage – and I am sitting here
reading that at the same time, I am finding it difficult to
get my head round this bit now – if in fact someone is in
employment and then transfers his employment to another
employer, and carries with him relevant pension entitlements,
it says in (1):
The President: I had not even thought about it until Mr
Downie raised it this morning – I have to be honest!
‘which permits the receipt of relevant benefits by an employer while
continuing to be employed by the employer but the scheme shall not
permit the payment…’
‘Subsection (1) shall not prevent the approval of a scheme which
permits the receipts of benefits by [a] member while continuing in
employment.’
Mrs Christian: Mr President, is this not only about
receiving the benefits before normal retirement age? (Two
Members: Yes.)
In both cases, it seems to imply that you can receive
benefits while being employed, but you cannot do it before
normal retirement age. That is what is in (dd), and the next
bit just refers to the fact that you can receive benefits whilst
continuing in employment, presumably after retirement
age.
What happens to somebody who is transferred from one
Mr Waft: If you are in a scheme, Mr President, which
And then specifically, again, it has (2), in relation the 1989
Act, which says:
Mr Downie: That’s part of the triviality.
The President: It never entered my head until Mr
Downie raised it this morning in his brief.
Mr Downie: I am not a pensions expert, Mr President.
The President: Neither am I, sir.
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
208 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
gives a normal retirement age of that scheme to, say, 55 and
then you move to another scheme which is from 65, are you
saying, then, that they cannot receive any payments from
the first scheme?
The President: I do not know.
Anyway, I think Mr Downie has – I am sorry I have raised
it, but I think Members…
Mr Downie: If I can, Mr President, let us deal with your
query first, because that is the one that is freshest in our
minds. (The President: Absolutely.)
A new employer, if funds are transferred to the new
employer scheme then the benefits are payable under the
terms of the new scheme and the new employer becomes
the employer for the purposes of the 1978 Act.
In the 1989 Act schemes, there may not be an employer.
The member may have moved into self-employment.
Nevertheless, the new scheme rules will always apply, so
whatever is in that new scheme is what we go by.
Mr Waft: Through you, Mr President, if that chap moves,
he has to bring the funds with him to cover that.
The President: No. Wait a minute. I do not think he has
to bring the funds with him. That is part of the point.
Mr Waft: To come under that other scheme, if he brings
the funds with him. He need not bring the funds with him or
the scheme might not allow him to bring the funds with him,
so it impacts number (2) if you do not watch yourself.
The President: Mr Downie.
Mr Downie: I think Mr Waft is probably correct. There
are several schemes available for self employed people and
so on but, there again, that might not be acceptable to the new
employer. It depends what arrangements have been made
and, of course, most of these schemes are subject to getting
the necessary accreditation from the Assessor, anyway.
Mrs Crowe: Well, the rules have to apply.
Mr Downie: The rules have to apply. We might get a
little bit more information on this.
The President: I think, Mr Downie, you were actually
getting a nod in relation to that one. So, I feel more
comfortable. I feel more comfortable sitting here. I think
we can move on. Thank you, Mr Downie.
Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr President.
I think it has been a very good debate this morning and
this has been an interesting Bill.
If I could start off by thanking Mr Turner for his support.
He did say that the ethos of the Bill was long overdue. At the
end of the day, we are trying to encourage more and more
people to make provision for their old age by putting more
money into pensions. He made a particular reference to the
benefits that younger people who did have some disposable
income would benefit from, and when this Bill eventually
becomes law, it will provide a whole new raft of opportunities
for pension provisions.
Mr Butt: he raised the issue about section 10 and the
Orders of the Day
lump sum. He wanted an assurance that it cannot be accessed
on numerous occasions or used as a way to extract money
from the system. Well, I can assure him that early retirement
cannot be supported. A scheme can only be approved by the
Assessor if the retirement age is 50 or more. The lump sum
cannot be paid earlier than the retirement age of 50 and they
can only have one bite of the cherry.
Mrs Crowe asked about dependants. Well, I have
issued a memo today, but nurses and people like that are
not dependants. It is quite clear in the memorandum what
qualifies for a dependant. I am told it not only applies to rules
in the Treasury, but it applies to other areas in Government
as well: Social Services and Social Security and so on.
Mr Crowe: I bow to his depth of knowledge on the subject
because he, obviously, understands the requirements of the
industry. I know it is a matter which he has some particular
interest in. He was supportive of the Bill. He said it was very
progressive. It is what the industry wants, to move ahead. It
will put the Isle of Man up there as far as the new product
development goes. It will add another arm to opportunities
in the economy.
Mrs Christian, I know, is very good at teasing out areas
where she thinks there is a deficiency and I have got to
admire her for that. I am perfectly willing to go along with
the amendment that she has moved today; particularly as it
has been supported by the Attorney General.
I know when I have my debrief, I am going to be asking
what these legislative draftsmen are getting up to and why,
when we are bringing Bills forward like this, there is not
clarity. If it is difficult for us to understand in here, I use my
hon. colleague, Mr Lowey’s analogy, ‘what about the man
on the Clapham Omnibus?’ There is no way they will ever
understand it. I think it will be difficult for the industry in
some areas to understand.
So, for the sake of clarity and removing any doubt, then
I would be happy with the amendment being supported.
Mr Lowey was supportive of Mrs Christian’s amendment.
As I said, I have got no problem with that. I did explain the
situation regarding the tax allowance. Could I say that, if you
knew the cost of administrating the life assurance part of it,
it probably cost us three times more than what we ever got
back in. So, that was one of the reasons for it.
Mrs Crowe made reference, ‘Would a delay cause a
problem for Treasury?’ I am happy to go along with this. The
main thing, in my view, is to get the legislation right and be
happy with it. If it slows it down for another month, well so
what? We have got to get on and do what we think is right.
I do not think I have missed anybody else. Your
particular area, Mr President, in clause 12: the continuation
of employment – I think we have dealt with that. So I hope
I have not missed anybody out.
It is difficult to deal with in a form like this, but I beg to
move the Income Tax (Pensions) Bill be read a third time.
The President: Yes. Now, Hon. Members, the motion
that I have to put to Council, of course, is for the Third
Reading of the Income Tax (Pensions) Bill, but we do have,
Hon. Members, a Third Reading amendment in the name of
the Hon. Member, Mrs Christian.
For clarity, yet again, Hon. Members, if you turn to page
20 and you look at clause 16 – in other words, you are looking
at line 16 – you will see there where it says:
‘(8) Regulations under subsection (7) shall not come into operation
unless they are approved by Tynwald.’
