Joining the dots

Proceedings continued on Friday 15th April 2011 with Mr Jason Stanley and Mr Kevin O’Riordan from the Law Society and also Mr Wood, an advocate. References were again made to the size of the Bill: “hugely, complicated draft Bill and it is a hugely lengthy document as well,” and “complicated and lengthy.” Mr O’Riordan stated that it was increasingly the case that “we are presented with quite complicated amending legislation.” Comment manxasthehills2011: we are not alone in facing this problem and I hope to highlight this in a future blog. The problem seems to be that amendments have to be related to the original legislation whereas a clearer, consolidated document would be easier and quicker to deal with. This practice happens elsewhere and Mr O’Riordan mentioned that there might be an opportunity for the Isle of Man to stand up and be counted in trying to reverse the trend.

Mrs Cannell again raises the subject of smaller bills and how they might be dealt with more speedily. Mr Stanley agrees and Mr O’Riordan states that “larger and Indigestible” drafts “can slow the whole process up. Mr Gill states that he believes the Chief Secretary has accepted the wisdom of smaller, more accessible legislation where that is do-able and asks why that response to the consultation was ignored by the Department. Mr Stanley:I don’t know.

Asked if he was surprised that “you were not invited in by the Department for Home Affairs …to give you an opportunity to further expand upon your grave concerns?” Mr Stanley stated that he was not surprised because it is not something that ever happens. He confirmed that he would welcome more involvement in order to get the legislation right. Mr O’Riordan added that he doubted that every draft bill is sent to the Law Society as a matter of course.

Mr Gill referred to lifting legislation from the UK without bothering to “Manxify” it. He suggested it could be seen by some as “future proofing” legislation because it might be needed at some time “so give us the powers; we won’t abuse them.”

Mr Stanley and Mr O’Riordan were in agreement that a lot of provisions in the draft Bill have been lifted from England. Mr Stanley added that there “has been a lot of political influence, in terms of the criminal justice system and the criminal law in England, which perhaps is not quite as desirable and not quite so appropriate over here”

Mr Wood mentioned previous police training courses which have now been replaced by training “more attuned to the needs of the island.” Referring to the previous courses he added that he thought they had been applying rules and procedures that might well have gone down well in Manchester or Liverpool… The Chairman stated “we have heard that comment as an undercurrent right through this afternoon, haven’t we?”

OK – so now we seem to have confirmation that the consultation process is not completely balanced and you can see for yourself which side it leans to.

– It appears that little notice is taken of the Law Society and it also seems that the Law Society is not routinely informed of draft legislation.
– We have further references to large bills when it seems that smaller less complex bills would take up much less time and would probably be dealt with much quicker.
– It seems that the legislation is presented as a list of amendments rather than a consolidated draft.
– References are made to lifting UK legislation
– We also hear mention “of applying rules and procedures that might well have gone down well in Manchester or Liverpool…” I think we could view these as inappropriate. Line up the above with the previous references to
– meetings held between the MoJ and Isle of Man counterparts of which generally no records are kept,
– the Minister’s views on his duties as a facilitator and the admitted challenge of getting his head round the contents of the Bill,
– the requests of the official in charge to submit written answers and refer some questions to the Chief Constable

What does it tell us? I would suggest it tells us to wake up. This is my reason for typing regular blog posts. Why isn’t our media covering this in detail? That has to be an important issue. What is of more importance – whether or not a tent was hired for the Bay Festival, or whether there is a real risk to our freedom if things are not changed at the top?

Link:
http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/early/committee/epkcjb150411.pdf
Remember these documents can all be viewed on line. They are worth reading. I doubt that we will gain real insights into how things really work if we restrict ourselves to the exclusive consumption of stories in mainstream local media.

You’ve got the picture – ask your candidates the questions. Please