· report of proceemngs of house of keys douglas, tuesday, november 3, 1970. pre ent: the speaker...

REPORT OF PROCEEMNGS OFHOUSE OF KEYS

Douglas, Tuesday, November 3, 1970.

Pre ent: The Speaker (Mr. H. C. Ker-rui h, O.B.E.), Messrs. R. J. G. Ander-son, 'H. D. C. MacLeod, R. E. S. Ker-ruish, P. Radcliffe, Miss J. C. C. Thorn-ton-Deusbery, Messrs. P. A. Spittall, W.E. Quayle, J. R. Creer, T. C'. Faragher,A. H. Simcocks, G. T. Crellin, C. L. P.Vereker, J. E. Callister, T. A. Corkish,J, J. Bell, E. C. Irving, C. E. Burke, G.V. H. Kneale G. A. Devereau. R. Mac-Donald, P. G. Hislop, Sir Henry Sugden,K B.E., C.B., D.S.O., with Mr. T. E. Ker-meen, Secretary of the House.

ELECTION OF MR. QUAYLtEINVALID—,'STATEMENTBY

SPEAKER.

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have a"tatement to make, relative to lastweek's election by the House of twomembers to the Legislative Council.From what I have to say, hon. memberswill understand that one of the deci-sions taken by the House at that timecan not legally be upheld. Yesterday,the Secretary of the House received acommunication from the Attorney-General, copies of which were sent byhim simultaneously to Mr. Bolton andto Mr. Quayle, in which he conveyedhis opinion that Mr. Quayle's electionwas in fact invalid, as the electoral pro-cedure did not conform with the Isle ofMan Constitution Acts. As hon. mem-bers will kr.ows and as the Attorney-General confirms, the election by theHouse of two members of LegislativeCouncil was conducted last Tuesday inaccordance with Standing Order 194 of

the House. The Attorney-General alsoagrtics. that the Standing Orders havebeen 'allowed but points out, althoughsuch Standing Orders have been adop-ted by the House, they do not accurate-ly reflect or properly serve to carry out.the provisions of the Act resulting inthe clear words of Standing Order 194(d) obscuring the meaning of the statu-torily derived Standing Order 194 (c).The following is the sequence of eventswhich took place when the House pro-ceeded to its election last Tuesday. Fourpersons, namely Messrs. Crowe, Bolton,Simcocks and Callister, were proposedand duly balloted upon with the resultthat, on the first ballot, Mr. Crowe waselected with 17 votes, whilst the otherthree candidates respectively receivedta, st a, d s'otes. M . Crows as de-ere ed et cted to tasrcL~terms of St 'n Order 194 d ofStanding Orders of the House thenames of the remaining three candid-ates. Standing Order 194 (d) reads asfollows: "If on a ballot, one candidateshall be declared elected by having re-ceived the votes of at least 13 members,but there remain vacancies to be filledfor which no candidate shall have re-ceived the required number of votes,the House shall ballot again on thesame candidates, excluding only thecandidate declared elected." The re-quired number of votes was in this con-text taken by me to mean the majorityof 13 votes which is necessary for anelection. I may say that I found noprecedents since the Standing Orderswere adopted in 1~94, which would in-dicate that this was anything but theright course of action. In the subsequent

Election of Mr. Quayle Invalid —Statement by Speaker.

K18 HOUSE OF KEYS, tNOVEMBER 3, 1970

proceedings, as you know, Mr. Quaylewas added to the candidates and wasultimately declared elected. There were,on the first ballot, 23 members presentand voting and, thereafter, 22 membersSection 8 of the Isle of Man Constitu-tion Amendment Act, 1919, as amendedby Section '2 of the Isle of Man .Consti-tion Amendment Act, 1936, sets out themanner in which the first four electedmembers were to be elected and theproviso to this section reads as follows:"Provided that no person shall be so

elected unless a majority of the votesof the Members of the House presentand voting at such election, shall be re-corded in his favour, and, if suchmajority shall be less than 13 votes,provided that such person shall, on hisname being voted upon separately bythe House immediately after such elec-tion (which the House is hereby re-quired to do) receive not less than 13votes recorded in his favour." By Sec-tion 10 of the Act of 1919, the provisois made applicable to future elections.The proviso is paraphrased incorrectlyin Standing Order 194 ~c of the House.It is to tbe noted that tWe words in theStanding Order "which the House isr uested to do" differs from the wordsof t e Act, which read " which the

Standing Order can not, of course, inany way vary or modify the Act whichgives a statutory direction to the Houseas to the procedure which it must fol-low, but I wish to draw the attention ofthe, Standing Orders Committee of theHouse, to the anomaly which has arisenas a result of the Attorney-General'ruling and request them to consider thematter with a view to edying thediscrepancies and removing the am i-guities w ich ave now come o i ht.In particu ar, wo i e e ommit-tee to look at the situtation underwhich certain parts of this electionpractice is madatory by statute whileothers have only the authority ofStanding Orders. It appears to me

necessary to establish clearly in theStanding Orders what is obligatory inthe electoral practice under Act of Tyn-wald and what is not. Referring to lastTuesday's procedure, hon. memberswill recall that on the first ballot (bywhich Mr. Crowe was elected) Mr.Bolton received 12 votes. This numberwas a ma~ori y o ose present andvoting in such ballot and in this case(although Standing Order 194 (d) didrot provide for it) the statute in thelearned Attorney'.s opinion required theHouse to vote separately upon the nameof Mr. Bolton, to ascertain if he couldobtain the requisite 1.3 votes in hisfavour. So despite the apparent sanc-tte gi e by the gterythe~gr e, thsta u ory requiremen was no com-pli wi an i seems inesca a e anmos regre a e a e election of MrQuay e mus erefore erevoi . wou s ress, however, that thisdoes not in any way affect Mr. Crowewhose election is proper and complete.However, my interpretation of theStanding Orders in relation to the sta-tutes has, in respect of the election ofthe other member last week,,been con-sidered, on examination by the learredAttorney, to be at fault and I must ofcourse accept the ruling which he com-municated to me yesterday. I wish tosay quite categorically to the Housethat I accept full responsibility for thissituation. My rulings were made ingood faith and I tender my apology tothe House, to the candidates involvedand, in particular, to Mr. Bolton andto Mr. Quayle who have both beenplaced by my interpretation of thisobscure legal complexity in an unfortu-nate and invidious position. ttWill theHouse now proceed to the election ofthe other member to LegislativeCouncil which, as I have mentioned,was not correctly completed at lastweek's sitting.

gr. Kneale: Mr.,Speaker, before wedo%~ha, sir, Way I raise another point?The question of when a person ceasesto be a member of this hon. house. It

Election of Mr. Quayle Invalid —Statement by Speaker,

HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0 K19

was ruled by you, sir, that Mr. Croweshould leave the House immediatelafter he was elected and he was notallowed to take any further part in thevoting or the o er members toLegisla ive ouncil. ave ibeen look-ing up Hansard to see what has hap-pened in the past, and I find that inFebruary 19'58, when Mr. Nicholls wasfirst elected to the Council, he not onlystayed in the House but spoke andvoted on several items. The thenSpeaker, Sir Joseph Qualtrough, gave a

ruling that a member retains his seat inthe keys until the Governor has re-ceived a document signed .by theSpeaker notifying the election. On Feb-ruary 20th, 196,~e election of Mr.Nivison o the Council, the Speaker in-formed him that he could continue osit in the Keys to the end of the Sittin .

This a~gas c a enged a d Mr.Stephens then queried is there not aruling that the Speaker has three daysin which to announce .the House's de-cision to the Governor, and the Secre-tary of the iHouse, Mr. Frank Johnson,informed the House that he had .to signa document before he actually becomesa member which says, "No person shallbe deemed to be an electee fthe ounce until the provisions here funtessSeas w gn l ass of his el s-tion by . e ouse sigm ed in writinghis willingness to accept such office."Mr. Spea er en remarked, "I thinkthat covers the point of Mr. Nivisonremaining." Mr. Nivison stayed andtook part in the debate as is shown onpage 608 of the Hansard. In October1962 when Messrs. McFee andNicholls were elec&'d<o the Council wegot into a right knot over their election.Mr. Speaker, you sir, adopted a pro-cedure when Mr. McFee got 12 votes, ofputting his name to the vote separatelyto see if he could get 13 votes, whichwa quite proper procedure under the1936 Act. But the Secretary of the Houseonly made reference to the 1919 Actwhen asked to read the section of the

Act which applied. The procedure wasthen changed halfway through the vot-ing. Again, Mr. tMcFee was allowed toremain in the House until the end ofthe sitting. On the,2'2nd October, 1963,when Mr. Hugh Radcliffe was electedto the Legislative Council, StandingOrder 193 —that is the present 194—was laid before the House for approvalbefore the election took place, because,to use the words of Mr. Stephen," Those who recall previous electionsknow that t e ac of c ear cut Stand-ing Orders has alwa s been somethingof a disadvan age in conducting theseelectio s "-~aalso stated tllat "it 's

a peculiar thing that although the

he s to fhe Le isl 'u~iMc 1 since1919, e only statutory referencewhich gives any guidance is one briefsentence in the 19I9 Constitution Act.It states that a member must secure13 votes before he can be elected." Thenin reference to the Standing Orders hesaid, "So far as we can see we havecovered .almost every possible contin-gency." Obviously we had not. He alsoasked for a mistake to be corrected,that the word "requested" should be"required ". And a look at StandingOrders, as you have pointed out, sir,shows that tile istake was not cor-ected a ddtle wortl ' uested" is

still in. Mr. Radcliffe got 11 votes on theErr ballot, Mr. Gale six votes and Mr.Corkhill three votes. Mr. Radcliffe'sname was then put in separately andhe received 13 and was declared elected.But Mr. Radclifle stayed in the iHouseand spoke on most items on the agendaand voted also. On the 5th November,1963, when moving the adoption of thenew Standing Orders, Mr. Stephen ad-mitted he had given wrong informationto the House, prior FoOt'.e election of Mr.Racfc1iKe, and someone ~a brought tTief9~onstituhon Ac~ohss notice,which lays down procedure for electionto the Legislative Council. In November1966 when three members were electedthe only item on the agenda was theirelection, and all three received a clear

II

I


K2Q HOUSE OF KEYS, IkIOVEMBER 3, 197'0

majority on the first ballot, so no com-plications arose. I .think all this pointsout that there are ample precedents; Iquoted four cases that have taken placein recent years where Mr. Croweshould have tbeen allowed to stay inthe House until the en of our sittingfaasw~k rygn, s a so akes t epnomhat you have ade of the eedfor a .Standing Orders Committee tolook very, very carefully at the Stand-ing Orders dealing with these elections.

The Speaker; Hon. members, I amindebted to the hon. member for hissummary of the position which reallyled to the introduction of the presentStanding Order. You will appreciate,the election which we conducted lastweek was the second election conductedunder Standing Orders really directlydesigned to carry out the wishes of theAct, as the hon. member has indeedsaid. The precedents therefore are notclear in that they were not related tothe present, Standing Orders. These are,as far as we are concerned, rew. Theposition in relation to members staying

htch has been so a~ac outtea, a din order to give w a thou tguide lines which in fact

to n election that I would add thatit is the ractice of the ouse thatsuccessful can i a e should regard him-self as elected by this House immedi-ately he receives the 13 votes, andshould thereupon take no further partin today's proceedings." This thoughtwas, in fact, based on a mixture ofpractice and on section 24 of the Act,which reads, "Upon the election of anymembers of the House to the Councilunder the provisions of this Act, theseat of such member in the House shallbe ipso facto vacated and the same shallbe filled up in like manner as if suchvacancy had occurred from any othercause." tNNo, in my dictionary " ipsofacto" means "by the very fact ". Andby the very fact of this election Ideemed it that Mr. Crowe would gabe in-

eligible to take part, and that it wouldbe advisable for him to sign his docu-ments and become indeed a member ofthe Council. There are varying prece-dents in relation .to this. It is alwaysdifficult to take a precedent and put itaccurately in the sense that you canhave an election perhaps at the end ofthe day where there is no question ofthe hon. member in any way takingpart in subsequent proceedings. How-ever, I have gone into this deeply nowwith —I admit .that this is no heel ttEe ho . me be t th s sttuat oth tea ned Ahho eyMeoe at and theposition is, in truth, this. Section 24of the Act does not mean whatit says in the true sense of eta .,It ea s fact, that the ho

e be has the ght„dmathhege umh1h h a~oned ht s. A.od havtogsigned his papers, which the hon. mem-ber for Michael did forthwith, and mycommunicating his acceptance to theGovernor, then, of course, he waselected. The hon. member for Michaelwas properly elected; he signed hispapers immediately he left this cham-ber, they were ready, and his electionwas complete.

Mr. Kneale: On that point, excuseme interrupting, couM you not read outthe relevant part of the 1919 Act. As Iread it the election is not complete untilyour comifiunication has been sent andbeen received by the Governor.

The Speaker: The communication tothe Governor was sent simultaneouslyon my receipt of 1Vlr. tCrowe's accept-ance, that was the position. So it wasin the Governor's hands within minutesof the election taking place, certainlyin the office.

Mr. Kneale: But still on this point thatI have raised. Mr. Crowe had not signedthis document and you had not signedany document before he left the House.I would suggest, with all due respect toyou that he was still a member of thisHouse and fully entitled to carry on in


HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3 1970 K21

the proceedings and in the voting ashad ibeen done on the four occasionsthat I pointed out.

The Speaker: Now this, of course,gives rise to a question. In attemptingto reconstruct the position whichexisted at last week's voting, how farcan one recapture the scene legallythat existed at that time? I have con-sulted the legal officers of the Crownon this, and they are unanimously ofthe opinion that one cannot do so. Theposition of Mr. Crowe must be that heis elected and is now an M.L.C. Themembers who were present last weekand the members who were not presentlast week, but who are ~present today,are entitled to go on now to the newvoting which will take place today asif there had been no incident in be-tween, This is .the legal ruling on thep os i.ti on.

Mr. Kneale: Yes, I appreciate that isthe position this week, sir. I was rais-ing the position as it should have beenafter iMr. Crowe had received the 17

p

votes. He should have been here avail-able to vote on Mr. Bolton being put tothe House, separately.

The Speaker: The position, as thehon. member rightly says, last week isnot one which has been valid accordingto the Attorney-General, iand, ofcourse, this has resulted in the needtoday for the resumption. I have madethe point clear in relation to StandingOrders, in relation to section 24 of theAct as I have seen it. I accept full re-sponsibility for this, there has ob-viously been a failure on the part ofthe administration here to get into theStanding Orders, despite the fact thatthey v.ere designed purposely to imple-ment this Act, to get it in effectively.The Standing Orders are not effectiveand because of this we have reachedthis impasse and I think we must ob-viously now with this legal ruling takethe steps we can to rectify the positionand to put the matter right in law.

Mr. Devereau: If, during the elec-tions that take, place today, sir, a mem-ber of the House of Keys is elected anddoes not wish to forego his undoubtedright to remain in this House for theday, will he be allowed to? And shouldnot this matter be cleared up in theconsiderations of the Standing OrdersCommittee when they meet, on thispoint?

The Speaker: I would agree with you,sir, that there is a very real need forit to be included in the StandingOrders, and this is the first occasionupon which we have had other advicetendered. You must recall that theStanding Orders here and interpreta-tion in the past were based on legalthinking. This interpretation nowmakes it quite clear to me that the hon.member is entitled to sit for a periodof up to a fortnight, and that is themaximum, or until such time as hesigns hi's papers. The discretion will behis in relation to that point. Are thereany other points, hon. members?