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Mrs Christian’s amendment will, in effect, introduce
those words into line 14 before subclause (2) of clause 17
and will read, ‘(8) Regulations under subsection (6) shall not
come into operation unless they are approved by Tynwald.’
That is an insertion to go onto page 22, clause 17, line 14.
Hon. Members, putting to you first the amendment in the
name of the Hon. Member, Mrs Christian. Those in favour,
please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it, Hon. Members.
The ayes have it.
I do not think any Member voted against. There is a
requirement, Hon. Members, under your Standing Orders
at Third Reading to have six Members, so I think the logics
are we do call a vote, Hon. Members, because there is a
requirement to have six in favour of an amendment moved
at Third Reading.
A division was called for and voting resulted as
follows:
FOR
Mr Lowey
Mr Waft
Mr Butt
Mr Turner
Mrs Christian
Mrs Crowe
Mr Downie
Mr Crowe
AGAINST
None
The President: For clarity to the position, Hon. Members,
every Member voted in favour of the amendment.
I, therefore, Hon. Members, put to you the Income Tax
(Pensions) Bill 2007 – including the amendment, which
we have just made – be read a third time and do pass. Hon.
Members, those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The
ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Now it will take its course, Hon. Members, and move
on to another place.
Standing Orders Committee
Report received and amendments agreed
Amended motion carried
2. Mr Lowey to move:
That the Report of the Standing Orders Committee be
received and its recommendation be approved.
The President: We now move, Hon. Members, on our
Order Paper to the Standing Orders Committee and you have,
Hon. Members, your Report. It is a Report from Standing
Orders Committee for Legislative Council.
Mr Lowey to move, please.
Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.
I would like to start at the very beginning to say how
grateful we were to our new Clerk. I know I keep calling him
new: he is well established, but his input and professionalism
in our task was much appreciated. It filled me with great
confidence for the future. I would like to place on record
our grateful thanks to our Clerk.
Your Standing Orders have had very minimal amendments
over the last 60 or 70 years. They have stood the test of time
209 C125
and we believe that this close scrutiny which we have given
them this time is the first major overhaul, as I have said.
That record speaks volumes for their robustness and that
they accord with a sound, fair and cogent plan of approach
in the conduct of our affairs generally.
However, any body or organisation needs to take account
of legislative changes, constitutional changes and to make the
conduct of our affairs transparent and more easily understood
by the public, as well as us as practitioners. Again, I think the
needs of the modern day are for transparency and an easily
accepted position, the rules under which we operate.
The Report, Mr President – and here I will refer you to
the Report: we undertook a comprehensive review of the
Council’s Standing Orders and the aims were simple. They
have been set out in five headings: to ensure that Standing
Orders are consistent with primary legislation and other
constitutional developments; to align the Standing Orders
more closely with current practice in a number areas where
the two have diverged; to remove redundant provisions; and
to clarify the drafting and render it gender neutral – that is a
modern requirement nowadays; and to make the layout and
numbering easier to follow.
The layout of the new draft in this Report: the latter
pages of this Report contain a draft set of Standing Orders
designed to address these points. The vast majority of the
proposed new Standing Orders are based very closely on
existing Standing Orders. The existing Standing Orders are,
therefore, reproduced on facing pages to enable comparisons
to be made.
So, on the left hand side, when we come to them, are the
old and on the right hand, the new.
The proposed new Standing Order 6.3 is dealing with the
Messengers. They have not been replaced. It is just dealing
with who is in charge of the Messengers. That is based on a
provision in the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court 3.36.
The proposed new Standing Order 7.2 deals with the
acting President or the chairman of a committee of the House,
if the House is sitting.
The annex at the very end is brand new, although the latter
is based on previously existing material. That spells out the
First, Second, clauses and the Third Readings. It tells you as
it is and what we are about. I think that is very important and
I think it is a clear aide-mémoire to Members old and new
coming in. I think it is very helpful for new Members.
The power to introduce Government Bills: under point
(a) above, your Committee has considered the provision
in what is currently Standing Order 21(1) under which
the Governor was still allowed to introduce Bills into
the Legislative Council. This provision looks, to your
Committee, inconsistent – that is an understatement – with
the relationship between the Governor and Tynwald as it has
developed over the last 30 years. You will see that we wrote
to the Governor, and I am very pleased to say the Governor
concurred that it is an anomaly.
The nearest equivalent in the Standing Orders in the
House of Keys – I am on item 5 now – is Order 4.2, which
allows Bills to be introduced into the Keys, not by the
Governor but by the Council of Ministers. Your Committee
recommends that as part of the new draft that the Council
adopt a provision parallel to, almost, the Keys in effect.
As I say, the Chief Minister, as well as the Governor, have
concurred.
Mr President, I believe that these rules, these new
Standing Orders, will make our life consistent. It will make
Income Tax (Pensions) Bill – Third Reading approved
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
210 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Orders of the Day
it easier and they do conform, in a modern language.
If you like, Mr President, and with your approval, sir, I
would just like to go through but reverse the roles: take it
page by page and, if Members have any comments, we will
do our best to answer them.
If that is alright with you, sir. Okay?
Mr Clerk will gather that up as we go along.
Mr Lowey, ready for page 2, sir?
The President: Right. I think it is probably unusual. Are
you going to lead us through each page, Mr Lowey?
Mrs Crowe: I know it is from the original. I just think
the wording sounds archaic but it could be that it is legal:
‘If the President is absent from a sitting, Council shall elect
some Member’ – and not ‘a’ Member – ‘as acting President
of Council.’
Mr Lowey: No. I will just say page 1 and if any
Members… There is the old, there is the new, there are the
comparisons. I am sure Members have read it.
The President: Let us just be awkward, Hon. Members.
As a member of the Committee, can I say that on page 2
of the Report, I think it says myself, Mrs Christian and Mr
Lowey. Mr Attorney’s name should appear there, because
he was also a member of the Committee which redrafted
these rules. So, in that regard, Mr Attorney’s name should
appear there.
Now, Hon. Members, Mr Lowey is inviting you for
observations on page 1 of the new draft. In relation to
Standing Order 2.1, which is the Agenda, we have had a
request, Hon. Members – I have, or our Clerk has – from
the Library to ask if Council would be prepared to rename
its Agenda Paper as an Order Paper. This would then make it
clearer, in their view, to everyone that this Paper has exactly
the same status as that in Tynwald Court and a Keys Order
Paper. The presentation then, on the Tynwald website, could
then be made in a much more simple manner.
