report of proceedings of house of keys - tynwaldprinted (by authority) by corrie ltd., 7, circular...

Printed (by Authority) by CORRIE Ltd., 7, Circular Road, Douglas, isle of Man.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE OF KEYS

DOUGLAS, Tuesday, 26th June 1984 at 10.30 a.m.

Present: The Speaker (the Hon. Sir Charles Kerruîsh O.B.E.), Messrs. W. K. Quirk, W. A. Gil bey. J. D. Q. Cannan, J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. C. M. Christian, Dr. E. J. Mann, Messrs. A. A. Callin, D. G. MaddreH, R. A. Payne, M. R. Walker, N. Q. Cringle, C. H. Faragher, Dr. D. L. Moore, Mr. C. A. Cain, Messrs. G. V. H. Kneale, B. Gelling, A. C. Duggan, E. M. Ward, B.E.M., D. F, K. Delaney, D. Martin, J. A. Brown, with Mr. R. B. M. Quayle, Secretary of the House.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

The Speaker: Hon. members, Dr. Teare is stilt indisposed; we have his apologies. We have Mr. Ouinney's apologies and Mr. Ward has indicated that he will join us as soon as possible; he has been delayed from reaching the House.

DEATH OF MRS. D. QUINNEY - CONDOLENCES TO MR. QUINNEY

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am aware that hon. members have beensaddened by the news of the passing of Mrs. Doreen Quinney, wife of the hon. member for Douglas North, after a long illness borne with courage and fortitude. I am sure it is your wish that the sympathy of the House be conveyed to our colleague, Mr. Quinney, in his loss and there will be an opportunity for those who wish to attend the funeral service at St. George's Church at 2.30 p.m. today to do so, as with your agreement the lunchtime adjournment will be from 1.15 p.m. to 3.15 p.m.

CHAPLAIN OF THE HOUSE OF KEYS - TRIBUTE ON HIS RETIREMENT - REV. R. E. CUBBON ELECTED SUCCESSOR

The Speaker: Hon. members, if we look at our Agenda the first business is to elect a Chaplain, and it seems sad that we have today the task of electing a

Apologies for Absence Death of Mrs. D. Quinney — Condolences to Mr; Quinney

Chaplain of The House of Keys — Tribute on His Retirement— Rev. R. E. Cubbon Elected Successor

K870________ HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984

successor to our much ioved Chaplain, who has indicated that he would wish to hand over his duties before we meet again in October. Before moving to that election, I think the time is appropriate for me to say a few words about the Rev. Joe Wilson, our chaplain for the past 16 years.

Joe Wilson was born in Liverpool in 1901, and was an engineer before taking the cloth in 1926. During his training year he spent some time at Victoria Street chapel, Douglas, but his first appointment to the Island was in 1944 when he became the minister of the same Victoria Street chapel, a post he held until 1952. He returned in 1962 when he became minister in Castletown, and he has been with us ever since, holding office as Chairman of the Methodist District in 1964, and elected Chaplain to this House on 25th June, almost 16 years ago to the day.

I can say, hon. members without fear of contradiction, that the Rev. Wilson has been one of the most respected and best loved Chaplains the House has ever enjoyed (Hear, hear). He has been tireless in giving help and genuine concern to members who have been sick or in other difficulties and we have all appreciated his interest and involvement in our affairs. To him and to his dear wife, who has supported him so ably in his ministry, we extend our thanks along with our very best wishes for the future (Hear, hear).

Rev. J. Wilson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you brethren; it has been a privilege to serve this House, perhaps the highlight of my ministry in many ways. For one thing, I have not had to wrestle with Sunday School Councils and Boards of Trustees, and that is an advantage from a ministerial point of view. Thank you for all your kindness; there have been great rewards in the work. I have thoroughly enjoyed it and all the contacts ! have made, i shall never forget you all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The first business on our Agenda is to elect a Chaplain in the place of the Rev. Joe Wilson. The Consultative Committee, you will notice, have nominated the Rev. R. E. Cubbon of St. Clairs, Mountain View, Peel, and i call on the hon. member for Douglas West to move the nomination.

Mr. Kneale: Mr. Speaker, on 25th June 1968 I had the privilege of nominating the Rev. Joe Wilson to be our Chaplain. It is with equal pleasure that I recommend that the Rev. R. E. Cubbon of St. Clairs, Mountain View, Peel be our Chaplain to replace our good friend, Joe Wilson. I have much pleasure in putting forward this nomination.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second.

The Speaker: Are there any further nominations, hon. members? if not, I put the nomination of the Rev. R. E. Cubbon to the House. Will those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The resolution is carried unanimously.

Chaplain of The House of Keys - Tribute on His Retirement— Rev. R. E. Cubbon Elected Successor

HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984________ K871

BILLS FOR FIRST READING

The Speaker: Bills for first reading.

The Secretary: The Income Tax etc. (Amendment) Bill — Mr. Maddrell.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL - DISAGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL AMENDMENTS

The Speaker: We come next to the Representation of the People Bill for consideration of Council amendments. I call on the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr. Kneale.

Mr. Kneale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on reading the report of the Special Committee of the Legislative Council on the Representation of the People Bill and the subsequent amendments that come before us today, hon. members can be forgiven if they are left wondering what Bill this report is about and where do these amendments fit in. t think it therefore necessary for me to briefly state what has happened up to date.

On 27th April 1982 the House gave a second reading to a Bill which I had introduced entitled the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, the object of which was to re-define the constituencies for the purpose of election of members of the House of Keys and non-Tynwald members of the Board of Education as 12 two-member constituencies. Having given a second reading to the Bill, the House sent it to a committee for consideration and report* On the 4th May 1982 a further Bill, the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill, also received a second reading and was also sent to a committee.

The first Bill would have automatically reduced the representation of some constituencies, and suggestions were made that an alternative to reductions might be to increase the total number of representatives. As regards the second Bill, several members suggested that if the principle of election of the second chamber was to be accepted, they would prefer to see the whole of Tynwald elected at one General Election rather than separate elections for each branch. Because of these comments the committee gave careful consideration to the proposals, and after several meetings came back to the House to get its further reaction. The First Interim Report was adopted on 22nd June 1982, recommending that Tynwald should become an elected assembly of 33 members, and attached to the report was a draft Bill which would bring this about.

The committee, by letters to hon. members, dated 28th June 1982, and to all local authorities dated 16th July 1982, and by newspaper advertisements, asked interested parties to submit written evidence. The response from the local authorities was excellent, all but Ramsey sending their views. Four organisations, four individuals and two members of the House of Keys also submitted written

Bills for First Reading Representation of the People Bill — Disagreement with Council Amendments

K872 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984

evidence, making the total of 35 submissions in all. During the next six months the committee held a series of meetings to allow people to give oral evidence. Ten meetings were held during that time and 56 individuals attended, including two additional members of the House of Keys. Besides this, members of the committee attended public meetings In different parts of the Island to explain the contents of the draft Bill, and also addressed various organisations on the subject. We also sought the views of the Constitutional Issues Committee.

On 25th January, 1983 the committee presented its Second Interim Report to this hon. House. Having taken note of the observations made by various bodies and individuals about the draft Bill the committee decided to increase the number of constituencies from 13 to 16, and by so doing were able to meet most, if not all, of the objections that had been received to the draft Bill. In their report the committee stated — "In our deliberations we have adhered to the following principles, which are the unanimous view of all of us: (a) Tynwald Court, where all matters of policy and finance are decided, is the pre-eminent parliamentary assembly under the Manx Constitution; (b) re-distribution should lead, as far as possible, to equitable representation for each area in Tynwald. There is at present an imbalance of representation brought about in relation to the Legislative Council by the unfettered freedom of elections vested in the Keys and, in relation to the Keys, by population changes which have occurred since the constituencies were last reformed in 1956. This imbalance should be corrected as soon as possible.” The Second Interim Report was approved by the House by 16 votes to seven. On the evening of 25th January 1983 following that acceptance I attended a private meeting of the Ramsey Commissioners at their invitation, to explain the Bill to them, and was well received. That meant that every local authority in the Island had had a chance to discuss the matter fully with representatives of the committee.

The committee had included three alternative options for electing a 33-seat Tynwald, in their Second Interim Report and it hoped for a firm indication of preference from the House, but this was not forthcoming so your committee had to make their own decisions, and here the committees were divided; three supported one method and two another. A draft Bill was included with the Third Interim Report, based on the method supported by the majority of the committee, and this report was adopted by 18 votes to six on the 7th June 1983. The Bill was introduced into the Keys on the 1st November 1983, completed a second reading on the 22nd November and the third reading was approved by 15 votes to nine on 6th December 1983.

It had taken nearly two years to achieve that stage, during which time wide publicity has been given to the Bill; hundreds of people have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with members of the committee; many hours of public debate had taken place in the House of Keys, in which 28 members had taken part. Altogether the records of these debates cover 254 pages of Hansard. My two original Bills had been replaced by this new Bill at the request of the House, but the two original Bills, having received second readings, were still alive at the time the Third Interim Report was approved.

Representation of the People Bill — Disagreement with Council Amendments

HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984 K873

This created a problem for the committee, so we sought the advice of the Attorney-General and in a letter dated 30th August 1983 he gave this opinion — " It is quite clear that the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill 1982, and the Constitution of Legislative Council Bill 1982, cannot proceed at the same time as the Representation of the People Bill 1983, as the two 1982 Bills and the 1983 Bill provide for different methods of elections to the two branches of Tynwald. It must follow, therefore, that if the new Representation of the People Bill 1983 is passed, the two earlier 1982 Bills must be discharged; it is clearly impossible for all three Bills to be enacted. The only question which arises, therefore, is when the two 1982 Bills, which have already received second reading, should be discharged. Clearly the House cannot be asked to consider the clauses of all Bills". After describing the progress of the committee's report, the Attorney-Genera! concluded that, "the new Bill can only therefore be received on the basis that the Bills which have already received a second reading are withdrawn. I appreciate, however, that the committee may wish to proceed with the 1982 Bills if the new Bill is not given a second reading. If the House gives a second reading to the new Bill that must, however, to a discharge of the two existing Bills. I suggest that a way out of the difficulty would be for the House to resolve that, in the event of the representation of the People Bill 1983 receiving a second reading, the Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill and the Constitution (Legislative Council) Bill, would be deemed to be discharged” . These two Bills were discharged by resolution of the House on 6th December 1983.

I have gone into some detail on this issue, so that a comparison can be made with the way the matter has been dealt with since it left this House in December last. It was the 14th February 1984 before a first reading was given to the Bill,despite the fact that Council had meetings on 10th and 24th January which hadconcluded at 12.18 p.m. and 12.40 p.m. respectively.

The Speaker: Is all this relevant?

Mr. Kneale: Yes, sir, very relevant.

The Speaker: We have little touched on the amendments as yet.

Mr. Kneale: I am coming to that sir, and 1 think it is correct that I shouldbe allowed to present the case in my own way.

The Speaker: By all means, but Council sittings appear to . . . Anyway, proceed.

Mr. Kneale: It was on the 14th February, for a reason which I cannot appreciate, that the Bill was put in the charge of the Attorney-GeneraI. I had asked the hon. member of Council, Mr. Lowey, if he would take charge of the Bill and he had agreed. After all, on 27th April 1983, whilst still a member of this House, he proposed the idea of a 33-seat Tynwald elected at the same time, so he was the obvious choice to take charge of it, and that is why I find it difficult to understand why the Attorney-General should be asked to take it. After all, it is not a Government Bill.



The Attorney-General started by saying — "I do not Intend at this stage to describe the changes which are proposed by the Bill", but he did point out that it was important to not® that the Bill would not alter the powers or the functions of either the Houe of Keys or the Legislative Council or Tynwald Court. The changes which would be made if the Bill were passed related to the membership of the Keys and the Council, not the powers of the Keys and the Council or the relative position of the two branches, except for the proposal that in Tynwald Court the two branches should always vote as one body. The rest of his remarks consisted of a short precis of what had happened since June 1970 when Tynwald resolved that the committee to investigate should be set up. Not a single additional word was said by him about the details of the Bill.

The hon. member of Council, Mr. Anderson, in seconding said that it was essential that "proper consideration is given to the Bill, because it is a very important measure". The hon. member of Council, Mr. Kerruish, believed this was "a classic example of where the Council can fulfil its role as a responsible advisory body, and come forward with a revised measure which will not only be accepted but welcomed by a majority of the Keys, and will prove much more acceptable to the people of the Island." He then gave notice of his intention to move that the Bill be sent to a committee, and said the House of Keys had "spent a considerable time, quite properly, on what is a most important measure, and I believe that the whole of its contents should be examined in depth by a committee consisting of all the members of this Council, and my reason for supporting it at this stage is in order that at the second reading stage, when it gets there, it be sent to a committee of this hon. Council with a view to it being examined in great depth and, I hope, with a result that we will be able to transmit to the other branch in the course of time a measure which will be more acceptable to, ! believe, the hon. members of the other branch of the Legislature, and particularly to the majority of the people of the Island." Every member of Council spoke a few words on the Bill, but the Attorney-General did not attempt to answer any of the matters raised. The debate was over in about 40 minutes.

The second reading was given to the Bill on 28th February 1984, and it was sent to a committee consisting of the whole Council. The complete debate took about half-an-hour on that occasion, and is reported on nine pages of Hansard, much of which space is taken up by printing a memorial about the Bishop's vote and commenting about it. The Attorney-General formally moved the second reading of the Bill and simply gave a brief explanation of it — and that is ali, and that is the last we heard of the Bill until recently when the report of the committee was received by hon. members on the 14th June, it having been signed by members of Council on the 12th June.

On Friday 15th June Council met in public at 2.30 p.m. The Agenda for that meeting had two items on it: "{1} the Attorney-Gen era I to move that the report of the Special Committee on the Representation of the People. Bill be received;(2) Representation of the People Bill, the Attorney-General for consideration of clauses and third reading." I attended the whole of that meeting, and two other members of this hon. House attended for part of it. If we were expecting to hear


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984

the Bill being passed and sent to Council being debated, we were disappointed. It was hardly mentioned. What took place was a farce. The President of Council called on the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General said "Mr. President, in accordance with your request, I formally move the report of the Special Committee of the whole Council which was appointed on 28th February 1984, to consider the Representation of the People Bill and to report thereon to the Council. I am, of course, not a signatory to the report, and I should preface my remarks by saying that as Attorney-General I should not be involved in the arguments over the politics behind this report. I am therefore moving the report in order to report to the Council the work of the committee. Council must then determine whether or not to accept the report".

Of course the Attorney-General was quite right. He should not get involved in the politics, and for that reason it was wrong to ask him to take charge of such a contentious Bill. The person who takes charge of a Bill has a duty to try and pursuade other members to support it by explaining fully the contents and reasons for them. At no stage was this done in Council with the Bill we sent to them. Can there be anything more farcical than reporting to Council the work of a committee of which they were all members, and seven out of eight had signed the report? They have held all their meetings in private so members of this hon. House and the public in general were denied the chance of hearing their arguments for or against our Bill. How different from the long and careful consideration and full public debate which took place in this hon. Chamber.

What we learned from the Attorney-General was that all persons who had submitted evidence to the Butler Commission or who had submitted evidence to the committee of the House of Keys were written to individually and invited to submit observations to the committee of the Council, and in addition by public notice in four local papers. Members of the public were invited to submit views to the committee; 44 bodies or individuals had submitted evidence to the Butler Commission, four of whom have since died; 35 had submitted views to the House of Keys committee, 14 of whom, were different from those on the Butler Commission list, making the total of 54 available,

The response to Council's approach is shown in Appendix 2 of their report. Some 26 replies, including four who had not previously submitted views and one who responded by saying he did not wish to submit views, so only 22 of the 54 who had previously given evidence responded again — and is that surprising? The evidence of all these bodies is already on record, and you will see from Council's report, paragraph 2.7, copies of evidence submitted to the Keys Committee were made available to them, but in compiling their report they have ignored these completely.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Council committee met in private on the 6th March and decided to call for views on the Bill. Letters were written to individuals from the 22nd March and newspaper advertisements were published on the 23rd and 27th March, all asking for views to be submitted by the 1st June. Why it was considered necessary to allow such a long period I can only surmise,


K876 HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE, 1984

but what it did encourage people to do was to put the letters to one side as not needing urgent attention. The individuals who submitted views acted very quickly. There were six of them; three replied in March and one in April, Michael Village Commissioners gave a very full reply by the 9th April and the Michael Parish Commissioners on the 24th April, but most of the other focal authorities did not reply until nearly the end of May, and one on 8th June. Five of them simply sent copies of the letters they had sent to the Keys' committee.

The Attorney-Genera I told Council that the committee studied the written representations and concluded that “there is strong support for a measure of re-distribution of seats of the House of Keys, to ensure as far as possible equality for the Island's electorate. However/' he said, "the committee have given the view, rightly or wrongly, that there is little public support for the form of redistribution proposed in the Bill.” Paragraph 3.3 of the Council's report states that "a study of the evidence submitted, and of Table 3, reveals a strong majority of opinion in favour of direct election to the House of Keys and the retention of the Legislative Council." Paragraph 3.4 of the report says that "it is significant that although only a small minority indicated to us that they were in favour of a popularly elected Council, most of that minority felt that this should be done at a different time from the House of Keys election."

If hon. members have copies of the Council's report with them, I would ask them to turn to Table 3, and you will see that the reason for that submission of the Council is the fact that 13,830 voters from Douglas have been included as being against the proposed 33. They base that assumption on a letter they had received from the Town Clerk of Douglas dated the 30th May, which apologised for the late response to the letter of 22nd March, but stated that the Policy and Resources Committee wanted to give detailed consideration to the proposals and that therefore had taken their time over the issue. In fact, no such detailed consideration has been given by that committee. A copy of a resolution passed by that committee on the 23rd May was enclosed with his letter, and the Town Clerk explained that the decision was subject to confirmation by the Council at its meeting on the 13th June, but he did not expect any contrary views to be expressed. How wrong he was! When the matter came before the whole Council the Policy and Resources Committee was strongly criticised for their action, and an amendment was moved that the Council supported the 33 seats. Although this was defeated by 12 votes to nine, it is significant that the nine who supported were all elected representatives whilst six of those against were aldermen, five of whom are on the Policy and Resources Committee. It is known that at least one of the three absent councillors is also in favour of the 33 proposal, so a majority of the elected town councillors are in favour.

A letter was sent from the Policy and Resources Committee to the President of the Council on the 15th June as they were sitting, and he read it out at the end of the clauses stage of the Bill. This corrected their previous submission which is included as evidence to support the conclusions in Council's report. This new letter finished by saying, "However, the one important view which all the councillors agree is the fact that on a population basis Douglas is under represented



in Tynwald and that any moves to alter the constitution of either the Legislative Council, the Keys or Tynwald should provide for an increased representation for Douglas in Tynwald where policy in the main is decided."

Of course this now makes a nonsense of Table 3 of the Council's report; the 13,830 for Douglas has to be transferred over the 33 column. If hon. members will look at the letter from the Peel Commissioners they will see that they were pretty evenly divided on whether to go for the 33 idea or not. The decision not to support was carried by a narrow majority — I believe it was by one vote, which would indicate a five/four result, and on that basis, another 1,178 voters should be transferred to the 33 column. The 404 votes from Michael village have been allocated to the 24-seat column but if hon. members will turn to the letter from the Michael Village Commissioners they will see that they indicate support for the election of a 33-seat Tynwald in two stages, so you can push those 404 voters over, and now Table 3 reads:— 10,950 in favour of 24, and 23,262 in favour of 33. If the Council had considered the evidence given to the Keys committee and which they had obtained, they would have seen that both Rushen and Arbory had indicated support for the 33-seat idea, so that is another 2,287 votes in favour.