Mr. Creer; Yes, there is one point,sir. It is to do with this election. It isthat over the number of years we havehad several Constitutional ReformBills..We have one now re-introducedinto this House to remove the Attorney-General from the Legislative Councilas a voting power. I have said all along,Mr. Speaker, if you look back throughthe Hansard you have heard me saythis several times that our Constitu-tional Reform —what we should dowith the Attorney-General is have himsitting in this House. We are going totake the vote off him up in the Legisla-tive Council; now he is going to be upthere as an ornament. He should besitting in here, the same as theAttorney-General is in the House ofParliament. I have said this manytimes. 'Mr. Kneale, the hon. member forWest Douglas, is very forthright incoming forward with iConstitutional Re-form as regarding stopping members


K22 HOUSE OF KEYS, iNOVE1VLBER 3, 1970

from local authorities to be in thisHouse. (Laughter.)

The Speaker: I think, hon. member,I must rule you out of order on this.Thi's will lead to a general discussion. Ido not want to appear flippant at all inthis situation, but I really would com-ment that constitutional measures, likelicensing measures, have a habit ofgoing astray. I am afraid that it is

always difficult to get the perfect solu-tion. Now, hon. tnembers, are you pre-pared to carry on with the election atthe stage that,'I have indicated, becauseto do thi's it will be necessary to votefor or against the candidate who on lastweek's .first .ballot received 12 votes,that is Mr. Bolton. Now I am havingballot papers circulated to you onwhich:there are printed the words"For" or "Against" and I want youto delete the word which is appropriateto your decision. Would you pleasevote for or against on the ballot paper.Score out the one that does not apply.

Mr. Creer: Are we still in order, Mr.Speaker, because Standing Order194(d) does not state this, what youare doing now.

The Speaker: May I say that ——Mr. Creer: Would you let me finish

this. Just because the elected candidatedid not suit .the Establishment therewas a legal flaw found.

The Speaker: I am afraid I cannotaccept the hon. member as 'being inorder. I have indicated to the hon. mem-ber the weakness of Standing Order194(d) and I have now informed youas to what the viewpoint of the legalofficers happens to be in relation tothis eleation, and this is the agreementthat in fact you have an insention of(c) into (d),at this point, and thismust be the way that the electionshould be conducted in keeping withthe Aat. Gentlemen, I am not,going tohave a discussion, and the ballot papers

are being, in fact, signed. Now I wantyou to record on your;ballot papersyour vote for or against.

A ballot took place.

The Speaker: The result of the ballot,hon. members: For, 10 votes; against,13 votes. The hon. anember's name hasfailed to carry at that stage of theelection. Now we revert to the pro-cedures under Standing Order 194(d)where in fact there remain vacanciesto be filled for which no candidate shallhave received the required number ofvotes, and ithe House shall ballot againon .the same candid'ates, excluding onlythe candidate declared elected. Now thecandidate declared elected in this casewas Mr. Crowe, and the House will bal-lot therefore on three names, those ofMr. Bolton, Mr. Simcocks and Mr. Cal-lister.

Mr. Bell: Leaving the lowest numberout on this one?

The Speaker: No, sir. I h'ave takenadvice on this one, too, and we have toballot on the three names that remainbefore us at this stage.

Mr. Anderson: For one seat at thisstage?

The Speaker: For one seat, one vote,and there are three names before you.Is that quite clear? Any questions,please, ask them now before we getinto a ballot.

Mr. Crellin: Mr. Speaker, what youhave said is perfectly clear to me .butI refer to a precedent in volume 80 ofHansard, page 106, where a previousruling was given, that on such a situa-tion arising the person who did not re-ceive the necessary number of voteswas eliminated.

The Speaker: I can assure you, sir,that whatever the precedent, that pre-cedent imay not have been taken in ac-cordance with with.the Standing Ordersand the Act as they work at the presentmoment. Again I would assure you that


HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0

in taking this position now I am sup-ported fully by the opinion of the lawotYicers.

Mr. Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I raisejust one point which I am sure willhave ithe attention of the members ofthe House. It is that we have in thepast always believed that where therewas a doubt on procedural rule thatthis House was competent .by its ownadmission to set a new procedure whichwould be clear. It does appear, Mr.Speaker, not only to myself buit tomany of my hon. colleagues in thisHouse that there could very well be anoccasion in the very near and imme-diate future where even the rulings oradvice of the learned Attorney-~neralcould be questioned. I would go on to

ay that his rulings have greater pre-ceden'ce for being questioned ithan theprocedures of .this House. So I wouldput it, Mr. Speaker, as a straight ques-tion: Is this House not competent inthese circumstances to agree to a pro-cedure which is clear and which willerve the purposes and the function of

the House? Iit does appear that if weare to proceed on the lines which youhave been good enough to outline, Mr.Speaker, that a complete departurefrom our past precedents would occur,and certain anomalies could very wellnow occur in this voting which theHouse by error even and by circum-stances would be unable to avoid.When the question of nominations wassought, Mr. Speaker, at the last House,the members were aware of a procedureand were aware of certain calculationswhich could be almost programmedlike a computer. The very fact now thatthe same three names are to remaindoes not give the members ithe samerights which:they thought they wouldbe able to exercise at the last sitting ofthe House. I do feel now, Mr. Speaker,that the anembers may .be deprived ofrights which they would have exercisedat the last sitting of the House bynominating other persons. The questionof the lowest number being deleted has

always given a second breath or asecond wind in the future ballot. Theprocedure we are about to follow doesnot give us this, and is what I woulddescribe —with all due respect —ahotchpotch. We find what we .thoughtwe could achieve last week we will notnow be able to achieve, Mr. Speaker,for the good government of the Island.

The Speaker: I am indebted to thehon. members who have spoken. Iwould, however, point out two things.To the hon. member for Rushen —yourprecedent, sir, was in relation to a 19'62 ~incident, and these Standing Orderswere actually adopted in 1964. In re-spect of the comment of the hon. mem-ber for South Douglas, I would saythat the stage we have now reached inthis election is in complete accord withStanding Order 194(d) which makesthis provision, and there is no varia-tion here whatsoever between theHouse's own .Standing Orders and theopinion, as I say, of the law otficers inrelation to,procedure. So that we arenot at variance at all on this point. Sowould the House now proceed to voteon the three names that are before itfor the one vacancy which exists in theCouncil.

Mr. Creer: Mr. Speaker, I am not toohappy a~bout this at all. I have got;toaccept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, withall due respect,,but I am not too happyabout this. After we have just takenthis vote .that proves that the votinglast Tuesday was invalid, and I think,with all due respect to you, sir, that yousl'..ould ask for nominations now.

The Speaker: I am sorry, hon. mem-ber, I have taken the fullest legaladvice I can possibly obtain on thispoint, and I must persist in the coursethat I have outlined to you as being inkeeping with both Standing Orders andlegal requirements. I regret that thismust be the position. You have .threenames upon which you can vote —Mr.Bolton, Mr. Simcocks and Mr. Callis-ter. Will you please cast your vote forone per on.


K24 HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 1970

A,ballot took place.

The .Speaker: The result of the ballotis that for Mr. Bolton there have been10 votes cast, for Mr. Callister sevenvotes, and for Mr. Simcocks five votesand there has been one spoilt paper.No candidate can, therefore, be de-clared elected. The House will now ~pro-ceed to ballot on the two candidateswho received the highest number ofvotes, and this is provided for in Stand-ing Order'194(e). "If on a ballot nocandidate shall be declared elected, thecandidate receiving the smallest num-ber of votes shall be omitted, and theHouse shall ballot again on the remain-ing candidates."

Mr. Creer: Mr..Speaker, Mr. Boltonhas already, been rejected by this Houseby 13 votes.,Surely his name is notgoing forward now, half a dozen times?

The Speaker: I am sorry, sir. Theseare the Standing Orders and until yoususpend them I have to be guided bythem. And il can a .sure you that in thiscase they are in conformity once againwith the law.

Mr. Creer: Mr. Speaker, I move thesuspension of .Standing Orders.

Mr. Kneale: Can you suspend:thelaw, sir?

The 'Speaker: You cannot suspend thelaw, but the law does not provide forthis machinery of voting. Nevertheless,I suggest to .the House that they wouldbe wise in following the course ofStanding Orders to bring this votingto a conclusion.

Members: Agreed.

The, Speaker: The position is thatthere are now two candidates left inthe field and they are Mr. Bolton andMr. Callister. Now voting ipapers willbe circulated to you, and you must votefor one candidate, and if you do notdo so that will be a spoilt gaper.


The Speaker: The result of the elec-tion, hon. members, is that for Mr.Bolton there have been cast 13 votes,for Mr.,Callister six votes and therewere four spoilt .papers. The result isthat Mr., Bolton having secured thenecessary 13 votes is elected to theLegislative Council by the House. Hon.members, you will have seen gaby youragenda paper that it was proposed totake the election of two persons to servein the'Council this morning, in the nor-mal course of events. I suggest that itmight be wi e for the House to postponethis election until after the lunchiperiod and,this will give hon. memberstime to think about their position inrelation to those appointments. Wouldyou agree?

It was agreed

BILI S FOR FIRST READING

The Speaker: Bills for first reading.The Secretary: Family Law Reform

(Isle of .Man) Bill —Mr. Simcocks;Income Tax (No. 2) Bill —Mr.Devereau.

CHAPMEN'S BILL—CONSIDERA-TION OF CLAU'SES C'OMPLETED

The Speaker: Now we come to theChapmen's Bill, 1970, for further con-sideration of the clauses and I call uponthe hon. member for Ramsey, Sir HenrySugden.

Sir Henry Sugden: Thank you, Mr.,Speaker. We have reached clause 5.There have been certain criticismsabout clause 2 and I would say that Ihave it from the Attorney-General thaitthe reason why it was stated in clause2 that it should be "any part of theBritish Islands" was the fact that wedo .not really know the laws of foreigncountries in .this respect. We do knowthe laws of the British Islands. iWith re-

Bills for First Heading. —Chapmen's Bill—Consideration of Clauses Completed.

HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 1970 K25

gard to the fee, the Attorney-Generalhas said ithat he does not know of any" rag and bone" man who travelsround purchasing. If there are in fact"rag and bone" men that come roundpurchasing then they can equally wellpay the R.5 licence. Clause 6,,Mr.Speaker.

Mr. Burke: The hon. member is re-ferring to clause 2 and thought that hewas going ito move first of all clause 1

and then clause 2 and I have an amend-ment with regard to clause 2 which Isubmit now.

The,'Speaker: The hon. member willrecall that at the last Sitting we dealtwith clauses 1-5 and this statement, bythe hon. anember for |Ramsey is merelya clarification of tpoints that wereraised on that occasion in debate. TheHouse is now going on to deal withclause 6 and if .the hon. member wishesto move amendments, I am afraid hewill have to suspend Standing Ordersto do so at this stage.

Mr. Burke: Mr.,Speaker, I ~beg tomove suspension of, Standing Ordersin order to move an amendment toclause 2, in order ito clarify this posi-tion with regard to the people who arecalled "rag and .bone" m'n.

Tne Speaker: Will you get the amend-ment from the hon. member please?

Mr. Burke: 'May I read the amend-ment.

The Speaker; By all means, sir yes.

Mr. Burke: The amendment to clause2 (3)—after the word "licence" to addthe following "which shall not apply toa street trading scrap dealer."

The Speaker: The hon. member hasasked for a suspension of StandingOrders. Normally of course, the hon.member to deal with .this positionwould require to rescind the resolutionof last week, whereby we acceptedclause 2 as standing part of the Bill.To rescind Standing Orders, however,takes 16 votes. The suspension of

Standing Orders, which will mean thatthi. does not apply, will be a lowerfigure, of course. The House beingaware of this position, is it the wish ofthe House to accept the hon. member'sproposition that Standing Orders besuspended to enable him to move anamendment..I will put i'ormally,Those in favour, please say aye.Against no. The noes have it.

Mr. Burke: I will deal with it on the.third reading.

The Speaker; Clause 6, sir.

Sir Henry Sugden; Clause 6 dealswitrr forgery, fraudulent possession andfalse information. I do not think thereis any need for me to say anythingmore about it and I beg to move clause6 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hislop: I beg to second Mr.'=,peaker.

The Speaker: It is propsed and secon-ded tl at clause 6 tand part of the Bill.:Those in favour please say aye. Againstno. The ayes have it. Clause 7.

Sir Henry Sugden; Clause 7, sir, is asimple clause dealing with the givingr.otice of change of address and I beg tomove.

Mr. Hislop: I beg to second.

Mr. Crellin: I am a little disturbedabout ithis you know, sir, I feel ithat—I think somebody said last week tnatpo sibly we were tak!ng a ledge han:—rner to crack a nut —and I believethat this is typical in paragraph 7.I cannot see why it is necessary to cre-ate a great deal of work for what is aperfectly simple procedure. Our ideas,certainly my idea, iilr. Speaker, on thesecond reading of this Bill, was that weshould be able to control the "chao-men" by the fact that he was given alicence which if he misbehaved hims lfwould be withdrawn. You wi!I havebeard the hon. member for DouglasEast, Mr. Burke, wl o v.as anxious tomove an amendment with regard to thefee which was to be paid. The point

Chapmen's Bill —Consideration of.Clauses Completed.


has been made that there is a vastamount of work going to be connectedwith various establishments in thecourse of the operation of this Bill andI would have thought ithat if you applythis paragraph as it is written "any"chapman who, during the period of thevalidity of his licence, changes his ad-dress either in the Isle of Man or else-where, shall notify the Chief Constablewithin 14 days of such event, and if hefails to do so shall be guilty of anorfence, punishable etc." You see, Iunderstand that if you are going .to re-vert back to the gentlemen, to theitirerant buyers of:antiques who cometo the Isle of Man, ithey are itinerantbecause they are frequently changingtheir address and so you see they couldcome to the Isle of Man where theycould do their various calls and this..ort of thing under licence. They couldthen go to the United Kingdom andthey could spend a week in Birming-ham or a week in Newca tie or a weekin Liverpool and every time they aregoing to .be sending letters to the ChiefConstable of the Isle of Man to tell him"I am on my way now Chief from Bir-mingham to Liverpool" and so on. Nowthis to my mind is quite ludicrous andwe could have. possibly, "for the Isle ofMan" but "not elsewhere." I .think thisis a bit of nonsense this paragraph,quite honestly, and I think it is .makingthe Bill a huge and inoperable thingwhich is no worth it.

The Speaker; Could I be clear on this.Are you moving the deletion of thewords "or elsewhere?"

Mr. Crellin: Yes, sir.

The Speaker: You are moving that?

Mr. Crellin: Well I am making an ob-servation really, but I would hope thatthe House would see the necessity forthe removal of the words " or else-where."

The Speaker; Well, you are not mov-ing it, right.

Mr. Creer: Mr. Speaker, I am cer-tainly going to vote against this Billwhen it comes to third reading, becauseI think it is completely useless ito intro-duce all this Act to deal with one littleitem all told. These antique dealers, as

we call them, most of them are regis-tered in England or live in England andthey just come over here. Surely wecan deal with it without having thischange of address. How is this going towork? They apply for a licence in Lon-don, they come here for a week andthey are gone again. I cannot see thatthis Bill is going to work at all.

Mr. Spittall: Surely, Mr. Speaker,when we talk about somebody's addresswe really mean their:permanent ad-dress where if you write a letter to himit will eventually catch up with him.'Surely it does not mean that every timehe moves from one hotel to another, hewill have,to notify the Chief Constable.

Mr. Crellin: tWell it should say so,permanent address.

Mr. Simcocks: Are not these the sortof peotple who do not have permanentaddresses, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter).

The Speaker: Hon. member for Ram-.,ey io reply.