So, the request from the librarians is that we rename,
under our Standing Orders, the Agenda Paper, as has been
referred to for the past 70 years, as an Order Paper:
In New Standing Order 2.1, delete ‘Agenda’ and
substitute ‘Order Paper’.
Mrs Crowe: I think for the sake of clarity, for the Library,
I think that is a very valid point that they make – unless there
is some historical factor, Mr President, that you prefer it to
be kept as Agenda.
The President: I think now is probably the time to be
doing it, Hon. Member.
Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: I have no issue with that, Mr
President.
The President: The point I would make, Hon. Members,
is it did not crop up at Committee stage, but it has been raised
with us from the publication of the Standing Orders. Having
been raised, I certainly had no objection to it and as long as
Council have no objection to it, we will rename our Agenda
Paper as an Order Paper.
Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: That would read then, Mr President, for,
‘Agenda’ in bold print alongside 2.1, it would just say ‘Order
Paper’ and ‘The President shall cause an Order Paper of
matters to be brought’ instead of ‘Agenda’.
The President: I am sure that is correct, Mr Lowey, and
Mr Lowey: Yes, I am.
The President: Mrs Crowe.
In New Standing Order 3.3(1), delete ‘some’ and
substitute ‘a’.
I know in the original it does say, ‘some Member’, but I
just think that it sounds rather… unless there is once more
some…
The President: Archaic is the right word.
Mrs Crowe: Thank you. There you are. I got half a gold
star from Mr President!
The President: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: I have no problem changing that to ‘a’, if
that is the will of Council. Much has been done, Mr President,
in revising these to bring the language up to date.
Mrs Crowe: Oh, I am sure. Yes.
Mrs Christian: We might as well do that one, as well.
Mr Lowey: Any objections?
The President: We are content, Mr Lowey. Does
anybody else wish to raise any point on page 2 of the new
draft?
Mr Lowey: I think it is handy for ownership: a fresh pair
of eyes looking at things, can only be good.
The President: We move on to page 3, Mr Lowey.
Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: Do we need to have ‘neither’ in the quorate
directions? The President –
The President: In 3.5(3)?
Mrs Crowe: Yes. It is just, ‘The President nor the
Attorney General shall count towards the quorum.’ If they
are going to be redrafted, we might as well get rid of any
superfluous wording. I just thought, ‘neither’…
The Attorney General: I think, Mr President, it is
strictly correct.
Mrs Crowe: Is it? Okay. Fine.
Mr Lowey: You win some, you lose some, Mrs Crowe!
(Laughter)
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Mrs Crowe: I can lose in any of these. It was not what I
had actually picked up until now. So, I do not mind.
Mr Downie: You know that song, ‘Either, either, Neither,
neither’?
Mrs Crowe: Yes, exactly.
Mr Lowey: If every Member is happy with ‘neither’
being left in, could I go over the page to page 4? You will
see, by and large, we have thinned the original by retaining
its… Your Committee did go through the old ones with a
fine-tooth comb.
Mrs Crowe: Mr President, could I just comment. I do
think the way it has been set out, whoever was responsible
for that, does make it far easier to read the Standing Orders,
particularly in the speaking, the voting. I think it is a credit
to the Committee who redrafted it in that form.
Mrs Christian: If I could just make a presentational
point, Mr President. In some cases, the number are in bold
and in others they are not. Perhaps we should just have a
consistency.
Mr Crowe: Mr President, can I just ask, at the top of
page 4, the use of the word –
The President: Sorry, Mr Crowe, can we just hold on.
We are turning back a page, are we? We are going to page
4, Mr Lowey.
Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: When it says, ‘Voting – All questions’:
presumably, this is a question… The use of the word
‘questions’, is it motions?
Mr Lowey: The question is put.
Mrs Christian: Any motion is a question.
Mr Crowe: So you are happy with ‘questions’?
The President: On to page 5 now.
Mrs Crowe: I suspect we are not going to win many!
The President: I turn then, following Mr Lowey’s
premise that we will take it page by page, we will go to 6.
Is everybody content with 6?
Page 7, then, Hon. Members.
211 C125
to do so. It is unlikely and it is even more unlikely that we
would be doing it when we are short of Members, as we
could be next week.
But, we do need to take that on board, I suppose. I think
it could very well mean that you are carrying things over. I
do need to consider the quorum of Council and how we are
going to be sitting, once we have agreed this draft.
Mr Crowe: Could I suggest that we say three quarters of
Members present and voting or something like that? Three
quarters of the Members voting and present…
Mr Lowey: We did actually, as a Committee, discuss
the probabilities and possibilities and where it fitted in later,
in whether the President has the discretion to waive as a
matter… to allow for that eventuality. It is spelt out here,
this is the standard practice.
The President: Can I also, Hon. Members… As the
Clerk has just pointed out to me, in fact if there was a major
difficulty in relation to what Mr Crowe has raised with us
in the quorum, and the Council not being quorate for six
Members being present to vote on an amendment at a Third
Reading stage of a Bill, in fact under 7.1, which we will
reach at page 11, Hon. Members, the Council may, upon a
motion of a Member agreed to by a quorum, suspend all or
any of the Standing Orders. So I think we have sufficient
flexibility there.
Mr Waft: Could I just clarify, through you, Mr
President.
With regard to Bills and the circulation to Members and
any reprints, if so amended by the Keys, sometimes we do
get Bills to be put through when we have not been able to
have the full Hansard previously, to be able to read what the
House of Keys have thought about that particular Bill.
The President: Yes, I have to be fair to our Hansard
officials and say that, in fact, our Hansard is much improved
in what it previously was. We can certainly, within 48 hours,
have now a ‘draft’, so I think that probably overcomes
itself.
When voice recognition comes in, in its totality, within
the next six months maybe, we maybe will have Hansard
available inside 24 hours, Mr Waft, so I think time will
overcome us again on that one. Hopefully, we will be fully
up to speed.
But, yes, it has happened when we have not had the
Hansard of the other place available to Members when
dealing with amendments.
Page 7, Mr Lowey.
Mr Crowe: Mr President, just at the bottom of page 6:
the quorum is five; in exceptional circumstances, four; Third
Reading you are going to have six. What do you do if you
have not got six present?
Mr Lowey: These are dealing with what I would call
our procedures of –
The President: Well, as you are aware, we have changed
the procedure in relation to the four, but it is very unlikely
to happen on many occasions that we would be taking a
Third Reading and amending, as we had the Bill earlier this
morning.
