Southern Branch members regularly ask questions of our MHKs, on a variety of issues.
The first set (including responses) are:
In April, we wrote to all 24 MHKs asking the following questions:
1) Do you support restrictions on off island individual/commercial property ownership as a possible solution to the island’s housing issues?
2) Do you support a legislative change to employment terms and conditions of senior civil servants stipulating fixed term contracts of 4/5 years with performance analysis dictating contract renewal?
3) Do you support a potential ban on MHK/MLC/Civil servants holding private directorships and involvement in private membership organizations such as the freemasons/common purpose as a possible solution to conflict of interests/cronyism within local politics?
4) Do you support the removal of the “commercial confidentiality” clause (except in clearly defined exceptional circumstances) within Manx legislation as a way of allowing full access to information on public spending for the public and as a possible solution to overspends/excessive tendering from commercial contractors?
5) Do you support a change in the law that allows for criminal proceedings to commence against politicians and civil servants were there is clear evidence of misconduct within the role of public office?
6) How Satisfied are you that our decision making is entirely independent of Westminster (Ministry of Justice)- For example are you satisfied that all decision making during the Covid-19 crisis was undertaken on island and without influence from the UK’s Ministry of Justice? If you are not happy what solutions do you suggest to ensure greater independence in our decision making on island?
We only received replies from Jason Moorhouse, Juan Watterson, David Ashford, Stu Peters and Alex Allanson, for which we thank them. Their responses are published below:
Jason Moorhouse:
1) Do you support restrictions on off island individual/commercial property ownership as a possible solution to the island’s housing issues?
Not without any data!
The changes that were recently announced appear to be based on nothing more that the passing thoughts of politicians! To increase the charges on homebuyers and property investors without clear figure, about the level of this investment and the impact looks wrong.
Having contacted eleven local estate agents about these changes, many have raised concerns about the ‘unforeseen consequences’. This could have a negative impact on the number of homes that are available to rent and the cost of renting might increase as a consequence. I have raised this issue and asked the Minster Keys questions about recent changes..
2) Do you support a legislative change to employment terms and conditions of senior civil servants stipulating fixed term contracts of 4/5 years with performance analysis dictating contract renewal?
Yes! Given the levels of remuneration and the importance of these people remaining motivated and helping the Island to move forward.
3) Do you support a potential ban on MHK/MLC/Civil servants holding private directorships and involvement in private membership organizations such as the freemasons/common purpose as a possible solution to conflict of interests/cronyism within local politics?
This needs to be carefully assessed, it would be wrong to legislate merely on the ‘gut feelings’ of Tynwald Members.
4) Do you support the removal of the “commercial confidentiality” clause (except in clearly defined exceptional circumstances) within Manx legislation as a way of allowing full access to information on public spending for the public and as a possible solution to overspends/excessive tendering from commercial contractors?
The ‘Commercial Confidentiality’ clause has frustrated me on several occasions! I support maximum openness. There needs to be a level of ‘Commercial Confidentiality’ , but there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure that this can be ‘tested’ ensuring that Ministers don’t use the term to hide embarrassments…
5) Do you support a change in the law that allows for criminal proceedings to commence against politicians and civil servants were there is clear evidence of misconduct within the role of public office?
This looks good, but again the changes must be carefully considered, what checks will be in place to ensure this action isn’t been taken simply to discredit a politician or Civil Servant. The levels of evidence and initial checks will need to be significant.
6) How Satisfied are you that our decision making is entirely independent of Westminster (Ministry of Justice)- For example are you satisfied that all decision making during the Covid-19 crisis was undertaken on island and without influence from the UK’s Ministry of Justice? If you are not happy what solutions do you suggest to ensure greater independence in our decision making on island?
With regard to Covid, I did not see that evidence. However, the role of the UK’s Home Office on the development of the Medical Cannabis industry does appear to have hindered rather than helped. Is that influence being replicated in other areas? Hopefully not…
Juan Watterson:
1) Do you support restrictions on off island individual/commercial property ownership as a possible solution to the island’s housing issues?
I would certainly be happy to explore this possibility.
2) Do you support a legislative change to employment terms and conditions of senior civil servants stipulating fixed term contracts of 4/5 years with performance analysis dictating contract renewal?
I can’t think of too many civil servants who have done more than 5 years now, and whilst it seems like a good objective, I would be concerned that people who go in for limited term appointments price this into the contract. Potentially we could be paying more for something that might still not work. WE need to be far better at performance management throughout the public service, especially at the top.