Sir Henry Sugden: Yes, Mr Speaker,this refers, of course, to the person'permanent address which he has,whether it be on this Island or whetthert .be in, Birmingham or whether it ~be

in Cork. He is away from the permantentaddress very frequently, but when he is

away from it meaning to return to it,he d'oes not have to inform the C'hiefConstable, of that there is no questionwhatsoever, I beg to move the clause.

Mr. Hislop: I b g to second

The Speaker:,It is proposed anted

secondedt that clau~m 7 stand part of theBill. 'Those in favour please say aye,against no. The ayes have it. Clauses 8,

9, 10, 11 and 12 are all related tolicenoes. Would you care to move them,sir, as a block?

Chapmen's Bill —Consideration of Clauses Completed.


Sir Henry Sugden: Yes, Mr Speaker.Clause 8 lays down that the chapmanwill show his 1 cence either to a policeconstable or to a person whom he isofTering to purchase effects 'from or ifhe is found in private grounds orpremises of .a person and ihe amount offine for failing to show his licence isput down there. As I have saidh before,it is the maximum fire and it is up tothe court to use their own thoughts asto what the fine should n fact be.Clause 9 is the cancellation and theendorsemen~t of licences Clause 10 isthe revocatioin of licences and clause 11

is the afppeal against revocation of alicence. In that it is laid down that theappeal against the Chief Constable whorevoked the 1'cence will be heard. by theHigh-Bailiff. Clause 12 is the forfe'tu~reof licences. I beg to move these clauses,Mr Speaker.

Viir. Hislop: I beg to second.

iMr, Vereker: Mr. Speaker, clause 8

(c)—~I find this rather confus'ing, Surelythe fact that a person is foun'dh inprivate grounds or premises and: hethen produces a chapmans licence itdoes not excuse him from the act oftrespass.

,iVlr. Crellin: iMr. Speaker, sir, 1 amsorry to keep bobbing u~p and cov. n onthis thing. You see if you lookat paragraph 2 (4) (b) that is tosay the fifth line on page 2,we talked about this in greatlength last week where a person couldbe convicted "who has been convictedin any part of the British Islands for ancffence involving dishonesty within theperiod of five years immediately pre-ceding the d'ate of the appl.'cation."When we look at 9 it says: "Unon theconv.'ction of any person of anv offenceunder .thi . Act and he is at that timethe holder of a valid licence the courtshall either (a) cancel his iicence: or(b) order to be endorsed on his licence,etc." I would~ have thought that if theperson has been granted a licence then

t:

;f he is subsequently convicted for dis-hor.esty of any nature then the con-d!ticns should apply just as they wouldunder the cond'itions which we placedupon h'm for not having been convictedin the first five years. This may be to acertain extent tied uo in clause 10because .'n'0, 1'ne 29, it says that"without prejudice to the power of thecourt under section 9 of this Act theChief Constable may revoke a licenceduring the ourrer.cy thereof for goodcaus," but it leaves the discretion withthe Chief Constable as to what is "goodcause." U make the po r.t that if w saythat a licence should not .be aw" rcto a person who has .been convicted inthe past five years itor a crime ir.vo!v-ing dishonesty then if during the periodof the year during which his iic nce iscurrent he is convicted of any actinvolving dishonesty, then his 1 cenicshould'oso facto be withdrawn and 1

am afraid this clause as it stands doesnot cover that,

Mr. SIpittal;: Whilst I would agrewith much of what the hon. memmLarfor Rushen said, there are ottencesunder this Act which could notbasically be classed as dishonest,and'urely is this not what paragraph 9is hoping to cover. I mean offences, iornstance, under clauses 7 or 8 wou

c'otexactly be called dhishonest.

iMr. Crellin: Yes. but it does not cov:rit in any case.

Sir Henry Sugden: Yes, Mr. Speak ",what I feel a'bout the ouest'on from thehon. member for Rushen is that if alicence is withdrawn at any t me—arddo not forget that under claus" 11 theris an appeal against w;thdrawal of tn.'cence —well then if it is withd'rawnfor d'shonesty it will not be renewed'or at least five years and:hat I thirkis the beginning and the end of thisparagraph With re" ard to lb, hon.men;.her for Castletown, no, most


K28 HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197i0

certainly not. The chapman, if (found onground's, is liable to prosecut on fortrespass, of that there is no doubt.

Mr. Bell: I should just like to ask a

question arising out of that, Mr.Speaker. Is trespassing an ofience if itis niot accompanied by d~amage unlessthere is a sign to say that there wouldbe a prosecution taken'?

The Sipeaker: Do you wi h thatsettled, sir? Do you wish to reply ito ithehon, member, sir?

Sir Henry fSugden: Well the questionof trespass is a very complicated oneand !t would cause me some time to gothrough it, but w~hat I can say is thatif any diamage is done diurinig the tres-pass, well then the trespasser, whoeverit may be, whether t ibe a chapman ornot, would be liable for the damage.

The .Speaker: Now, hon members, wehave considered'lauses 8 to 12 inclu-sive. D'c s anyone wish any particularone of thos clauses to ibe,put"eparately? If not we will vote on themas a blcck. It hias gabe n, propo ed andseccnded that clauses 8 to 12 inclusivestand part of the Bill. Thosie in favourplease siay aye, against no. The ayeshiave it. Clause 13, sir.

Sir Henry Sugden: Clause 13 d~ealswith powers of arrest andi it lays downthat "A constaible may arrest withoutwarrant a person who has comm!ttedor attempted to commit or is reasonablysuspected, by the constaib! of havingc" mmitted'r attempted to commit anoffence against this Act..." That reallyis the ",meat" of this clause and 1 movit.

Mr. H''slop:,I beg to s cond, sir.

The Speaker: It is proposed ands cond d that clause 13 stand part ofthe B'll. Those in favour please sayaye, againet no, The ayes have it.Claus s 14 Fees, 15 Interpretation. 16

Repeal and 17 Short Title —allmachinery. Would you care to movethem, s r?

Sir Henry Sugdien: Yes, Mr, Speaker.this is all machinery. The only thin~g Iwould mention really is clause 14, whichlays down that "All fees or fines leviedor invporedi under the provisions of thisAct shall be paid into the GeneralRevenue of the Is',e oi Man." iI beg tomove clauses 14 to 17, .Mr, Speak r.

Mr. Hislop: I beg to second

Mr. Burke: Mr. Speaker, on clauses 15

to 17. The hon. mover said that inrelation to clause 2 (3) "A fe of fivepounds..." —it would be necessary forwhat is called a "rag and bone" man tohe defined." Now clause 15 says, "In thisAct "chapman" m ans a person whogoes from house to house offering topurchase, either on his own b half oron behalf of another nerson, householdor personal effects from any person whodoes not represent himself as currentlyoffering such effects for sale." In viewof the fact that the hon. mover has saidtheat clause 2 will aipply to these personswho are called "rag and bone" men, Isuibmit that clause 15 does not apply tohim because he does niot go from houseto house offering to purchase—

'Mr. MacLeod: Does not he?

Mr. 'Burke: No.

Mr. iMacLeod: He has to ~buy rags,doesn't he?

Mr. Burke: No Perhaps the memib. rswho do not live in a town are not awarethai these chaps try to eke out a

p=ecar'ous existence, by going witha little trolley or a box on wheels orsomething and they are calling outinviting people to come out and'iierthe good's to them for purchase, So mysubmission is, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. MacLecd: Offer the goods to themfor purchase

Mr. Burke: When the hon. m mberstops interrupt!ng me, .I submit that thedefinition of "chapman" does not apply



to the peope we know as a "rag andbone" man and~ therefore I contend thatin clause 2 when the hon. mover saysthat this also atpolies to the people Icall "street tradin~ scrag d aler," itdoes not apply to them I suggestthat in th!s interpretation, sir, it doesnot apply'o the p ople that,I am veryconcerned about, an'd I would like a

ruling on that.

Mr. Crellin; 'Mr. Soeaker,.I am a littlebit concerned'bout 15 because to mymind', it d'oes not include enough. Ibelieve that the dhefinition of "chapman"should'e wide enough to em'brace acrap dealer. At the present moment

under its definition,, as I s e it, itexcludes a scrap dealer because it callsthem personal and household effects. Iwould rather like the defin,'tion lookedat in order that the scrap dealer maycome within the terms of this Act,

Mr, Burke: .It depends what the s'crap1 s.

,Sir Henry Sugden: Yes, Mr. Speaker,in reoly to the auestion c'lVlr. Burke,I d'id ex'nlain in clause 2 that this Chid

not aoply in fact to peop'e who w ntroundh from hou e to house if you likenot buying anything abut taking awayyour .rubb'sh. When they do go fromhouse to house askinp to buy somethingwell then it does and there are nodoubts about it,

Mr. Burke: There is no evidence thatthe people are giving the stuff'o themor taking a few coppers for it.

Sir Henry Sugden: Well that I cannotcomment upon. That is what this Hillmeans. With. regard to the hon. memberfor Rushen I do not think that thisneed's any further elaboration becauseit does say that a chaoman means aperson who goes from house to houseoffering to purchase household orpersonal effects from any otner oerson,that is from tfie owner of the house and

that, 't appears to me, covers every-thing that may gabe in the house. I,begto move.

Mr. Hislop: I beg to second.

Th Speaker: Is the hon rr. mber forRushen satisfied with his point7

Mr. Crellin: No, sir, I am not, becausieI cio not think it covers th situationthat I envisage where a scrap merchantgoes from business to business, to a

shop, to a premises wh re he willattempt to buy someth~ing from a firm,and) I think you have got personaleiFects, household effects stipulated.I think the term wants to be w'der. Iam merely saying this so that noticewiil !be taken of it in anoth .r olace,because,I thinik thfs where you have gotto have legal advice on a thing like this,

The Speaker: I merely asked the hon.member this o..e in order to try andhelp satisfy his rrind on this issue. Iwould suggest that it may be covered nthe Dealers in Old Metal Act of 1952—a provision is made ouite clearly forthis type o'l trading, uncer I cence, too.

Mr. Crellin: This may;be covered !nthat Act.

The Speaker The hon. member canbe content that this is adequate in thecircumstances,

'Mr. Burtke: Mr, Speaker. could theamendment which I moved~ on clause 2

now aoply to clause 15. It dhoes notappiy to the "rag and bone" men orwhatever they keep on callin~ them.

The Speaker: Well, I would suggestto the hon. member that perhaps suchan amendment is not necessary. Itapplies only to the people that aredefined'n this particular interpretationclau~m. I would'. have thought that t'ehon. member could feel ouite confidentthat they are covered as I ind'icated tothe hon. member for:Rushen under .heDealers in Old'etal Act, 1952. I amauite sure here that the intent of theBill has been to cover a loophole wh ch


K30 HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0

perhaps has existed in relation to pre-nt legislation and'ou have your

Pedlars Act and Dealers in Old MetalA"t and so on covering the othercontingencies. Do you wish to nersistrvith you amendment, sir?

Mr. Burke: Yes, s'r, I do r ot feelsatyrs~". d with the reply of the hon.mover b "ause he d~id not say that it~'d imp!y. am not «at sfied, «ir

The Speaker: I am bending StandL'ngCrders a bit to enab'e everybody to be

happy on this particular one. T'e hon.member has in "eed replied, I take ityca would have no abjection to anan«a-.dment ccming forward at least,c 11" i

Si" Henry Sugden: No, sir.

The Speaker: Even at th's late stage,!f the House would agree and theamendment which the hon.. member«eeks to apply to clause 15 in this caseis after the word: "licence" which

doe.»';ot

exist in the claus«e, as I can «ee i"

af ter the word "licence" to ad'd, thef ilcwing "but shia?1 not apply to a.",'"= t trading scrap dealer."

Mr, Burke: I use that phra~m.

The Sneak- r: We"1 I am afraid ti:ehon, ir ember's amendment as beforeme is not in order and could not 'be

applied to this particular clause becausethere is nothing upon wh ch I can"hang" it.

Mr. Kneale: Can we have the defini-tion of a scrap dealer?

Mr. Faragher: ~Mr, Speaker, may Ihave a word on this.

The 'Syeaker: Well no sir, I am afraidI must rule you out of order. I amtrying to satisfy the hon. member, hishaving ra!«ed this particular pointconsistently, earlier and at this stage.The hon. member t'or Ramsey 1'as infact replied, I was merely try ng tosatisfy the hon. member for 'EastDouglas and as his amendment cannotp ass.'bly be associated, in it«, present

form, with clause 1.5. I cannot accept it.Consequently I must put the clauses tot? e House in the printed form and theyare c! auses 14, 1'5, 16 and 17 and iwcu'.d,ask hon. members to vote for oragainst. Those in favour please say aye,against no. The ayes have it. The Billread a econd time. Thantk ycu, hon.member for Ramsey.

CONTRADICTS OF EMPLOYMENT(ISLE OF MAN) BILL—SECOND

READING—APPROVED.

The S(oea'ker: Now we have theContracts of Emp!oyment ('sle of M~aniBill for second read~ing and' call uponthe hon. merry r for 'South Douglias, IvlrBell.

,Mr. Bell: Thank you, Mr. Sp aker.The Contr,.cts of Employment Zi'iwhich I have to move, member=-. w llrealise is as«sociated~ with another itemon the agenda termedi Redundancy Pay-ments (Isle cf Man) Bill. it is not myintent;on, Mr. Speaker, to put theContracts of Employment Biil to theHouse for their support on a belief thatif this measure is acceoted by theHcum, I would expect a simiiar supno:tfor the following Bill. It is, my tel:ef,Mr. Sneaker, that the provisions con-tained even in the Contracts of Em'='oy-ment Bill are worthy of adoption ~by theHouse, It is for the purpose of securing,by statutory mea ures, minin:umpericcs of notice for oersons, who aredefined as employees. I will say also, atthis stage, Mr. Speak. r, that C do notintend to take the other measure on theagenca related to this Bill, at th'ss!tting of the Hou . but to all wmembers the time at our dis':o«sal todayto deal only with the Contracts ofEmployment Bill. There is much to bedone in respect of the other n: asure.The Con,tracts of Employment Bill willg'!ve both employers and employeesr'ghts to min''mum periods of notice toterminate employment and it lays a

Contracts of Employment (Isle of .Man) Bill —Second Reading Approved.


duty on employers to give theiremployees written particulars of theirma:n terms of employment. This is a

measure, I am sure, which wiii have theunarimous support of the members ofthe House,,Mr. Speaker, te"aus ail toooften we know a person may have beenin a job for six we ks or even six yearsard not really knoiv exactly what hisemployer is permitting him eit~her byhis p'easure or by a prececent withother .members of the staft. Questionslikie holidhays, who uses which office, inc1 cuss for working, half days, thenumber di d~ays an employer may allowstaff off for sickness before any penal-ties and~ we do know that newemployees to a company normally findthe.r way around~ the rules of the com-par y, or of the firm, or of the shop byasking one of the "old hands" there.Now this is not good'nough. It is nota lot of trouble for t!ne emipioyer tohave forms printed setting out what arein fact the actual terms of the employ-menit for the person, and this, Bill, whent has the support of the House, will

require emiployers to provide the con-tract and conditions of emiployment tobe displayed or to be conveyedto their emp'loyees. Under the Bill anemployer is required to give an em-ployee at least one week's notice if theemployee has been withhimcontinuous-ly for '2~6 weeks or more and at least twoiveeks notice if the employee has beenwith him continuously for two years ormore and the maximum is at least fourweek's notice if the employee has beenivith the employer continuously for fiveyears or more. Now the word "con-tinuously" which appeared there severaltimes, is defined later in the Bill andshows exactly what continuous employ-ment is deemed~ to be. An employee isrequired under the Bill, to give hisemployer at least one week's notice ifhe has been with the employer for 26weeks or more. This reouirement tothe employee does not increase with theperiod of service he has with theemployer. Th'! s would appear legally,

Mr. Speaker, to be an anomaly and thiswill b the one point in this meagrethat members would wish to fall outw'th, but I would say to the House, 1Vir.