We have amended a Bill at Third Reading stage this
morning. It is unlikely. It is not the common practice for us
Mr Lowey: I was trying to think of the word! That was
the word that we used in Committee: the ping pong effect,
when we amend, it goes down to the Keys and when it comes
back. What we try to do was get in place a formula that
was the same for both, so that everybody knew what would
happen down there, as well as what happens up here and
so our findings and our suggestions are that they replicate
The President: Ping pong!
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
212 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
one another. That is the whole essence of these particular
Standing Orders.
The President: It does give the procedure there which
we would follow, regardless of whether a Bill started its life
in the other place or here. (Mr Lowey: Absolutely.)
Page 8.
Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President –
Mr Crowe: Mr President –
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: No, that is fine, Mr President, I am fine.
Mr Crowe: I am sorry.
The President: Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: At 4.9, it was the ‘all expenses of a Private
Bill shall be borne by the promoters’. I am sure that has
been in before. I am just wondering is that applicable in
the Keys?
The President: It is. It is in Keys Standing Orders and
it is a requirement, but I think it says in 34, if you look on
the facing page, ‘Expenses of Private Bill’, it spells it out
there in long language. We have simply said ‘all’ expenses
of a Private Bill.
Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Can I just, for the benefit of newer
Members who may not have experienced this… This is
not a Private Member’s Bill; it is a Private Bill, which is a
different animal.
Mrs Crowe: Right, yes. Banking.
Mr Lowey: Banks brought in and again, through the
Chair, we were trying to deal with when banks… We have
had banks who have actually done… when they have had
takeovers and the like, they pay all the legislative expenses of
the Bill. They get it done by Private Bill, but all the expenses
are paid by them.
The President: Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: Can I, Mr President, draw reference to 4.7:
if they cannot agree, there is a conference procedure. The
conference shall be in accordance with Standing Orders and
then it says you carry on talking until the Keys and Council
both agree, or one branch declines to agree and the other
branch insists on its amendment.
So are you saying that one rolls over, when the other
insists on forcing it through?
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: Well, the reality of that is that the Keys are
primary. If they then, after we… You cannot got on forever
and therefore there has to be a time where the Keys, as you
know, if they do not accept the agreement, they can then
reintroduce the Bill for a second time, go through the First,
Orders of the Day
Second, Third Readings and then it comes up. Whether we
agree or not, it then becomes law, so that is the procedure.
So that is not a case of rolling over; that is the facts of
life. The Keys have primacy – as the elected House – at the
moment, they have primacy. That has to be accepted.
Mr Butt: Mr President, does that not sort of infer, though,
the way it is worded that we could have primacy as well,
Council could have primacy?
The President: Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Mr President, we could, but the fact of
the matter is that any amendment that we send back to them
that they do not agree with, they will not accept. That is the
top and bottom of it.
Mr Lowey: Then it would kick in: as I say, they would
reintroduce the Bill and then when it came to us we would
have… Whether we agreed with it or not, it becomes law
and that is just setting out the facts as they are.
Mr Waft: Should that be clarified within the Standing
Orders?
The President: I think it is, insofar as it certainly was
within the Constitution and, as Mrs Christian has said, in
(2)(ii), where it says one branch declines to agree and the
other branch insists, the Keys can insist ultimately – but
we do not have to agree. Council does not have to agree.
But the insisting, ultimately, is in the hands of the elected
Assembly.
Mr Butt: I just thought, Mr President, that to a casual
reader, they may assume that we have power to actually veto
the Keys amendments.
The President: Yes, it does not give you the power of
veto; but it does say, as Mrs Christian has pointed out already,
you have not got to agree. I think that is the difference. Mr
Attorney, do you wish to…?
The Attorney General: No, that is absolutely right Mr
President. The primary legislation – the Constitution Act
– will then kick in.
The President: It is the Constitution Act which spells out
specifically that, ultimately, the Keys are primary.
Having completed the… Mr Waft.
Mr Waft: That is then when the ping pong stops.
Mr Lowey: That is right.
The President: That is where the ping pong stops.
Mr Lowey: We had a very interesting session on ping
pong, I will tell you!
The President: Is everybody happy with page 8? We
turn over then, Mr Lowey, page 9.
Mr Lowey: Thank you, Mr President.
Page 9, petitions, memorials and appearances: again,
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
213 C125
these are written in a way that people who want to appear
can look at our Standing Orders, and see and interpret them
quite clearly, I think.
I will make the point which we did before in relation to
7.1, which is the suspension of Standing Orders. This should,
in fact, give Council a fair element of flexibility.
The President: Hon. Members appearing content, we
will go on to page 10.
Mr Lowey: Yes, indeed. Could I just say that the new part
for me, the annex – which I think is new, but it is a welcome
one – does lay the…
There are many Members who come into Tynwald, into
both branches, who are brand new. I have often said – and
Mr President knows, we have often said – we have to educate
people who come out from the hustings and come in. There
is not a yard book, although we do now have… When we
came in, we were thrown in the deep end and told ‘swim’.
There are now sessions and they do get educated.
I think this little annex there, which tells what we do, why
we are doing it, how we do it, is a very useful addendum to
the Standing Orders.
Mr Lowey: Eleven – 10, I am sorry, I am jumping a
page.
Mr Crowe: Do we need to, Mr President, have the word
‘advocate’ in front of ‘any partner’? I know it is assumed
it is a legal partner, but in today’s terminology, a partner
could be a –
The President: Sorry, Mr Crowe –
Mr Crowe: At 5.5:
‘A member of the Legislature who is a practising advocate of the Manx
Bar, or any partner of such member’.
I know that presumably means to be a legal partner in a
firm of advocates.
Mr Downie: It does not say that, though.
Mr Crowe: I know it is splitting hairs, but…
Mrs Crowe: Well, the title is ‘Members of Tynwald and
their partners’ –
Mrs Christian: ‘Who are advocates’.
The President: Let us take it one at a time. Mrs
Christian.
Mrs Christian: I think the title probably assists: ‘…
Tynwald and their partners who are advocates’.
Mr Crowe: I would be content with that.
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: No, no, I tend to agree with Mrs Christian.
The heading gives the meaning. Again, I think most people,
when they read legislation, they look at the headings first,
that tells them the message. If it is not quite clear, they then
read the small print. I think that is the reason why the…
Yes there is nothing… Again, we tried to be brief, not
elongate. But for clarity, I believe the thing in the big title
actually makes it quite clear what we are referring to.