Now, the figures in Table 4 of the Council's report also need considerable correction and should indicate support for direct elections to the Legislative Council from 27,338 votes compared with 5,999 in favour of election by the Keys. There is a proverb which says ''There are none so blind as those that do not want to see;" (Hear, hear!) (Laughter) it would appear that on this issue Council have come into that category. Now you may wonder how the Policy and Resources Committee of the Douglas Corporation misjudged the feeling of the Town Council so badly but, as I pointed out, the committee includes five aldermen, and the Aldermanic bench has been under considerable attack in recent years and it is thought the report has suggested that they should be abolished.

It would seem quite obvious that the Council were not aware of the contents of the 1961 Constitution Act, Section 10, which states that if a Bill which has been sent to Council not less than three months before the end of the session has not been passed by them it will be deemed to be rejected. After having been told by the President of Council towards the end of May that Council as a committee have not met to consider the Bill since March, I enquired of the Secretary of the House about the contents of the 1961 Act and asked him to take the matter up with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General admitted that he had overlooked or was not aware of this part of the 1961 and since then there has been an awful rush by Council, They held a meeting on the 29th May, and, I believe, also on the 5th, 6th, 11th and 12th June at which they signed their report. It should be quite obvious to anyone that in that short period of time they could not give very careful consideration to the Bill we had sent them. You will note that several people who had submitted written evidence requested meetings with the committee but none of them were invited.

If hon. members will compare the Council's opposed amendments to the Bill that were sent to them they will realise that what has come back from them is an



exact copy with certain variations in constituency make-up of the original ^ tw o - seat constituency Bill that I introduced in April 1982 and which was discharged by the House on the 6th December 1983. The constituencies contained in the Council's amendment are identical to those contained in the Butler Report with the exception of the south of the Island, and reintroduced the matters of concern that were raised with the Keys committee and which', in our final draft of the Bill, we cured. Ayre had asked to be a two-seat constituency separate from Michael, Michael asked to remain as they are, Malew asked not to be broken up and expressed the view that Castletown and Malew should be kept separate, even if it meant on fewer numbers that Castletown was over-represented and they were under-represented, Glenfaba asked to be kept intact and so did Onchan. The suggestions I made for Douglas tied like areas together; Douglas, as many members will realise, is divided into several different areas; tourism, working class, middle and upper class and so on. By getting the boundaries wrong you can deny some people any chance of electing a direct representative; for example, the tourist area has been divided between three Douglas constituencies and with a single transferable vote system of voting could be denied the chance of electing a single direct representative.

Council seemed very keen to get public reaction to the Bill that we sent up to them, but have not sought any reaction to their own proposals.! am sure by now all members will realise that I think that Council has made a right mess of things, and my recommendation is that this House rejects all their amendments and by so doing we can look at our own Bill afresh in the next session. I therefore move:

That this House disagree with the Council amendments.

Mr. Delaney: I rise to second, Mr. Speaker, and reserve my remarks.

Dr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues at stake: one is redistribution of seats, the need for which I think has been agreed by all members of both branches; mixed up with that is the change of the constitution of the Legislative Council, which has not met with the same unanimous agreement. I think in retrospect it is a pity that the two items were combined, because it has led to a considerable amount of confusion and we have seen evidence that reforming zeal has been misdirected to a narrow attack on the Legislative Council.

I see sadly now very great difficulty in reaching any agreement on redistibrution of seats. I see a very great danger that we will end up doing absolutely nothing, and this possibility horrifies me.

The Council amendments have some points that I strongly dislike, but overall I believe it is at least a fairer system than the one which pertains at the moment and I, in the hope that we can achieve something out of this long protracted affair, will move an amendment to the hon. member for West Douglas. I beg to move an amendment:—



That the House disagree with the Council amendments with a view to a conference.

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, I wilt second the hon. member for Peel, and I do so on the grounds that I concur that we do seem to have got the redistribution idea mixed up with the whole business of a complete alteration of the constitution.I quite genuinely have considerable concern for the well-being of this House and the well-being of Tynwald — and I stress that, the well-being of Tynwald — if we alter in the way in which we are going. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, we should go along the road of redistribution and I think redistribution is very necessary for this House of Keys. I think that is unquestionable, arid personally I would go back to the hon. member for West Douglas' 1982 Bill. I think in that context we were much nearer the mark than by the system whereby we are altering completely our representation in the complete voting for Tynwald, so I will certainly agree with and second the hon. member for Peel in his comments that we should seek a conference or whatever to try to come up with some amalgam whereby we will certainly get some redistribution without the necessity of taking a sledgehammer to crack the nut.

Dr. Mann: Mr. Speaker, I think this morning I was hoping that we were not going to go over a re-hash of all the debate that has taken place in this House in the past but to face reality. We have to face reality whether we like it or not, because at the moment we have a bicameral system of Government, and in my view we should continue to have a bicameral system in which the two Houses are based on different electoral bases.

The fact of the matter is that there is, after a considerable amount of work on the part of the Council, a disagreement, a basic disagreement between ourselves and the other place. That can be resolved in two ways: either we totally reject everything the Council says and proceed to bulldoze — and I mean that word in its literal sense — eventually the Bill before the House of Keys through the Council given time. The other way, which is an acceptance of the bicameral system, is that we take note, and seriously take note, of the views of the other House and in some way reach an agreement between the two Houses which will allow this Bill to become law as quickly as possible.

My own view is that we have got to see practical politics for what they are, that there is no automatic support for the alteration of the constitution and election of the Council. There is a unanimous view that representation jji the. House of Keys needs to be urgently attended to. I think we should follow a course in which we have a conference with the Council and reach an acceptable solution that will allow a Bill to pass through both Houses as quickly as possible, because this is going to be a very long drawn-out battle if we are going to bulldoze this Bill through; it is going to result in a brink situation where we will not know how the next House of Keys or Tynwald will be elected until the very last moment, which I think is a very disturbing and very upsetting state of affairs.



There are two residual problems: one is the boundaries we establish on future constituencies and the number of people who should be elected either to the Keys or to Tynwald. I think, if we look around, all the evidence, all the reaction that has taken place the support is for a redistribution of boundaries and a direct election to the House of Keys and leaving the Council as it is. If we can achieve that situation we will have a Bill through fairly quickly and we will all be in place and ready before the next election. I am not even concerned about the arguments as to how many constituencies there should be. If this House, or the two Houses, cannot agree, there is no reason why we cannot create a boundaries commission almost immediately to agree it outside, if necessary, to ensure that we do get an agreed procedure for the next election*

So I cannot see any real alternative but to have a conference with the Council and see what can be a forward policy that would be accepted and would allow a Bill to pass very swiftly through both branches.

The Speaker: Hon, members, before the debate continues I want to have one point clarified. The hon. member for Peel indicated his support in principle for the Council amendments but indicated also desirability to having a conference to clear up some points in relation to them. Now, if you look at Standing Order 160 this has to be achieved through disagreeing with the Council amendments with a view to a conference and that is the form in which I have received the hon. member's amendment to the resolution, so let us make that clear at this stage. The resolution is that we disagree with the Council amendments, but the amendment is that we disagree with a view to a conference. The hon* member for Ramsey.

Mr. Cain: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have reached a confrontational situation and one that is very difficult to reconcile. If ! thought it were possible that a conference between ourselves and the Council could produce some meaningful result, then I would be in favour of it, but candidly I think that our own committee of this House reached a compromise solution {Hear, hear) and it was one that obtained broad acceptance in this House. I think the Council have tried another compromise solution and I find it an unacceptable one and, as the original solution they have proposed was unacceptable to this House when we considered that solution, t cannot see that a conference between us and the Council is going to produce a solution which is going to be a compromise of a compromise with a compromise that is going to be acceptable to this House; it is inconceivable to me.

It seems to me that what the Council has said is there are two very simple solutions to our problems and that they have had it spelt out both in the Bill which we passed here and the revised Bill that they are recommending. It seems to me that we have no option other than to reject the amendments that the Council have put forward and to consider a different way of handling the problem. Now, the Council have said and indicated that they believe that the vast popular support is for their solution, not ours, I disagree with that, and my own soundings on this matter indicates to me that, by and large, when the facts are explained, most people accept that the compromise that we produced is the only one that actually works and makes sense.



I think we should reject the Council's amendments totally but I think, however, that we should also bear in mind that there is one Act of Tynwald which is appropriate to be used in a constitutional issue of this case where disagreement arises, and that is the Referendum Act. In my view we should reject the Council's amendment and we should consider in the next session what we should do and we should bear in mind the solution of calling a referendum, so that the people can choose through democratic means which of the solutions they confirm and so that the people can be consulted and democracy can be seen to be at work. This is a constitutional issue of great importance and I think, where the two Houses are so clearly divided, that the use of a referendum would be appropriate, but at this moment I have to support the original resolution and I believe that the Council's amendments should be rejected totally.

Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House's committee on this issue I was annoyed when I read the report of the Council, because ! consider it an insult to the intelligence of the members of this House-

All they have done is gone back to the Butler report for two-seat constituencies or to the original Bill of Mr. Kneale. They criticised the '33' proposals and pulled holes in it; surely they can do this, but if you go and ask the people what they think of the proposals of the Council now, they will pul! holes in that too. The people in the north, for example, do not want a large area; the people of Peel feel that they should have a seat of their own rather than bumped in with Glenfaba. You can go right through the list; you will get just as many objections to the Council proposals as you will have to the 33, It boils down in the end to: those who lose are going to oppose, and those who gain are going to be for — all the way through, and you can even relate it to the members of the Council if you so wish.

I was further annoyed when I heard a report on Manx Radio by the Chairman of the Select Committee of the Council when he said that they had considered the report in more detail than the Keys. We have been nearly two years at this now. They never interviewed anybody personally; we interviewed all of the people who wished to see us and it took us months and months to do this, and we got the feeling of the way the people think. We were never going to satisfy everybody; it is impossible, and I sometimes wonder if the motives of the chairman of the committee — although I know understanding Orders j am notallowed to question the motives, but an ex-member for Middle who can suggest that the village of Onchan be divided down Royal Avenue and that the parish church be in Garff — I just cannot understand it. I wonder if his fate will be similar to that famous person who was married in Onchan Church, Captain Bltgh? I think he would have a mutiny on his hands if this became law.

Mr. Delaney: But he survived!

Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we are so far apart with the Council's thinking that the only sensible course of action is to reject the Council amendments and make it very clear that we will not have a conference.



Mr. Walker; Mr. Speaker, the member who has just resumed his seat said that we are so far apart that no compromise Is possible, and I would suggest to that hon, member that that is not the case. It was also said, I think, by Mr. Cain, hon. member for Ramsey, that this House and the other were diametrically opposed, I think that this House is split almost down the middle on this particular issue — that is the House of Keys — and I do not see ourselves as a majority diametrically opposed to the Upper House,

I made it clear at the third reading of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, that personally I could not support the 33-seat directly elected Tywald. I think direct elections to the Council are not on. I do not want to go over all the arguments again, but the main point, the only point that ! could support in that Bill was that representation in Tynwald was corrected rather than just the House of Keys, and I think that it is important we bear in mind there should be fair representation in Tynwald.

I was cheered by the final paragraph in the Council's report where they say, "We further recommend that the Council do appoint a special committee to consider the constitution of the Council, taking into account the wide range of views" and so on. I think, I hope, that the Council will accept need for reform; I personally would much prefer to see that reform come from within the Council rather than have it forced on them in the same way that I would prefer to see reform for local authorities come from within rather than pushed on to them.

So I am going to support the amendment put forward by Dr. Moore. I think that way we do find a way forward and I do believe that it is possible to find boundaries which are acceptable on a 12 two*seat constituency although, I would say again, I personally prefer the two and three-seat constituency as put forward by the Butler Commission Report, but it would seem that that does not find favour with the majority. I would think we could find acceptable boundaries this way, I think it is a way forward and I support the amendment.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I take the point of the opening mover that we reject recommendations and I look at the House of Keys Agenda today and I honestly believe, sir, it has been wrongly worded, for it says "For consideration of Council amendments" — they are the Council amendments and, as I understand it, this is a report containing the Council amendments and the reason is to justify them.

Both branches of Government are sworn to uphold the unwritten rights of all members of the Isle of Man society. I say "unwritten" because we have no constitution that has been agreed or tested by public mandate. In terms of democracy we are very young, and for those within the establishment who continually quote political stability, let me remind them that even the most right-wing or left-wing Governments could put forward the argument that they prove stability of the particular community or the country for which they organise the political and the policy.

Our main concern here this morning, Mr. Speaker, is trying to remedy the control and the political role that the Government has played and may play over



the years. Turning to what has been referred by the Legislative Council as a compromise, I ask any member here to stand up and prove to the House that there is a compromise for what we originally sent to that particular Chamber. There is no such thing as a compromise on the document that we originally sent; they have ignored one half and completely obliterated the second half.

The Representation of the People Bill is the most important document and overall must be the most important document that this House or any other Government would have to debate and, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the document we have in front of us with the recommendations of amendments is a brand new Bill; it is a Bill that has already been rejected, and rejected because we, the elected members, the people who were put in by the public to create the political policy, have been overridden by our servants, because the Legislative Council are elected by us, they are elected by politicians, therefore they are automatically in the political field. They cannot keep saying "First we jump in, and then we jump out."

From time to time I hear different members making different quotations — and these are on record in Hansard. Even after the debate that took place in their Chamber to put forward these recommendations to bring it back to us, one member of the nine made it quite clear that he was looking after what used to be his constituency. So therefore, members for Glenfaba, I am very pleased to tell you at least one straightforward honest member of the Council makes it quite clear that he is still in your political ring; he still represents Glenfaba and he voted that way, and I congratulate him at least on having the courage to do so. The one member of the Council who I believe had the truth — unfortunately this document does not control it — was the gallant member, Wing-Commander MacDonald. I listened with interest and I could stand up and applaud what he said. He made it quite clear in the history of what we are trying to do that there will be no unanimous answer. We have moved and counter-moved, rejected, put forward, changed out minds, we have done everything possible to make sure that we have become the untouchables — them as well as us. We are not given any credit, Mr. Speaker, to the sort of democracy that we try to pretend we have got because we are not prepared to see democracy go forward.

I have listened this morning to some hon. members where they wish to say, "Oh, we can come to some arrangement, some agreement". For what purpose? For our purpose? For our purpose, not for the public's purpose. The publicare not well served under the system we have now — that is the only matter under debate, that is the only argument that is acceptable to the public: are we or are we not well served? And the answer, we have all said, is "No", but we all want to cook something up that will suit either little groups of us or individuals. Who cares whether the pencil line is drawn down the middle of Onchan except somebody who might find he has got support on one side of the road or the other for his own purposes. It does not matter to the person living one side of the road or the other. As long as he is fairly represented it will make no difference. It will not alter the fact that the church has for some geographical purpose or for politics been placed



in some other constituency; it will still be the parish church of Onchan — that would not alter.

I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, any of these pronouncements or ideas that we can juggle this system to suit us. We had, after much debate — years of debate — come to a compromise in this elected House, and the compromise was the Bill we sent upstairs, and what we have as the amendments in no way condemns or alters the compromise we came to; it gives us something completely different. It says to the nine hon. members, past members of this particular Chamber, "Here we are, we are up here, try and get us out, boys!" And I am surprised that the hon. member for Garff, Dr. Mann, can even consider that we should be directed by the Upper House. It is not their function; in a bicameral situation in Government they are to amend legislation. They are not our keepers; they may be our watchdogs but they are certainly not our keepers, and that is what has happened here this morning, Mr. Speaker, to even consider that they should lead and we should follow. It is the other way round, hon. members — they follow, we lead. They are servants of this House because we took them from this Chamber and we put them up there. As we represent the public, they represent us, therefore they should represent the public as well and we cannot follow that way.

I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, when you read the reasons for the amendments, any common sense, any justification except looking after oneself, and when I read in item 3 (3){i) "People with wide experience and special knowledge of Government are part of the Legislature" and (2) "There is in the Legislature a body of members who can speak for the island as a whole without constraints of constituency considerations", Mr. Speaker, if ever they did down their own recommendations they did it there, because if you listen to the 25, 30 minutes when the members were speaking when they were moving these amendments, everyone was talking about their own neck of the woods; every one of them was interested in where the lines were going to be drawn, Mr. Speaker, and to even try and pretend to the public that these particular amendments are for their benefit is total nonsense. It is political nonsense, and we should say to our hon. friends upstairs, "I am sorry, hon. members, this House after much debate over many years has come to a consensus of opinion/' and that is what we have, and when we talk about common sense politics that is the Bill we sent upstairs. The majority of this House said, "Here we are, we have after much debate come to a decision that the majority of the House of Keys, 13 members, the democratic number, have said 'This Bill is what we want, there it is for you to look a t/ " And what have they come back with? Not even the Bill we sent up.

I say to the House now: forget about going about and having some further meetings; let us say now we reject your amendments, the public reject them and we represent the public, not the councillors or the commissioners that try to conjure up to get numbers, voting numbers; they are not elected by the public, we are. The majority of the democratically elected members moved a Bill, and the Bill said, this is what we want for the betterment of Government representation, not the councillors or the commissioners. Let us send it back and say "We want this Bill



for the betterment of the public of the Isle of Man so as Government can function." Whatever form it might take in the future, we need this Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with the House, let us get on with the job we were elected to do; let us give the public what they want: a better system of government, and I believe the Bill we had in front of us originally, not with these amendments, is that better government.

The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? If not, I will call upon the hon. member to reply.

Mr. Kneale: Thank you, Mr* Speaker, I agree with those members who say we should reject these amendments and not have a conference, because I do not see any point in a conference at all. We have now virtually reached the end of our sittings of the Keys. The session by which the rejection has got to be made ends actually on the 31st July, so what point is there trying to have a conference with the other branch on this issue? When the 31st July arrives if no conclusion has been accepted the amendments will be considered to have been rejected.

Now there was certain talk as if the Bill that we sent up there was going to bring about a single-house parliament. This is not the case. What we sent forward would retain the bicameral system of government that we have, and I would again refer to the remarks of the Attorney-General made when proposing the Bill; he said "it is important to note that the Bill would not alter the powers or the functions of either the House of Keys or the Legislative Council or of Tynwald Court." Now we should get that firmly fixed in our minds that that is the situation.

Now we are talking about a re-hash, as the hon. member for Garff, Dr. Mann, mentioned — he did not expect a re-hash of previous debates. Well, if we have got a resolution and amendments sent to us from the other place then we have got to remind everybody what the original Bill was about, and I think that was important to get that message over. The message that has come out very clearly from the Council's report is that they did not allow themselves time to ihterview and give full consideration to the views of the people who wanted to comment.

It also should be obvious to everybody from the response that Butler, the Keys Committee and the Council Committee got from the general public - that the general public is quite prepared to allow the members here to make the decision. There was only a relative handful of people submitted individual comment and, as the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr. Cain, has said, when members of the committee or individual members of this House have gone out and talked to their constituents they found, when the matter has been explained to them fully, they appreciate the Bill that we had sent up. Now again I would point out, in case anybody thinks that I am dogmatic about this, that the 33-seat idea was not mine. 1 would not have gone along with that in the first place, but I was convinced on the way through that the 33-seat idea offered a fairer distribution of seats to every constituency in the Island and not just what was best for a few of us. It is quite obvious that if there was a determined effort made by the members of this House



to get 12 two seats through we could do it, because you only need 13 votes to get that through and not the 16 for the Constitution Bill that is before us, where you require 16 on the third reading if it is re-introduced.

Now I believe that during the recess, having rejected the amendments, we should give consideration to what we are going to do in the next session and whether there are alternatives to the ideas that have been put forward, but at this point in time we certainly should not accept the amendments put forward by the Council or even go and discuss them, because we have alfeady discussed them ad nauseam in this House in the past. The amendments that have come back is, as I have said, an exact copy, word for word, of my original Bill with just a re-hash of certain consituencies. I move that we reject the Council's amendments.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I just want to make one point clear, and that is the law governing this particular discussion terminates all discussion on 31st July of this year, so any amendments would have to be dealt with prior to that date and there can be no continuation after 31st July, I think hon. members would agree.