Speaker, that there are circumstanceswhich are very easy to imagine andwhich are practically of a uniformpattern, that when an employee con-..iders he wishes .to leave it will be thateith r they have secured or have hadan offer of other employment or ineconditions under wh!ch they are work-ing are, or have become, ur~bearab'e.This is leaving out the queston oi ill-ness and'oving away. It would seemonly reasonable and logical to as«umethat if an employee has sought andfound other employment that to expecthis n w employer to wait a month iorhim to gabe free to .take uip his workwould proibaibly and'ctually r moveth possibility of him securing thaitposit. on, We know that this, is a Pact.Al.o if the employee is leaving and thecircumstances are such that it is usual-ly better for him to be shut off as quick-ly as possible. It is the only defencethat I can give for this seeminganomaly of the conditions on this Bill.The Bill, as I have said, really requirescon tracts to,be d~isplayed for theiilformation of the employer and tneemp'oyer, but no s'gnatures are re-quired to implement the acceptance otthis contract and y t the provisions cith" B.'ll will have the weight of law. Inactual fact, Mr, Sneaker, the very c"n-d'tions in particulars of notice are nowapplying generaly throughout theIsland'. A person leaving an employernormally gives a week's notice or if heis being asked~ to leave because of otnerreasons he 's usually given a week or afcrtnight's rotice. If they are long-serving, the period of notice from theemployer is usually increased. Th.'.sis l av,'ng out, of cours, the ouest!on ofred~zndancy, which I do not wish tobring in on this d bate.

Mr. Irving: It is in the Bill just thesame.

Contracts of Employment (Isle of,Man) Bill —Second Reading Approved.


Mr. Bell: Yes, it 's re'erred to in theBill, of cours, because it is design das a vehicle for or part of the macnir.eryof the Redundancy Payments Bill, butI have said, Mr. Speaker, that I believethis Bill itself is worth having on itsown. I know that the members of thisHou e now are more enlightened thanth y vere, naturally, 20 and 30 yearsago. Such a:Bill would have stood r.ochance of a majority approval with.nth s House, The general public, theemployers and the employees haveraised no critic;:sms at all of 'the ptro-v'sions of tnis Bill. Each member

oi'his

Hous has beiore him or had, acircular letter from Th Emp!oy rsFederation ecretary which did say thatthe Douglas Hotel and Guest HouseAsscciation, The, Isle of Man Cham'berof Commerce and the Isle of 'iVl'an

Chamber oi'rad. with the i:.sle of ManEmployers Federat.'on have certainviews on another matter. but they havenct conveyed~ to the memb rs of theHouse,,Mr. Speaker, that they have anyopposition in any small degree even, toth. provisions of the Contracts ofEmployment Bi'1. I am not going to askth members of the Hou e to assume'rom that non-communication that, itshould, be inferred as unqualifi dsupport, but I will emphasise, Mr.Speaker, that tl:ere has been no dis-approval of the contents of this Bill.IViembers will also have beiore them acircular letter from The Isle of lVIanTrades 'Council. Now the Isle of ManTrades Counc 1 composing oi represen-tatives of The Confed'erat'on of HealthS r vice Employee=-, 'The AmalgamatedEngineering and Foundry

Workers'nion,

The Fire Brigade Union, TheNat onal Union of, Seamen, The Electri-cal Trades Union, The Painters Union,The cMusicians Union, The Isle of ManTypographi "al Society, The ~NationalSoc.'ety of IVietal Mechanics, The PostC'ffic Engineering Union, The Union ofPost Office Workers. Th AmalgamatedSociety of Woodworkers,, The Un'.on ofShop Distributors and Allied Workers,

The Plumbers Union, The Transportand Gener al Workers'n.'on, TheAssociation of Broadcasting Staffs, andti;e Association of Scientific, Technicaland Managerial Staffs, have w. lcomedthe introdiuct''on of legislation coveredby the C'ontracts of Employment Bill.Noiv we have this support d'or th's Bill.I have 6irect. 6 the att. ntion of thee

House, IVIr, Sneaker, and the publicalso, to the support:that this Bill hashad, but I would'cw like to say, Mr.Speaker that it is important to note thatthe commur.i-ation from th Is'e oi ManEmp oyers'ec.cration was dated, the26th October, and they v'e the first tojun p in with any observations or non-comment on the measures we have.Whereas the letter from the Isle of ManTrad~ s Counci> .'s diated 2nd'ovember.Now 'I dho draw the attention of theHouse io the important dates of th seletters to show that there is no pressurebe'ng put on the members of the Houseby the Isle of'an Trades Council orby any of th unions nam=d, to giveme your sup'peart, They are quit assuredand 'I bel.'eve their con!fid'ence is we',iplacedh, the members of the 'House willaccept this measure and will conspire orreserve any criticisms which they mayhave on ieduncancy until we do in factcome to the Recundancy Payments B'll.It is. Mr. S'ceak r, with a great ainountof conficenc, knowing that this measureis weicomed by the Associations whoalmost represent one-third of the totalpopulation of the Csland, it is welcomedby them, it is not opposed~ by theemploy rs, by the, Isle of 1Vfan Chamberos Commerce or by the Cham~ber ofTrad .

The Speaker. Might I ask the hon.n.ember p'ease, to clarify that pointbe-ause my letter says that "we, theundtsrsigncd, on behalf o" the organisa-tions that we represent, desire toexpress.to the m mbers of the House cfKeys cur unanimous oppos.'t'on to thaforementioned Bills" of which this isone.

Contracts of Employment (Isle of Man) Bill —Second Reading Approved.


Mr. iBell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: To clear a point.

Mr. Bell: You are doing a serviceto the House. I di8 not reallyintend to take up all the time ofthe House, abut if I could'eaCh theletter now, so that we can have itstra!ght, .the letter is dated the 26thOctober, it is addressed to the Secretaryof the House and it has a heading "Con-tracts of Employment (Isle of Man)Bill, 1970, and Redundancy Paymenrs(Isle of Man) Bill 1970. We the un-dersigned, on behalf of the orga-nisations that we represent, desire toexpress to the members of, the Houseof Keys, a unanimuos opposition .to theabove mentioned Bill." This is whatthey have said Mr. Speaker, but readingthe letter paragraph 1 "the RedundancyPayments (Isle of,Man) Bill, 1970, is acopy of the United Kingdom Act of1965 which was designed for UnitedKingdom problems; to assist mobilityof labour from dying industries to newindustries and to assist employees maderedundant by mergers of large com-panies and technological progress."These problems did not exist in the Isleof Man. No reference there, in the firstparagraph, to any observations on theContracts of Employment Bill. On thesecond paragraph no o'bservation at allon ithe Contracts of Employment Bill.Gn the third, on the fourth, and on thefifth and on the sixth paragraphs—which is the flnal paragraph, no obser-vations and no reference even to itheContracts of Employment Bill. I put itto the House, Mr. Speaker, Chat the per-..ons who are signatories to the circularhave the belief that both Bills are .toserve the one, purpose. I have put it tothe House, Mr. Speaker, that the Con-tracts of Employment Bill should beaccepted by the House as a measurestanding on its own and its passagethrough this House should not be im-peded or impaired by any of the provi-

sions in the Redundancy Payments Bill,which is not yet before us. I ibeg tomove the second reading of the Bill.

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

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, thereare many nothings and many aspects ofthis Bill that we might welcome here,but I, as one member of this House,believe that what is sauce for the gooseis sauce for the gander and if you aregoing to have a clause which stipulatesthat the emyloyer has got ito give a cer-tain time, I .think it is equitable thatyou give similar conditions on the otherside —the amount of notice givenshould be of a similar nature. I, Mr.Speaker, am of the opinion that a wouldbe employer of an employee who hasgiven notice, would be more likely torespect a man who was prepared towork a reasonable amount of notice be-fore coming to take his job, knowingthat he, in turn, at some time in thefuture would be in a position to dependon that man staying there until he hadworked a reasonable amount of noticefor him in turn, and I,think this is onlya reasonable thing to do, I certainlywant to see it amended in that respectbefore I would be prepared to give itsupport.

Mr. Crellin: Mr. Speaker, I am a littlesurprised in a way that the hon. mem-ber for .South Douglas has put upsuch a very rea. on able case for thesecond reading of this Bill, when onebears in mind that we waited such along time for it to come before us andwe.hoped there was something in prin-ciple which was wrong. I am amazed,sir, to:find that, in fact, in his movingof the second reading he has really toldus something which we know already.I believe, particularly that this Bill isa desirable thing in principle. I thinkthat everybody agrees in principle thatthis has been brought up in every stageof our education. I suppose it was ourLord who started the first contract ofemployment idea in our minds, with his

Contracts of Employment (Is!e of Man) Bill —Second Reading Approved.


vineyards. Negotiated contracts of em-ployment are very nice things to talkabout but when ithey are tied up in a

Bill, to my mind, they can be a verydangerous weapon. At first glance itwould appear to me that this Bill is

going to be an extremely hard task-master'nd I hope that wlien the hon.member comes to consider ithe clausesof .this Bill, that he will be pre-pared to .see it going .to a committee. Ibelieve that the meat of it is bound upin the chedule. Schedule 1, from para-graph three on, I find this an extremelydifficult Bill in its present form tounderstand. I believe that what leadsup to schedule is all good commonsense stuR with which most ofus agree, but the whole basis of theexecution of the Bill is in this Scheduleand, .as I see it, paragraph seven of theschedule, paragraph three of:theschedule and their inter-relation, par-ticularly make the Bill an extremelydifficult Bill to operate and an ex-tremely dangerous Bill from the em-ployers'oint of view. I would urgethis House, while supporting it onsecond reading, because I think theprinciple, possibly is a very good one,that when we come to the clauses onit that, either we ithink about sendingthis Bill to a Committee, or that we arevery, very guarded in the way that wedeal with the schedules.

Mr. Devereau: I do not ithink that theidea of contractural engagement be-tween a oman and his employer will bedenied iby this House. I think the ideabehind this, Bill is a good one. The pro-visions included in this Bill have beenin English law for some years, but whenwe introduce a Bill of this nature intoour legislature we have got to be cer-tain ithat we are being fair, that, infact, that contractural engagement isbetween the employee and the em-ployer, and in this Bill we are not atall sure that that is so. The terms ofgiving notice, as has already beenpointed out, are very unequal. Themover of the Bill quite glibly says and

he should be quite right in some cases,

in many cases perhaps, that if an em-ployee is dissatisfied the best thing todo is to get him otY the premises as

quickly as possible.

Mr. MacLeod: Hear, hear.

Mr. Devereau: But there are caseswhere an employee may be in an officein a capacity that cannot be veryquickly replaced. Confidential clerksand people of this nature are em-ployees, but not only considering peoplewho may work with their hands or beassistants in a shop and I would con-sider it imost unfair to the employer tobe .put in the position of having to re-place a person of t'his nature in oneweek or else suiYer the consequences ofdoing without that employee untilsomeone else can he found. Anotherpoint that worries me in this Bill, I canfind no reference to the responsibilityof the employee who leaves withoutgiving notice. Is the employee requiredto re-pay to his employer a week'notice? The obligation ts on the partof the employer to pay for service butthere is also an obligation, or shouldbe, on the employee to Ipay the em-ployer for lost services if 'he leaveswithout notice. All these things needclearing up. I feel that this Bill hasgood purport but I think when we cometo discussing the clauses we will watcheach and all of them very carefully.

Ma. Buake: I agree witlh the remarksmade Iby the hon. memlber for GKenfaiba,Mr Ian An.diersori, wlitlh iegard te, lettis ibe faiia, that this shall act for theemIployee as well. Nonv iai tahe explana-tory memoranduan it says —an em-ployee is required to give his employerat least one weelk's notice if he hasbeen with h~izn coniariarously for 26nveeks or more. If tihere is not a olauseoz a contract thas as goling to greatlyaffect She hote1iers and guest houseowvners beoaus'e we know t%et sbaffconne heve, they are uridea'o coritractend I ihave felt for a Kong time tlhat



for the people who are engaged inthe visiting industry, there should besome form of contract so that thehoteliers and guest hou e owners canbe assured that they have got staffsufficient to keep their trade going andfor looking after visitors I do knowtlhere 'have been so many cases of staffvralking cut, gcing tlo another hotiel, orjust getting fed-uip and receiving a tele-gram from home —Come home, motherseviiauisly ill—or someiihiing like Ohat,land t'hey ga arid there is neo staff at all,I know of a case where.thiougih an argurnenrt in t'e hau,se, i,n my constituency,thait six wa'Ikied cut once morning, rightafter breakfast and the coiner was leftand did not know what to do about it.Nearby neighbours 'helped out with oneor two of tiheir siiaff, 'hie":iping tihem out~and I dio think t~hiait in this reapect, asitiair as peril'e w'ho aire eingaged in t'evisiting industry, particularly the hotelsthere .Hhiould ibe same pirovisicin in t%isBill for this because, where it says,the employee shall give notice ifthey have been continuously em-ployed for 26 weeks or more, it is

very Iiareily t~hlis ~iplies te peopile inthe visiting indium".y because so many'of them do no't wcrk fior move than,peirihiaips, 16, 18 at th'e m'ost 20 weeksI am hoping that in this Bill thatsomething could be introduced in ordertio prote'ct tihe zeoNe who do engagetheir staff for the visiting industry andI weuld llike to know .if the mover canpoint out to us where, in the provisionsof this Bill, there is a provision forpeople engaged on, not only on a part-time basis but for a period of less than?6 weeks.

Mr. Simcocks: Mir. Speaker, this is

aweather

example of tlhe introductionto th'e House of a B'i11 base'd on an Actwihiich i s .relevant to conditions inFngland, but which I venture to sug-gest, i, largely irrelevant to much ofour social and commercial activity in theIsle of Man. It is fine and well to say that

in theoiry a man shmQd be given a cer-tahn lengiilh oIf notice if he hias been em-ployed continuausily for a certainlengt'h of t'iime. Fair enjaugh„but I amqu'itic certaiiin Mat these pirovisionsshloiuild, as tlhe hion. znemIber fear Glen-faba said, be reciprocal. I am equallycevbain tihat yraviNan shiould be madefor the peculiar situations which existin the Isle of,Man. I am quite certaintihereifoire, thia4 if this Biiil is to be givena second Wadiing i4 znuist be given aisiecond readiing on itihe basis that it AHbe refire'd to a coznmlirttee wibc willi beabele tn go tihrciugih it ca efully anid dis-piassionately so as tio recoimznend tio theHouse such modificat~ions, sucih amend-ments as wi11 ini'aike it, not oriiy flair soas is works equally on both sides of thecontract bu4 s'o Diat it does airy tocionditions whiich exist in tihe Islle ofMian. I em Wre iihie prudent skiing istih,at it dheuld b'e consiide red by acoimmittee,

Mr. Kineale: Mr. Sipeaker. sirr, I wonder wlhetheir tihe 'hon, mern'ber can tellus w'hether tihere is anything in it to-%lioiw fcr; peir~». who bias been dis-missed for diidh'oneiCy. A fellow couldem(pty %e fiick and if we accept the B'ill

1Vbr. 1KacDoniald: Giiive 4iim a week'%pages.

Mr. Kneale: Has he to have bwoiveeks'otice as well i

Mr. Bell: Came under the Chapmen's/Bill, I think.

