Manx Herald Isle of Man: Tynwald fails to dispel Isle of Man’s status as a ‘Rogue State’

Tynwald fails to dispel Isle of Man’s status as a ‘Rogue State’
================================================================================
Herald Editor on 18 June, 2009 12:20:00
 
Tuesday afternoon’s sitting of Tynwald (16th June) produced further evidence
that, although the Isle of Man may have the longest running parliament in the
world, there is still a colossal way to go before the IOM can consider its
parliament has the integrity to match its longevity.
The IOM might not quite match Jersey for some of its out dated feudal practices,
or North Korea’s penchant for detonating nuclear bombs and imprisoning
journalists, but it does exhibit other traits characteristic of a ‘Rogue
State’.
Namely, when the authorities are called upon to scrutinize certain failed
administrative procedures, account for any deficiencies within them, and name
the parties responsible for the failure - it almost always manages to
demonstrate a world-leading expertise in finding nothing much wrong; and that no
one is required to be held accountable. Even Zimbabwe would be proud of the
record the IOM has for such travesties.
Needless to say this means the public tend to associate parliamentary
investigations with the words ‘whitewash’, ‘cover-up’,
‘passing-the-buck’ and a ‘waste of time’ etc.
During Tuesday afternoon’s session the Court briefly debated a Select
Committee Report in fewer minutes than the number of weeks (approx 75) it had
taken to prepare. Once again Members used the opportunity to demonstrate (with
the odd exception) their aptitude to dodge the issue whenever the whiff of
corruption and maladministration wafts their way.
The reference is of course to the debate on the ‘Report of the Select
Committee of Tynwald on the Affairs of Braddan Commissioners’; and
specifically the matter of “the involvement of the Clerk to Braddan Parish
Commissioners Mr C S Lewin, and the Braddan Parish Commissioners in the period
from 1st August 1999 until 30thJune 2006 concerning the draft Braddan Area Plan
and to identify the extent to which their involvement caused or contributed to
the Plan being terminated.”
Not only did the Committee fail to do this they also failed to adequately
explain why they believed they could not do so.
Furthermore, the remit of the Committee - which consisted of the Speaker of the
House of Keys, Steve Rodan, Alex Downie MLC and Onchan MHK Peter Karran –
called on them to have particular regard to five issues; not least the
requirement given “the circumstances regarding the sale of land owned by the
Clerk .. to make recommendations as to the advisability or suitability of the
Clerk to have had a continued involvement in the Plan’s process on behalf of
the Commissioners”; recommendations which the Committee glaringly failed to
provide.
The Committee also noticeably failed to adequately address numerous other
aspects of their remit; and some of their conclusions, based on the evidence
before them, are so perverse one has to wonder whether the evidence miraculously
rewrote itself into a different form when they read it.
To have concluded “that there is no deficiency attributable to the Department
of Local Government and the Environment which may have allowed improper or
unfair influence on the draft Braddan Plan” is so unbelievable we may as well
all accept the moon is made from green cheese and the earth is flat.
And where the evidence could be open to different interpretations or invites
more than one conclusion the Committee generally appears to have adopted a very
harmless or neutral option. In other words they essentially ducked making any
overtly adverse findings – even if they managed to find space to make
patronizing remarks, regarding the motives, of several of the parties who made
written submissions, and give oral evidence, to the Committee.
The only Member of Tynwald, during the debate, to openly challenge the
Committee, over the adequacy of the Report and their investigations, was Dudley
Butt MLC; a former senior police officer in the CID. He had clearly read the
Report, and the supporting documents in the Appendices, and brought to the
attention of the Members several extracts from the evidence contained within the
Report. He wondered why it appeared the Committee had not properly investigated
or explained these issues; or the ‘smoking guns’ as he referred to them,
which he suggested could be found on nearly every page.
Peter Karran belatedly tried to offer some explanation for the lack of an
investigation; essentially the lack of resources provided to the likes of Select
and the Public Accounts Committees to conduct a thorough job.
He also rather apologetically explained their conclusions - on certain matters
and allegations - should be viewed as more akin to the Scottish system of ‘not
proven’ rather than ‘not guilty’.
But, regrettably, this result leaves the issues - which it was thought would be
investigated to the point sufficient to make conclusive findings - hanging in
the air; and in the same way as the Professor Crow investigation and Report did
in regard to allegations surrounding the development at Mount Murray.
Support for the assertion, that the issues have not been ‘put to bed’ and
will continue to rumble on, can be found in the response to a reasonable inquiry
made by Middle MHK, Martyn Quayle. He asked why a draft of the Report had not
been supplied to interested parties, in advance of publication, to allow them to
an opportunity to comment on the content.
Mr Rodan stated, whilst acknowledging this would be the normal practise, they
expected several of the parties to disagree with their conclusions; but for
different reasons. He argued, as the recommendations are of a ‘general
nature’, only apply to the DLGE, and they were not about to change them, the
Committee could see no reason to do so.
So this is as clear an admission as you are likely to get, from a Select
Committee, they have done a rubbish job, and not what they were asked to do; and
so the doubts about the process will linger on.
But did any of the Members care enough to vote against receiving the Report and
its recommendations?
Yes you guessed right – none of them.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this Report though is the Committee’s
apparent inability to fully grasp the concept of ‘common law’ and ‘best
practise’ and how they apply in the Isle of Man.
The Report contains the inference, when it comes to common law judgements etc,
ignorance is a defence – and, if this is so, it is a clearly mistaken premise.
Ignorance of the ‘rules’, and external ‘best practise’ (where no Manx
‘equivalent’ is available) does not mean judges will discount them when
making their decisions.
Similarly, when public officials (particularly as they get higher up the ladder)
get things wrong they shouldn’t expect to be able to play the ‘I didn’t
know’ ‘trump card’ thinking it will let them off the hook.
Yet again the public of the IOM have been badly served by their parliament: fed
with a sham report that suits the purposes of the few but does a great
disservice to the majority.
The only way to sum up this shambles, as was predicted by Mr McKinney – one of
the people who gave evidence to the Committee – is the evidence presented was
“rubbished, or sidelined, or ignored, and swept under the Department’s
legendary carpet; not because I am wrong, but because truth and reality can
sometimes be unpalatable medicine for those in positions of authority to
accept.”
Further telling words on the matter come from the short input to debate by David
Callister MLC who, quoting Abraham Lincoln, succinctly said: “You can fool
some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.
The Manx Herald knows who has been fooled on this occasion; but we also know
there are many more people, among the wider public, who are not going to be
fooled by this Report.
Footnote:
It is acknowledged that the Manx Herald Editor is a serving Braddan Parish
Commissioner and is one of the parties that gave evidence, as an individual and
not as a representative of the Authority, to the Select Committee. The Manx
Herald wishes to make clear the views expressed in this article are not
necessarily the views of the Board of Braddan Parish Commissioners.