3) Do you support a potential ban on MHK/MLC/Civil servants holding private directorships and involvement in private membership organizations such as the freemasons/common purpose as a possible solution to conflict of interests/cronyism within local politics?
I would suggest that sunlight is the best disinfectant. All memberships and directorships must be disclosed. This should make it far easier to spot and police conflicts of interest.
4) Do you support the removal of the “commercial confidentiality” clause (except in clearly defined exceptional circumstances) within Manx legislation as a way of allowing full access to information on public spending for the public and as a possible solution to overspends/excessive tendering from commercial contractors?
Yes. Although I doubt it will have the impact hoped for. Again though, there should be the ability to have a proper, well informed conversation about contract cost and deliverables without the shroud of secrecy.
5) Do you support a change in the law that allows for criminal proceedings to commence against politicians and civil servants where there is clear evidence of misconduct within the role of public office?
I would have no objection to such a Bill.
6) How Satisfied are you that our decision making is entirely independent of Westminster (Ministry of Justice)- For example are you satisfied that all decision making during the Covid-19 crisis was undertaken on island and without influence from the UK’s Ministry of Justice? If you are not happy what solutions do you suggest to ensure greater independence in our decision making on island?
Please see my evidence to the constitution, legal affairs and justice committee on this point.
David Ashford:
1) It would depend on what the restrictions are. For instance I would support a limit on the number of properties outside investors can purchase as buy to let and ring fencing of new estates for island residents. What I wouldn’t support is a blunt tool saying individuals off island can’t own a property, or setting a set income threshold to do so. That potentially deters inward investment and indeed Jersey has tried that model for several decades now and to be blunt its failed miserably. Their average house price is way excess of ours and it has not made it either more affordable or accessible for local buyers. Any limit would also need to ensure it did not harm the buy to let market. Rental properties are an important part of our housing mix and it has to be recognised there will always need to be a rental market as no matter what changes are made some people will not be able to afford their own homes to purchase, or indeed may not wish to purchase homes. From what I can see we are currently experiencing a shortage of available rental properties, which is actually driving market prices up as there is more demand for less and I would be concerned that any limit needs to ensure there is still adequate supply in the marketplace.
2) No. I believe such a change would mean those who are high performers would simply not apply for the positions and look elsewhere. If we are going to reform culture across government we need people who are top performers in their field. Why would anyone in their right mind who is good at their job or a top performer in their field apply for a role for five year period when they can go elsewhere and have more job security. I personally think it would simply mean the very people we want applying for these roles would not do so. However, the part I do agree with is performance analysis. All Civil Servants (regardless of rank) should be subject to an annual performance review and have set benchmarked targets to achieve related to their position. This would give a clear understanding of what is expected of them and there are already employment measures in place (including processes for dismissal) that could be utilised should such reviews show the person is not performing as expected.
3) No. the question comes from the point of view from the start that holding such positions creates cronyism. I can say in my 15 years as a local Councillor and MHK I’ve never seen such a thing. I personally think it’s important that MHK’s don’t get absorbed purely into the “Tynwald bubble” as I call it and understand what is happening in the real economy and community. I also think you would discourage very good and even exceptional candidates from coming forward if they felt they had to divest themselves of all their business interests. It also causes complications, so if there was a family business of which an elected member was a director would they have to resign? If they owned a small business would they have to sell or close it? Would transferring the business or directorship to a spouse be acceptable as that still effected means there is an interest? What about shareholdings, or controlling interests where someone isn’t a director but effectively controls a company is that acceptable? So it’s not as black and white as it first sounds.
In terms of private memberships for instance you mention the Freemasons. I’m happy to declare I am a member of Douglas Freemasons, as declared on my register of members interests and have been for over a decade (admittedly not having attended any meetings for a number of years now) but I can safely say I have never found it to be about doing “favours” or “helping someone” it’s about raising money for causes and providing companionship and caring for some who in fact otherwise in our community would be isolated. So the question is a bit biased as it comes from a predetermined stance on directorships and memberships.
In terms of MHKs/MLCs civil servants, there already is codes of conduct in place to govern any conflicts and if a conflict arises that is not declared, or indeed someone used their influence in the way the question is implying, there are serious consequences already. In terms of civil servants in the ultimate case dismissal and in the case of members suspension from the Court of Tynwald.