Mr. KTieale: There may be sornetihingin this. I aim fully suipporting theimotive be!hind tlh~'s Bill. I am one whoblas suffered froim geti6!ng natice afteir23 years service. I got a fortnight'snogice the day I vuaa due to go on myfoivtnilght's annual hol~iday arid this istihe kind cf thing people need protec-Ition from. and I feeil t4at the wholetmoifive behind t'hiis B~Jll is a sound one.Theve is just one plaint tlat struck me

Contracts of Fmployment (1'sle of Man) Bill —Second Reading Approved.


that I did not see anything in it to ex-clude cases when there was disamissaifor dishonesty.

g: ~Sipeaker, I suypiortItlhie moSive of the BlJjl too, but I she".1

certainly nat vote far its third reiadingunless the terms of notice are fair onboSh sides, buit a%mt concerns me too,is .that the hon. member hasproduced a Bill that on page eightrefers So the Redundancy Payments(I@e of Man) Act, 1970. I do not be-

lfeive the Redundanicy Payments (Islebf Mian.) Act ar BBlias ilt is noir, sSaindsan earthly 4n, this House. I certainlyhvould oppose it anid I slha~l'I ceirtalitnlyoppose thiis B'ill unless Shase wxvrds areirem'oved .anid if it 'is ia ouestian of put-Sing iinterptreSataons or scihedules in, tlhisBill, then as far as I am concerned, theymust be put in without any referencewhatsoever to tihe Redundancy Pay-ments Bi1ll. The ihon. memibe-. began tlhi s

mcrining by saying 41iat be wias nat sug-g'esSing if we voted fo'r Shfls. Billl we hadto vote for tlhe Re'dunidancy Payments:Piiill. I thlimk it:is uio So:tihe holn. member

get atmendnrenSs pz"cpaa eii imtme-dida4ely fo emit tihe wards "RedundancyPlayments Aot" from this particular,'B'i11. Iif t'hiat is d'one and lif She terms ofnaSSce can be eoulail on bojSh sides andI: novas apt a bit ilmoreissed, Mir. Speaker,this morning, by the statement, by thehon. member in charge of the, Bill, thatit is much more unfair,to one that theother. There are minimum terms ofnotice anid it dales toit mean that a peirson iwlho gives say a week's noSice, iiS

dioes inoti mean, Shat lhe is nioit neceissatrilyallowed to go immediately and viceversa. These are minliimum standards.%Then She hon. memibei-. says t'hat wehiave Ihiaid ia letter ilrom the

Empt'.ioyers'ed'"atiion

iin wihich they are sayingthey da niot like tihis Contracts of Em-playment Bi8, I tlhlink it is prettyobvious to everyone, Mr. Speaker, thatthe reason Shey dio mat ilike it is becauseit is manifestly unfa4r in terms of

uiotice to the employer and this, I amsure, is the reason they do apt like tlhe

Bill. On the other bland I wioiuM hiavethought Shet t'his coulid be made flairand thea the Bill wau11 be acceptableto these people.

The Speaker: The ihon. member far~~uSh Douglas So repliy.

Mr. Bell: Tihank you, Mlr. Speaker.The fi.it piers'lho made a contribu-Sion So She Bi11 wias She Ih'oln. memberfoir Gleinfaiba„and I thought it w'as veryunfortunate that he chose the expression'what 'ns saiuce for She go'ose .. Gon-veying, of oourse, Shat 'he belles in.the appiarent justice for botlh slides, andI ionow exacit1y w4ait 'he Chid mean but,when he tries to put the position that theemployer is being unfairly treated byan employee wiho is leaving on Sheminiimuan naSice it is reailily a miis-interpretaition of the provisons olf tlheBill. I would just like to say that thereare already many employees andemgHioyeirs omiratinig conditiiions of ser-vi!ce wlhiclh, even we:~ She provisions ofth5s Hill law, would stiil reonire th'isBill be brought up to date as even theprovisions in this are archaic. TheIs1e of Main blas ibeen. in the foirefrontof sociial reform fior mianiy a ilong year.We hiave goiod emlployers. We Lave verygiolod emPloyee's and we 'have very, verygood trade unions auld ~behave verygoad trade union, leaiders. Tlhlis Bitll islaying dawn the milnliInutn and wlherethe exisSing cionid'itions oir contracts ofservice mh'ich aire beli'ng enjoyed andobscured Iby ex'isting opierations —wheretlbose ex'ising aomliNions aire moref-ivoumalb1e Shian Shetse mainimiums, t'his'aw will not 'iniSerifere wlilSh tlhose conditions but where existing conditionsare less favoiurahle tlhan these pettyminimums then .they will have, gaby .thereisoiliution eif tblis iHouse and, in anioit'her

place, I holpe, to come folriwiard and pro-gress their conditions and their con-tracts of employment. It is as easy


K38 HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0

tv read a second ihfne. Those infavour please say aye. Against no. T'e~leave it. The Bilj, read a secondQIZhe.

PROPOSAL TO SEND CONTRACTSOF EMPLOYMENT (ISL'E'FMAN) BILL TO COMMITTEE—REJECTED.

The Speaker: The hon. member forRushen.

Mr,. Orellin: Mr. Speaker, I should like,at this stage, to move that this Bill benoiwl sent to a committee.

Mr. Simcocks: I second, Mr. Speaker.The Speaker: Do you wish to Speak on

this?Mr. Bell: Just briefly, I would like to

speak on that, Mr. Speaker, I wouldhave. preferred for the Bill not to havegone to a committee. I do recognise thatcertain, parts of the Schedule mayappear to bQ a technical and a legalmaze of iprowdural content. If the mem-bers of the House would sooner deferfurther consideration of the, Bill sothey could become:more familiar with itI would prefer that rather than toburden the members of the House andthe Secretary of the House with anothercommittee to deal with what is,,really, aquite simple Bill where the Schedules,unfortunately, have got ipeculiar con-notations anted workings. I would muchsooner the House, with d~ue respect tothe hon. mem~ber for Rushen, did notsupport the motion for it to be referredto a committee but defer for furtherconsideration and I wouldi prepare anexplanatory brief in a more clear formfor the assistance of the House.

Mr. Irving: Take out the word "redlun-dancy."

Mr. Bell: Yes.

The Speaker: The resolution underStanding Order 143 is that this Bill nowbe referred to a committee for consi-deration and report. Those in favourplease say aye. Against no.

A division was called for and votingresulted as folLows:—

For: Messrs. Anderson, MacLeod, Sim-cocks, Crellin; Kneale, Devereau,Sir Henry Sugden and the Speaker—8.

Against: Messrs. Kerruish, Radcliffe,Miss Thornton-Duesbery, Messrs.Spittall, Creer, F'aragher, Vereker,Corkish, Bell, Irving, Burke, Mac-Donald, Hislop —13.

The Speaker: The voting, hon. mem-bers. Eight votes cast in favour of theresolution and 13 against. The resoLutiontherefore fialls,. I think th~is is the appro-priate time for us to adjourn. We willresume ou~r work on the agemla at 2.30and, at that time, we will take theelections for the Cbuncil.

The House adjourned for lunch.

MR. IRi. E. S. KERRUISH AN~D.MR.W. Ei, QUAYLE ELECTED TO THE

COUNC'IL.

The Speaker: Now hon. members, wewill turn to item 1 on the Agenda whichis the election of two persons to serveas members of the Legislative Councilfrom the 1st November, 1970, for aperiod of eight years in the place ofMessrs C. C. McFee and J. H. ¹ohollswhose term of ofhce has in fact expired.Can I have nominations, please?

Mr. Andenson: Mr. Speaker, I rise topropose the hon. member for Ayre, MrEdward Kerruish.

Mr. Faragher: Mr. Speaker, I rise topropose Mr C. C. McFee. He has beena stalwart of support for many yearsand he is a man of wonderful drive,and I think it would be sad if we losthim.

Mr. Corkish: I w~ill second Mr. McFee.

Mr. Bell; Mr. Speaker, I rise to secondthe proposal of Mr. Edward Kerruish.Ice reason which I can give which the

.Proposal to send Contracts of Employment (Isle of Man) Bill to CommitteeRejected. —.Mr. R. E.:S. Kerruish and Mr. W. E. Quayle elected to the

Council


House probably are fully aware of !sthat he is a man wiho has the respect andadmiration of the House. This has beendemonstrated in no uncertain mannerin the very recent sittings of the House,and I am sure that when we are lookingfor a person to fill a vacancy we arespeaking about now, it is not my inten-t..'on that this nomination should in anyway conflict with the loyaltiesi that theHouse may feel with Mr. McFee's nomi-nation, but we are considering a

vacancy which has occurredi by theretirement from active political life oflVlr. Niicholls. I feel Shat if the Housewas honoured Mr. Kerruish wouldreciprocate by honouring this Housew.itih loyal representation on the manyissues which we do of necessity requirethe other House to look at. I feel isurethat the House wi'll support him. It wrillbe a deposit of our confidence whicihwill be very well founded.

Mr. Creer: I,move my colleague, Mr.W. E. Quayle. He has been a good"ervant to this House and he is

aiso next to you, sir, the seniormember of this House and he has donea lot of .good work. He would be a realKeys'an if he was elected.

Mr. Spittall: I would like to secondmy hon. colleague, Mr Quayle. Not onlyhas he been a goodi Keys man; I be-lieve that not only through his longservice in this particular House, butthrough his mature judgment which Ithink we have all heard 'here, he wouldbe a most valuable mem~ber of the UpperClham,ber.

Mr. Devereau: Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to support 1VLr Quayle's nomination.I do this because Mr. Quayle has hadtl'e misfortune of having been electedby this House in error and has in effectbeen a member of the Legislative Coun-cil for a period of one week. Now thisis in .no way his fault, and I feel theHouse has some duty to Mir. Quayle inthis respect. And I feel for my own parthonour bound to vote for Mr. Quayle as

a member.

Mr. Crellin: Mr. Speaker it was myintentiion this afternoon to re-nomiinatemy hon. colleague, my ihon. and learnedcolleague, Mr. Howard Simcocks. But asMr. Siimcocks has decided under thesecircumstances that he does not wish hisname to go forwaird, I will second theresoLution of my hon. colleague, Mr.Faragher, in respect of Mr. Cecil Mc-Fee. 1 am sure that he will do the Housea great service and I second him.

The Speaker: Are there any furthert.ominations, hon. members? I havethree names at th moment, those of Mr.Kerruish (Ayre), 1VLr. McFee and Mr.Quayle (Middle). If there are no furtherncrninations, we will proceed to balloton thoise names. Again, for the inforrn~a-tion of hon. members, I repeat, the nomi-natioos. They are those of 1Vh. Kerruish(Ayre), Mr. McFee andi Mr .Quiayle(Middle) Three candidates for twoseats.


The Speaker: The voting hon. mem-b rs, is as follows: —Mr. Kerruish, 21

votes; Mr. McFee, 12 votes", Mir. Quayle,,13 votes. Mr. K rruish and Mr. Quaylehave both received the necessary num-ber of votes to ensure their election.They are now successful in achieviiingtheir seats in the Legislative Council,and I congratulat'- them both.

Mr. Kerruish: Certain hon membershave got the privilege of being elevatedto the L gislative Council by the mem-bers of this House. Certain of themwe"e gooc Keys men. Others have saidthey are good honest men. At themoment you are looking at a very sur-prised man! (Laughter). Because I canassure you, sir. ever since I have hadthe hcnour of being... and I regard itas being an honour, of being a membernf thi= hon. Hous, I have always placedve"y high store upon the opinions of myhon. colleagues W~hen I have been elec-ted by the measure of votes that youhave just read out, sir, I must confessthat whilst' am not often accused! of

Mr. R. E. S. Kerruish and Mr. W. E. Quayle elected to the Council.


being short of wot.ds, I find great diff-icult in expressing my feelings at thismoment, except to say to all my col-leagues and you sir, a very sincere"thank you."

!Mr. Quayle. Mr.,Speaker, sir, my hon.friend'ays he was surprised; that wasmy attftud'e last week. This week I ammesmerised! I hope, sir, firstly, thatthis is legal and secondly, I suppose 'tis unique to be in, both .branches all inthe same week. Nevertheless, havinghad. some 29 votes cast in favour of mein a House af 24, I think tnis is quitean. effort! t do thank members sincerelyfor. what they have done. Lt has not,been an easy day four me and I thankthem for their compliment.

The !Sp'eaker: Hon. members, thatconcludes our election procedure andhon. members are entitled to exerc setheir diescretion and| stay in this Houseuntil such time as .they have signedtheir necessary papers to transfer themto another place. (Laughter).

Mr. ~Kerruish: Mr. Speaker, af ter avote of that nature I cannot think ofany more agreeable place to spend'herest of the afternoon, andk with yourpermission, s r, and the permission ofthe House .I would very much like toremain here for the rest of the session.

CONTRACTS OIF FIMiPLGYMENT(tIISiLE OF iMIAIN) BI'LL—CO~NMD'FiRATil'OiN O'F CILAU|SES—DEFKRRED

The Speaker: Now, hon. members, togo aback to our agenda, we had theContracts of Employment (Isle of Man)Bill, before us. We have rejectedreference ito a committee which wasproposed'y the hon. member forRushen. If the hon. member is ready toproceed with the clauses of this parti-cular Bill, we will proceed with theclauses of the Contracts of EmploymentBill.

Mr. Bell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.The position of the Bill when weadjourned its cons'deration at lunch-time, was that certain members pressedfor the matter to go to a committee,and other members .'believed that therewere certain descriptions in the Sche-dules and in relation to certain clauseswhich it would not Ibe unfair of them torequest my further time for a moredetailed explanat.'on or for the com-mittee treatment. Fortunately for thpassage of the iBill the comm;ttee ideawas rejected,,but I do want to:beabsolutely honest with the membersand,be fair, andk I would ask permissionof the House, Mr,Sneaker, to adjournnow further consideration. of. the clauseswhile I have prepared'or circulationto the members a more detailed explana-tory memorandum, particularly refer-ring to the effect of the Schedules. Ofcourse, I am obligedi to the hon. memberfor East, Douglas, whose support Ialways enjoy. (Laughter).,I refer, andI am off the record for sure, I refer toMr. Irving,,Mr.,Speaker, for his point-,ing,out that there .may possibly be someamendemnts to the references to the'Redundancy Payments, Bill. I did sayat the ~beg, nning, this was machinery inthe event of that Sill cbeing carried. Inthe event of the Redundancy Payments.Bill not having such a measure ofsupport as this one probably has, itwouldh ~be necessary for considerationand'ime for,its consideration as towhether the references to redundancypayment should be deleted and~ amendedbefore any further clauses are approved.I would'sk therefore, iMr. Speaker, thepermission of yourself and the Houseto withdraw further consideration onthose grounds.

Mr. Crellin: Mr.,Speaker, I wouldjust like to make one point. I am fully.!n accordh with the hon. member forSouth Douglas, Mr. Bell, the hon. moverof this Bill in this respect. I would'. liketo make it abundantly clear at thisstage that I do intend now, and~ I . ee

Contracts of Employment (Isle of Man) Bill —Consideration of Clauses—Deferred.

HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3. 197'0 K41

no treason why.I should alter my opinionon this at the present moment —tomove that the ~Schedule of this B!li wi'1go to a committee. Therefore i'ouldadjure the hon. mover oi this Bill-

1Vir. Bell: On, a ooint of order, Mr.Speaker, is this the 'Schedule ibefore us?

The 'Speaker: I would like to hear thehon. member cornpl te h s speech.

.Mr. Crellin: All I am saying is, Mr.Speaker, that that will be my intentionto do this, I will adjure the hon.member to give the fullest considerationto the auestioi of the Sched'ules to tb'sBill when he produces his explanatorymemorandum to us, which will in effectbe the same result as we could achievewere this Bill sent to a comm'tte,which ii thin~k it should, be at thisparticular stage. All I would ask is tha4this be taken in mind when ithe .hon.member produces his memorandum onthis Bill which I will welcome andwhich I will be glad: to receive.