Now, hon. members, the resolution is that the House disagree with the Council amendments and to that resolution I have the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Peel that the House disagrees with the Council amendments with a view to a conference. ( would put that amendment first . Those in favour of the amendment please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows —

For: J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Dr. Moore and the Speaker —8

Against: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, CaHin, Maddrell, Payne, Brown, Duggan, Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Cain —13

The Speaker: Eight votes in favour, 13 votes against; that amendment failsto carry. I will now put the resolution that the House disagree with the Council amendments. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.


For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, CaHin, Maddrell, Payne, Brown, Duggan,Delaney, Martin, Kneale, Gelling and Cain —13

Against: J. N. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Walker, Cringle, Faragher Dr. Moore and the Speaker —8

The Speaker: Thirteen votes in favour, eight votes against, the resolution carries.



MANX MUSEUM Bl LL - COUNCIL AMENDMENTS AGREED

The Speaker: Now we turn next, hon. members, to consideration of the Council amendments to Manx Museum Bill and ! call upon the hon. member for Middle, Mr. Maddrell.

Mr. Maddrell: Mr. Speaker, the Manx Museum Bill 1983. At the third reading, in response to a question for larger fines by the hon. member for Castletown, Mr. Brown, I did point out that the level of fines was arrived at on advice given by the Attorney-Generai and the Executive Council who had made increases to that Bill while it was in draft. I would afso point out that in Clause 1, page 2, line 17, there are two other punishments, namely imprisonment and a sum of the find being then doubled as a fine. The point about the fines that is also very important is they are maximums and that the court has discretion in their use.

The Attorney-General's department has been attempting to keep the fines in new legislation in line with the United Kingdom and prior to April of this year there were five bands of fines for conviction before the summary courts, that is, the magistrates and they were the sums of £1,000, £500, £200, £50 and £25, but in April this year, Mr. Speaker, the United Kingdom increased all such fines by doubling them to £2,000, £1,000, £400, £100 and £50. Executive Council has agreed that wherever possible the same brands of fines would be adopted in all new legislation. A Fines Bill has been drafted to increase these fines throughout the statute book and will be introduced in the autumn. The new Bill will amend nearly every Act in the statute book and wilt adopt the higher level of fines referred to by me previously, tt is considered more convenient at this moment in time to amend the fines in the Manx Museum Bill rather that amend it later in the year after the Fines Bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I move the whole of the amendments made by the Legislative Council be adopted by this hon. House? They are as follows: Clause 1 on page 2, line 17, that the £1,000 go to £2,000. Clause 2, page 2, line 37, that £200 be substituted by £400. Page 3, line 39 for £1,000 be substituted by £2,000 and in Clause 4 and Schedule, page 6, for the third column of the table substitute £1,000, £2,000; £100 for every day, £400, £2,000, and £1,000. Mr. Speaker, I move.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I will second that but could I just say that I find it somewhat interesting the remarks the hon. member for Middle has made regarding the fines, the point that he has made from, I take St, the Council that where possible we will keep in line with the United Kingdom regarding fines. It is interesting, Mr, Speaker, that if we had not had this fine increased up in Council we would have passed the Bill with fines which have been criticised as being low or what we felt was low, but it was explained to us should be kept in line with the United Kingdom where possible, and yet they have changed it and we have now come and changed this automatically as such. I do not disagree at all; as I say, ! second what is being done, but 1 do question the policy that this House is just keeping in line with the United Kingdom. Surely this House should always keep in line with fines, when they are discussing any legislation, what fits the picture here in the

Manx Museum Bill — Council Amendments Agreed

K888 HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984

Isle of Man, and if we require a fine to be far in excess of the United Kingdom then we as an elected House for this Island should make that decision and not be told by elsewhere that we should keep in line with the United Kingdom only because we would have to, as the hon. member said, introduce a Bill which would have to be done to alter all fines, so it is just a point on that, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted to see these fines, because we were concerned that they were to low.

Mr. CaHin: Mr. Speaker, I will not oppose the proposal that is before us this morning, but one of the things that did strike me when I saw the amendments that came through from the Legislative Council this week was that we should be keeping ourselves on an even keel so far as fines and punishments are concerned. The way I see it: we look at this Bill and we see now that somebody removes an archeological object from the Island to the United Kingdom, can be fined £2,000 and a prison sentence of six months. Now you can almost rob a bank and you will not get that kind of punishment; in fact, quite recently in the Isle of Man there have been cases of burglary and getting suspended sentences, which mean nothing. I think we really want to keep this in perspective and that is something we should not forget.

Mr. Maddrell: .Mr. Speaker, in answer to Mr. Brown we, with fines in the Isle of Man, do take a guideline from the leve! of fines and bands of fines in the United Kingdom, and I am afraid that when any member is taking a Bill through this hon. House there must be some guidelines somewhere. That does not necessarily mean that because there are guidelines we have got to accept the figures that are there; guidelines are something that you work around.

It is unfortunate that, with what is going on in here today, things are coming down from the Council as amendments, but these amendments did occur as information between the time that they left this hon. House and reached the other hon. House, and therefore they have been amended there and sent down to us for consideration and approval, and I think that is quite right. As has already been stated this morning in speeches, they are an amending body, and I would accept that today this is an amending body putting the information to this Court.

With regard to the point that Mr. Callin put, well I would say that £2,000 is the limit and I stress: the courts have the discretion, and I think the one thing that we must bear in mind in Government is that we must give the courts the tools to do any job that they have got to perform. It does not say there are going to be fines of £1,000 or sent to prison, but at least we must give them the opportunity of making it unbearable for anybody who breaks the law.

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that the House do agree with the Council amendments in respect of the Manx Museum Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. live ayes have it.

FIRE SERVICES BILL - COUNCIL AMENDMENTS AGREEDHie Speaker: Turning next to the Fire Services Bill we again have consideration

of Council amendments, and I call upon the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle.

Fire Services Bill — Council Amendments Agreed


Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, I am going to recommend to the House that weaccept the amendments which have been made by the Legislative Council and would refer members of this hon. House to the fact they deal basically with Clause 3 of the Fire Services Bill 1983. Members will recall, on the 10th April when we debated this particular clause in this House, that it was subject to considerable discussion, particularly in relation to the possibility of an authorised officer entering any premises whether or not he should have a warrant, and that was the point at issue on which we spent some considerable time debating. I would refer members to the Hansard of the 10th April, and there they will see that the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr, Gilbey, did move an amendment which read, page 4, which is part of Clause 3 if members have the Bill with them, and line 5, at the end of that sub-clause 3 to add "except where an authorised officer is acting under the authority of a warrant issued under subsection 4 by reason only of the fact that he refuses to admit to such an officer to a private dwelling in which that person resides." Now that was an amendment which was partly covering this business about entry into premises with or without a warrant which, as I said, we in this House spent some considerable time discussing.

Why I am recommending to the House that we accept the amendments to Clause 3 as they have come back from the Legislative Council, why I recommend to the House that they do accept them is that largely that is in line and I could say it goes further, because by the deletion of the start it now says that we accept this amendment if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Justice of the Peace that admission to any premises is reasonably required by the board for the purpose of obtaining information for fire-fighting purposes under Section 1{1){d). The Justice may by warrant under his hand authorise the board by an authorised officer to enter the premises by force if need be. The point I make is that this amendment will mean that all entries will be done under warrant, and 1 think that that would be in line largely with how the House was feeling when it accepted Mr. Gilbey's amendment on the 10th April.

The other amendments are consequential upon the acceptance of the deletion of sub-clauses 1 to 5 of Clause 3 of the Bill. I so recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we accept the Legislative Council amendments,

Mr. Walker: I second, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the resolution? If not, I will put the resolution that the House do agree with the Council's amendments in respect of the Fire Services Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

FINANCIAL SUPERVISION COMMISSION BILL - COUNCIL AMENDMENTS APPROVED

The Speaker: Turning next to the Financial Supervision Commission Bill,we again have Council amendments, and I call upon the hon. member for Peel, Dr. Moore.

Financial Supervision Commission Bill — Council Amendments Approved


Dr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The form of the Council amendmentto this Bill is to insert new clauses rather than to alter anything that was approved by this House earlier, Hon. members will recall that one thing done by the Financial Supervision Bill was to give the commission power to regulate Manx insurance companies. A certain loophole came to notice in these regulations, in that you could have a Manx individual or a Manx company managing a non-Manx insurance company without any regulation control by the commission, and if that management was inefficient, unwise and there was some unpleasantness it would be the isle of Man that would get the taint from the unpleasantness because it would be managed by an Isle of Man company. It was therefore thought fit at the Council stage to insert the other clauses which would require anyone managing an insurance company, not only Manx insurance companies but non-Manx insurance companies, to register with the commission and be controlled by the commission, that is the effect of these amendments which ! recommend to the House and move that they be accepted.

Dr. Mann: I beg to second.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I would just like clarification on one point. At thevery beginning of the amendments it says, "No person shall act as an insurance manager for and in relation to an insurer who carries on an insurance business outside the Island." I would like to ask whether the Bill as a whole covers those who act within the Island and whether this is just an addition to ensure that it covers everybody?

The next point I wish to make is on Section 3(1) paragraph (b) which says that a person is exempt from registration by such regulations. Now this, hon. members, to my mind is an inconsistency in the laws we are passing, and if I may be forgiven for referring to the Architects Act which passed through this House some time ago, there anyone who is considered to be suitable has got to be named on a register kept by Government, and I think it is wrong to have persons who perhaps by qualification are not required to register, for then there is no list of them available to the general public, and the inconsistency is in a way followed through if you look further on to Clause 5, section (b)(1) which refers to insurance managers where he is not registered, implying that anyone who is not registered is open to prosecution, and I think we could clarify this and bring this particular Bill into line with other Bills like the Architects Bill if we were to omit part (b) of that clause altogether, which would mean that everyone who is qualified to be a manager appears on a list kept by Government, and 1 think that would be a strengthening of the position. Mr. Speaker, I therefore formally beg to move that the amendments of Council be approved with the exception of amendment 3{1)(b).

The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? We are now posed with a procedure problem in relation to these amendments. Does the House wish to have the amendments broken down in presentation, and which section would the hon. member wish to have presented individually? If we do not do that we would have to have, I think, "disagreeing with a view to a conference" so my


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE. 1984 K891

suggestion would be to the hon. member that he would suggest we disagree with a view to a conference in order to achieve his objective. I do not know how that appeals to the hon. member in charge who may wish to proceed with his resolution; nevertheless, that is the appropriate way of doing it, so if I can record you as disagreeing with a view to a conference, which is the provision in Standing Orders, tiiat is the only way you can achieve your objective.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I had a seconder to that, anyway.

The Speaker: Well, frankly we have not reached that stage yet; I am trying to reach it to try and get the path ahead clear and that would be the way so if you wish to try that, that would be the only way of achieving your objective at this stage.

Mr. Gelling: I will be guided by you, Mr. Speaker,

The Speaker: So you would so move?

Mr. Gelling: Yes.

The Speaker: Now is there a seconder?

Mr. Cain: 1 beg to second.

The Speaker: Thank you. So that is the state of play at the moment, hon. members. Any other hon. member wish to speak?

Mr. Kneale: I would just point out that the same thing applies to this Bill asapplied to the Representation of the People: if it goes to a conference the 31st July is the operative day.

The Speaker: I appreciate that point; nevertheless, the fact remains that thatis the only procedural form that the hon. member can go forward in if he wishes to achieve his ends. Now, the hon. member to reply.

Dr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope I can satisfy the mover of the amendment that it is not necessary, because there is a desirability of getting this on the statute book as soon as possible, but let me try and put his mind at rest.

On the first point an insurer who carries on an insurance business outside the Island to be registered — this is, as you surmise, sir, that those inside are already covered by legislation.

On the second point raised by the hon. member for West Douglas, people who are exempted from registration by regulations, and is this unfair? That, I think, is included because there are certain registered and licensed Manx insurance companies which already manage insurance businesses outside the Island. Therefore they are already licenced under Manx regulations, and it seems unnecessary



duplication to make them re-register when they are already adequately controlled, and I take it that it is to cover that type of insurer that the exemption is required. If they are already adequately covered by other legislation, then do not make them fill in any more forms,

The third point which you made with respect to the new Clause 5, I think, is related to that, and means it is a way of making sure that people comply with the regulations, and if they set themselves out to be an insurance manager without being registered then they are acting illegally. I hope that that puts the hon. member's mind at rest, sir, and I hope that the House will approve the amendments made by Council.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask for clarification of that? It isimportant to my mind, anyway. I think what the hon. mover is saying is that whilst this particular clause exempts certain persons from registration in their business interests outside the Island, there is, nevertheless, another register somewhere, a list of all those who are approved for this type of business.

Dr. Moore: If I can explain, Mr. Speaker — I did not explain it very well before, obviously. There are Manx companies licensed; now, if they manage an outside insurance business they are already well covered and controlled. The danger was with those who were not licensed in the Island as an insurance company in their own right but were just setting up as managers. If a Manx insurance company licensed in the Island wants to manage overseas business there is no problem, and that is why they could be exempted: because they are already respectable and controlled.

Mr. Gelling: I would like to thank the hon. member.

The Speaker: In the light of the explanation and assurances given by the hon. mover, do you wish to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. Gelling: No, Mr. Speaker, provided my seconder would agree, I am quitehappy to withdraw.

Mr. Cain: I would agree, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you. So we have a straightforward issue of the Houseto agree with the Council amendments in relation to the Financial Supervision Commission Bill. Those in favour of that resolution please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

TYNWALD PROCEEDINGS BILL - COUNCIL AMENDMENTS AGREED

The Speaker: Finally, for consideration of Council amendments we have the Tynwald Proceedings Bill, and I call upon the hon. member for Garff to move

Tywnald Proceedings Bill — Council Amendments Approved


the approval of the report of the deputation on the conference with the Legislative Council.

Dr. Mann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might just remind members of whathas taken place, namely that originally a proposed amendment was waived by the Council which was rejected by this House. This amendment was the suggestion that in fact Executive Council should have the power to withhold papers concerned with any investigation. As a result of that rejection the Council asked themselves for a conference between the two brandies and the deputation was appointed by the House and met the Council.

The original amendment suggested by the Council has now been altered and withdrawn, but it was pointed out and confirmed by the Attorney-Genera I — which is not mentioned in the report — that there was some doubt whether the rights to confidentiality which were possessed by the Executive Council were overridden by this Bill. We assumed that they had not, but the Attorney-General advises that when there is any doubt the later Bill would override the former, and so it was agreed by the deputation that we should accept an amendment which in fact underlines the existing rights to confidentiality of the proceedings in Executive Council. That is totally different from the original request that Executive Council should have the power to refuse to give any documents connected with any board, so the deputation has agreed to propose that the amendments listed by this deputation is approved by the House, and ! recommend it be so done.

I beg to move the amendment as suggested in the report of the deputation being accepted by this House.

Mr. Caliin: Mr. Speaker, 1 beg to second.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, ! hope that the hon. House wili reject this amendment to Appendix B. Yet agains it is a way of things being kept secret and covered up from the investigating committees of this House or Tynwald, which I think is entirely wrong. Very many things go through Executive Council and it would mean that many things could be kept away from a committee so they could not look at it, making the committee's work much less valuable if not in some cases completely useless. 1 believe we should not agree to this and we should not be put off by the arguments that wifi undoubtedly come forward that if we fail to agree the Bill will fall; it is a very small Bill, and it can easily be brought forward again, it will be argued that committees may be held up in the recess, but if we get this wrong now we will not be right again in the future, because no one is going to bring in a special Bill to alter this particular point. I personally fee! a committee should be able to get all the information they want from any part of Government, but that we can easily cover the confidentiality aspect by excluding the public when they are considering such information and having a noted minute as has been mentioned in previous debates. Therefore, 1 hope that we will resoundingly reject this proposal.



Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Speaker, really to go along with that, the thing I wassurprised to read in this report was, when they do their introduction it goes down to paragraph 6 and it says: "In your deputation's view, this new amendment, whilst being unnecessary, is unobjectionable and can be accepted without any detriment to the powers of the legislature to control the actions of the Executive." Why then, if it is unnecessary and unobjectionable, has it been put in? If a thing is not necessary, why introduce it into legislation whatsoever? I fully support what the member for Glenfaba has said, that the committee itself can go into private to consider things in confidentiality so it can make its report, and I think at this stage we should reject it.

The Speaker: Reply, sir?

Dr. Mann: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the misconceptions that the twohon. members have in this respect, and I must clear up the part in the report which also has mislead the hon. member for Castletown. It is correct that we did assume that this existing power held by Executive Council under the Constitution Act was still valid, but the Attorney-General's opinion is that if there is any doubt in the matter, the subsequent Act — that is, the Tynwald Proceedings Bill, — might overrule the original Constitution Act. It is not granting Executive Council any powers that it does not have already and i think that most reasonable people would assume that if we have an Executive Council their proceedings themselves at some point have to be confidential to enable them to carry out their work. But having said that, the difference between this amendment and the previous one was that the previous one allowed or gave to Executive Council a power that they have not got at this moment, and that was to restrict investigation of any board or department over and above their own power of maintaining their own documents as confidential and that amendment has been withdrawn. So we respect the view of the Attorney-General that there may be some doubt in the existing powers held by Executive Council and we were prepared to agree that this should be underwritten and confirmed.

As far as the hon. member for Glenfaba is concerned, we are not unduly restricting investigations by the Public Accounts Committee of which I am a member, because firstly we are investigating the accounts and the management of those accounts. There is no accounting officer for Executive Council nor do they have a budget and therefore, in fact at this particular moment, the Public Accounts Committee has no reason to investigate the proceedings in Executive Council anyway. But just to draw the attention of the hon. member for Glenfaba, if he has read the Bill that is subsequently coming before this House, I hope today, he will find that it is reiterated in that Bill, and assuming that this House who have passed the second reading of that Bill is prepared to consider its clauses today, he will find that that is also embodied in that Bill so we are not doing anything that is not in fact already held and has been restated on more than one occasion. I can see no reason at all why this House should not accept the exising status quo in this respect.

Mr. Delaney: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, at the moment members of this House and members of Tynwald have a privilege with the agreement of



certain people involved in Government, to look at any documents. This will not affect that in any way, Mr. Speaker, will it? Individual members will be able to look at any documents which have been considered by Executive Council?

Dr. Mann: At this particular moment there is a protection given to thedocuments and proceedings of Executive Council under the Constitution Act.

The Speaker: I think the hon. member is saying now, he wants an assurancethat access to Government documents previously enjoyed by hon. members continues.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we are not altering in any way the status quo.

Mr. Deianey: As long as that is clear.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, the hon. Dr, Mann spoke that it was only the Public Accounts Committee, but this Bit! refers to this hon. House, to another place, to Tynwald Court and to committees and is it not true that although the Public Accounts Committee may not want to question Executive ' Council, there could be very good occasions when these other bodies might wish to do so and to have evidence?

Mr. Delaney: I have had assurance of that, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. members — do you wish to reply to that point, sir?

Dr. Mann: I think it is correct in the Constitution Act that the proceedingsof the Council shall be confidential and no member thereof without leave shall divulge to any unauthorised person any matter or thing done therein.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the resolution is that the House do approvea report of the deputation on the conference with the Legislative Council in respect of the Tynwald Proceedings Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.


For: Messrs. Quirk, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Maddrell,Payne, Walker, Cringle, Faragher, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore andMr. Cain —15

Against: Messrs, Gilbey, Cannan, Brown, Duggan, Deianey and the Speaker —6

The Speaker: Fifteen votes in favour, six votes against; the resolution carries.