But I can see where the Hon. Member comes from. I
can quite easily accept what he says, but I think what we
are trying to do is –
The President: Do not go too far or we will be –
Mr Lowey: No, I know, I know!
The President: Turn over, page 11, Hon. Members.
Mr Lowey: Page 11, yes.
The President: Does anybody wish to raise anything
there?
The President: Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: Mr President, can I personally thank the
Committee and the Clerk for the very excellent – I am not
sure that is grammatically correct – but the excellent work in
doing this. I hope that the very minor points that I raised were
helpful, not critical, because I think it is a tremendous job. I
am sure we all share in having modern, up-to-date Standing
Orders, which will last for many years to come, I hope.
The President: Mr Turner.
Mr Turner: Just a point, I assume that these are available
on the Tynwald website, the Standing Orders.
The President: I think as we have amended clause 2.1 in
relation to Agenda/Order Paper, the Library were making the
point, it would make it clearer for them on the website.
Mr Turner: The Standing Orders will be published on
the website?
The President: Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, Mr President, the former Standing
Orders of the three Chambers are on the website. If the
Council adopts this new set of Standing Orders, that will
then be published on the website as soon as possible.
The President: Which was the point that the Library
were making. The other two already use ‘Order Paper’
instead of ‘Agenda’.
Mr Turner: I realise the Order Papers are published; I
was not quite sure whether the Standing Orders were also
available for download.
Mr Lowey: Can I then formally move that Council…?
Sorry –
The President: Mr Downie.
Mr Downie: I would just like to give the Committee food
for thought, really. We are dealing with a lot of technical
issues these days in here and, coming from the other place,
my view is that I think we do a much more thorough job in
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
214 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
here. We go into areas a lot more deeply. Some Members are
very keen on legislation and they have got a little bit more
time to apply their research.
But what I would ideally like to see, as part of our process,
at some time, is a situation that is common now in other
jurisdictions where, on certain Bills, we can act here like a
parliamentary committee.
For example, when you do get a very technical Bill, it is
useful for Members here to put a question to the technicians
– maybe the people who have drafted the Bill or the people
who have that additional knowledge. In a committee-type
forum, I think that would be something for us to consider.
The President: I would say, Hon. Members, that I was
tempted this morning, in relation to the discussion on our
Pensions Bill this morning, I was tempted when, Mr Downie
as the Member in charge, was awaiting his officers. As I was
getting a nod or a shaking of the head from the officers, I was
at one stage tempted to ask the officers to respond.
I think it is something which we can take on board, in
relation to dealing at clause stage, with officers in attendance.
It may be a useful thing to do. I think as I had moved on to the
Third Reading, and it was an amendment at Third Reading
stage which required six votes, my judgement was I decided
I would not ask the officers this morning.
Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: Can I just speak to that specific point,
as it is a very valid point in a technical world we live in
– especially taxation and where we are dealing with major
responsibilities for what I would call government policy,
getting a new era in.
We are fortunate in this Council: we have the Attorney
General, who ultimately… his Department is the one that
brings the legislation. There is a very strong case, of course,
being made from time to time from another place that the
Attorney should not sit here; he should sit down there to
advise. I am always against that, because I think he may not
be a voting Member here, but he moves Bills here; he is a
fount of wisdom, we can always rely on him to give a point
of view. If he is not sure, he will certainly find out for us.
So I think we have an advantage to that degree, so that
the Council is strengthened that way.
But there is nothing I think, from what the Hon. Member
has said, where we should not be able to say, could we
suspend Standing Orders to allow the technical questions,
and I refer them to… or to have somebody sitting alongside
a Member to give information.
It is all about producing a better finished result for the
people who are going to be affected by it. I think that our
rules should also be flexible enough to get the best results
for the people that we serve.
Mr Waft: I think, through you, Mr President, it is not
unusual for us to do so. In the past, we have done on certain
occasions.
The President: We have done, at clauses stage.
Mr Waft: We have had the Member having the
Government Vet to answer certain questions by the learned
Mrs Christian, with regard to whether we should file down
teeth and who gets responsibility for injections and –
Orders of the Day
Mrs Crowe: That is far enough!
Mr Waft: – what injection can be given and which
item… We had to have the answers, obviously, and the public
vet came and answered them the following week.
The President: I think precedent has been set at clauses
stage previously, so I think it is something which we can
operate from the Chair, comfortably.
Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: I just wonder if it is felt that something
needs to go in Standing Orders, it would be better to deal
with it before they are reprinted – or whether it can simply
be dealt with by the Chair?
Mr Lowey: We have tried to give in the Standing
Orders… we have given as much, in our view, flexibility
to the Chair, because at the end of the day, he makes things
happen.
I would have thought it would have been under our
existing Standing Orders, the flexibility, if the Member
wishes to ask, for Mr President to either grant or seek the
permission of this Council. I think the powers are already
included.
The President: Mr Downie has raised it. Obviously, I
am aware that precedent has been set before. I think, just
for the guidance of Council, as far as I would be concerned,
I would be happy if Members wished to take evidence from
officers at clauses stage. I am more unhappy once we have
moved on to the Third Reading, Hon. Members, and I would
use that as a guide.
Mr Downie: Thank you for that, Mr President.
Obviously, we are guided by you, but there are at least
three very technical Bills on the way: the Financial Services
Bill is quite technical. In fact, you will be pleased to know
that is going to be reprinted when it leaves the other place,
so at least we will be starting with it afresh. But there are
areas in there which are quite technical and I think, as much
as Members try to bone up and get a flavour of the Bill they
are introducing, at the end of the day, most of us in here are
lay people and we have to be guided by the technicians.
The President: Mrs Crowe.
Mrs Crowe: Just a point really, picking up on Mrs
Christian who… and I must congratulate them once again
for the work of all the Committee – including the Attorney
General! – who so thoroughly examined these.
I know that we have had technical advice before, but I
just wonder if it would be helpful to include a Standing Order
that would perhaps give guidance, as much for the officers
as for the Members of Council, to anyone who is required
to give technical assistance to Council.
It was just a thought. I just thought, whilst you were
reprinting them, maybe one section, but…
Mr Lowey: The Standing Orders are for the Members;
it is not for external, it is –
Mrs Crowe: No, no.
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
215 C125
Mr Lowey: – conduct of this Council.
I would caution against widening it out. I think if you
keep flexibility in… (Mrs Crowe: Okay.) The strength of a
blade of corn is not its molecular strength; it is its ability to
bend. I think if you have got a Chair who has the ability to
listen to Members and read the mood of the Council, I think
that is the best thing we have got.