Mr. 63ell': This I readily agree with,Mr.,Speaker.

The Soeaker: I take it then the Houseis prepared to accept this whichappears to be the commons ns cours

adjourn the disoussion on thismeasure to give members time totable amendments and for the hon.mern!ber prepare his memorand~um. Is itagreed ?

It was agreed.

REDUNN3~A!NANCY PAYMENTS BILLLA:I!D ON THE T,AMBLE FO'R S.X

.MONTIH'S

The Soeakcr: Now, sir, is it your wishto withdraw the Red~undancv PaymertsBi:11?

1VIr. 2 11: Mr. Speaker, there was aperiod of time when I thought that thet mperature of the House, and the;hinking of the House would not p.ve agreat deal of support to this Bill. I aid

inaicate that I was conscious of thispo.iticai picture, the scene. I have sin "e,now c e'er, read through the debates of1965 when the resoiution, which wasgiving eflect to the print!ng of this J3ill,was before both branches for di;scussion.I have also since taken note of tnecori espondence between the Trades.Council representing a consid'aib enumber of persons, and also t'h e r pre-sentations of the Emoioyers'ederationetc., etc. I think therefore,;Mr. Speaker,it would~ be wrong of myse.f, chary das I am to take the Bill through tl.House, to stumble even be'ore I ha, .reached the fir=-t hurdle, I ao in'.ena toattempt to get support for the Biii asprinted or as amended, and it is myhope, ~Mr.,Speaker, that when theContracts of Employment Bill does takea form acceptable to the House that Imay d i s c r e et 1 y or boldly pursuethe Redundancy Payments measureto link up with it, But it is n=t myintention at this sitting today, .iir.Speaker, ta embark on thai, course.beg leave of the House to furtheradjourn, consideration of the Reciun-dancy Payments Bill.

Mr, .irving: Mr. Soeaker, I won~'would you accept a n:ation that theRedund'ancy Payments Bill, 1970, belaid'n the table for the period of sixmonths?

The Speaker: Yes, sir,M'. Irving: In that case I mov that

the R dundancy Payments 8 ll, 19, 0,te laid on th t~b!e for a period oimoaths. I must be honest ard statau'.te c.'early that I be!i'eve this isparliamentary language for d'scharg. ngthe Bill for ever.

The So-aker: Is the:e a se"onci-=:?

Vir. Vereker: I beg to secona

lVir. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I must resistthe motion which is put to the Housein parliamentary form that the B~ill dolie on the table. I have very good reasonsfor this and this House should rot need

Redundancy Payments Bill —Laid on the Table for Six Months.

K42 HOUSE OF iKEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0

me to explahin whhat those reasons are.For thhe purpohses of the record, Mr.Speaker, this House has made a greattning when it has come to the questionof parity in social justice and socialreform. Only very recently I was, whithother members, called huhpon to suhphport

the Votes for 18 measure on the veryprinciple that it would be wrong for acountry so close to us as England or theUnited Kingdom to have this socialmeasure for its young people antd for ushere in the Island not to have it. Wealso intend introducing the Family Re-form Bill reducing the age of majorityfor legal and other purposes. It seems tome that if this House is sincere thhat

parity in social justice and the provi-sions which are, contained in this Billare somethhing lhhat we public1y .acknow-ledhge to be t'e hrhighhtful due of ourcitizens, that they can claim to be alsofir t-class citizens,andh not be in thesecond-class, this House can do no otherthian allow me to take jhhis Bhill forward,ia!1 let it may on the clauses or other-wise. I think that the motion toallow this to lie on the table is not fairto myself and is neither fair to inem-bers of the Isle of Man Trades Counchil,the T'rade Unions, the employed per-sohns, and even, Mr. Speaker, those per-..ohns not yet left school and in employ-ment. Thiis is a measure whose effectswill only be begun to be realised in thefuture. There will anted may be certainbenefits w'hich can be identified at thisp riod, but I would ask the House tor=cognise thhat to lie a Bill on thhe tahble,

a Bill w'hich has come iabout as a resultcf a Resoluthion in Tynwald and con-~~:derhation in hhExecutive 'Council anddirected to be introdhuced here is, in fact,worthy of more honourable treatmentthan this cowardly achievement of'aying on the table.

Mr. Simcocks: Mr. Speaker, I cannothelp feeling ihhat we should as well asconsidering those many organisationsmentioned, by the hon. member who hadintended to be in charge of this Bill.We also owe a responsibility to the elec-

torate. It is my belief, having regardto the general body of opinion withinthis House, that the opinion of the elec-torate which elected this House of Keyswas not a socialist opinion. But I wouldregard this Billl as ~being entirely a

so=ialist Bill. I would say that we shouldhave no misunderstanding whatever,that we should let it be known that bypassing this resolution moved by thehon. member for East Douglas, Mr.Irving, we are de facto d~ischarging aBill which does not reflect the opinionof those who ele"ted's. I think thatshould be placed firmly on record andlet the hon. mem~ber for South Douglasrealise that w'hatever the opinion of himhis former party and his friends mayhave the opinion of the 'people on thisI land is not ready for the RedundancyPayments Bfll.

Mr. Devereau: Tahe Redhundancy Pay-ments Bill, Mr. Speaker, may in Britainhave worked or half-worked. It has beenin effect since 1965 and it hash run intoall sorts of difficulties. There have been;,mendments almost in ev ry period ofthe Legislature thhat sat in the Commonssince, and it 'has been an almost un-worka'ble proposithion; it has led to allsorts of ill-advised things being done. Ife 1 that it is a measure of legislationtnat while it may fit in certain secthions

of the United Kingdom we are not readyfor it, we do not need it, we have not gotthe industry or anything else that is

nec ssary to op,rate a Bill of thisna,ure. I feel that thhe iprohposition to liethe Bill on the table is the right andproper one to take at this stage.

Mr. Corkish: Mr. Speaker, I am goingto oppose the recommendation that t'eBill lie on the table. We see in the pahper—we have haCh this papefi from theEmployers'ederation —that there is

no need for this Bill. Last week therewere 11 men ipaid'ff from the SteamPacket on the cargo

Mr. Creer: Time, and all!

Redundancy Payments Bill —Laid on the Table for Six Months.

HOUSE OF,KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0 K43

Mr. Corkish: They were paid oft. Theygot no compensation, they got no goldenhandshake. This Bill would have giventhem a golden handshake. We hear themember of Rushen, Mr. Simcocks, talk-inlg about a Socialist Government, andthat we, the electors of the Isle of Man,never put this forward. There is nopolicy in this House now; they do notknow where they are going half thetime. One time they @Bill vote for oneman, and the next minute they go andoppose him, the next minute they puthim up above —Mr. Bolton I am re-ferring to. There is no consistency atall about it.

The Speaker: Out of order. Would youkeep to the sulbject (Laughter).

Mr. Corkish: Well, Mr. Speaker, I amgoing to oppose the recommendation ofthe Bill lying on the table.

Tbe Speaker: Now, hon. memlbers, be-fore I put this resolution to the House,I want you to understand clearly thatthis situation is not .provided for in theStanding Orders in this form. However,it is provided that "if any case shall arisefor which provision is not made by theseStanding Orders, the procedure shall besuclh as the Speaker shall at the timedetermine." At the moment I am deter-mining that this is a proper procedureto follow; it is a parliamentary device tokill a Bill, bold it over for six months.It is recognised by Erskine May and assuch I rule it to be in order and. acceptit. I now put the resolution to the House.Those in 'avour please say aye, againstno.

A dlivision was called for and votingr:.ulted as follows:—

For: Messrs. Anderson, MacLeod,Keruish Radcliffe, Miss Thornton-Duesbery, Messrs. Spittall, Quayle,Creer, Simcocks, Crel1in, Vereker,rving, Burke, Devereau, Sir Her.ryug en and the Speaker —16.

Aga!not:,Messrs. Faragher, Callister,Co alan, Bell, ~calo MacDonaldand Hislop —7.

T'e Speaker: Sixteen votes in favourof the resolution and seven against. The

e olution carries. The Bill will lie ontne fable.

GROSS AND RATEABLE VALUES(SPECIAL VARIATIONS) BILLSECOND AND THIRD REA:DINGS

APPROVED.

The Speaker: Now, hon. members, wecome to item 7 which is the Gross andRateable Values (Special Vartat ons)Bill 1971, and I call upon the hon. mem-ber for Glenfaba, Mr. MacLeod, to takthe second reading.

Mr. MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, sir, inmoving the second reading of the Grossand Rateable Values (Special Varia-tions) Bill, 1971, on reading the Expla-natory Memorandum of the Bill I thinkthat the, general pucpose is very clearly;.et out. In a large nlumber of statutes,schemes, etc., persons who are ownersor even occupiers of certain propertiesare entitled to certain advantages ordisadvantages, as the case may be,accordinlg to the ratealble value of theirproperty. Set out in sub-paragraphs (a),(b) and (c) of paragraph 2 oi'he Expla-natory Memorandum are three ex-amples, and I believe that there aremany more. It must be obvious that asa result of the revaluations which arecurrently taking place the rateablevalues referred to in the various Sta-tutes, schemes, etc., wdhil no longer berealistic. For example, the rateable valueof property in the parish of Marown hasgone up by three or four times, andaccordingly there will be hardly a pro-p rty in that parish which wiII comeunde» the umbrella of the Tenants'ro-tection Act, 1963, referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2. As virtu-ally all the property in that parish willhave a rateable value in excess of F40.It would be wrong for a property thats cu.rently entitled to protection of that

Act to lose tlhat protection merely be-

Gross and Rateable Values (Special Variations) Bill —Second and ThirdReadings —Approved.


cause of the revaluation without anychange of the nature or the desirabilityof the property. Accordinigly, the Billgives power to She Governor, after con-sultation with the Assessment Board,to alter the figure of F40 in the

Tenants'rotectionAct, 1963, and also all theother suc'h figures in the various Acts,Sohemes, etc., so as to keep as far as

possible the same categoiry of property,etc., so that they are protected, etc., bythe Act. Turning to paragraph 2 of tiheExplanatory Memorandum you willgradually understand for a place I!ikethe Highlander the cost of a liquorlicence may be quadrupled and undersub-paragirapih (c) virtually every per-son who is the owner of a square yardof land will be entitled to a propertyvote. An Order or Ordevs by the Gover-nor which will be subject to approval byTynwald will put all these matters riight.The Governor can only maike anotherOrdeir subsequent to revaluation andcannot make another Order in respectof the same property until it has beenrevalued. As set out in claiuse 1, para.(2) by clause 1 (3) She Governor is pro-hibited from making or altering any ofthe figures except so far as possible toentitle She same type of property tocontinue and enjoy the protection orprivilege w'hich it would have done hadthere been no revaluation. Mr. Speaker,I beg to move the Second Reading of the'~ross and Rateable Values (SpecialVariations) Scheme.

Mr. Anderson: I beg to second, Mr.Speaker, and reserve my remarks.

Mr, Cirell inc Mir.,Spc4akcr, I tlhi nkeiveryone 'here w!ill na!tuii',ally supportthis Bill. It is a simple Bill. I do noitthink there is a great deal to it that iscontroversial. I would like to ask thehon. member whether in the event ofcertain properties which at the presentmoment are supported by a sum ofmicney w!h>'c'h hs governed iby—we will,ay for example —3d. rate can

be included.,May I give as anexample the Marashen C r e s c e n tEldeirly Pecnle's Home ini Port EriinThe Cbmibina!Siori Order says thait SheGove:n2nerit ccnitrkbuii:on to !!he annuaildeficiien!cy en tlh'is Elderly Pee!p.'.e's Homewu14 be gicverned to the eixtent Shait She3d. r!afei from tlhe loioa!1 authorities, thecombination authorities in, the area,oanniot take atwaIy from the gross tota!Io!f t!h'e de6caenlcy, the asnonnt o!f moriey.Eb therefore, v!ilhat 'halpipens is tibet theannual deficienicy says tlhat the corn-b!inialtiion riuthelriltl'es we'll iMy a 3d. ratea~d tlhat Giovernmenit wiilil pay tlhe re-!IJa!Inder. I .w o u Id 'have t'h o u g ht, tfhaitw'hen we ihave:a .Bill of this riia!ture itwoiullid 'be useful, iieailly, 5o Ihiave theisame sort of measure included. Becausewe have in front of us dieiciniialiislatiionccniing, and you Ihaive the reivalueiIIion.Fiaoh n!f iI!heise t!tuhgs i;s g!cuing to maike aice!riain anlcrroaly, ibeaaiuse iiin the 6'om-,b'i'nat!Icin Ordiclr—Ml'.c'h I wi!I'I granlt youis not any enactment of Tynwald, it isin a resolution of Tynwald, thereforeI w'ciuld Ir'Ike tp see wihe8 ecar riot thene.is an Act oif Tyniw!a!d w46ch proviidesfcr t'e s!arne scirt of idea. In, a re!soleti'cln of Tyn,w:aiLd we iiay i!hat!IIhiely willpay a 3d, rate. Unceir deoimiai!isaliiointhis v ill mean a 1.00 sort of rate. Underli.ll:e irevaliuiaition iiit mill mean soenethiingelse. I would not like it to be estab-I:Iisihed as!being a 3d. rate witlh the newvia'iluia!tI':cins; I w!oiu'lid niot 1!ike !it to beestablished as a 3.1np rate. I was.wcndcring whetiher there ia rioom .inithiis eciceÃeg,t lf!IItle Bliii!1 wh!idh is onlyreial)y coinicerned wii.t!h ria!teaib1e vallues,to inicliude somet!hung of th s n!a!turewihii.ch would iorevenit ilooall autlhoiili@esfrom ib'eKrig dbine fki!r a 3d. ra4e vtiKich.may weill amounit use!r decim!alrisa!tioniznd under new ra!teach'!e values forialbout ls. nate. You know what I nM.'an?I viculd like to know f'rom She ihon.m!over of tihis E'ill whe%eir such a thingicoiuM 'be iinicliudeld iri tlhlis Bi!ill.

Gross and Rateable Values (Special Variations) Bill —,Second and ThirdReadings —Approved.


iMr. Irviing: 1Vfjr. Sp'eaiker, s!ir, I do noteip!piose tihiiS Ball. This is a very reasonable Bill and one that we would expect.I .aan rathelr:as!haaneid to .see thait it isnelcessary Cor u!s ilai Che year 1970 Co

ha!vie ipaait (c) of the second piaragrapihof the Exiplanatoiry Memoirandum. Part(c) deaLs waCh Che quest(on cf votring,tba RegmeselnitaAAoin uf Nhe Peio!pie, andit confiaanS lhie're the fact t'hat anybodywho owns cir occuipiies any pro!pitywiiitih a groiss va6ue <f aiot iless Chan F8hias a vote.

Mr. Anderson: Nlot iin llhe Houise ofKeys.