FIREARMS BILL - SECOND READING APPROVED - MEMORIAL PRESENTED - BILL REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

The Speaker: Hon. members, we turn next to the Firearms Bill and beforecalling upon the hon. mover, I would remind hon. members that we have a memorialist in respect of this Bill and the procedure which I would wish to follow, with your approval, would be to call upon the hon. mover to move the second reading, have that seconded, then, with the House's agreement, call upon the memorialist and then continue with the debate. Is that ail right?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Cringle, to take the second reading of the Firearms Bill.

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, do you wish at this stage, then, that ! move fullyas it were or just move formally?

The Speaker: You can move it fully, sir, if you wish.

Mr. Cringle: Right. Mr. Speaker, the Firearms Bill — and as you rightly sayI am very well aware that a Memorial is presented — is a measure which has caused considerable discussion amongst the general public, but I would equally say that one of the reasons that it has created such concern and discussion amongst the general public is that, as a result of answering questions in Tynwald in relation to firearms law and use of firearms, I did undertake when it got into draft stage that we would give it an airing, and so this particular Bill has had a considerable airing at draft stage and was circulated to different bodies for their observations well in advance.

The 1984 Bill is, of course, a comparatively short measure but it is a very important measure. It is important insofar as it regards policy and the principle. The object of the Bill is to further control firearms with a particular emphasis, therefore, and thereafter, ! would suggest, on safety and the safekeeping of firearms. Apart from introducing a new system for the authorisation of firearms ranges, the most important change is to bring shotguns within the same control as we currently have for the .22 rifle. Currently under the 1947 Act, rifles cannot be purchased without a firearms certificate which is issued by the Chief Constable. Each certificate is valid for three years and, apart from listing the number and serial marks of the rifle, authorises the quantity of ammunition that can be purchased at the same, time or at any one time. Some of the conditions within the control are prescribed by firearms rules and in all cases there a right of appeal to the High Bailiff from a refusal of the Chief Officer of Police to grant a certificate. A gun licence is required under the 1892 A ct These licences are issued by the Highway and Transport Board, and the register contains the name and a place of residence of the persons registered. This list may not and probably is not complete.

Firearms Bill — Second Reading Approved —Memorial Present- f Referred to Committee


In England shotguns have had their own licensing system carried out by the police, and there it is an offence to have or to purchase a shotgun without a certificate; that is the principal difference between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. In England the 1968 Act provides that a shotgun certificate shall be granted unless the police believe the applicant would be a danger to the public safety or the police. In this Bill the emphasis is changed from "shall be granted" to "shall not be granted unless", and this change frankly makes little difference indeed, as the list of conditions to which the applicant must satisfy remains exactly the same.

The Bill will introduce a new system for the authorisation of firearms ranges, and in future firearms ranges may not be used unless they are authorised by the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council under Clause 1 would be given the statutory power to appoint an inspector of firearms ranges who, consequently upon his appointment, would have the power of entry to inspect such ranges. In addition, a new enabling power is given to the Governor in Council to regulate the use of firearms and firearms ranges, and the main object of these rules will be to maintain safety standards, which I said in the first part, and avoid the creation of any nuisance to the public or adjoining landowners. That takes part in Clause 4 and in Clause 5 you would have the provision for offences under Part I.

Part ll of the Bill relates to imitation firearms, and here this legislation would be covering imitation firearms and at present the legislation in this sphere is limited to only one or two provisions, for example, Sections 23 and 24 of the 1947 Act, the use of an imitation firearm with intent to resist arrest et cetera are governed under the 1947; other that that there is very little control on imitation firearms. This part of the Bill applies the provision of the 1947 Firearms Act subject to certain necessary exceptions to imitation firearms which are readily convertable into a usable firearm.

Part III of the Bill deals with a number of miscellaneous but none the less important matters. Clause 8 provides for the declaration of an amnesty during which unlicensed firearms can be surrendered to the police, also to a person who is authorised to hold such a firearm. An example of that, of course, would be a firearms dealer. Clauses 9 to 14 and the Schedules have as their main objects firstly that the fines throughout the Acts relating to the firearms are increased to what one could consider to be a realistic level and secondly, that the categories of shotguns and air weapons exempted from the provisions of Part I of the Firearms Act 1947 are assimilated into that part by means of amendments to the Act. This will mean that to possess or to purchase a shotgun or air weapon - it is covering both shotguns and air weapons — it will be necessary to have a firearms certificate in the same way that such a certificate is necessary at present for other firearms, for example the .22 rifle, short barrel shotguns and especially dangerous air weapons. The licensing system will be administered by the police and the Highway and Transport Board will have no further functions in relation to the licensing of guns. It is accepted that this will mean the tightening of the controls upon the ownership and the possession of shotguns and air weapons. This is not put forward on the basis that such weapons are intrinsically no different to rifles

Firearms Bill — Second Reading Approved —Memorial Presented — Bill Referred to Committee


or pistols et cetera; it can certainly be said that shotguns and air weapons are dangerous, and they certainly are dangerous at short range and, 1 would think, should be subject to a more stringent licensing requirement than they are at present.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that largely covers the parts of the Bill and I think this hon. House will have to make its own particular mind up in relation to whether or not there is an argument for saying that there should be further control on shotguns on the Isle of Man. I certainly as an individual would concur that there is a requirement on the Isie of Man for a tightening up on controls. Whether we like it or not, the world appears to be moving into a more violent age, man against man, and I think it is right and proper, therefore, in any society that the control of any weapon should be in the hands of that society rather than directly in the hands of the individual. Of course, at the present time an individual without any concern at all of society can purchase a shotgun on the Isie of Man, and to my mind there is a requirement for the control of what I certainly would consider is a dangerous weapon.

I would equally, Mr. Speaker, say that I pay tribute to the shooting organisations on the Isle of Man and to those who use their guns in sporting circles. 1 think without any doubt that they are 100 per cent, effective in their own personal control and the club's control over which they are exercising when it comes to the use of their sporting activities. However, having said that, i would equally say that it is incumbent upon us to increase the control, and ! see that it would have no detriment whatsoever to the genuine user of the shotgun if we were to introduce this further control of shotguns. I know that members have been approached that it is going to be a costly exercise for the individual to hold his gun as a result of this particular system. That, of course, would be a policy matter for this House or Tynwald Court to decide upon the level; nevertheless, my case is purely on the grounds that these are weapons which in the wrong hands can be a danger to Mr. "Joe Public" going about his lawful activities in peace in the Isle of Man, and I think it is incumbent upon us to see that in fact that they are properly controlled.I beg to move the second reading of the Firearms Bill, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Is there a seconder?

Mr. Kneale: I beg to second and reserve my remarks.

The Speaker: The Bill having been seconded I would remind the House that we have a memorial from the Manx Preservation Society, the Ayre Clay Pigeon Club, the Isle of Man Game and Clay Pigeon Shooting Club, the Manx Clay Pigeon Shooting Association,, the Isle of Man Pull Ball Club and the Laxey Gun Club. Is the House agreed that learned counsel on behalf of the memorialist should be heard?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you. Learned counsel.



Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out, I appear for a number of unincorporated associations within the isle of Man which participate in game, sporting and competitive shooting. I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with great care to what the hon. member for Rushen has said and I would fully endorse the fact that the association whom I do represent had an opportunity to look into the matter in advance of this sitting of the House and for that, of course, we were much obliged.

However, Mr. Speaker, may I just refer to the legislation which has related to firearms in the history of the Island. Just very briefly, I then wish to look at the existing legislation and then the changes which will be made in the proposed legislation, because in my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, we are looking at an important question of policy and principle in this particular Bill, and it is my submission that in this particular area of law it would be in the interests of the public as a whole that Manx Law should be the same as the current English legislation, and that indeed was the view which was expressed to the Home Affairs Board before the matter was introduced into this House.

Mr. Speaker, the law of the Island has long emphasised the right of a person to carry a gun in pursuit of game, and that is provided in the Game Act of 1882. Provided that a person had first obtained a game licence and the permission of the owner of the land in question, or of the person entitled to the licence shooting then he was subjected to no administrative interference whatsoever. However, it was important that the police should have certain powers of search in order to deter poaching, but in all cases the constable had to have a good cause before exercising the extensive powers which were certainly given to him under the 1882 Act. In those early days a gun included a firearm of any description and an air gun. If a person was not involved in the pursuit of game but nonetheless wished to possess a gun, for example, for keeping down vermin, then a gun licence had to be obtained by persons who used or carried a gun outside a dwelling house or its curtilage. It is important, I believe, to note that farmers and other occupiers of land and persons who were authorised by them did not need a gun licence if they were engaged in the killing of vermin or rabbits, and nor did bona fide members of rifle clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association, who were engaged in drill or target practice.

As the hon. member has observed, game licences and gun licences were, under the 1882 Act and are still now, issued by the Highway and Transport Board, but it is important, I believe, to observe that under the 1882 Act the board had to publish in two or more local newspapers lists of persons to whom licences under the Act had been issued together with their addresses, and details also had to be supplied to the Head Constable, as he was known in those days. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps somewhat surprisingly the relevant section referring to this duty imposed on the board was repealed by the Game Act of 1952, so that now no such list is provided by the board to the public or to the police. The expense incidental to the printing of licences and the publication of names was to be paid out of the general revenue of the Island, and this is perhaps indicative of the fact that Tynwald in those days recognised that the issuing of licences and the publication of the names of the holders of those licences was in the public good.



To come further up to date, the 1882 Act was amended in 1921 and 1935., and the Firearms Act 1947 which consolidated and amended then existing legislation on firearms Is the basis of the Island's current legislation on firearms. Again, as the hon. member has observed, that Act of 1947 provides that a firearms certificate is required if a person purchases, acquires or has in his possession any firearm or ammunition to which the Act applies, and it is now feared that that Act of 1947 applies only to rifles and pistols but not to shotguns or air weapons.

I wish to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, the associations whom I represent in this memorial agree that existing legislation needs to be tightend up so that there is some record of the persons who own and possess shotguns and air rifles, and possibly there should also be amendments to ensure that those weapons are kept safer, but it is important, in my submission, to note that the applicant for a firearms certificate at the present time is entitled as a right to a firearms certificate if the Chief Officer of the police is satisfied that that applicant has good reason to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition in question, provided there was no danger to the public, public safety or to the peace; and conversely, the certificate is not to be granted if the Chief Officer of Police had reason to believe that the applicant for some good reason is unfit to be entrusted with a firearm.

The hon. member has argued that the present proposed change in the Bill of 1984, which is actually set out in the first Schedule to the Bill, does not make that much difference to the law and to persons who should be granted firearms certificates but, Mr. Speaker, in my submission I think there is an important change in emphasis, because it goes so far as this: that at the present time a bona fide applicant has a right unless the police can show that the applicant is not a fit and proper person, whereas under the proposed legislation the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that he is a fit and proper person, It may, as the hon. member has said, be a slight change in emphasis but nonetheless is it right that this House should condone the departure from the existing law? Should be taken away from the bona fide applicant the right which he has under the present law?

Mr. Speaker, firearms dealers and others are exempted from the holding of a firearms certificate, as are members of a rifle club engaged in target practice and persons who, whilst themselves not holding a certificate, are authorised and instructed by a person who does hold a certificate, but in this latter case the firearm must be used for sporting purposes only. If I may pause there, Mr. Speaker, it is apparent, therefore, that under the existing law a young person or indeed a person who is coming to sporting, shooting, for the first time in his life is entitled to receive instruction without a firearms certificate provided that he is under the supervision of a person who themself holds a certificate; as I understand it, under the proposed legislation that would not be the case at all.

As far as shotguns and air rifles are concerned, subject to specific provisions relating to young people these may be possessed and used after obtaining a game licence or a gun licence and, as I said, I entirely agree that this aspect of the law needs to be tightened. The air Guns and Shotguns Act 1968 is completely repealed in its entirety with the result that young persons again would not be able to receive



instruction. Again, in my submission that would be an undesirable development in the law.

So may I summarise the main points of the proposed legislation which, in my submission, do constitute drastic amendments to existing law? The rationale of the Bill is laudable indeed. The explanatory memorandum states that the main object of the Bill is to improve the controls upon possession and use of firearms with particular reference to safety and the prevention of crime. Mr. Speaker, if my analysis of the position is correct and that a bona fide applicant is being deprived of his right, may I ask this House to consider the reason for that? Is there any evidence that this Island is subjected to an increase in crime involving the use of shotguns and air rifles? The statistics which I have and which, I believe, were annexed as an Appendix to the Chief Constable's Annual Report last year show that very little in the way of offences connected with firearms came before the courts. What you see is, of a total of 841 offences summarily prosecuted, 29 related to firearms offences but 1 believe I am right in saying that those offences would be reckonable more to the law against poaching than to the law of armed crime or anything like it. Again, offences cautioned — six out of 145 and complaints involving firearms themselves there were none out of complaints numbered 3,974.

Mr. Speaker, the Home Secretary in England has rejected any prospect of a change in English law on shotguns, and has observed that there is no link between armed crime as such and the private possession of firearms. In my submission, in this area of law it is convenient as a matter of principle that English law and Manx law should be kept the same, and it would be a good thing if in this Island we had a shotgun certificate. If we were to reintroduce the state of law which was present before the 1952 Game Act, that might go some long way to curing the admitted gaps we have in our law.

Reference has been made to the proposed regulation of ranges. Now, again that is a wholly laudable object, but may I just point out that in Section 1 of the proposed Act we are looking at the proposed operation of firearms ranges being subject to the same regime as shotgun ranges. Those ranges have completely different requirements. If a shotgun range had to comply with the stringent requirements of a rifle range, you would not have any shotgun ranges again on this Island. Insofar as the imitation firearms provisions are concerned, I would entirely agree that that section should be brought into law, and the persons whom I represent would not wish to say otherwise. Insofar as the amnesty provisions are concerned — and may I refer to Section 8 of the Bill and in particular subsection(3) of this section which provides that the Chief Officer of Police may destroy any firearms and ammunition which are surrendered to him or he may retain the same and deal with them in such a manner as he thinks fit — in my submission, Mr. Speaker, not only is the Chief Officer of Police given wide powers as to the granting of certificates or not, he is given extremely wide powers as to the distribution or disposal of firearms which are surrendered to him. I believe that there should be some limitation on that wide discretionary power.



As has been observed, there will be costs involved in the administration of this Bill; it is a costly exercise and, whilst I would entirely agree that a shotgun certificate should be introduced, I would respectfully urge this House that the Bill as presently drafted should not be implemented and become law. I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the clauses should possibly be looked at by a committee of the hon. House.

The Speaker: Does any hon. member wish to address counsel with questions?

Mr. Cringle: If I may, Mr. Speaker. Counsel, I think you rather gave theindication to the House that the 1947 Act had no bearing on shotguns. Could you just clear.that up?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: As I understand It, Mr. Speaker, the 1947 Act, the main change which it introduced in the law was to create the concept of a firearms certificate, and a firearms certificate under the 1947 Act applies only to rifles and to pistols; it does not apply to shotguns.

Mr. Cringle: Yes, that is exactly what I thought counsel did say. Would you not agree that in fact the Firearms Act 1947 as an Act covers all firearms and shotguns are exempted? They are exempted though they are covered; the reason they do not require them is because they have an exemption at the present time.

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct so the effect of the Act is that a firearms certificate does not apply to rifles and to pistols.

Mr. Cringle: But there is a subtle difference in your change of emphasis in “shall" of "shall not", as I was saying. There is also a subtle difference, counsel,I would say, in your submission to us; in fact the Firearms Act does cover shotguns though they are exempted at present.

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, the Firearms Act 1947 contains three parts, and each part applies differently to, on the one hand, rifles and pistols, and on the other hand to shotguns. I entirely agree with the hon. member that shotguns are not mentioned in the Act but the main import of it is that the Act applies ; only to rifles in this part of it.

Mr. Delaney: Having a difference between our Act and the British Act, would it be right to say that people who come to the Isle of Man at the moment to take part with their colleagues in the Isle of Man in shooting competitions would be under some difficulty if this Act was to go through as proposed?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I may answer that, as I understand it a holder of a shotgun certificate who lives in England and, say, wishes to participate in our Year of Sport coming representing a club from England in a shotgun range would come to the Island and find that he was subject to a far tighter regime firearms certificate which he might not be able to comply with



by holding a shotgun certificate issued in England, so this would in my submission deter visiting sportsmen.

Mr. Delaney: In other words, if he arrived on the Isle of Man and this legislation was to go through, it would be illegal for him to have a shotgun.. .

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: He might have to apply in advance, Mr. Speaker, to the Chief Officer of Police before coming.

Mr. Callin: Could ! ask learned counsel, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed, of course, that young people under the age of 17 would be denied the opportunity to be trained in the use of firearms if this were to go through; would you agree that it is in the interests of young people to be trained in the use of firearms from an early age and that history would prove that most young people so trained — it is a good thing and they are very responsible with them?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, i would entirely endorse the hon. members' observations. I believe it is in the public good that young people should have an early acquaintance with firearms of all kinds provided they are under adequate supervision. The, present legislation does foresee that and caters for it. As I understand it if this Bill were to become law and the 1968 Act were to be repealed then a young person would have to wait until 17 before he could ever embark upon a shooting career.

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, where in the Act does it specifically say that a person has to be 17? Is this definite statute or is it at the discretion of the police in this respect?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, the 1947 Firearms Act does in fact create the difference between young persons on the one hand and other persons on the other. It is contained in the 1947 Act.

Mr. Quirk: Does it actually state, Mr. Speaker, the age?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the 1968 Act and I do have a copy of the Act.

Mrs. Christian: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask — and perhaps this would be helpful to the hon. member — is it not a fact that the repeal of that Act will then prevent the people who are now enabled at that age to have guns, and that it is the repeals that are the problems now?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, the sting in the Bill, if ! may say so, iscontained in the Schedule to the Bill which sets out the enactments which are going to be repealed, and one of the enactments is the Airguns and Shotguns Act 1968. That is the Act which contains the restrictions on young persons wishing to become engaged in shooting. I am sorry — I said the 1947 Act.


K904 HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE. 1984

Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, could I ask learned counsel? He stated that in Clause 8 the powers of the Chief Officer of Police should be limited in the way that he decided to dispose of the firearms surrendered to him; could you expand on that and say why you believe that?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the present drafting of the Bill, if there was, say, a gun of particular historical importance or antique value capable of being shot, propelling a bullet from the barrel, it would be a firearm and, as such, if the applicant, for example,were infirm or not able to use that firearm, he would surrender that firearm to the Chief Officer of Police and, as I understand it, under Section 8(3) the Chielf Officer of Police has unbridled discretion as to how to deal with that valuable item, and I do especially suggest, Mr. Speaker, that some guidelines should be offered to the public as to the way in which the Chief Officer of Police would exercise that discretion. For example, you might have some procedure for giving compensation, something along those lines, because the person may honestly and innocently be in possession of firearms under the present law and then, when this Act becomes law, they have to either surrender the firearms or they have to apply for a certificate. If they are too infirm, for example, to be given a certificate, they are going to be in a very difficult position indeed, and that is where I believe this House should give some guidance as to how the Chief Officer should use his discretion.

Mr. Payne: Would you not agree that at the moment, firearms can be deposited for safe keeping, and if in fact a firearm is surrendered it does not mean that the owner of the firearm has no right to the firearm, and that he could now and in future deposit the firearm with the Chief Officer of Police and just retain possession?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I wouldcertainly agree with that, but the point is that under Section 8(3) the Chief Officer of Police, as well as retaining the same, may also destroy them or he may also deal with them in such way as he thinks fit; so it is not just a case of the Chief Officer merely detaining them or retaining them in safe custody, he may deal with them as he thinks fit, and in that respect I believe that the Bill is too wide.