I do honestly think my hon. good friend, Mr Downie,
does sell himself short at times. He says we are only laymen.
Let me just tell you what he does: he has gone from films,
ships and boats and planes to space! (Laughter) Not bad for
a layman, I will tell you –
annex at the back, in relation to the stages of legislation
– First, Second Readings, the clauses stage and the Third
Reading – they are now spelt out explicitly in the annex,
which will be a guidance to anyone at that stage.
So Hon. Members, if you are content then, they will go on
the web, they will be reprinted and they will be taken in that
form. So Mr Lowey formally having moved the Report of
the Standing Orders Committee be accepted, Hon. Members,
those in favour, please say aye; against, no. The ayes have
it. The ayes have it.
Mrs Crowe: That is where he is when we miss him, he
is in space!
Quorum of the Council
Motion lost
Date of next sitting decided
Mr Lowey: – and so, when we tend to think that these
experts… I know what Mr President will tell me what an
expert is, he has got a definition! Perhaps he will not from
the Chair, but he will tell you privately what he thinks of
an expert.
I am all for experts but they give us advice: at the end of
the day, we make decisions. I think we have that ability and
I think we should keep it –
The President: Mr Crowe.
Mr Crowe: Mr President, I am sorry to add to this. Sorry,
if I am asking for a second bite at the cherry, but what about
an adjournment – if there was a motion to adjourn, is that
in here?
Mr Lowey: Yes, it is covered.
Mr Crowe: We can adjourn at any time? (Mr Lowey:
Yes.) Because I just noticed in this –
Mr Lowey: Could I point you to 3.7, amendments and
adjournments.
Mr Crowe: So at any time we can adjourn proceedings
for –
Mr Lowey: Yes. Can I take you to page 3 at the very
bottom:
‘Any motion or amendment may be adjourned by resolution of the
Council.’
Mr Crowe: Sorry, I thank you for that clarification.
Mr Waft: I think the expert or consultant is somebody
who lives more than 10 miles away! (Laughter)
The President: Okay, Hon. Members. Mr Lowey
has presented to you the Report of the Standing Orders
Committee of Legislative Council.
Hon. Members, these Standing Orders, some of them
go back I think 70-plus years. There certainly has not been
a reprint, I do not think, for over 30 years, Hon. Members.
It does bring it up into less archaic language, to use that
terminology. It does freshen them up and give guidance to
the Chair as to what in fact Council can get up to, in the good
order and running of Council.
Mr Lowey also makes the point that particularly the
The President: Hon. Members, we did slightly touch
on the business of how we are now moving forward with
Legislative Council. Mr Downie has raised a question of our
next tranche of legislation.
The next scheduled Council sitting dates are: 4th, 18th
March; 8th, 22nd and 29th April. Hon. Members, we have
completed the Third Reading of the Income Tax Pensions
Bill this morning and our Order Paper is now looking a bit
thin.
Bills before the Keys today: for Third Reading is the
Financial Services Bill, which the Hon. Member Mr Downie
has just referred to. They, at Third Reading, as I understand, if
they have not already done so, are taking it back to committee
stage for amendment. Mr Downie tells us that Bill will be
reprinted before it comes to us.
They also have an Insurance Bill and the Collective
Investment Schemes Bill. Those are the Bills before the
Keys today. For reference to a committee, they have the
Administration of Justice Bill, as well. For the First Reading,
they have got Agricultural Tenancies.
So, Hon. Members, options for us, because our next
sitting would be 4th March… Options for 4th March are: no
sitting of Legislative Council; an afternoon sitting, if a fifth
Member of Council were to be elected in the morning; hold
a sitting with a quorum of four, using the new exceptional
circumstances provision, assuming that has all been adopted;
or make a separate resolution like the one made for Tynwald
Court – that is that the Standing Orders of Council be
suspended, to the extent that after the sitting of Council on
26th February 2008 for the remainder of the session 2007-08,
the quorum of the Council shall be three Members.
Those appear to be the options which we can take for
next week’s sitting: no sitting; an afternoon sitting, if in
fact they did elect somebody and that person, having been
elected, then went through the procedure of being formally
accepted – difficult but possible; hold a sitting with a quorum
of four using new exceptional circumstances; or, we could
today make a separate resolution like the one which we
did in Tynwald, that the Standing Orders of the Council
be suspended to the extent that after the sitting of today,
26th February, for the remainder of the session 2007-08 the
quorum of the Council shall be three Members.
Mr Downie first.
Mr Downie: Mr President, obviously, I am mindful that
some Members are up for election. It is a difficult time for
the Council, but I am sure those Members who are up for
Standing Orders Committee – Report received and amendments agreed – Amended motion carried
Quorum of the Council – Motion lost – Date of next sitting decided
216 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
election will agree with those of us who are in here that life
must go on. There is quite a legislative programme building
up. I personally have got three Bills to bring before this
particular branch.
I would like to move formally:
That Standing Orders of the Council be suspended to
the extent that, after the sitting of the Council on 26th
February 2008 for the remainder of the session 2007-08,
the quorum of the Council shall be three Members.
I think that if we can get these First Readings out of the
way, I am hoping then that there will be some white smoke
in another place. But we just cannot afford to take our foot
off the pedal at the present time. We have got to get on with
this. Not only are these important to the development of
the economy, but some of these will have implications for
the forthcoming IMF visit, and they need to be through and
granted Royal Assent.
The President: That would be in line with the resolution
which went to Tynwald.
Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Mr Downie is moving that; I am certainly
not prepared to second it, Mr President. I will wait till it is
before the Council.
Mr Crowe: I will second it, Mr President.
The President: Okay, it is seconded. Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Yes, I certainly would like to speak to
it now.
Mr President, I can see a reason for it perhaps being
suspended and dealt with in this way in Tynwald. I have
the strongest possible objection in principle to us imposing
this sort of stricture on Council, or releasing Council to this
extent, to reduce the numbers of Members of Council who
are here to scrutinise legislation.
I think that the Keys, in another place, have a serious
responsibility to appoint people to this Council, and if it
means that they are holding up the progress of legislation
by not so doing, they have got to get their act together and
find suitable candidates. I do not believe that we should be
diluting the numbers of Members of Council who deal with
the work that comes here in this manner.
I feel quite strongly about it: if it is the last thing I vote
on in here, Mr President, I shall be exercising a vote against
this.