Mr. IavA'ng: He !has iai vote, s!.'r, or s'he'!.izs i!in licica'I aut!hor sty e!ecti':one. I aan

r!eiiriinded of a documien!ti, a, puiblicaCion,wihiteh I hs!ve ziceeiiyed un the last fewd,ays f'rcm No!rt!bern Ire.aaid sizitting ouittl.e rew dia<al f!or pe!en!e 6'n Nor&erinIiieliand, t'hiat illhiere .lhiall '.be reCoran inIciaal auit'hcirity ek c ti!cia, Chere sbajl,be icine anar, one vote. So we are sooin,

gcfing to isee even Nortihern Ireland inw1.l:ich the sysA!can has 'teen critiicAsed!greiaitiy, wiide6y, goiing Co be well ahe'adcf lQ:e Isile cf .Main. We,aiim nciw in thep«ditliicn„aeciordlir!g Alo llhiis,,if orie ownszird occuipiies a oar oark sicece i'n Dou-gliais cne gets:a vote.,l knerw becaiuse Ioccupy a car:park space and I get a vote.I gizit equaliiity w!iCh iscane!one w'hosebus!re!as a'nld reaÃarace Ls An tihat

Wiard'ecauseI have a car park space. I amzehiaared cf i,t, 'Mir.,S!pe'akzir I do nioCklr!ciw w6!lait I cain dio when, th!e Oirderooaries a!Iioing. I suipipiose i!t on)y makes 'lit

wcai.e ff I vote iaaal!nst,the Order becza:!se tihe Ordler w!i16 iat i1'east !Aft iit up.But Cheni, iit wA11 oraly Llift at uio Aio Cheaanounit itlhiait everyA!hilng else ihas beenrlzhLed. I iam sorry Aio be faced wh'tlh Chas,

I do a!et wan,t to dtwe)ll cin the subject,but I cannot resist saying that such a.,ituation exists in .the Isle of .Man thata person gets a vote because they havea car park space in Douglas.

'Mr. Burke: Wlhy n!ot move an in-creiasB'?

Mr. Irvilng: I mould move it at 210,000if I t!houg6!t hon. mern!hers wou6d sup-pcct ane The second poiinit I wi.sh tomiaike—Ain Che Licensing Aot, 1961, I.

wia~l~l reea6I Aihiis Lr1ceinis/'ng Act, .tlh'e ratealbile va3ue not oagly affecCs the cost o'

a )i.'cain ce, iit aLOo,affects Cbl's suibjebtwbiiclh !fiat bee!a ilafeed recz!nitly La! someprosecution, that is of having a bar.This Act which is referred to here saysthat "unles the premises has a rateablevailue of 8200 they ciaraiot 'hiave,a barbut t'I ey oari lhiaive ia ilicence." Th',s to mym'iind iiis aibsoluCe6y iridiicu6ous. I said sofin 1961; I say t'e saare ag afin aiia.e yearslatter. If 4!hese Orders ccme be'fore me,particularly in the case of the LicensingAct on bars, 'I certainly intend to votezig!alqnst fhelm, %hie eiffeicit wf66 be Chiefhhlat m cist orzana pcs —I s6.!ould tlbfarkp~daicACioal'!y eveiry ipreanris'ee thalt hais aIicea!ice —w661 Ihiaive a ratea'ble value of6200:;p.d itihlzy i!i~<.IU h,alve a fbiar. I mouldrett cLcipose S.l's Pi!ail, This Hi1h cf course,cei 4 a6n! y i'n t!he Tendants'rotectionRict, fis peirfiecC!y iig'ht ain,d I i'nteind tosulppart Ait.

1VJr. Audierson: Just caie po:!nit en tiheraCinig of tl + nubli~c 6)ouses, Mr.Speaker. I d'o n ot Cl.l-'ink o'e shouldzi!suare itb!at neeessair!6y they are gciingto bio uip llhrzie re1nit somethA!n~ percdnlt, because liit is dione on an entrirelycafferen,t 'biasA!s. Tbe basais elf t'e ratingof a public house is done on gallonage.

Mr. Irving: I am r!o!t Ca!iktinig a!bauntpuib6ic 'hlouzes. I aan tlallking abouA:trairdaa.g iheuses and ihoCe!s.

iMir Ander5m: O!h, board!!aig houses.It lis done oai: galloaaage and niot on thepaizlml ses oii isauare fo!ciliaige llhe s-ime asis dlone cd mrlivatie Ihcusee. It is s!n ein-Cir'elly dlifferent siituiaC'lon. Therefore your!zed inct Cake ii!t it!or gr!ante'd t'hat th'ey~dllil go uip to 8200.

The Speaker: Does ainy ether hon.member wild tio spealk?

Gross and Rateable Values (Special Variations) Bill —,Second and ThirdReadings —Approved.


Mr, Callister: Mr. Speaker, I fail tounder'tand why we have got (b) and(c) in this Bill at all, or why it shouldhav been put in this way. The on.ypui pose of this, Bill so far as 1 amconcerned is to increase the rateablevalues, or the aliowanc for the rateablevalues., of 850 in Douglas and'40 else-

where so that the Rent Court can giveco.".side!ation to th cond''tions of. thattenant. I am not 'ntcreated at all n (b)or ("). At the same time i'his Billw.ll ach'eve the object of (a) ii wouldbe willing to support it.

which I thought would be a~bsolutely

uncontrovers al, but we find that we gettnese auestions about property vot s, ir,

has got nothing to do with that what-soever.

Mr. Irving; It is there,

Mr. MacLeod.: Yes, but never mind.. f you want to gat the property voteincreased~ you have always got a chanceto put a i «olution on, the TynwaldPaper or introduc a new Bill. I'think,lVfr. Speaker, those are all the questionsI have got to answer.

Mr. MacLeod: 1Vir. Speaker, if I mayan=-,we" the last ouestion first. I am notparticularly enamoured with 1!quoriic nices either. I do not care or.e waycr th other But tnis:is the law ard at

the present time those peo'c'e are

enjoying some sort of priv!les'ndthe:efoie it is right andh prone." thatth y should go on doing so. With r gardto Mr, Crellin and his question, aboutthe 3d. rate on Marashen, Crescent, thishas got nothing to do whatsoever withth! s.

Mr. Crellin: Do you want it to beinclud~ed~?

1Vir. MacLeod: Oh I do not think Icould include anyth'ng unless. you wartit put in an amendment or a new ciau"e.I would ad'v.'se you to take th s up withthe Assessment Board of which you area mem~ber.

Mr, Crellin: I am not! (Laughter).

Mr. MacLccd: I want to get th th:.ngdone right. With regard to:1Vir. irvingand this property vote, it is the law. atthe oiresent time and w are not s ek'rgto alter this law here. The only thing wear trying to do w'th this little Bill,

The',Speaker: The auestion,before theHouse is Th Gross any Rateab.eValues (iSpecial Variations) Bill be newreadt a second time. Those in I

avouch

please say aye, against no. The ayesnave it. Right, proc~ to the clauses,sir. C'lause l.

Mr. MacLeod:,Mr. Speaker, clause 1

gives power to the Gov rr.or to varygross and rateable values express . incertain enactments. Mr. Sp aker, I moveclause 1 stand part of the Biii,

lVfir. Anderson: I tbeg to second andreserve my remarks.

The Speaker: It is proposed andsecond~ed) that clause 1 stand part of'theBill. Those in favour please say aye,against no, The ayes have ~t. iClause 2.

Mr.;MacLeod'. Clause 2, Mr. Sp aker,the short tit.e and commencement, TheA"t shall come into operation when theRoyal Assenit has duly b n granted andannounced in Tynwald and a certificatthereof has been signed, by the Gov rz orand the Sp aker of the House cf Keys.I move clause 2 stan" ard part of theBill.

Mr. Anderson: I second, 1Vlr. Speak r.

The Speaker: It is proposed andseconded that clause 2 stand part of the

'Gross and Rateable Values . (Special Variation .) Bill —Second and ThirdReadings —Approved.

HOUSE OF KEYS, NOVEMBER 3, li)70 K47

Bill. Those in favour please say aye,

against no. The ayes have it. The Bill

read a second time.

IVIr, MacLeod,: lVIr. Speaker, as th! s

Bill is absolutely non-conitroversial . t

wou'd~ be a good~ time to get 't out of

the way andi I would ask for the

Susper sion oF Standing Orders for th:s

Bill to be read a third time.

Mr. Anderson: I beg to second.

Mr. Be'1: Mr Sneaker. ur ortunatelythe member in charge of thi ~Bi]1 used

the word "non-controversial" ibuit I can

assure him the question of Rating and

Valuation is a matter of great contro-

v "sy, not only with'n the Borough of

Douglas, but throughout the Island

generally.

Mr, MacLeod': That has got nothing todo with this. What are you talkingabout?

Mr. Bell: It is most essential, Mr.Spea'ker, that this Bill be niot read a

third time today and there is no urgencyfor it and '' would hone ihat the Housewould not be led'nto supporting themotion to give it a third reading.

The Speaker: The resolution is thatStanding Orders be su~nded toena'ble the third reading of thismeasure to be taken. Those in favourplease say aye, aga nst no. The ayeshave it..Will you proceed with the thirdreading, sir?

Mr. 1VIacLeod: Mr. Speaker, I movethat the Gross and Rateable Values(Special Variations) Bill be read a thirdtime.

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

Mr. Cretin: Mr. Speaker, I would liketo bring back this question that I asked.

I am not quite happy wiSh the answerthat the hon. member for Glenfaba gave

me on his movinig of the Bill because,

as I see it, nn paragraph 1, it says:'Where in any enactment the paymentof any sum of znoney or the amountthereof;s expre s d as ba!n" d'epen" ntupon a gross or rateaible value specifiedtherein, the Governor may, subject tothe, provisions of .this section, make ano:der varying the amount of that value."As I see it the question of the three-penny rate so far as the MarashenCrescent Elderly People's Home is con-cerned is a case in point and all I askthe hon. member, if he will

in charge of this Bill, investigatewhether Shere are others wihich are so

statutorily made because, in this parti-cular case, tbe threepenny rate onMarashen Crescent is an amount gearedto the rateable value Shat exists in theproperties of Port Erin, Port St. Mary,Rushen and Arbory and I would havethought Shat this is one of t'e situationswhere the Governor could make anOrder thereunder.

Mr. Corkish: That is what the Billasks him to do.

Mr. Crellin: 'So it would appear butwhat I as'kedi was whether or not Shiswas .possible and the aniswer I receivedfrom the hon. member for Glenfaba saidthat this has nothing to do with this Billwhatsoever and I contest that. I willsupport, of course, the third reading, abutI do ask him to look at this questionof houses and pevhaps one of his col-leagues can answer.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, speakingon the third reading we have agreed to,Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of sympathywith the position put forward by the

Gross and Rateable Values (Special Variations) Bill —.Second and ThirdReadings —Approved.

K48 HOUSE OF KE'YS, NOVEMBER 3, 197'0

hon.,member for Rushen, Mr. Crellin.We in the Peel and Western Dis-trict Housing Committee have ex-actly the same position, Mr. Speaker;also in your own constituency where theLaxey Housing scheme is, concerned.One will remember it very well whenthe then chairman of the Local Gov-ernment Board went to all the consti-tuencies and he placed the p=opositionbe.ore them that this was going to bebased on a threepenny rate. It was a

very reasonable thing to do but withthe increase in the values it is .a verydiffe ent kettle of fish entirely todayand whether this Mr. Speaker, is a

vehicle through which to change that ornot I do not know. Certainly it is some-thing tthat does want looking into andwants adjusting accordingly as has beenput forward on the original proposition,

Mr. Spittall: Mr. Speaker, speaking onentir ly the same subject. You have

already had the chairman of the Mara-shen Crescent and the chairman of thePeel and District and I am chairman ofthe Lonan and Laxey Committee onthea things and we enjoy the benefitpurposes of the threepenny rate. These

threepenny rates were imposed by reso-

luticin of Tynwald and not iby an Act of'gynwald and I believe the way to amendthem is by resoluton of Tynmald whenthe thing comes in and not by playinga,round with this Bill.

The Speaker: Would you reply, sir?

Mr. MacLeod: Well, 1VIr. Speaker,there is nothing to reply to.

The Speaker: Hon. mern'bers, I willput the question which is that the Gross

and Rateable Values (Special Varia-t'ons) Bill be now read a third time.

Those in favour please say aye, agamstro. The ayes have it, The B:ll read a

third time.

ISLE OF MAN CONSTITUTION BILLSECOND AND THIRD READINGS—APPROVED.

The Speaker: Now we come to the Isleof Man Constitution Bill of 1970 and Icall upon the hon. mem~ber for WestDouglas to take the second reading. Mr.Kneale.

Mr. Kneale: Mr. Speaker, this Billprovides that the Attorney-Generalwhilst remaining a member of Tynwaldand the Council and retaining his rightto speak the..ein shall 'be deprived of hisright to vote in either of t'hose bodies.

This is the third time that this matterhas come before this House and it is

as well to recap on its progress to date.It was in January 1969, the Con-stitutional Development Committee oft'his House, after long and careful con-sideration, presented a report to theHouse containing two further recom-mendations, one of which was that theAttorney-General, whilst remaining a

member of Tynwald and the Councilwith the right to speak should lose hisright to vote in both these bodies. Thisreport was adopted by the House onJanuary 28th, 19i69, by 22 votes to one.In February 1969 I introduced a Billwh'.ch embodied this recommendationand this was passed by the House with-out division, receivinig its third readingon 1VIarch 4th, 1969. The Bill then wentto the Legislative Council where it wasgiven a first reading and considerationwas then deferred. As no further atten-tion was given to it for several weeksth Keys Constitutional Committeeapproached the Governor and got it putto the top of the Legislative Council

Isle of Man Constitution Bill —Second and Third Readings —Approved.


agenda on June 3rd, 1969. There wasmore than a slight suspicion that theywere deliberately sitting on jt in thehope that it would not be dealt with atth,at session. 'Vhe Council threw out theclause dealing with the Attorney-General's vote. I gave notice on jlhe 24thJune, 1969, that I would re-introduce thematter again at the next session. Thiswas done on the 14th April, 1970, whenthis House took the first, second andthais?d readings which were passed with-out a division. The Bill then went to jlhe

Legislative Council where it was givena first reading on the 12th May —de-

feated at the second reading stage on

the 2nd June. A look at t'e debates

recorded in Hansard on those two occa-

sions indicate quite clearly the membershad either not read the Bill and~ the

Keys debates or they .'had failed tounderstand what they were reading. Thehon. member of Council, Mr. Nivison, is

quoted as saying "Now comes the mg-gestion virtually that She learned Attor-ney-General should be taken away,virtually taken away althcuoh he

would have the right to sit in

the same as the Clerk of Tynwaid, or

the same as the Clerk to the Council.The hon. member, 1Vlr. H. Radkcliffe, fol-lowed up this line of thought by sayingwe are discussing law. We are votingon laws and yet the one man who is

supposed to guide us will not be thereto do it in effect. He will be sitting by,and the hon. member Mr Nicholls con-

tinued the theme and said: "Even

though he is sitting in a back seat listen-

ing, sort of thing, waiting to be calledon when it pleases us to call on himit will not be the same as having theAttorney-General a member of She Coun-cil and free to speak his mind." SirRalph Stevenson asked questions aboutmatters which were not even contained

in She Bill and the only other memberwho spoke on the Bill was the hon.member Mr. Corkhill who said he wouldsupport the first readsng abut after thatit would be up to himself what he did(Laughter). I have made it quute clearfrom the very beginning that the Attor-ney-General would have the full Tight totake part .in, any debate in Tynwald orthe Council and give any viewers he likes,whet'her legal or otherwim, and this Billand its predecessors made th~is quiteclear. To suggest that if this Bill wasaccepted the Attorney-General would hein the same position as joe Clerk ofTyhwald or the Clerk of the Councilis ridiculous to say the least. The Coun-cG debate on the 2itd Jslne when thesecond reading was taken was a disgraceto any parliamentary body. Mr. McFee,the hon. mem~ber in c'harge of the Bill,made his second readying speech afterwthich the Governor Interrupted him.Now, I will read the entire debate thatfollowed:—

"The Governor: Did I hear you evokethat when a new Attorney-General is ap-pointed then you will change this Billback to give him a vote because you said,if you could elect or, if you could have asay in appointing the Attorney-General, as

far as I remember the Working Partyachieved just that, so I am not clear —thisis merely against the present holder?