Mr. Maddrell: Learned counsel, would you not agree that the Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, rejected legislation in the United Kingdom? He said this legislation was similar to Northern Ireland's and not suitable for England. I am interested in asking this; is not this Act based on the Northern Ireland system, you would say?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I am afraid I cannot say what is the source of this proposed Bill and the particular sections. I have seen Press comments to the effect that it has been drawn on Northern Ireland legislation. It certainly goes far further than existing English legislation and I think it would be fair to say, by way of comment, that it would be more suited to the atmosphere and enviroment in Northern Ireland than it is to the island of Man.



The Speaker: Are your memorialists aware of any circumstances which couldin any way justify the introduction of this legislation anyway?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot see any justification for the implementation of the Bill as presently drawn. I do certainly agree with the hon. member for Rushen that the law needs to be tightened up, and anything that can be done to promote safety and prevention of crime, of course, the memorialists would support, but not in the way which we find drafted in this Bill.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, when learned counsel says he thinks there is a needto do something to tighten it up, then why does he agree that when he quoted figures earlier which showed there were virtually no crimes caused through the use of shotguns?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Mr. Speaker, again in answer to that, I believe that it would not be in keeping with prudence to wait for a disastrous event. Really, one must foresee the possibility of crime and guard against it. To that extent, therefore, my clients would support any move which would have the result that shotguns are kept safely and that there is a register of ownership; I think that is perfectly laudable, but that I think it is right to point out not only the bad things about the Bill but also the good things.

The Speaker: Learned counsel, are you more or less of the opinion that thecreation of a register would in any way alleviate the introduction of armed crime?

Mr. W, J. H. Corlett: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be beneficial to relatea given firearm to a given number, in the same way that it is a good thing to relate the engine of a car to a given person. It is obviously right and proper that the police should be able to find out who is the owner of a given weapon, and to that extent I think my clients would agree with that.

The Speaker: How successful is the operation in the United Kingdom?

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Well, I believe it must be very successful, Mr. Speaker, because shotgun certificates must be possessed by holders of shotguns; therefore, there must be a compulsory system of registration of ownership.

The Speaker: But this has not diminished armed crime.

Mr. W. J. H. Corlett: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, as the Home Secretary haspointed out.

The Speaker: Are there any further questions, hon. members? Thank you,learned counsel. The House will proceed with the debate. The hon. member for Ayre, Mr. Radcliffe.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall now move a proposal that I have regarding this Bill. I would start o ff .. .



Mrs. Christian: Mr. Speaker, i beg to second but 1 do have reservations aboutthe detailed content of the Bill as will be seen by the number of amendments which I have tabled to it. in seconding I am also aware that my colleague has a proposal when the second reading is considered that this should be considered by a committee and I will support him in that

I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that by virtue of the fact that we had a memorialist here this morning we have had an indication that the responsible shooters in the Isle of Man have given a very considerable amount of time and attention to proposals in this Bill. The mover suggested that they had had an opportunity to make observation on the Bill when the Home Affairs Board were considering it an earlier stage. However, it is my belief — and perhaps the mover would indicate whether or not it is the case — that although they had anopportunity to note what was proposed, their observations on it were not in-corporated in the green Bill, and to that extent I think it is appropriate that a committee should take a look at the views of the people who are involved in shooting in the Island.

It is fair to say, I think, that in connection with this and many other of our laws, by strengthening the law we do not necessarily affect the way in which crime is being committed. We may tighten this up a far as we like, but there will always be those who will evade the provisions of the law, and therefore I think we need to consider carefully just to what extent we need to tighten up firearms legislation at the moment As I have said, those who are responsible in use of guns in the Isle of Man have made observations on this, and they have come forward with certain proposals which they have outlined to me. Their main objection to the proposals we have here is that shotguns and airguns should be made Part I firearms as defined in the 1947 Act, and this, i think, is far too stringent for our present requirements. The position which is applied to the United Kingdom has been outlined, and I think that if we were to take a took at what applies there we might find it quite suitable and appropriate for the Island at this time.

The question of the effect the proposed Bill would have on the use of firearms by young people is one which we ought to consider carefully. There are those who now belong to many of the clubs in the Island and who are introduced to firearms under proper supervision and learn how to use them in the correct manner, and I think it would be unfortunate if we were to pass legislation which would affect the interests of young people in this or any other, what we might describe as reasonably healthy pastime, when there is such interest and help available for them.

The points which I think 1 would argue with in the Bill and which have been mentioned by the mover in particular, are this question of the right of appeal; if a person is refused a firearm certificate at the moment they can appeal to the High Bailiff, and if they win their appeal they find that they are faced with costs, and that is quite unfair at the moment. It is proposed in the amendment that where a person wins the appeal against the disallowance to hold a firearms certificate,



at least the High Bailiff should have the option of awarding costs under those circumstances.

The mover of this Bill also says that the register may not be complete at the present time. If we have another tighter register there is no guarantee in the future that that register will in itself be complete. He indicated that the emphasis with regard to the application for a firearms certificate has been changed, in that the role of the Chief Constable has to some degree been altered. He said that change would make little difference; it if would make little difference, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is not worth changing at all,

The people who have sought to present a Memorial today have considered the question of ranges and, I think, would accept that maybe we need some tightening up on the question of ranges, but they would have certain observations to make which I think would be useful to be heard by the committee, and it seems clear to me from comments of one or two members when putting questions to learned counsel that in reading the Bill it seems not too bad, but the crux of the matter comes in Schedule 2, and if you have not carefully gone through what is embodied in Schedule 2, in the repeals, you will find that you have missed an awful lot of the meat of this particular Bill, it is in those small sections of repeals of various Acts that the major changes will occur, and that, I think, goes to emphasise the fact that we cannot be too careful when looking at green Bills. Glancing through Schedules which repeal we tend to perhaps glance through them fairly superficially; we do not appreciate the nature of the changes we are being asked to make.

So I would therefore, in seconding the Bill, ask the House to give a very serious consideration to sending it to a committee so that we can look at the amendments which I have proposed and hear the views of those people who will be directly affected by the changes which the House may make in relation to firearms.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved with any sort of guns for a number of years, since I was in the services, but I do believe the last speaker is quite correct. Those people who wish to take part in the shooting and the use of firearms must be well trained; they must have a working knowledge, not only of how the gun Itself works but the damage that can be ensued by just mishandling and misuse, and unfortunately on a number of occasions in my past life I have seen the results of mistakes of mis-handling weapons.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a committee is the obvious answer. ! do not believe fora moment that, draconian as this Bill might be, we can do anything other than put It to a committee. There is a need to control guns; there is no doubt about that. I accept your point, Mr. Speaker, when asking questions, it does not stop crimes of violence; it certainly does not. Those who wish to obtain a gun either by theft or under-the-counter methods or by some other means will certainly get them, and they will probably not use a weapon anyhow that has been registered to them — it would be foolish to do so.



So I hope the House does put it to a committee and I hope that when it comes back we might get a satisfactory method of use, control and certainly training with the use of guns of all descriptions in the Isle of Man.

Mr. Maddrell: Mr, Speaker, I see in this Act a very heavy hand — I really mean a heavy hand of Government — and it is a type of legislation to turn the existing system upside down. Here we have learned counsel and the memorialists saying to us that there are slight amendments needed, and they are openly coming here and admitting to us that they want to be part and parcel of that, and I think that is a very fine way of going about things.

The present system has proved very suitable, and I really challenge the mover to prove today in this hon. Court where the abuse of the Firearms Act 1947 really has taken place. In the Isle of Man, has there been armed crime? Have there been threats to the public or the police with firearms? if you say "Yes", hon. member, then please prove it. How many cases have the courts dealt with, say, in the last five years? I gather that information is on the paper, but learned counsel in his very concise method has made that point quite clear, that maybe the figures are not quite so serious as they are in the cases that they have dealt with.

I have to agree with the Home Secretary's decision in that he rejected calls from the police in England to introduce a Section 1 certificate on all firearms. It is a well known fact that guns used in most unlawful occasions are usually the guns that come from anywhere but registered areas. They are obtained by undercover means to do an illegal act. I must also agree all legislation needs updating, which I have stated once; realistic fines need amending and in general the law is prepared in such a way as to deter and prevent crime. What will this Act do? In my estimation there is no historic proof whatsoever that this is being used like a sledgehammer to get that control. The main impact, perhaps, of the new legislation will be as a result of an amendment to Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1947: whereas under existing legislation an applicant has a right to obtain a firearms certificate if the Chief Constable is satisfied that the applicant had good reason to possess a firearm and was not of intemperate habits, unsound mind or some other reason unsuitable, under the new legislation the Chief Constable must be satisfied by the applicant that he has good reason for purchasing and acquiring et cetera, otherwise the certificate must not be granted.

It seems that we have shotguns and air weapons now classified with rifles and pistols. Rifles and pistols, I agree, should be issued only with the applicant proving he had good reason for possession, whereas with a shotgun I feel a certificate should be issued and the police prove good reason for the applicant not to have it. May I read a letter, for the record, please, and in support of my opposition? This record is from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and this gentleman came to the Isle of Man and he said —

"I had the opportunity to visit the Isle of Man in May, when I was invitedover by the Manx Game Preservation Society to discuss the new firearmsproposal which are at present waiting their reading. In this Association's opinion,


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE. 1984 K909

the proposals set out in the Firearms Bill will not achieve their objective, and there is no evidence to suggest that the administration procedures which are recommended will prove anything more that an administrative burden, reflecting an increased cost in the certification of firearms for those people who already wish to support the police in every possible way."

I will support a committee, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak? In that case I think, hon. members, it would be appropriate now to adjourn, and the adjournment will be until 3.15 p. m. Thank you, hon. members.

The House adjourned.

FIREARMS BILL —DEBATE ON REFERENCE TO A COMMITTEE CONCLUDED

The Speaker: We resume our debate on the Firearms Bill and I call on the hon. member for Glenfaba, Mr. Quirk.

Mr. Quirk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the speeches that have takenplace this morning, and especially the memorialist who has put his case very clearly, demonstrate that there is a need to look very carefully at this Bill, and I was certainly glad to hear him say that he looked on this Bill as a measure on which some supervision is necessary, and that is something I think we all subscribe to.

I would like, however, just to emphasise one or two points, and the first is regarding ranges, and I would like this spelt out in this Bill, or possibly this being spelt out by regulations or whatever, that there is a great difference between a range which is needed for a rifle and a range which is needed for a shotgun. That is one of the points that I would like to be very clear within this Bill.

There too, at the present time it has been stated — and of course it is a fact — that the Highway Board do issue licences for shotguns. And here again they issue licences but, as far as I know, there is no inspection, and it may well be — and I hope this point is taken seriously — that there are firearms within the Isle of Man, as shotguns will now be called, that may possibly be unsafe for use, and I feel that some sort of supervision on the particular condition of these firearms would be necessary. I just would like to comment too on one or two points which I did try and make with the hon. memorialist before lunch, and that was the aspect of the present situation regarding 17*year-olds who are entitled to have a firearm under the present situation. I would just like to refer you to one or two points which I have established: if a young person applies for a gun licence, he should be informed: (1) that he cannot purchase a gun of any kind unless he is 17 years

Firearms Bill — Debate on Reference to a Committee Concluded


or over; that is one thing; (2) that he cannot accept as a gift or borrow a gun of any kind unless he is 14 years or over. This means then that a person can buy a gun and he can give it to a person of 14 or under and therefore that establishes a situation where a 14-year-old or under may be able to use that gun, and here again we look for a situation of supervision and training; (3) if he is under 14 he can only be in possession of an air rifle or air pistol whilst under the supervision of a person over 21. Here we have a situation again where a person, a young person under 14, can be in possession of an air rifle; and lastly, if he is under the age of 15 he can only be in possession of that gun whilst under the supervision of a person over 21. So we have different categories here, and I merely raise this as a procedure so that if it does go to a committee stage these aspects will be looked at and incorporated in the Bill in a very clear and intelligent fashion.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was made earlier on today that thisBill should be sent to committee. I would respectfully suggest to hon. members that unless we are convinced of the need for the policy changes within this Bill, then that is a course that we should not take, and what we should do is vote against this Bill and look to the Home Affairs Board to produce one which meets, I think, the problems that are facing the Island, and then we could have that for second reading and discuss the policy implications in that Bill.

I personally cannot accept the need for all the changes that are outlined in this Bill, and I certainly have not been convinced by the hon. mover that these rigorous controls are all necessary. The hon. mover, when he was putting his case, explained fully the contents of the Bill that was before us, but I think he failed to argue the reasoning behind the changes that he was suggesting, and I would ask him, why should shotguns and air rifles be subject to the same rigorous controls as rifles are? I think there is not a case to be made. We are talking about completely different articles with, I believe, a different danger significance. So he gave us no reason for that, except the thought that the authorities should know where the weapons are, and I would accept that, but the idea has been suggested of a simple register, and I would have thought that would be much more acceptable and simpler to keep.

The thought of recording the purchasers and users of shotgun cartridges and, I ask you, air gun pellets is something that is completely unnecessary; to think that control has to be kept of the number of lead pellets that individuals purchase and use, I would suggest, is a nonsense. It is costly and just not worthwhile, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has accepted the justified policy of putting the proper controls on to the persons who are controlled, and I would suggest that the point made by the memorialists this morning, that the cost of this sport will increase is justified, and I would compliment them on the way that he put the whole of the case this morning; I thought it was very lucid and quite understandable.

The hon. mover also did not convince me of the need for what he said was only a change in emphasis, but it is a very basic change in emphasis, form "a certificate shall be granted" to "it shall not be granted unless", and I think those


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th( JUNE, 1984 K911

were the hon. mover's words. I think he should explain fully his thinking behind that change, and I do not think it enough to say that it is simply a change of emphasis.

I would also like to ask my hon. friend what evidence or need he has for increasing the age of ownership or usage from 14 to 17. I believe that there is a lot to be said for a gradual introduction of responsibilty by young people somewhere in the teens. This does not only apply to shooting, it applies, ! think, to drink, going into public houses, driving motor cars on private land, i think this is a good gradual introduction to young people to the challenges that are going to meet them when they reach maturity, and I think it is wrong to have a cut-off point and say, “At 17 you shall be allowed; until then you shall not." I do not know of very many instances — there will always be somebody who will abuse what they are allowed to do — but I do not know of any very sincere incidents that have concerned me about the use by young people between 14 and 17 as far as guns are concerned.

I would ask the hon. member what justification he has for including shotgun ranges under a similar sort of inspection regime as rifle ranges. We have a completely different set of circumstances. Again I think these should be taken into account, and I would just remind hon. members of the problem this Island is finding in setting up a decent rifle range, and I just wonder what problems will be faced by individuals in finding really safe places to have shotgun ranges if these controls were introduced.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is the easy way out at this stage to say that we will agree the second reading, let us accept this policy and we will put it to a committee. I think the responsibility for this one is with the Home Affairs Board. They have come forward today with certain suggestions. To me they are not acceptable, and \ would prefer the Home Affairs Board to take this one back to the drawing board and come back with another Bill which will give simple controls where authorities would know the whereabouts of guns. I accept the needs I think, of a dealer, when he is faced with selling a gun, to know that the person he is selling it to has not got anything against him, and so I think the idea of a register where people, if they wish to own a gun, can apply to be on and shall go on unless there is good reson why not — I think those are completely reasonable suggestions and I would certainly support those if they came forward in future legislation, but today, Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose this Bill and vote against it.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, after listening to what the hon. member for Rushen has just said, I must admit that j have a lot of sympathy that we should actually reject the Bill and then make the Home Affairs Board go back and look at a more realistic Bill, if that is the word to use. My views before that were, I must admit, that we should send this to a committee, but I think the important point to that is that we are then accepting the principle for the types of changes which are embodied in the Bill before us.



There are a few things that I would like to have some answers to at this stage, Mr. Speaker, and that really is regarding the inspector of firearms ranges, and that is a section that is in the Bill and I wonder, who does this at the present and what sort of cost that normally costs? 1 was surprised to see in the Bill, under the actual introduction, Part 9, " It is not possible at this stage to anticipate the future financial and manpower implications of the Bill," and I think, from what is in the Bill, it could be quite costly to Government and to people involved in shooting ranges or whatever to have this Bill implemented, and for what? I think it has been made clear that the benefits would be very minimal, if any, for the Isle of Man. Therefore what sort of considerable costs are we going to put onto organisations and the taxpayer of this Island, to do this?

One interesting point also was the point made about the air weapon, and the point that it would have to be licensed and the point about air pellets, and I think we should really be realistic and remember that there are far more dangerous weapons than that which do not need to be licensed such as crossbows, such as somebody with a catapult who can use air pellets in just the same way with far more power than any airgun would have, and yet they would be able to do that with no problem if they wished to, and I would suggest that a person who wants to act and go out and injure somebody is going to use something that he is not supposed to have rather than something he has got to be licensed for, and therefore I really wonder what we are actually trying to do in controlling the people who are already responsible people anyway. ! think that is something that we have to send back to the Home Affairs Board quite strongly: that unless this legislation can actually be substantiated that it is truly necessary, then we should not in any way entertain such legislation.

Another point that was made was by the hon. mover when he said that weapons in the wrong hands can be detrimental to "Joe Public*', and ! would suggest that it does not even have to be a weapon to be detrimental, as we have seen in the past where people use steel combs and things like that; they then become a weapon, so again, how do you get round that problem? I understand part of that.

I also believe strongly that it should be the police who have to say why a person should not have a licence; it should not be the other way round where the person has to justify why they need one, because that really opens it up that anybody, for any slight reason, could be taken out of having it. The police should always have good reason. They are there to protect and serve the public and are not there to actually stop the public having something that is a right to that person. In other words, the police should justify why they should not have it.

I quite strongly bejieve — and I hope the House will actually reject the Bill. As I say, I must confess that at first 1 was not going to support that, I was going to support a committee, but I do think the best thing to do is actually to reject it so that the strong feelings in this House can go back to the Home Affairs Board in no uncertain terms and then, hopefully, they will either forget the idea or come back with a Bill which is really in keeping with the feelings of the House and the people of the Island require.



Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Speaker, when I received this Bill first of all I had to haveanother look at it on the facing page, just to make sure that it was not a Northern Ireland Bill or something that I had in my hand, because I was reading a proposed piece of legislation which was so despotic with the controls that were going to be given to certain people that I could hardly believe it. This is a Bill which, if it should be enacted, would be a most radical move for the Island in regard to firearms legislation and one which I, quite frankly, question the need for.

To classify — and we have heard these arguments but they stand reiterating — to classify the shotgun and the air weapon together as firearms requires that shotgun ranges be classified with rifle ranges, and it could — it probably would, I think — lead to the demise of the outdoor shotgun ranges which we know and are aware are used for the sport of clay pigeon shooting. It would give the Chief Constable draconian powers in that an applicant for a gun licence would be in the position that he would not get a gun and would not get a licence unless he, the applicant, showed good reason for it, and I ask the question: why? because this is a complete reversal of what we have at the moment, and indeed, as has been rightly said, a reversal of what currently pertains in the United Kingdom.

A further point, and one which has not been mentioned and I would ask the mover for some information on this one, is that some of these sharp shooters — and it is worthy of saying that they have in the past represented the Isle of Man with honour, in Olympic and other games — these people own more than one weapon. They own as many, I am told, as four or five, using different guns for different disciplines, and I cannot, by the way the Bill is set out, see one individual being granted perhaps a licence for one gun, let alone four or five, and I would question the mover as to what is the thinking in that line, if a person has more than one weapon. The clubs have agreed, and the memorialists have stated quite categorically, that they support some form of registration in that the authorities would know who owned which particular gun and they, ! think, are being very helpful to the authorities in that way.