The President: Mr Lowey.
Mr Lowey: Well, I will just go no further than say I
concur with every syllable of the hon. mover. That does not
diminish the thrust of the argument that the Hon. Member
who is moving the amendment is about.
I think we are looking at the worst case scenarios here and
I do not think we should plan our life because of the worst
case scenarios. There is a responsibility on the other place
to elect people, with the systems that they have in place. But
there is a danger in reducing the safeguards that are already
in place for quorums, and there is a very good reason for
Orders of the Day
that. It is for sound governance and I think we should keep
that at the forefront of our minds.
That is why I concur with every syllable that Mrs
Christian has said.
The President: Mr Waft.
Mr Waft: Yes, Mr President, I think the view is, from
Members who have spoken, the fact that if we reduce this
to a quorum of three, then they will take their time over the
election. I do not think we should presume that is the case.
Presumably, they would speedily do the work that they
have in hand, whether or not we have reduced our numbers
to three.
So I would support the mover of the motion.
The President: Mr Turner.
Mr Turner: Yes, I can understand the mover of this
motion bringing it forward, with legislation in the pipeline.
However, I feel it undermines the whole role of the Council,
if we can reduce the quorum down to that extent.
We have discussed, the onus is on the other place to elect a
Council. I think when it comes to the business of scrutinising
primary legislation, we should try and do that through having
as near to full strength as possible.
That is the only point I would make on that, Mr
President.
The President: Mr Butt.
Mr Butt: Yes, I would agree with the previous comments.
I think if we just had three or four Members here, looking
at technical legislation, the dilution of our skills and our
experience would be too great, really, to be countenanced. I
think we should actually have all the expertise we can muster
to pass this sort of legislation. I think just having four or even
three would not be enough.
The President: Can I just put to Council… and I see that
we have a divergence here, we are not going to simply settle
this one. I would be happy from the Chair… I can accept
where Mr Downie is coming from, because Mr Downie has
responsibility to get legislation in front of Council, and he
has responsibility to get that legislation completed, so that
Tynwald in fact can sign off the Act.
Accepting that, I think from the Chair, I would be happy
to say to Council that, if it was necessary, we could probably
speed up the process in having First and Second Reading
maybe at the one bite of the cherry, if it was necessary to
move on, so that in fact we can…
Before Mr Lowey comes back at me, I am aware that,
in the past, we have taken three Readings of financial Bills,
particularly Budget Bills on the one day. I am not anticipating
that any of these Bills are of that manner at all, because I
think we are looking at a different animal, but nevertheless
it would be possible to speed it up in that manner.
Mrs Christian.
Mrs Christian: Can I come back on the point, Mr
President, that we should not be using this to put pressure
on the Keys. There are two aspects of it. That is one part of
the argument, but equally important is the kind of process
Quorum of the Council – Motion lost – Date of next sitting decided
Orders of the Day
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
that we go through here when looking at legislation.
If there are only three Members here looking at legislation,
you have to have a proposer and a seconder for any issue.
That leaves one Member effectively, to express –
Mrs Crowe: To scrutinise.
Mrs Christian: If that Member opposes something, they
are not going to be able to overcome it with two Members
who are moving the Bill. Equally, the mover may not be
able to get any legislation through, because he has not got
a seconder.
So I really do think that when you are cutting it down to
three, it really is much, much too fine. That is just focusing
on the legislation issues and not overcooking the issue of
what the Keys should be doing to elect Members.
The President: Mr Turner and then it is Mr Downie.
Mr Turner: If I could just come back on that. Of course,
we are talking, as well, of reducing the quorum for the entire
rest of the session, taking us right through to the summer
recess. So it is a long time and a lot of legislation could, as
Mr Downie says, come through in that period, and we could
then encounter quite often the problems that Mrs Christian
has highlighted.
The President: Mr Downie.
Mr Downie: Mr President, I have a great deal of
sympathy for Hon. Members here, who have served this
place exceptionally well. I am saddened that we have got to
a position where there is apprehension about people coming
forward to be elected to this Council. I think it is a very
sad indictment of the political world that we live in, at the
moment, in the Isle of Man.
I am hoping that, by this time next week, there will
be several people elected and hopefully re-elected to
this Council, and that we can get on with our day-to-day
duties.
But in the interim, we are faced with the dilemma and
all I am asking for really is some provision. I am entirely
guided by Mr President on this and the rest of the Members
present. If you think by not going down this route, it will
apply some pressure to the other place to get them to make
a decision –
Mrs Crowe: That is not the point.
Mr Downie: I know it is not the point, Mrs Crowe said,
but at the end of the day, we are where we are. As I said,
life must go on and even if we got the First Readings out
of the way, it would give us a few weeks then, at least we
would be into the… We would have the Bills in the system
and then we would be looking for more people to come
along to Council.
The President: Mr Butt.
Mr Butt: Can I ask a technical question. If next week
at least one Member were to be re-elected or elected, so we
had five, and you propose an afternoon sitting, would that
person have to be sworn in, before they could sit?
217 C125
The President: Yes, that is what I said: it is possible
but difficult.
Mr Butt: But the chance is that there is a likelihood that
there may be a fifth Member, at least we should be quorate
by next week. This may be just a premature motion, because
within a week or two, we may know this position. If there
is an emergency and we need to, perhaps then with five, we
may need to change.
The President: The position is, Hon. Members, can I
reiterate, the position is that in normal circumstances – shall
we say, if there was not an election and we were complete
– we would be sitting next Tuesday. There would not be a
question: we would just be getting on with our business and,
in fact, it is the 4th, 18th March, 8th, 22nd and 29th April.
The reason, as I understand it, that we would not be
sitting in Council on 11th March is in fact Tynwald will be
sitting on 11th March, because Easter is very early this year.
Instead of Tynwald sitting on the third Tuesday, in order
to be flexible around the Easter holidays, Tynwald will be
sitting on 11th March.
My understanding from so far – although the Order Paper
is not yet complete – is that we are likely to have quite a
heavy Order Paper in March for Tynwald, so we will be
looking at a heavy Order Paper and possibly a three-day
sitting –11th, 12th and 13th March.
So, for Council, if it misses next Tuesday, 4th March,
the next available sitting to Mr Downie, for any legislation
coming from the Keys to Council is 18th March. That, I think,
is the difficulty. All I can say is that I would be quite happy,
I think, regardless of what happens next week, to progress
Bills to maybe First and Second Readings on the 18th, so
that we were not seen to be holding anything up.