4) Again this question isn’t as simple as it sounds. It states removal apart from in “exceptional circumstances”. What would those circumstances be as that would dictate my answer. It also seems to come from the point of view that commercial confidentiality is there in order to keep things hidden from public view. The main purpose of commercial confidentiality is to ensure that people can’t use the information to their own personal advantage. Advantage that actually could disadvantage the taxpayer. So for instance if you had a company win a tender and that full tender has to be published it would show the complete breakdown of how that company had formulated that tender and their pricing structures. It would allow other companies to use that to their advantage in the future. So a company could request all the other tenders and actually increase their prices if they say other companies were bidding much higher than themselves. Equally, it wouldn’t just potentially compromise the pricing around government tenders but could expose wider company pricing structures which rivals could then use in their private sector bidding as well. It would likely lead to less companies wanting to bid for government tenders because they would not want their pricing structures exposed to their rivals and so concentrate on private sector work and as a result produce less competitive tenders and less value for money for the taxpayer. So it’s a double edged sword.
I would favour the scoring matrix from tender processes being public and an independent audit each year of a sample of government tenders to ensure the process is being run fairly and correctly. We have just appointed an Auditor General let’s put them to work.
5) Shortest answer of the day, absolutely! Misconduct in public office is a serious matter and should be treated as such and if criminal intent is shown prosecution should most certainly follow.
6) As the person who was Minister for Health & Social during Covid19 I can absolutely categorically say that our decision making was independent of the Ministry of Justice and the U.K. government. That’s clearly shown by the fact we took a different approach to testing, isolation and eradicated Covid from the island in 12 weeks and then internally operated normally from July 20 – January 21 whereas the U.K. lived under restrictions for nearly 18 months solid. It’s easy to forget that now. The concern I currently have with the constitutional situation is any member of the House of Commons (or indeed Lords) could try and bring forward an amendment or bill that impacts on the island as was shown with beneficial ownership a few years ago. It’s not purely the U.K. government that can legislate. I’m currently a member of the Constitution, Justice and Legal Affairs Committee that is undertaking a review into the Islands constitutional relationship and I’m not going to prejudge what the Committee will find, but all submissions would be welcome from individuals interested in this topic.
Stu Peters:
1) Do you support restrictions on off island individual/commercial property ownership as a possible solution to the island’s housing issues? Up to a certain value, yes. If people want to buy a half million pound plus home here I don’t think it skews the availability of FTB/affordable homes.
2) Do you support a legislative change to employment terms and conditions of senior civil servants stipulating fixed term contracts of 4/5 years with performance analysis dictating contract renewal? Not as such as good employees should enjoy some level of job security – but the ability to more easily remove underperforming officers would be useful.
3) Do you support a potential ban on MHK/MLC/Civil servants holding private directorships and involvement in private membership organizations such as the freemasons/common purpose as a possible solution to conflict of interests/cronyism within local politics?No – and I’m not ‘on the level’! As long as a politician declares any interest and potential conflict I don’t see a problem. I DO think an MHK/MLC should work full-time for Tynwald and not see politics as a part-time interest.
4) Do you support the removal of the “commercial confidentiality” clause (except in clearly defined exceptional circumstances) within Manx legislation as a way of allowing full access to information on public spending for the public and as a possible solution to overspends/excessive tendering from commercial contractors? Commercial confidentiality is important in getting good deals, and whilst transparency is a good thing it should never cost the taxpayer or give comfort to vexatious individuals.
5) Do you support a change in the law that allows for criminal proceedings to commence against politicians and civil servants were there is clear evidence of misconduct within the role of public office? If criminal intent can be proved, yes.
6) How Satisfied are you that our decision making is entirely independent of Westminster (Ministry of Justice)- For example are you satisfied that all decision making during the Covid-19 crisis was undertaken on island and without influence from the UK’s Ministry of Justice? If you are not happy what solutions do you suggest to ensure greater independence in our decision making on island? Our constitutional relationships have evolved over centuries of ‘custom and practice’ and for the most part work well and in our favour. I’m in the ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’ camp and would need to be convinced the IOM had suffered because of Westminster edicts (rather than general international pressures) before contemplating rocking that boat.
Alex Allanson:
1) Yes, this is why the land registration fees have recently been altered to accommodate this aim.
2) I support a review of the terms and conditions of public servants which has already commenced and support including CPD to allow career progression as well as annual appraisal.
3) I believe in a review of the Ministerial and Government code to further exclude conflicts of interest from decision making
4) I believe in a review of current financial regulations to ensure open and transparent procurement practices whilst retaining a degree of confidentiality to allow best value for the taxpayer
5) Where criminal offences have occurred, those responsible should be prosecuted
6) As a Crown dependency there needs to be interaction and cooperation with His majesty’s Government and MoJ
If you have any questions that you would like Liberal Vannin’s Southern Branch to ask on your behalf, please let us know