A lot of mention has been made about young people and the problems that it is possible to get there and it is a fact that, as with most sports, people must be got to start competing whilst they are young, and there are indeed mimbers of young people being taught the principles of the safe handling of firearms at club ranges, both indoor and outdoor. The thinking always is, 'get them young and teach them how to hold, how to handle and how to safely use a gun', and that is the time to get these people under the age of 17, and there seems to be quite a difference of opinion — a lot of confusion, almost — as to whether an under 17-year-old will be committing an offence if he was actually in pssession of a gun. Presently 14 is the age and I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, that this age group who are now permitted to have guns, have presented any real problems. I know that I had a gun at the age of 15, kithaghy arm and all, as it was, and I do not think I presented any great danger to the general public — I suppose, on reflection, no great danger to rabbits either, but anyway I had a gun at that age, and I see no reason and I question once again the reason for bringing this age from 14 to 17 years. We are not in a society where 14-year-olds learn how to use guns on real

Firearms Bill ~ Debate on Reference to a Committee Concluded

K914 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984

live human targets; this is not a strifetorn society we have, Mr, Speaker, and I once again question the need for these rigorous and onerous controls.

If the Bill should go through in its present form, it goes far too far, and my colleague here has mentioned indeed the repeals contained within the Bill and the significance of those. One further point that is worth mentioning, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Castletown mentioned it, is that the explanatory memorandum is quite specific that the Home Affairs Board, and it says that " It is not possible to anticipate the future financial and manpower implications of the Bill." We would, if we pass it as it stands be faced with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Board over the other side there, getting to his feet and saying, "i am short of staff. They are overworked in this firearms legislation which we have; I have got to have more/' and if we told him "No", he would say, "Well, you members of the hon. House passed the Bill; you must give me what I require," and I think that we want to think fairly deeply, and we make noises, Mr. Speaker, about how we should be containing numbers of employees within Government. We should take this into recognition when we are thinking about this Bill, and I would ask the hon. mover for some explanation of the particular points which I raised.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling on the next speaker it has been suggested to me that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke twice. I cannot accept the contention. The hon. member rose earlier on a misapprehension to move a point which was not in order at the time and immediately sat down on realising that it was not the appropriate time to move it. I cannot regard that as a contribution to the debate and disqualify the hon. member on those grounds. I call on the hon. member for Middle,

Mr, Callin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Ayre and hesaid he had a gun at 15. Even so, I do not suppose that 1 am the only member of this hon. House who was firing guns before I was 14, and I want to say that, in my experience with guns, the sooner — within reason, of course — that a person is introduced to the proper handling of firearms, the better. Those that have been most dangerous that I have come up against are those people who were much older who thought they knew all about guns, and those are the ones I am worried about.

So as far as I am concerned, I think that 17, the age limit, is far too high and I do not think there is anything wrong with 14 and even in fact I do not think there has been any evidence brought here or anywhere else to prove that 14 was too young and that they were irresponsible in any way. Now, if you take a motor car, in my opinion the driver of a motor car can be a lot more dangerous than the firing of a gun, and a person of 16, once he passes his test, can drive not only a motor car, he can drive a very fast motor car; there is no limitation, he can drive even a commercial vehicle up to 3 tons.

I will not support the Bill as it is printed, but I will not either vote against it. I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, if it did go to a committee. In the seven-and-a-half years or so that I have been here a number of Bills have gone to committee and i cannot recall any that have not benefited from such a facet, and I think that



the committee is the place to put it. We have heard all about the Road Traffic Bill and, despite what may have been said or felt at the time, I believe that once that went to a committee I think it was a better Bill because of it, and I think the same would happen here.

We have heard it said, Mr. Speaker, from time to time about the introduction of legislation; we hear about the Government sometimes being guilty of doing nothinq; we have sometimes heard'about them doing too much. I think that, as far as legislation is concerned, if we talk about redistribution — any subject, you name it — if there is a criticism that I hear from time to time that is more valid than any other, it is that we are guilty of too much legislation (Hear, hear), interfering with the rights of the private individual without reason far too much, and I think it is about time we sat down and took a long holiday (Laughter), and I do not think the Isle of Man would be any worse for it!

But there are a number of things, as had already been stated, and that is the police. The fact is that if somebody should not have a licence I think it is up to the police, as has been said, to prove why they should not rather than the other way round, and this little circular that we ail had sent round which I think my hon. colleague on my right quoted from this morning — I think it is very important to know, even when some may be carried away about crime and all sorts of things about guns and what can be done with them, we are not in Northern Ireland, we are not in England, we are in between. Now as far as this is concerned, the legislation, we have not got the English legislation but we have got the Irish as far as I know, and I think it is very important — and ! underline just these three lines — that the link between armed crime and the private possession of firearms is not as clear cut or simple as is sometimes imagined, and I think that is very true.

I think if we want to do the right thing this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that is to refer it to a cohnmittee; it will then give that committee the opportunity to consult, allow any person or persons to give evidence, and 1 think that when they will come back to the next session of the House of Keys, I am certain that they will get it right, as we did with the Road Traffic Bill.

Dr. Moore: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the memorialists today, the associations and clubs which have given evidence, are responsible and respected branches of the firearms users, but there are those who are not so respectable or responsible and in the last fortnight a passer-by has asked me to come and look at some young birds who had been wounded by airguns and left maimed. This clearly has been done, and I was informed it had been done, by youngsters not under supervision who found no problem in getting hold of airguns and using them in this way.

I believe that the Bill as it stands does penalise the responsible people too much but I believe there is a need for some sort of control to encourage the responsible uses of firearms and to inhibit the irresponsible uses, and I too will be supporting the movement to a committee.



Mr. Gelling: i will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because the general mood of the House is to either throw the Bill out or move it to a committee. When we ask ourselves what our duty is as members of this House, I think it is to legislate for the Isie of Man, It is also our duty to ensure that we do not over-legtslate or overregulate, and I believe that this Bill as printed, as with the Road Traffic Bill before it, is a fine example of over-legislation and over-regulation and as such I will firstly vote against it and, if I do not succeed in killing it that way, then I shall certainly vote for it to go to a committee. I believe that there is a great deal in it that should be removed but at the same time, as the memorialists who have very properly suggested, there are areas where there should be some tightening up and I do agree with that. So either the Bill is thrown out by this hon. House and the Home Affairs Board come back with a more realistic Bill, or we put it to a committee and hope that that committee can sort out these excesses, I was going to speak at some length on my reasons for believing this, but I think it has been said already by many hon. members, including a very good article from the Home Secretary - I think every member has been distributed with a copy of this and I think everyone should read it carefully, for it sums up my views on this legislation for the Isle of Man. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply?

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, I may be holding up both hands (Laughter) but ! have not yet surrendered! (Laughter) I did at our last sitting indicate that I would not be opposing any moves to send this Bill to a committee and I have now changed my view on that, and if that is the wish of this House that this Bill goes to a committee, then certainly I will be quite prepared and openly say right at the outset that I am prepared to accept that, i cannot in any respect agree with my hon. colleague who says that we should vote this Bill out in toto - I think that would be wrong.

Equally, to clear the atr, so that there is no member of this hon. House in any doubt whatsoever, although this Bill had started its progress ever before I became Chairman of the Home Affairs Board, I am in no way going to hide behind that screen and I accept fully that as far as I am concerned, this piece of legislation is coming forward not as a board measure in that it was in the pipeline anyway, but I am accepting equally that I concur with the Bill coming forward to the House of Keys. So I want to clear that particular area at the same time whilst saying that it is something which has been on the stocks for some time. In fact, it goes back over a period of years in relation to various questions which have been asked, and then it was brought forward at the Police Committee, and I believe even members who are saying that they are against this were members of that Police Committee when it was first hatched and suggested that it should come forward as legislation but we will not go into th a t. . . (Interruption).

And then we come forward to the stage when, as my good friend immediately in front of me has commented, time to time questions have been raised of various animals or birds being shot which has raised quite considerable concern at large in the community, and of course members will equally be aware that my hon.


HOUSE OF KEYS. TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984 K917

colleague, now in the Legislative Council, Mr, Lowey, had equally asked questions in another place relative to what was, on first sight anyway, a dangerous position whereby a group of lawful abiding citizens going about their normal fell-walking activities, had come under fire, and questions were asked in Tynwald relative to that. So what I am pointing out is that this is not something which has just developed; it has been growing and there has been a growing concern in the Isle of Man about firearms and firearms usage.

Now let us get it straight what a firearm is, and let us not hide under this business of the 1947 Act and that shotguns and air rifles are not firearms because, as I asked hon. counsel to ascertain this morning, in fact they do come within that, but they are exempted, so they are classed within the Bill but they are exemptions to the Bill. So we are not dealing particularly with something which is brand new in relation to control of firearms. Now I would contend that regardless of what hon. members have said in this hon. House this morning or this afternoon, no case has been made, and I am sure that hon. members will agree when I say that, when questions are asked in Tynwald when there is considerable media coverage of the use of guns in one form or another in the Isle of Man, concern is being expressed as to the control of those guns, and it is that very concern which has brought about the legislation which is in front of you today.

Now if we take the position of saying our control of shotguns should only be the control as it is expressed in the United Kingdom, that is a view which you can take as hon. members, and I could equally say that, for example, the Manx Clay and Pigeon Shooting Association, were asked for their observations originally; their observations were simply that any amendment to current legislation should not result in legislation which is any more onerous than that contained in the United Kingdom Firearms Act of 1968. All right, if we are having any legislation let us have it no more onerous than what it is in the United Kingdom. Now I would contend to this hon. House that it is up to this hon. House to pass the legislation which is suitable for the Isle of Man, and accepting that it is suitable for the Isle of Man I would equally ask every hon. member for this House to weigh very carefully the undoubted lobby which every member of this House has felt, and it is shown by the rhetoric in some members' speeches, particularly this afternoon, that a lobby has been put on members and members have been told "We do not need this; it is not necessary for the Isle of Man," and I appreciate and accept that we are all in a position of being lobbied and accept in fact that we should be; that is equally the job of a politician to either stand or withstand or accept, however he feels.

But the balance in the end has to rest with the passing of the legislation in this House and it is your duty to weigh the concern of the general public as to firearms against the wish that we should continue — and some members were virtually expressing this, which surprises me somewhat, the way we are: that anybody in the Isle of Man could happily go along and buy a shotgun and start banging away, because that is effectively the control that we have on that particular level in the Isle of Man today. And if you, hon. members, can openly say that you are satisfied with that control, well, I will tell you and I know that the memorialists do not even



agree that that is sufficient control; they will openly say that there should be some form of control.

Now if we go a bit further, a question has been asked as to ‘shall it be granted?' or 'shall they have to prove the right?' in the first instance. Can j suggest to this hon. House and to hon. members that, whereas in the United Kingdom across the water where they have wide areas of control it is far more difficult — and manufacturers of the weapons — for them to ascertain where they all are and keep some level of control than it is here. There have been moves — and let us not dodge this one and the Home Secretary has been quoted from — in the United Kingdom to introduce stricter controls, and ! would suggest to this hon. House that those stricter controls will yet come in the United Kingdom if they continue down the roads of firearms misuse in the United Kingdom which is currently being seen, and I accept members' contention — Mr. Speaker put it to counsel this morning — that the control of guns is not directly allied to a criminal activity; the fact that you have the licence might not stop somebody taking criminal action.

But I do feel that in the Isle of Man in our small area, to my mind, accepting that a firearm is a dangerous weapon, it seems patently justifiable that the person who wishes to use a firearm should justify his use of that firearm. It seems to me in our small community patently justifiable that that should be the case. That will cause absolutely no hardship to a genuine member of a gun club or to a genuine member of a sporting organisation and again, as far as I am concerned, I pay tribute and will support and continue to support the gun clubs on the Isie of Man and the use of guns. In fact, when we get down to talking about ages I again, I suppose, started to use a gun and could use a gun and a rifle, both if it comes to that, long before I was 14, but that just happens to be that it is part of the agricultural scene and it is something which you grow up doing.

Having said that, I think again we will accept the control one hundred percent, as far as the agricultural community goes, and let us refer you to a reasonable organisation, the National Farmers Union, and in their observations given to the Home Affairs Board not only did they concur with further controls on guns but, I would point to the hon. member for Castletown, they suggested to the Home Affairs that these crossbows which you referred to should equally be brought within it. The suggestion there was that it should be widened — a responsible body on the Isle of Man putting back to us the case for further control.

What I am saying to this hon. House is that there is outside, even if members in here do not happen to feel it, considerable concern about the control of these firearms and that we should be prepared to extend that contol. The hon. member Mrs. Christian, member for Ayre, in talking about Part I and firearms, goes on to say in Part I Firearms — her words were — and I made a note of it — “it is too stringent at this time"; the words 'at this time' were added and Hansard would prove that that was right; it was there. The indication there is, all right, we do not want control, Part I, to lump them in with rifles it is too much of a step, but the indication also is that it shows an element of doubt within this House as to how far down the road you go.



If this Bill is defeated at second reading and it goes back to the Home Affairs Board to come forward yet again in some form which you think you are going to accept, I do not know what that form is going to be, quite genuinely; I think this House has to decide the nuts and bolts. The policy of further control, I contend, is paramount and the people of the Isle of Man are expecting us to have further control on firearms; we are far too loose in our legislation in control of the shotguns on the Isle of Man. There is a requirement outside and I am satisfied; that is why I am not hiding behind anything on this one. t will face anybody on any public platform and say there is a need for further control.

If you talk about the ages and the age groups, let us have a look at that one. If i had come forward and said that there should be no change in the age groups at all, members would be standing up and saying, "Well, I think 14 is too young, let us have an amendment to make it 15", or 16, or 17. Well, this House can make that alteration very simply by an amendment. It is a very simple matter, but someone has to decide and someone has to put something forward, and we did look at the evidence which was brought back to you. As i said, this Bill was put out deliberately for observations to draw fire, and it has certainly done that; that is good, but having said that, of course, when you then consider the observations which are put back they were basically on age which this House can alter, an appeal procedure which this House can alter, or for further things to be added - that was basically the observations which went to the Home Affairs Board and, accepting and looking at those observations, the Home Affairs Board said, "We wilt let the House decide first the policy of whether or not we want further control and then take the steps thereafter as you go through the clause." That is why, Mr. Speaker, last week I indicated to this hon. House I would not be against it going to a committee if that is what this House wants, but I do not accept the contention of my hon. colleague that this Bill should be defeated.

Can I say in closing that members have said that there is no case, and I accept that there is no case tied up directly with criminal activities and the usage of firearms and further control in this Bill.They may not be tied together, but if members of this hon. House want to think in their ignorance that there are no criminal activities taking place on the Isle of Man with guns — and I say criminal in that term — then I think they should be put right on it, and in fact I have here a document which lists for me 39 incidents just relating to shotguns and air weapons within the last 10 years and some of them my hon. colleague says in relation to air weapons and a few lead pellets whether there should be an element of control. One of these incidents within here is relating to 10 and 12-year-olds shooting at individuals, shooting at people, not talking about birds, actually hitting people with air weapons, and one of the incidents unfortunately was the case of a death, of a manslaughter, not 150 yards from my own back door and, as my hon. colleague would know, a person was actually killed and manslaughter was the outcome of that particular court case. There is a list there of 39 incidents on the isle of Man. I contend without any doubt whatsoever that ! am fully justified to this hon. House in asking that you seriously consider further controls on firearms; it is past time that our firearm legislation was looked at closely and tightened up, and I would

Firearms Bill - Debate on Reference to a Committee Concluded


certainly commend that the House takes that step and not my hon. colleague's step of defeating it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The resolution is that the Firearms Bill be now read a second time. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

For: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, MaddreH, Payne, Cringle, Faragher, Deianey, Martin, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore and Mr. Cain — 16

Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Walker, Brown, Duggan and the Speaker — 5

The Speaker: Sixteen votes in favour, five votes against, the resolution carries. I call upon the hon. member for Ayre.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Speaker, ! am not going to go on for any length aboutthe need and necessity of putting this Bill to a committee. The hon. mover of the Bill has said that he is very happy for it to go to a committee. We have enumerated various points of view today, some of them rightly or wrongly, as seen by the societies and by members of this hon. House, and I think that the Bill would benefit by being examined closely by a committee of members of this House and I beg to move:—

that the Bill be referred to a committee for consideration and report.

Mrs. Christian: I beg to second.

The Speaker: Does any hon. member wish to speak to this resolution? If not, I will put the question that the Firearms Bill along with, i take it, all tabled amendments be referred to a committee for consideration and report. Is that agreed?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The number on the committee —five? (Agreed) Nominations, please.

Mr. Duggan: Mr. Gilbey,sir.

A Member: I beg to second.

Mr. Walker: I would like to propose Mr. Cringle.

A Member: 1 beg to second.

Mr. Martin: I propose Mr. Radcliffe.




Mr. Gelling: i propose Mrs. Christian.


Mr. Gilbey: I propose Mr. Walker.


A Member: I propose Dr. Moore.

Dr. Moore: I propose Mr, Payne.


The Speaker: We have six nominations. Is it agreed the committee be extended to six?

Mr. Kneaie: Mr. Speaker, has there not been seven?

The Speaker: I have six and that has been confirmed by the Secretary whowill read them out.

The Secretary: Mrs. Christian, Mr. Cringle, Mr. Gilbey, Mr. Payne, Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Walker.

Mr. Kneale: Dr. Moore was proposed and I will second him.

The Speaker: In that case we have Dr. Moore's name to the list. Does theHouse wish to ballot now?

Dr. Moore: Is it a committee of three or a committee of five?

The Speaker: Five.

A ballot was held.

The Speaker: The outcome of the ballot, hon. members is as follows: Mrs.Christian, 17 votes; Mr. Cringle, 19 votes; Mr. Gilbey, 12 votes; Dr. Moore, 10 votes; Mr. Payne, 9 votes; Mr. Radcliffe, 16 votes; Mr. Walker, 17 votes. Accordingly the committee will consist of Mrs. Christian, Mr. Cringle, Mr. Gilbey, Mr. Radcliffe and Mr. Walker.



ROAD TRAFFIC BILL - CONSIDERATION OF CLAUSES CONCLUDED - THIRD READING APPROVED

The Speaker: Now we turn to the Road Traffic Bill, hon. members, and Icall upon the hon. member in charge, the hon. member for Glenfaba, to move Clause 54 and Clause 55.

Mr. Quirk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, back on the road again! Clause 54 creates the offence of breach of regulations where no other penalty is prescribed and in Clause 55, which is a complete re-enactment, it deals with the restrictions and the requirements relating to the giving of notice to persons who may be prosecuted for offences covered by this clause relating to reckless and inconsiderate driving or cycling, dangerous parking, contravention of traffic offences as shown in column 'A. in Part 1 of Schedule 6, and accused must have been warned at the summons time within 14 days of giving notice of intended prosecution, and service of notice is considered effected even if notice is returned unless the accused can prove a non-service.

Now this clause contains an important modification as it removes the existing requirement to give notice of intention to prosecute within 14 days of an accident. This requirement has caused distress to those who have been injured or bereaved through no fault of their own and where enquiries may possibly take longer than 14 days. I beg to move that Clauses 54 and 55 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cringle: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, on Clause 54 I would like further explanation.I am certainly not happy with this — what you might call — "Catch 22“ clause. This gives the powers for something that is not covered in the Act for offences to be committed when no definition is clear, and I would like some explanation from the mover as I do not think he has spent enough time dwelling on this clause for the benefit of the House. The old Army regulation Section 69 "contrary to military discipline" covered everything, whether you cleaned your teeth in the morning to whether you shot the Sergeant-Major, and this is the same sort of clause. I do not believe that the mover has given an adequate explanation as to why it is necessary now for such a catch-all clause into this Bill.

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to get any reaction on this. I thinkClause 14, without looking back on it, is concerned with cycling: "A person who promotes or takes part in a race or trial of speed. . . “ This is what covers it, and also the minor points which is paragraph 10, Schedule 4 — we can look that up.. .