Now, Hon. Members, we do have the proposal from Mr
Downie, seconded by Mr Crowe, that the Standing Orders
of the Council be suspended to the extent that the sitting of
26th for the remaining session, the quorum should be three
Members. Hon. Members, those in favour, please say aye;
against, no. The noes have it.
A division was called for and voting resulted as
follows:
FOR
Mr Waft
Mr Downie
Mr Crowe
AGAINST
Mr Lowey
Mr Butt
Mr Turner
Mrs Christian
Mrs Crowe
The President: With 5 against, 3 for, Hon. Members,
the motion therefore fails to carry.
Hon. Members, it takes me then to the option for next
week and I think, in reality, the logics to myself will be to
have no sitting next Tuesday – no sitting at all. We will allow
the other place to get on with its duties and its business and
our next sitting then of Council will be the 18th.
But accepting that, in fact, Council will be sitting, even
if nobody is re-elected, in Tynwald on 11th, 12th and 13th,
albeit that the Standing Orders of Council will be suspended
to the extent that a quorum of Council will be three for the
Tynwald sitting. Okay, Hon. Members? Right.
Quorum of the Council – Motion lost – Date of next sitting decided
218 C125
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, TUESDAY, 26th FEBRUARY 2008
Good wishes to retiring Members:
Mr Lowey; Mrs Christian; Mrs Crowe;
and Mr Turner
The President: That having cleared that air, Hon.
Members, I am, of course, aware that we have now completed
our Order Paper in its entirety.
Hon. Members, as I indicated in Tynwald last week, I
think everybody, including all the populace of the Isle of
Man, should in fact be very grateful to the Hon. Members of
Council who today are sitting here for the last time and are
subject to re-election next week by the other place.
Mr Lowey entered this particular Chamber, became a
Member of the Legislative Council in 1982. When I start
in this form, Hon. Members, it almost becomes as if it is an
obituary! I can assure Mr Lowey, who was a school mate
of mine, that in no way is it an obituary. In fact, he became
a Member of the Legislative Council in 1982. Mr Lowey’s
straightforward common sense has been, on numerous
occasions, of particular benefit to Tynwald Court, but largely
here within the Legislative Council, where I know that he
has enjoyed the actual business of working his way through
primary law.
It is just one of these quirks that, in fact, it is something
which has made up a large part of his life. As a Labour
Party member in the Rushen constituency of a long time
ago, sitting alongside him on the Rushen bench, I was very
well aware that we could very easily, between us, put red
herrings in front of the House of Keys or send all sorts of
sparks flying roundabout.
Mr Lowey’s straightforward open honesty and common
sense have meant a lot to the Legislative Council, and I
wish you well, sir, no matter what happens. (Members:
Hear, hear.)
Mrs Christian: well, Mrs Christian is a little terrier. Mrs
Christian entered the Council in 1993 and has that tenacity to
be able to, using Mrs Crowe’s words earlier, tease out various
things in legislation. I am sure that Mrs Christian has also
seriously enjoyed the work of the Legislative Council. I know
for a fact that she has carried her duties as a parliamentarian
in another place, and particularly in Tynwald Court with
honour and distinction.
That said, Mrs Christian, again has had that background
of detail which has served the Legislative Council extremely
well, with dealing with legislation. Similarly again, I just
wish Mrs Christian all the best whatever comes up in the
future. (Members: Hear, hear.)
Mrs Crowe is also sitting here attending her last Council
meeting, unless in fact re-elected, the same as the other two
Members. Mrs Crowe has been a Member of Council only
for a short period of time in reality, joining the Legislative
Council in 2003, coming to the Legislative Council again
from her membership in the other place in the House of
Keys, elected again to the constituency of Rushen. There is
something about the constituency of Rushen, which I think
shines throughout what happens!
Mrs Crowe entered the Council in 2003. Mrs Crowe I
think we can say has, without question, been diligent in her
Orders of the Day
workload to the Legislative Council, and particularly in her
workload to her various Departments which she has had
responsibility for, from Tynwald Court. I do not think any
Member or any person can question the diligence that Mrs
Crowe has put into her duties. I think she has been prepared
to accept unquestionably that it needed drive, it needed
efficiency and it needed work. If that is the making of Mrs
Crowe, I think that is her mark. She is prepared to get up in
the morning and put in the hours and put in the work.
So Mrs Crowe, to you, I equally say thank you for very
much and wish you well for the future. (Members: Hear,
hear.)
And then I come to our new boy, Mr Turner. Mr Turner
only became a Member of the Legislative Council in 2007,
coming in on a ‘by-election’, so therefore not serving a fiveyear term, but now facing the prospect of election by the
House of Keys to serve a five-year term starting off afresh.
Mr Turner came in with no former parliamentary history.
He had not been a Member of the House of Keys, came
particularly into the Legislative Council straight out of a
business life. Possibly, some people will have been surprised
at the enthusiasm which Mr Turner has accepted, in being a
Member of the Legislative Council, and if I may be permitted
to say so, I would say that I think also, in the short time that
Mr Turner has sat at this desk, he too has enjoyed being a
Member of the Legislative Council.
For example, I remember well the week before last,
when we were questioning on the Pensions and Insurance
Bill, the question of the 1989, 1970 legislation and whether
the regulations had to be approved or not by Tynwald Court.
Mr Turner was beetling away, trying to work out and came
up with a suggestion that in fact he had proved to me that
here was a comparatively new Member prepared to be openminded and yet get to the bottom of a knotty problem.
So again, Mr Turner, thank you for your year’s service
here and I wish you well. (Members: Hear, hear.)
So to the four Members who leave this particular
Chamber, as one who has stood for election, been turned
down at elections, been refused at elections, made comebacks
at elections – all those sorts of things – I am very well
aware that elections are always fraught with difficulties.
Nevertheless, to the four Members, the outgoing Members
of Council, I pay, on behalf of myself, on behalf of your
colleagues here at the Council table, and particularly on
behalf of the public of the Isle of Man, where your duties in
Tynwald have proved to be invaluable, I say all the very best
for the future and wish you well for next week.
Members: Thank you. Hear, hear.
The President: Thank you, Hon. Members. That draws
to a conclusion the business before the Legislative Council
and as I said, Hon. Members, our next sitting formally for
Council will now be on 18th March.
Thank you, Hon. Members.
The Council adjourned at 12.35 p.m.
Good wishes to retiring Members: Mr Lowey; Mrs Christian; Mrs Crowe; and Mr Turner