Mr McFee: No, not at all. sir. I am nottalking of a personality. I—

The Governor: But you said that if youhad a say in the appointment —this wasexactly what the Working Party got for you.

Mr. Bolton: It has got mixed up some-how.

Mr. McFee: Your Excellency. what I meantwas we appoint instead of the Home Officeappoint.

Mr. Corkhill: Your Excellency, I thoughtthat Sir Ralph-

The Governor: But this is exactly whatthe Working Party is doing.

Mr. McFee: It hasn't gone that. far. has it?

Mr Bolton: This is a stratagem; would notmake a hair's difference if we did.



tihe ones itlhlait eire reiiervant iand I Inove

th!e scca+id rea!d'ing of tihe Isle of 1VLan

Cons!iiituti!on 3Mil, 1970.

IVIr. '.Mia!cDonaM: I!be!g i~ second M!r.

Spe4kex atrd ~e my nemiairkis.

lVlt. Crell%in,: .Mlr. ape,akev, I feel !I

.hiave etrjioy~, iais I tih!in'k, an~a!st o!f us

iaitwiays do„ Itihie st!edh o!f tihe h~. me!m

ibe!r f!oir West iDirxuigIas. I take ihiis a!rgu-

ment,s, logic'a!1, we!11 ordered,as tihey a!re

but I shall still vote against this Bi'll. Iknow very well andh I .remember wellhow he. castigated me at the last read-

ing of this Bill in the House some t''me

ago, because of the fact that I had motivefor a composite reform which includedtlhiy mica!su!re I Ihlave spoken, verystrongly in favour of it as a measureof oon~stitutiionall zeifiorm. I a!gre@, abut Ihave 'albw!ays,a'doip!ted the Mineizxle teratwhen a m asure comes before you whichhas a wealth of good and~ something withwih'i!c'h y'ou ia're ip!r!eip!aire!d to quibble„!i!ti,s ibeititer to vo,te a!nid syelak fo!r t'ewenl!tlt ef g!ood, !rather Wyatt aIbIout .tihe

(bi!t ef wlh!ich you are prey~ared t'o quib-!b(e,arid I i'pireipared to qu!i!bibIie inno uncertain terms upon this one. I

,ullid like i!he chain. hanover o!f tihe Biii!1

to appeal&'te xnan s'ince!r!e viietws:itic tibiainia!tter, fl Ibeiilieve ~It,t!he iBiill is w!rionigin,principle. As I see the role of theAttorney-General, you will recall thismorning, views were expressed~ by thehon. mem~ber for Midd'e, ivlr Creer, onthis very subject and I believe that wehave not really adkjusited the nosition o!!

the Attorney General in our Legislatureto suit our reauirements, but I do nothei eve that we will achieve that abjectpurely gaby deoriving him of his vote inthe Second Cham'ber. As I see t and Iagree with what the hon, member forWest Doug'las has said, that he is, infact, to a certain extent, th voice ofWhitehall in the Second Chamber. I

look upon him as cbeing fhe voice of

Her Majesty The hon. member forFa».'ouglaswill well recall that at our last

debate on this subiect I sa'd that Iwould sooner see His Excellency, theL eutenant-Governor taking less part in

the debates in the Legislative Counc.land leaving this to, what is virtually,the, mouthpiece of Whitehall.

,Mr mving: Out altogether.

Mr. Crellin: I would prefer to see the

Royal Assent given to non-controversialBills on the advic of the Attorr ey-

General by the Lieutenant-Goverror. Iwould prefer to see this happen. 1 thinkwe have got to move towards th!s trend.We have to move towards the situationwhere the Governor of th:s Isle has theproper amount of delegation of powerwhi h, to my mind, is conaucive to c=rown constitutional development. Ido not .believe at this stage, and .I amperfectly sincere about this, that thedepriving of the Attorney-General'vote is either nrogressive towards thatstage of which someday, I hope w shallreach, when, if we are to have theQueen's representative nere in theIsland, he will be .truly the Queen'representat ve and will be able toconvey the Royal Assent, or, that wewill proceedk in an entirely diN r ntdirection. I believe that the deprivingof the Attorney-General's vote at thisstag'=, in this stage of our Const;tutionalcevelopment, is, to a certain ext nt, awrong move, I wouldh sooner that ourLegislation was altered radically toensure the continued usefulness of theS cond Charriber. There are manypeople here —there are c rtain peo piehere in this House, who do not believein the Second Chamber; who feel thatthe Second Chamber in itself is an un-necessary adjunct to our legislativeprocedure. I do not agree with '.his atall, I believe that our Second Chamber



is necessary, desirable, essential 'and Itake due notice of the long and ',ortuouscare we have taken to ensure thatcertain persons are elected to it. Thepower, however, sir is in the - handsof the Keys and it is in the handsof the Keys to use and abuse andI would far sooner see the presenceof the Attorney-General in this particu-lar House tby some stage. I grant youthat we are 24 elected Keys and I willgrant you that his position here wouldbe, to ia certain extent, an anachronismand he would be a black sheep amongstplenty of white (Laughter), and plentyof black, too. I believe also that it wouldbe a far better thing 4f his influence wasfelt here than in the Council, but, 1

would not like to see that movementstarted purely and,simply gaby deprivinghim of his vote. If we say, for instance,Shat legislation should emanate flemthe Keys then I would like the advice ofthe Attorney to be here to guide us butso long as he remains the voice of HerMajesty in the Legislative C'ounctil tomy mind it is completely anomalous forhim to have a voice but not a vote andI,hope and I knew, that, to a certainextent, I.am whispering against thunderin hbis particular respect. I feel that theHouse should take nobice of this becauseI do not believe that this thing wasthrown out of the Council out of hand. Iwill grant you that what the hon. mem-ber for West Douglas has read is com-pletely condtemn~atory of the procedurecf the S cond Cham'ber, but I think it isalso fair to say that it is not always thecase and I would honestly urge theHouse before they accept this Bill anddismiss my plea out of hand that theytake due notice of ut.

Mr. Simcocks: Mr. Speaker, it was not.my intention to speak on this Bill origi-nally although 1 have supported it in

the past because I believe debat the im-portant thing to do is to maintain thepresence of the Attorney in the UpperChamber. I believe that the advice whichhe bas to offer is the sort of advice whichought to bd available to such a bodybut I also believe that it is not neces-sary for him to exercise a vote in orderto be able to give that advice. What par-ticularly ibreught me to my feet howeverwas the remark of my hon. and gallantcolleague in debat he would wish theAttorney-General to be the representa-tive of the Queen. You, Mr. Speaker,will have shared with me the expenience+:= n we found that the Queen, in fact,turned out to be in short —Miss AliceBacon, Mr. Richard Crossman and thetben Attorney-General or the Govern-ment who bappened to be in power atthe time, it would be exactly the same.The point is this —whether the Gov-ernment in the United Kingdom be leftor right it is the Government of theUnited Kingdom and Mr. Edward Heathhas made it perfeCtly clear to all andsund y that the main interest of thatGovernment and their clear interest istne good of the people of the UniitedKingcom. Therefore if we find that oncloser examination the Queen, Lord ofMann, turns out to be Ministers of zGovernment whose prime job is theinterests of the people of the UnitedKingdom rather than the people of theIsie of Man, I would say that I wouldbe somewhat apprehe~ve to find some-one fo,represent the Queen if that ~s

wno the Queen fs and we must not, Ithink, bs deluded into these thoughtsbhat the Atto.:ney-General occupies anyposition other than that he is there pri-marily to advise the Legislative Council.If he is there to advise the Council thatis per fectly sufficient, I believe, we,hould proceed with this Bill as here-

tofore.

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply.



Mr. Kneale: There is very little, sir.The hon. member for Slushen has an-swered virtually everything that MajorOrellin brought up. He did refer to myarguments as cbeing logical argumentsand well ordered. I would suggest thatthe views he put forward are completelyillogical and disordered and completely

out of line with what he has sa'd inthe past when the Constitutional Com-mittee's report came before this House.I would think that iihis is from the lasttime he spoke in similar terms —it isjust as well to remind him of what hedid say originally

Mr. Crellin: I told you I knew aboutthat.

Mr. Kneale: Mr, Simcocks pointedout. how many Queens he found whenhe went to London, but none of tl.emwore a crown. I think .it is time tnisfiouso firm.y underlined that theGovernor is a Hom Office appointmcrtand the Attorney-General is a HomeOffice appointment and the Attorney-General votes as he is told by theGovernor.

The Speaker: Hon. members tHresolution before the House is the Is'eof Man Constitution Bill be now read asecond time. Those in favour please sayaye, against no. The aves have it. TheBill read a second t:me. Would youproceed with the clauses, sir". Clause l.

Mr. Kneale: "In a true sense of demo-cracy and good government, to my mind,it is foolish tn have an assembly whichdoes not alwavs look at itself carefullyand with synthesis to make sure tha~t it.itself, is right. Ties move is not a movewhich has just recently occurred. Thisevolution has taken place, as my hon.and learned colleague whispered to me,over the past 150 years. This is a logicaldevelopment towards a better constitu-tion of our Government. I am perfectlysure that history will prove us correcttoday and I strongly support the resolu-tion."

Mr. Kneale: Clause 1, sir, makes . tquite c'ear that the Attorney~Generalshall cease to have the right to voteeither in Tynwald or the Council, but heshall continue to be a member of bothsuch bodies with save as aforasaid thesame right to speak therein as hereto-fore and the presence of the Attorney-General at a sitting of Tynwald or ofthe Council shall not reckon towardsthe constitution of a quorum of eithero: such bodies. I move clause 1 standpart of the Bill.

Mr. MacDonald: I second, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Crellin: But it was a compositeresolution.

Mr. Knea'e: It was a compositeresolution, it contained two recommen-dations and this was one of them. Whenthe hon. member talks about theAttorney-General being the voice of theQueen. well my hon. and learned friendMr. Simcocks could answer this. but itjust makes you wonder how naive ourhon. friend Major Crellin can be.

Mr. Bell: They have got even fairiesdown there new.

Sir Henry Sugden: Mr Speaker, Ifeel that th:s is asking too much of anindividual, that he should sit in ata .meeting of the Council and a meet-ing of Tynwald, but has no powers tovote If he was going to hav. a generalfactotum situation as that, he shouldalso sit in at the House of Keys andtherefore, Mr, Speaker, I oppose thisBill.

Mr. Burke: Mr. Speaker, aithough itsays that the Attorney-General shallcontinue to be a member of both .uchbodies with the same rights to sceak



there'.n as heretofore, I think it wouldbe agreed that he would be in a positionsometimes to speak and int'tuence insucn a way that even it mav not be

neces:ary for him to vote,

Mr. Crellin: Mr. Speaker, I shall notunder any circumstances step into thebreach and accuse the other side ofnaivety in this particular respect, butI would'nly add my contribut!on tothat of the hon, and gallant member forRamsey, Sir Henry, and I oppose clause

1 of this Bill.

considered necessary for the Attorney-General to take charge, I would pointout that in recent years the practice hasbe n that all legislation is started in theHouse of Keys, where it should start,and, it goes to the Second Charrber andthey are v'rtually a revising chamb.rand, as such, I feel that it is abso'iutelyessential to rraintain the Se "andCharinber,

Mr, Crellin: This is the way to do:t'?

Mr Kneale: This is one way to do it.Get rid of the Queen's vote.

The Speaker: Do you wish to reply.sir?

,IVIr. Kneale: Yes, very .briefly, Iwould remind members that one of thecut'es of the Attorney-General as laiddown and expressed in the report ofth Constitution Committee, was thatthe Attorney-General's duty was tocond'uct an6 defend if so required theBills ot the iinsular Government in bothHouses of the Legislature. Our ownStanding Orders allows us to invite himso to do and I think that this is qu teclear that he should have this right andprivilege, ibut I deny him the right tovote because we are the representativesof the people. We can oass, as we know,legislation .by 24 to nothing and~ we canend it up there and the Attorney-

General, if he is given .the right to voteup there, can, vote against it, Again Iwouid stress he Is not our Attorney-General, he is not the Isle of ManAttorney-General, he is Her Majesty'Attorney-General and we know whoHer Majesty is in the context when wego to see Her Majesty in Privv Council.I think it should also be underlined thatwhen neople were pressing for the needof the Attorney-General to:be even inthe Legislature, !n the LegislativeCouncil at, all. it was be" ause allGovernment legislation was introducedn the Legislative Council and it was

The Speaker: It is proposed andseconded that clause 1 stand part of theBill. Those in favour p!ease say aye,against no.

A division was called for arid votirgresulted as follows:—

For: Messrs. Anderson, Kerru:sh,Radclifte, Miss Thornton-Dues'"e y,Messrs. Spittall. Quayle, Creer,Faragher, .Simcocks, Vereker,Callister, Cork.;shi Bell, Irv'ng,Burke, Kneale. Devereau, 1Vlac-

Donald, Hislop and the Speaker —20.

Against Mr. Crellin and Sir HenrySugden —2.

The Speaker: The voting —20 votes infavour and two votes against, 'Theclause carries. Clause 2.

1Vlr. Kneale: Clause 2, sir, is citation,construction and commencement. Itdoes make it ouite clear that this Actshall come into operation wh n theRoyal Assent thereto has been given bythe Governor, announced to Tynwa! dand the certificate thereof has beensigned iby the Governor andi the Speakerof the House of Keys. I move that clausestand part of the Bill.

Mr. iMacDonald: I second, Mr. Speaker.



The S .eaker: t is prcpo ed andseconded that clau e 2 standi part of theB!1!. Those in favour please say aye,against no, The ayes have it, The Bill.ead a second time.

,Mr. Knea)e: Yes, I am orepared tochance my arm. This matter has teenbc'.cre us so often, The identical Bill,we have debated it at long length, bothat Constitutional report stage andthrough the var'ous stages —three read-ings through the Keys on two occas'onsand row the second reading on thiso"=as on. I ask for the suspension ofStanding Orders to enable us to takethe third reading.

Mr Burke: I beg to second.

The Speaker: The resolution is Stand-ing Orders be suspended to enable thethird reading of the Isle of ManConstitution Bill to be taken Doesanybody wish to sneak on this? If notI w'li put the ruestion. Those in favourp ea e say aye, against no. The ayeshave it. The resolution is carried. Willyou proceed, sir.

Mr. Knea!e: I formally move the thirdeading of the Isle of Man Constitution

Bill 1970, sir.

Mr. Burke: I second.

The Speaker: Any member wish tosp=ak on the third reading? If not I

will put the ouestion that the Is!e ofMan Constitution B!1 1970 be now reada third time. Those in favcur pieasesay aye, against no.

A divison was cal:ed for and votingresulted as fo!!ows:—

For: Messrs. Anderson. Kerru.sh,Radcliffe, Miss Thornton-Due hery,Messrs. Spittall, Quayle, Creer,Faragher, Simcocks, Vereker,Callister, Corkish, Bell. Irving,Burke, Kne ale, Devereau, M" c-Donald, Simcocks and the Speaker—20.

Against: Mr. Crellin and Sir H nrySugden —2.

The Sp aker: Twenty votes 'n favourand two votes against, so the thhdreading is carried. Now, hon. memibers,we have a certain amount of businessio transact in private. Wou!d 't meetyour wish s if we were row tc gc:ntoprivate session to c'!ear those mattersoff our agenda?

It was agreed.

The Speaker: In that case the Housewi;1 now sit in private and the publicbusiness will continue on Tuesaay nextat 11 a.m.


· report of proceemngs of house of keys douglas, tuesday, november 3, 1970. pre ent: the speaker...

Documents