Mr. Delaney: Mr' Speaker, with due respect, if I may explain to the hon.member: you are not dealing with what the section covered where the 'other than' regulations are made under Section 14; I am dealing with the rest of Clause 54.

Mr. Quirk: Well, really, Mr. Speaker, there again it proves that where a person is in breach of regulations and there are no penalties imposed for those particular

Road Traffic Bill — Consideration of Clauses Concluded —Third Reading Approved


regulations, then of course this clause covers that particular aspect of it. There are regulations, of course, where there are no penalties.

Mr. Delaney: What offences are envisaged under this clause that are not covered?

Mr. Quirk: That is something that I would have to check back on, but there are regulations and I cannot remember all the regulations at this present time which we will be concerned with, but it does cover regulations which are not covered at that particular stage. I can check that and let you know.

The Speaker: I wifi put the resolution in two parts: first of all Clause 54 tostand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

Mr. Delaney wished to be recorded against the motion.

The Speaker: Clause 55. Those in favour of Clause 55 standing part of theBill please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clause 56, sir.

Mr. Quirk: Clause 56, Mr. Speaker, is again a re-enactment, it deals with time limits for offences specified in column 8, Part 1 of Schedule 6. Proceedings may be brought within a period of six months from a date on which sufficient evidence was available in the opinion of the prosecutor to commence court action. Such proceedings are subject to a limit of three years from the time of an offence, and for the purpose of establishing the commencement of a time limit a certificate by the prosecutor stating the date on which evidence came to his notice would be valid. This is a re-enactment Mr. Speaker. The only alteration there in the present legislation is that there is a three-year limit instead of one year from the time of the evidence.


Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members ought to check on theschedule at the back to find out what Clause 56 refers to when they are asked to agree for an extension of up to three years. You will find that they are all technical offences such as driving under age, forgery of licence, making false statements, obtaining a driving licence whilst disqualified, driving whilst disqualified. They are all technical offences, hon. members, and to have a three-year period hanging over your head, I think, is unreasonable. At the present moment it is twelve months, and I feel that is probably sufficient under the circumstances and I would therefore move:

Page 36, line 12: For "3 years" substitute "1 year".

Mr. Brown: I beg to second.

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all come back to Clause 54? It is almost impossible to remember all these things at this particular time, but I have just



made a note that in this particular case the regulation refers to an Act concerned with cycling and driving instruction and dangerous parking.

As far as Clause 56 is concerned — the time limit — there are many reasons why this should be raised, and I will point out that this is two years from the time of the offence. At the present time the period is twelve months, which may be at the time the case is taking place, so it may be a longer period than twelve months. This is specific, that it is three years now from the time of offence, so we know exactly where we are, at that time it may be necessary in certain circumstances and in certain situations. I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 56 stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that Clause 56 as printed stand part of the Bill. To that I have the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Douglas West which stipulates that in line 12 there should be substituted for "three" the figure "one", I will put that amendment to the House first of all. Those in favour of the amendment standing part of the clause please say aye; against, no.


For: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Faragher, Brown, Deianey, Gelling andthe Speaker — 7

Against: Mr. Quirk, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Maddrell, Payne,Walker, Cringle, Duggan, Martin, Kneale, Dr. Moore and Mr. Cain — 13

The Speaker: Six in favour of the amendment, 13 against; it fails to carry, I now put the resolution that Clause 56 as printed stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have i t Clause 57.

Mr. Quirk: Can I take 57 and 58 together? They both relate to evidence by certificate, and indeed Clause 58 which is the new provision — 57, as I may say, is an enactment of the existing provisions — licensing records to be given in evidence by written statement or by a copy of a relevant document; {2} demands documents to include map, photos, discs et cetera, and (3) provides that records kept by the driver and licensing centres at other places where there is reciprocity — Swansea, Northern Ireland and Eire and the Channel Islands — may also be used as written evidence; (4) lays down that in cases involving disqualification and where all required previous notification have been taken, reference to a previous conviction may be taken into account in deciding sentence if the accused is absent from the court. I beg to move that Clauses 57 and 58 stand part of the Bill.


The Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak on the resolution? If not, I wilt put the question which is that Clauses 57 and 58 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clauses 59, 60 and 61.



Mr. Quirk; Mr. Speaker, Clause 59 is again a new provision which enables a Magistrates' Court to accept evidence as to the identity of the driver or of a particular vehicle on a particular occasion providing the appropriate notice has been served by post although the accused may contest such a statement.

Clauses 60 and 61 are re-enactments, Clause 60 providing that prosecution may be brought by the Highway and Transport Board, Chief Constable or any constable and Clause 61 provides that all fines imposed under the Act shall be paid into the general revenue of the Island. I beg to move that Clauses 59, 60 and 61 stand part of the Bill.


The Speaker: Is that agreed, hon. members?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: Clauses 62 and 63, relating to inquiries.

Mr. Quirk: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with complete re-enactments of the existing law, and Clause 62 gives the Highway and Transport Board power to hold inquiries and Clause 63 deals with summonses and evidence at that inquiry. I beg to move that Clause 62 and 63 stand part of the Bill*

Mr, Cringle: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Is the House agreed?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Clause 64, application to the Crown.

Mr. Quirk: This, Mr. Speaker, is a clause which makes provision for thecircumstances in which the provisions of the Bill will apply to vehicles and personsin the public services of the Crown. Paragraph (1) shows those provisions concerning driving offences, stopping and testing of vehicles, production of licences, the giving of names and addresses and to obey the instructions of a constable on traffic control or impersonating an examiner; (2) exempts service personnel from the offence of driving a heavy motor vehicle under the age of 21, and (3) provides the appropriate department of State to nominate a defendant on its behalf. I beg to move Clause 64 stand part of the Bill.



It was agreed.

Road Traffic Sill — Consideration of Clauses Concluded ~Third Reading Approved


The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Clauses 65, 66, 67 and 68.

Mr. Quirk: I take these because they are again mainly re-enactments and, as you see from the Bid, they define certain classes of motor vehicles. The main alteration here is that it is changed to metric weights instead of imperial weights, that is practically the only difference there, sir.

Clauses 66, 67 and 68 are re-enactments of previous legislaiton, treating articulated vehicle as a motor vehicle and trailer and 67 provides for a hovercraft — that is a new provision — to be classed as a motor vehicle, and enables regulations to be made applying the Act to a hovercraft, and 68 provides that motor mowers are not motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act and that other pedestrian controlled vehicles may be treated as not being a motor vehicle. I beg to move Clauses 66, 67 and 68 stand part of the Bill.



It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Clause 69, use of invalid carriages.

Mr. Quirk: Clause 69, sir, is a new regulation. !t covers the use of invalidcarriages on highways and permits for use of such vehicles on footpaths, exempting the drivers from other provisions of the Bill relating to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on the roads. I beg to move Clause 69 stand part of the Bill.



It was agreed.

The Speaker: Thank you. Clauses 70, 71 and 72.

Mr. Quirk: Again, Mr. Speaker, taken together as they are complete re-enactments of existing law, they provide that in calculating the weight of a motor vehicle or trailer the actual weight is taken to be that of the unladen vehicle including body and all permanent features. The weight of water, fuel, accumulators, tools and loose equipment is not calculated as part of the unladen vehicle.

Clause 71 re-enacts a clause which deems a motor vehicle or trailer to be a carriage for the purpose of legislation, and Clause 72 provides the interpretation to the various terms used in the Bill and, I believe, is self-explanatory. I beg to move, sir, Clauses 70, 71 and 72 stand part of the Bill.





It was agreed.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I should be obliged if the mover would explainto me how you can have a cycle with four or more wheels. I can understandbicycle, tricycle, but what sort of bicycle has got more than four wheels?

Mr. Delaney: The Goodies'!

Mr. Quirk: A very short question, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very long sort ofvehicle so I think in this particular case it is either — I certainly do not anticipateseeing such a vehicle on the roads, but it could be possible, I suppose, to have a push-bike with four wheels.

The Speaker: Sometimes known as flying bedsteads! (Laughter) The resolution, hon. members, is that Clauses 70, 71 and 72 stand part of the Sill. Those In favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clause 73.

Mr. Quirk: Clause 73, Mr. Speaker, is new legislation which gives the boardpower to apply by regulation any Community rules relating to road transport,but will not include power to create any new criminal offence punishable on conviction with imprisonment for more than two years or on summary conviction with imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than ¿1,000. Any such regulations will be subject to Tynwald approval. I beg to move Clause 73 stand part of the Bill.


Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, once again this ts the old one coming back at us:orders being put to Tynwald and, as we know once again, the situation in Tynwald— 17 votes required to stop it going through, not to put it but stop it going through. I am concerned again on this one that here we are, we are putting a Bill through, a mammoth Bill, and we have covered everything practically but not enough, apparently, for the board responsible; they want to have this safety clause put in so that they can come along if they have missed anything out or they want to put something in which we as a House do not agree with but Tynwald might if they have to put the order forward. The hon. member for Middle, Mr. Callin, spoke on the last item about over-legislation and too much of it. This is what creates the over-legislation — powers such as this, for legislation should not have to go through in Bill form, it can go through on orders from Tynwald and then affect the public just as much as this Bill will. Well, ! am not happy with it at all. I think once again we are leaving ourselves wide open for criticism and certainly for over-regulation of the public we are responsible for.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, just to go along with the hon. member there, I think this is one of the points in this Bill we have already made changes where regulation by order we can make regulations and, in other words, it does away with the



whole point of having this hon. House because if something, as it says, is desirable to give effect in the, Isie of Man to do with the highways or road transport or what* ever it is, it is here in this place it should be introduced, fought out on this floor and if it is passed it then goes to another place to be checked again. As we ail know, orders can sometimes be very conveniently slipped through, and I think that it is something we should be very careful of and I think hon. members should think hard before they vote in favour.

The Speaker: It has been suggested to me that the hon. member for Rushenwas considering an amendment, I do not know if it is correct.

Mr. Cringle: It was on Clause 74.

The Speaker: I see. Do you wish to reply, sir?

Mr. Quirk: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the House is aware that at the present time the European Economic Community rules do not apply on the Island, but there are certain situations which may arise — reciprocity, for instance, which on driving licence, driving tests and occasions such as that we could have to, as we have seen today, the requirement of reciprocity as far as insurance is concerned. These are things which will be and have to be taken into account if we are to maintain our efficient flow between here and other places across the water. This, of course, as you have pointed out, both questions point out, is enabling legislation and will have to come before Tynwald, so there is no real difference in having this in the legislation now as a point from where we can start from rather than having it as a separate order to come before Tynwald. So 1 hope, Mr. Speaker, that members will accept this as it is right.

Mr. Brown: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, on the point that the hon. member has made regarding the E.E.C., as associate members surely we do not have to accept it in that way?

Mr. Deianey: According to this you will.

Mr. Quirk: I think, Mr. Speaker, there are occasions in the end — it might be the Motor Insurance Bureau and occasions such as that — but there has to be certain reciprocity. As you very well know, the M.I.B. does cover accidents which are of a hit-and-run nature and it is necessary to have a certain reciprocity with the United Kingdom and other areas to make this a situation that can be effectively utilised.

The Speaker: The resolution is that Clause 73 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.


For: Mr. Quirk, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Callin, Maddrell, Payne, Cringle,Faragher, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore, Mr. Cain and the Speaker — 13



Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Cannan, Walker, Brown, Duggan, Delaney and Martin — 7

The Speaker:Thirteen votes in favour, seven votes against; the resolution carries. Clause 74.

Mr. Quirk: Clause 74, Mr. Speaker, gives, the board power to make regulations for the purpose of this Bill and provides that Tynwald approval is necessary before implementing changes. Sub-clause (4) requires the board to consult. This is a clause that has been brought in by the minority report and 1 must say, Mr. Speaker, thatwhile I have, in a way, to accept the clauses which have gone before and areincorporated from the minority report, because there has been, shall we say, an element of argument — and naturally that is as so — i feel very strongly in this respect that here we have an amendment which is going to stifle and restrict the board to such an extent that it wilt make it very difficult indeed to carry out the ordinary workings of the board without a tremendous amount of expense. I will leave the explanation of that sort of clause to my colleague who will be proposing the amendment but I do feet, Mr. Speaker, that while I am saying "Will you accept Clause 74 as it stands at the moment?" I certainly cannot accept the sub-ctause (4).

The Speaker: You have moved it?

Mr. Quirk: I have moved it, sir.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, just to point ou t . . .

The Speaker: Is it seconded?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I wilt second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Delaney: We do have a printing error in the smalt column on the left,"Power to make, and Tynwald control over, regulations." Surety, unless you go back to the Manx Gaelic that is not correct. There is a printing mistake there. Mr. Speaker, apart from that — if it has been printed right, though I am sure it has not — these regulations and the control once again coming back to Tynwald, you are saying you are against the amendment which as yet has not been moved. That is a bit backwards, I think, to have worked it that way but we have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where honestly I believe that the House is well advised to look at alt this again. It is really top-heavy, this legislation; we are getting into the meat of it now, inside of it, and it is really top-heavy. 1 fear for what is going to be the outcome of all this when you really get underway. I am not happy with this at all, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I just want to clear one point. The hon. member said the mover was against the amendment which has not yet been moved. As I understood it, he was against the clause that he was moving. Is that correct, sir? (Laughter). Yes, it is. The hon. member for Rushen.

Mr. Cringle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wilt confirm for the Chairman of the Highway Board that he supports the clause but he does not like sub-ctause (4) and

Road Traffic Bit! — Consideration of Clauses Concluded —Third Reading Approved


can I first, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, apologise to hon. members and to yourself for the fact that on the submitted fist the amendment was down as being to Clause 73 when in fact it should read Clause 74 and that is the clause we are dealing with now.

That submitted amendment shows in fact two parts: an amendment to subclause (3){b) — 1 want to withdraw that part of the submitted amendment because, of course, that amendment was dependent upon the amendments relating to vehicles testing and the type approval and the operators' licences. If those amendments which I tried earlier had got through, that would have been consequential upon them being approved. Seeing they have gone I do not want to move that part of the amendment, and all I wish now, Mr. Speaker - and this will be my final amendment to this particular piece of legislation — is to move:

Page 49, line 12 —That sub-clause (4) be deleted.

The inclusion of this sub-clause was one of the recommendations, actually, which the three signatories to the Memorandum of Dissent to the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, — they who have persuaded this House to agree to the deletion from the Bill of car and goods vehicle testing, the plating of goods vehicles and no longer making it an offence to see or supply vehicles in an unroad- worthy condition. We have accepted all that, so that is part of what we have accepted as a result of the recommendation of the three signatories, and in this printed Bill in sub-clause (4), they are now requiring the Highway Board, should my amendment not be carried, to consult interested bodies and advertise any proposals before making regulations, orders or rules under the powers which are contained within this Bill.

Really, I feel we should give you some examples of what is exactly involved by the nonsensical application of this (4) in the Bill. If, for example, the board wishes to increase the fee for a driving licence — which has happened under the legislation and under regulations for years and years and years — or a driving test as a result of any budgetary measures or whatever in the future, this would mean to prescribe new standards of parking fees, to prescribe new standards of motor-cycle helmets, alter the tread requirements of tyres or construction and use requirements of any of the vehicles — if you wanted to do any of that, each and every one of those would have to be advertised and advertised in two newspapers.

Now, I would suggest to hon. members that we have been doing this under current legislation absolutely straight up without any hassle and without any nonsense for years and years and years, and to think that now the Highway Board, whoever they may be in the future, are going to have to be faced with advertising, as I said, such things as may actually be budgetary provisions in the future, advertise them in newspapers, is a complete and utter nonsense. I move, Mr. Speaker, the deletion of sub-clause (4) from Clause 74.

Mr. Cain: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to sub-clause (3)(a) and I should like an unequivocal assurance from the mover of this clause, although apparently he does not support it (Laughter) that that particular part which says "Regulations under this Act" does definitely refer to Clause 78. I have comments to make on Clause 78, when we reach it, but I should like that assurance from him.

As regards sub-clause (4), well, I think the hon. mover from Rushen, claiming that that has been included, must accept that the original Bill was so draconian in its provisions that this is perhaps over-reacting to the situation.

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, may I, the hon. member is suggesting that I . . .

The Speaker: No, sir!

Mr. Cringle: I do not think it is draconian, so I will sit down, Mr. Speaker!Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, ! cannot agree with my hon. colleague

when he said it is utterly and entirely useless and wrong to give notice of intentions to the public of the Isle of Man. I cannot agree with him at ail. I would accept this clause as it is written in the Bill. I believe it quite right to consult with interested parties when changing something and, as far as the general problem of regulations in Tynwald is concerned, Mr. Speaker, ! support regulations where they introduce policy matters that have been accepted by this hon. Court and this particular clause does that: "The board may make regulations for any purpose for which" . . . "and for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Act" so we do not know if policy matters have been accepted, not as in the previous clause where policy matters which may have been deemed to be policy by the E.E.C., and I think we are talking about something different altogether, t will support it as written.

Mr. Callin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to compliment the hon. member for Rushen who stood up and I think it came much better from him; what he said was more valid rather than coming from one of those that signed the minority report, but if you will look in our report we did say that most witnesses — and this Bill, we consulted with a great many people and organisations and most witnesses asked that there be full consultation between the Highway Board and interested parties when regulations were being proposed, and that is why the hon. member, Mr. Gilbey, my hon. colleague on my right, this is why we put in our report, and I can only say that I would hope that the hon. members of the House will support the Bill as printed.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one that seems to be a little bit from the committee, certainly after hearing what was said, overdoing the job and after looking into the Bill a bit more. We have to, at the end of the day, be practical. ("Hear, hear.") We have gone a little but far possibly on this one, but we are saying the public have a right to know. We all know the public have a right to know and, as with any order, that right is given as soon as that order is sent out and distributed to the Press and everybody else. The, problem here could be — and I think really it



is the big danger — that we get ourselves into such a situation that we dare not move before we publicise everything. Again it will cause delay, it will put extra cost on the taxpayer, et cetera, for something that has been accepted for a long, long time and, as I say, after looking more closely at the Bill and seeing what it really does mean, I think I sympathise with the Highway Board on this one, and I think 1 shall be voting for the amendment. I do think that on this occasion the committee have gone a little bit far.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, as far as I am concerned, sub-clause {4) is the political repair kit. That is what it is and the situation is that damage is caused by the full powers that you have been giving to the board; once you have passed this legislation there is someone to put all this through which we all know we never have time, realty, to battle against to give them some other policy decision that we are talking about at the time. There are very few orders, and I cannot think of more than two, that have been stopped in Tynwald in my time, so therefore you are really giving carte blanche to this board to do as they will, and this sub-clause (4), as I said, is a repair kit. They just say to the public they are going to do it anyhow but at least it will give us a chance to speak about it. That is all it is, and voting against the amendment will not make any difference; it is the power you are giving in the total clause which causes or could cause the damage in the long-term future for the public in the Isle of Man using the highways.

Mr. Gilbey: Mr. Speaker, of course 1 agree with what the hon. member for Rushen, Mr. Walker, Mr. Callin and Mr. Delaney have said, but it really is a bit far when the hon. mover says that having to consult with one or two organisations and put advertisements in the Press is going to stifle and restrict his board; that surely is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Then, when other hon. members talk about expense of advertising, the Government takes block areas in the newspapers and using up a bit of that space effectively costs nothing at all. My hon. colleague Mr. Brown has suggested til at we all gave orders in plenty of time to study them; the Press gets them in plenty of time to print them. I would fundamentally disagree with this. Often we do not get orders until a very short time before Tynwald meets, other people in the public do not get them at all, the Press does not write them all up and there Is no reason to 1 suppose that members of the public are interested in any way in knowing about an order, and I believe most of them do not know about orders because they are not all in the Press and they are not all in the Press in time.

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply, sir?

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about orders, we are talking about regulations (Laughter). We are talking about regulations which we have to advertise. Any little regulation which may be altered, any little opinion which we may have will have to be advertised in the Press, and I think the hon. member who has proposed the amendment has certainly put his finger on some of the points which would seem to be going a little far, as somebody said.



At the moment there is consultation at the board. I do not know of any board that does consult more with those who are affected by its decisions. We have people coming to see us ail the time, but there are times when you can go, as somebody said, too far on this little matter; when you have to advertise every little nut and bolt — shall we put it that way? — when you have to advertise any change in what you intend to do, and there are things, as has already been said, the tread of a tyre, the brakes on horse-drawn vehicles — you have all these sort of things which one would have to advertise and which you would have to consult on.

Again, too, as far as driving fees are concerned for driving tests and licence fees et cetera these are things, of course, for the House to decide, and I am sure I do not know what the cost will be to the Government, but I do know it will be a very costly business and I should have imagined that somebody would probably have an idea at the present time because we have to — and I see a little note here — we have to pay per column inch for every advert placed in any Government depart* ment, so it is going to be a very costly item indeed, but that is not the point. It is a point when my board, the Highway and Transport Board or anyone who comes after me, will be restricted in what they may do; there will be delays, there will be situations where it will be impossible to make a decision at that particular time because we have to consult with the various people on that particular issue.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, this is a point which I feel very strongly about indeed. To tell any board that they have to consult on every little nook and cranny within their remit is asking a little bit too much of anyone, and I for one would feel honestly that I could not accept myself a situation where it is restricting and restrictive of the work of a board. The ordinary members of a board could be so restricted that it would possibly mean that it would be very difficult to get any answers on any particular question that is listed, as Mr. Cringle has already said.

Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the members will give boards of Tynwald the responsibility and the common sense which I think prevails in this Isle of Man. We are a very small Island, and I do not feel that this clause is going to make for any better government or any better legislation in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I accept the amendment; I will put it that way, which is much better than saying I was against sub-clause (4). I accept the amendment with open arms and I hope that the rest of the members of this House will accept it also.

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill. To that I have the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Rushen, delete sub-clause (4) on that clause. Those in favour of the amendment would you please say aye; against, no.


For: Messrs. Quirk, Cannan, Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Payne,Cringle, Faragher, Brown, Martin, Kneale, Dr. Moore and Mr. Cain - 13



Against: Messrs. Gilbey, Callin, Maddrell, Walker, Duggan, Delaney, Gelling andthe Speaker — 8

The Speaker: Thirteen votes cast in favour, eight votes against; the resolution carries. I will now put the clause as amended. Those in favour of Clause 74, as amended, standing part of the Bill would you please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clauses 75 and 76.

Mr. Quirk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having got that one over I can now proceed with the Bill. I can tell you honestly that I would have had to look at my position very carefully if that clause had not been accepted.

Clauses 75 and 76 are both re-enactments. Clause 75 enables the board to provide weighbridges or other machines for weighing vehicles or to contribute to the cost of erection, maintenance and operation by other persons. It enables the board only to operate the weighing machine on a road.

Clause 76, sir, provides for the usual financial provisions that any expenses incurred by the board shall be defrayed out of the money provided by Tynwald and any income received from fees charged will be paid into general revenue. I beg to move Clauses 75 and 76 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cringle: I beg to second.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I have just been hearing the cost of advertising to the public, and now they find out, as we have had in the past, all the money from Tynwald could be spent on weighbridges — I am wondering in which area the hon. member's board is working I How can you argue one clause on the cost of advertising to the public to tell them what is going on and then come to the next clause and talk about "We do not know how many thousands of pounds towards maintaining, erection, creation of weighbridges." it seems there is some relevant financial policy gone wrong somewhere.

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, at one time several responsible firms in the Isle of Man were economically able to afford to run weighing machines. Now that is impossible and practically the only weighing machine in the Isle of Man at the present time is in the Poortown Quarry, and this is really used as a public weighing machine for the benefit of the Isle of Man.

The Speaker: The resolution, hon, members, is that Clauses 75 and 76 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clauses 77 and 78.

Mr. Quirk: Clause 77, Mr. Speaker, deals with references to United Kingdom legislation which may be superseded and amended and modified or re-enacted with or without modifications by the virtue of any other later Act of Parliament — a re-enactment of the current law.



Clause 78 also re-enacts without alteration the existing law. Its purpose is to enable the board to apply to the Island certain regulations of Parliament relating to road traffic, such regulations being subject to such adaption or modification as the board may consider necessary, I might say this arrangement is useful and cost-saving in the production of regulations dealing with such items as traffic signs, which involve numerous colour diagrams, which would be extremely expensive to produce locally and that is the reason for that clause.

Clause 79, Mr. Speaker, is a new provision included at the request of the Health Services Board which would apply the provisions of the Act to roads outside the meaning of the Act and which are under the control of a board of Tynwald or statutory board. As an example, roads and hospitals and other places owned by the Government.

I beg to move Clauses 77, 78, and 79 stand part of the Bill.

IVIr. Cringle: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to Clause 78, which I regard as an extremely dangerous clause. (Mr. Delaney: "Hear, hear!") if members will.-read it, it says "In making regulations under any provision of this Act or any Act to be construed as one with this Act, the board may apply to the island as part of the law of this Island . . . the provisions of any instrument of a legislative character" made in the United Kingdom or anywhere else they care to choose, and there is no call for this to be referred to Tynwald for approval as is the case under Clause 74, on which some members spoke with great feeling. I think this is really opening the door to the board to introduce what it likes, provided it found something of favour in either the United Kingdom or elsewhere and I personally cannot accept it. I will therefore move the deletion of Clause 78 if we are dealing with these in blocks, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I will put the clauses separately to the House when we vote.

Mr. Gelling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that hon. members will, like myself, vote against Clause 78.

Mr. Delaney: I rise to second the amendment moved by my friend and colleague the member for West Douglas.

The Speaker: I am sorry, the learned Secretary has drawn my attention to a point here.

Mr. Delaney: Can we take the point first, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: Indeed. The learned Secretary is contending to me that all regulations under this Act have to be approved by Tynwald, but while he is researching that and finding the appropriate authority, I would ask the hon. member to proceed.



Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I was going to actually clarify that myself and why I have to say it now, because I said the meat was coming and this is the meat. You have heard already this afternoon, hon. members, about E.E.C. regulations that can be applied to Tynwald. They will come to Tynwald, I can assure you, they will come to Tynwald as orders — British regulations - and I am amazed at this particular clause that when the hon. gentleman who went and looked at it and moved this Bill against the original Bill, he did not in actual fact amend this clause because this is the one I think you have overlooked; this is the one that got away from you. This is the one with the E.E.C. regulations that have already been spoken about by the hon. mover that is the danger. We have prided ourselves in the Isle of Man that we have our own method of controlling our own traffic in the Isle of Man for years and years. We prided ourselves in some cases that we did not have the breathalyser — maybe a good thing, maybe a bad thing. We prided ourselves that we did not have seat belts until we had to have them and we have all agreed to them, and that, I believe, is good government of the people, but here you are giving all this away now because the board in future will be able to make regulations. !f somebody thinks up an idea in the House of Commons and moves a Bill through and it gets through, the board then, without coming back here, can adopt that legislation into order and bring it forward. That is exactly what it means, contrary to what has been said, because these things have a habit to grow and they will grow and they will be pushed forward to us and the members — we might not be here, there will be somebody else — will not realise that it was we who gave the powers for them to do so. You have heard about the E.E.C. legislation, and now you hear about the other half of it, the British legislation. I telf you, hon. members, the instrument you are putting through here will damage us alt and certainly the people we represent,

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply, sir?

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, I did start off by saying that this clause re-enacts without alteration existing law. it re-enacts — can I repeat that? — it re-enacts without altering existing law. It has been used, as i have pointed out, to bring in or to use or adopt a situation in England such as traffic signs, et cetera which we cannot afford; it would be very costly indeed to get our own traffic signs made for our own specific purpose over here, so we do find that that is a useful situation. For other items too it is useful, as far as j am concerned, in a small way but once again the regulations must come from Tynwald. There is no argument about that, and here we are saying that we are going to be beaten down by a clause which brings in good ideas which can be adopted into the Isle of Man at less cost than we are able to do it ourselves.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the argument here revolves around the fact that this is legislation which has provided a good purpose in the past and will provide a good purpose in the future. The other answer, sir, is that the regulations must go before Tynwald to be approved, so I beg, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 78, which is the one in question, stand part of the Bill.


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984 K937

The Speaker: Hon. members, although we are considering Clauses 77, 78 and 79, in view of the opposition to certain of these clauses they will be put separately. First of all, i will put the resolution that Clause 77 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. I will now put the resolution that Clause 78 stand part of the Bill.

A Member: Mr. Speaker, before we do, could I ask on a point of order is what the learned Secretary said correct? I personally believe it is, but there stilt seems to be some doubt as to whether it is or it is not.

The Secretary: Mr. Speaker, I have confirmed with the Secretary of the Highway Board that all regulations made by the Highway Board are subject to Tynwatd approval, and in Clause 78 it says: "In making regulations under any provision of this Act or any Act". If you refer back to Clause 73 it says: "The following instruments, namely (a) regulations under this Act shall not have effect unless approved by Tynwald." No regulations made under this Act will have effect until approved by Tynwald.

The Speaker: Now, I am going to put the resolution, which is that Clause 78 stand part of the Bill. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clause 79. Those in favour of Clause 79 standing part of the Bill please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Clauses 80 and 81 along with the schedules.

Mr. Quirk: Yes, sir. Clauses 80 and 81 along with the schedules provide that the savings and transitional provisions contained in Schedule 7 shall have effect together with the amendments, repeats and enactments specified in Schedules 8 and 9.

Clause 81, Mr. Speaker, gives the short title and provides the commencement date. I move that Clauses 80 and 81 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cringte: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I will put the resolution that Clauses 80 and 81 stand part of the Bill along with the schedules. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. Bill read a second time.

Mr. Quirk: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we could suspend Standing Orders now and take the third reading?

The Speaker: That is a matter for the House.

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, I would support my hon. chairman . . .

The Speaker: The hon. chairman merely posed a question. He said "I wonder whether we could consider suspending Standing Orders." I say it is a matter for the House; if he is prepared to move it, fair enough.


K938 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY, 26th, JUNE. 1984

Mr. Quirk: Mr. Speaker, this Bill now has been on the stocks for so long that we are well aware of the circumstances it is responsible for, and I do not think that when we come back again at the end of the session, we are going to be so aware of the contents of this Sill as we are at the present time, and I feel, sir, that the opportunity now should be taken to pass this Bill so that we can get down and get things done.

One of the very important parts of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the amendment that came in to enable the board, by dispensation, to allow over-length vehicles to come into the Island because of the benefit there would be to our local industry. That was one of the main features that came before that point, and I do not want to waste the whole of the summer before we can bring a recommendation such as that into being so I, too, Mr, Speaker, feel that there is a strong case now for the third reading to be taken of this particular Bill.

Mr. Gilbey: I beg to second, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cringle: Mr. Speaker, there might be a slight confusion on that one because even taking the third reading will not permit that to happen, but I do genuinely support the hon. Chairman of the Highway Board in the suspension of . . .

Mr. Kneale: To put the matter in order, Mr. Speaker, could someone move the suspension of Standing Orders?

Mr. Quirk: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I move the suspension of Standing Orders in order that we can take the third reading of the Road Traffic Bill and following on from this Bill, sir, there are three more Bills coming on which are . . .

Mr. Cringle: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the point, so can I second the suspension of Standing Orders? Members know fully my views normally on third readings being taken at the drop of a hat, (Interruptions) and members are equally aware that there are occasions where I support the taboo. Having said that, I think in genuine fairmess that we have to consider here a piece of legislation which we have dealt with at length in this House. It has been to a committee; prior to that, three different Highway Boards hatched it, so in fact it is something which the general public are very well aware of, and I am aware that the sittings would go on, but my one fear would be that if we delay the third reading of this particular measure we will have forgotten what it was about again, and when we start all over again we get back on to the millstone and go round and round again. I think this House should despatch this Bill to another place this afternoon.

Mr. Callin: Mr. Speaker, I will rise to support the suspension of Standing Orders and taking the third reading, I do so because very few Bills in my time have had the treatment that this Bill has had and, as the hon. member for Rushen has said, it has been on the way a long time, the hon. Chairman of the Highway Board has dealt with every clause in the way that he should and I cannot think of any


HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984 K939

questions, 1 cannot think of any queries that anybody would have at a third reading on a future date that they have not raised today. I would strongly support this.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. mover has done an adequate job to convince the House that the need to rush towards the abyss should be taken at all speed. I am not going to stop him, but I do say and I do honestly believe that the instrument put through is not the right instrument for the Isle of Man and I think that time will tell that. I will let you have the third reading and j will support you in the third reading and suspension of Standing Orders — take the third reading, it will be rushed through because all we are doing, as I see it, is clearing our desks at the end of term; that is all we are doing.

Dr. Mann: We have got a bit more work to do here!

Mr. Delaney: Not a lot; it will not take us long on your Bill!

The Speaker: The resolution, hon. members, is that Standing Orders besuspended to enable the third reading of the Road Traffic Bill to be taken this afternoon. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

Mr. Quirk: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has really been said already and there is verylittle more to say on this particular Bill, so I move the third reading of the Road Traffic Bill 1984.

The Speaker: I will put the question that the Road Traffic Bill be now reada third time. Those in favour please say aye; against, no. The ayes have it.

PROCEDURAL

The Speaker: Now hon. members, this morning I indicated that when it came to the end of the day, the House might consider what it wishes to do with the remaining items on the Agenda. Perhaps I could have guidance now; it is 5.15 p. m.

Mr. Gelling: Mr. Speaker, I think, in order to clear our desks for the summer recess, we should agree to meet next Tuesday morning to despatch these remaining two items.

Dr. Mann: I beg to second that.

Mr. Callin: Could I just ask one question, Mr. Speaker? If any benefit can derive from meeting next Tuesday, all well and good, but what benefit, if any, will derive, because I recall at this last time last year I was in charge of two Bills and because they were important, we rushed them through at one of the last sittings of the House of Keys and they were still there until October, and the only point I want to make is, if we do meet next Tuesday morning, is there going to be any benefit? If not, I do not think we should meet.

Procedural


The Speaker: Just to clear that point, I will ask the learned Secretary toindicate what sittings of the Legislative Council remain.

The Secretary: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislative Council will be meeting very briefly next Tuesday, 3rd July, and then will not be meeting again, sir, independently until after the October sitting of Tynwald.

Mr. Payne: Mr. Speaker, if I could get the Licensing (Amendment) Bill which I have been asked to take on behalf of Executive Council, through next Tuesday and with the House's agreement take a third reading, it could mean that it could be implemented in January 1985. If that does not take place next Tuesday I can see no way that it coufd be and it would be January 1986 before it could be implemented.

Dr. Mann: I think, Mr. Speaker, that does apply to the Constitution(Amendment) Bill, and it largely depends on whether members want a continuation of a non-executive council or an executive one, but certainly there are only two ways in which this Bill can become operative: (1) when the reshuffle occurs; and (2) after a General Election, and to get it out of the way of the House of Keys would be one way of indicating quite clearly that this would become law in time for the reshuffle at the end of this year.

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend Standing Orders and sit tonight until 6.30 p.m. to see how far we get by that time and maybe that would save us doing it later.

Mr. Callin: All I can say, speaking for myself, is I should have been at anappointment at 5 o'clock because I thought that was the normal procedure, and in all fairness I thought we would have been finished for 5 o'clock.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we have a situation where Standing Orders, of course, do not agree that the House should continue after today's sitting. We need to suspend Standing Orders for the next sitting. It is a matter for you, knowing full well that what you do debate and decide will not be considered in another place anyway. There is a point that, with regard to Standing Orders, I personally will not be able to attend next Tuesday: I have already other commitments, but that is a matter for the House whether it wishes to proceed. I do notknow if any other members are affected.. .

Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if we sit tonight they will be able to get an Executive Council next week; that is the point.

Mr. Kneale: I personally, sir, would object to sitting any longer tonight,because I too have commitments this evening and I think this kind of rush does no good to the Bills in question; they are two important issues and we should not be trying to rush them through like this.

Procedural


Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, i think the point is that if we are going to suspend Standing Orders because no matter when the finish comes there will always be a Bill that is left and has got to be done some time, and in my opinion the only reason that we should suspend Standing Orders and have an extra sitting of this House is if there is a Bill that is so important the timetable is crucial for that Bill to get itself sorted with other things that are important, and from what I gather, Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated that the Constitution (Executive Council) Bill is the only one that is that important and if I could just ask — could that be clarified? — how important is the timing of that, because if the timing of that is not crucial then I think we should stick to Standing Orders or there is no point in having them.

The Speaker: Perhaps the learned Secretary could help us here again as towhether that Bill should be progressed to be passed to the Council by October.

The Secretary: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously this Bill cannot be passed to the Legislative Council until it has completed its passage through the House of Keys, and my understanding is that the Legislative Council, after meeting next Tuesday, will not be meeting again until October. I suppose the only advantage of meeting next Tuesday would be that the Council could start off the next session by dealing with the Constitutuion (Executive Council) Bill, which will need to have Royal Assent in order to be effective at the end of December, because when it needs to be effective, it will need to have Royal Assent announced in Tynwald at the December sitting of Tynwald, which means effectively that even if the House was to complete its passage of this Bill before the recess, the chances of ft becoming law in time are slight.

Mr. Maddrell: Mr. Speaker, to get somewhere now and having heard theevidence, I would like to stand and ask for the suspension of Standing Orders if that is correct, sir, that we meet next Tuesday morning.

Dr. Moore: Just a point, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing preventing Legislative Council to progress Bills sent to them during the summer recess if it was urgent. Am I right?

The Speaker: Nothing whatsoever to prevent them if they so determined. In the same way, there is nothing to prevent the House sitting right through the summer if it feels so enthusiastic; however, I have a resolution that Standing Orders be suspended to enable the sitting of the House to take place next Tuesday morning and that as yet has not been seconded.

Dr. Mann: { beg to second.

The Speaker: That is seconded. I will put that resolution to the House. Those in favour please say aye; against, no.

Mr. Delaney: What about those members making arrangements under Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker?

Procedural

K942 HOUSE OF KEYS, TUESDAY. 26th, JUNE, 1984

The Speaker: I must give a decision on that. I will say the noes have it.


For: Messrs. Quirk, Gilbey, Cannan, Dr. Mann, Messrs. Maddreil, Payne, Walker, Faragher, Kneale, Gelling, Dr. Moore and Mr. Cain - 12

Against: Mr. Radcliffe, Mrs. Christian, Messrs, Callin, Cringle, Brown, Duggan, Delaney, Martin and the Speaker ~ 9

The Speaker: Twelve votes in favour, nine votes against; the resolution fails to carry — you will appreciate that a Standing Orders resolution requires 16 votes. So that determines the procedure of the House and the House will now adjourn and will meet again in Tynwald.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SEEK LEAVE TO INTRODUCE

Mr. Kneale: Before you adjourn, sir, I wish to give notice of my intentionto ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill or Bills in the next session to bring about a redistribution of seats.

The Speaker: That will be included in the appropriate Agenda, sir.

Mr. Kneale: Sir, I was giving notice of intent.

The Speaker: Certainly, sir, certainty. The appropriate Agenda will deal with the on-going pattern of your notice. Hon. members, the adjournment will be until Tynwald on the 5th July at 10.30 a. m. Thank you, hon, members.

The House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.

Representation of the People (Redistribution of Seats) Bill —Notice of Intention to Seek Leave to Introduce

report of proceedings of house of keys - tynwaldprinted (by authority) by corrie ltd., 7, circular...

Documents