REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF KEYS (LEGISLATION AND OTHER MATTERS)

Transcription

1 Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. Printed by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF KEYS (LEGISLATION AND OTHER MATTERS) Douglas, Tuesday, 28th January 2003 at a.m. Present: The Speaker (the Hon. J A Brown) (Castletown); Mr D M Anderson (Glenfaba); Hon. A R Bell and Mr L I Singer (Ramsey); Mr R E Quine OBE (Ayre); Mr J D Q Cannan (Michael); Mrs H Hannan (Peel); Hon. S C Rodan (Garff); Hon. R K Corkill and Mr A J Earnshaw (Onchan); Mr G M Quayle (Middle); Mr J R Houghton and Mr R W Henderson (Douglas North); Hon. D C Cretney and Mr A C Duggan (Douglas South); Hon. R P Braidwood and Mrs B J Cannell (Douglas East); Hon. A F Downie and Hon. J P Shimmin (Douglas West); Capt. A C Douglas (Malew and Santon); Hon. J Rimington, Mr Q B Gill and Hon. P M Crowe (Rushen); with Mr M Cornwell-Kelly, Secretary of the House. The Chaplain took the prayers. Items Considered Welcome to High Commissioner and First Secretary of Namibia K 206 Tribute to the Late Peter Alfred Craine, Former MHK K 206 Bills for First Reading K 206 Submarine Cables Bill Clauses Considered K 206 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill Consideration of Clauses Commenced K 210 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill Consideration of Clauses Continued K 222 Leave of Absence Granted K 223 Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill Consideration of Clauses Concluded K 223 Standing Orders Committee First Report Received Recommendations Approved K 238 Electronic Voting in the Chamber Standing Orders Committee Report Received Recommendation K 240 Approved

2 Welcome to High Commissioner and First Secretary of Namibia The Speaker: Hon. members, it gives me pleasure to welcome the High Commissioner from Namibia, Her Excellency Miss Nashandi and the First Secretary, Mr Josob. We hope you enjoy your time with us in the House this morning and that you enjoy your time in the Isle of Man, your Excellency. Members: Hear, hear. Tribute to the Late Peter Alfred Craine, Former MHK The Speaker: Now, hon. members, as hon. members are aware, former member of the House of Keys Mr Peter Alfred Craine passed away on 5th January Peter was a member of the House of Keys from 1976 to 1981 and represented the constituency of Douglas South. Peter Craine was born in Douglas on 30th November 1931 and he lived and was educated in Douglas, attending Douglas High School for Boys. He married his wife June in 1953 and they had two children, Diane and David, and four grandchildren. During his time as a member of the House, Peter Craine served as Chairman of the Assessment Board and the Sea Fisheries Advisory Committee. He also served as a member of the following boards of Tynwald: Agriculture and Fisheries, and Forestry, Mines and Lands, and he was vice-chairman of the Manx Electric Railway Board. Peter Craine was also appointed a member of Tynwald s Unemployment Committee during , this being a time when the Island was starting to experience high unemployment. At the 1981 House of Keys general election he was unsuccessful in being re-elected. However, his interest in public life meant that it was not long before he returned to politics, being elected to serve as a councillor on the Douglas Corporation from 1985 until 1992, when he decided to retire from politics. In 1991 he was elected to be Mayor of Douglas and with his wife June they represented their town honourably and with much pride. Peter Craine had a number of interests. He was a member of the Manx Museum and National Trust. He was a founder member and past president of the Heavy Horse Society and vice-chairman and director of the Isle of Man Home of Rest for Old Horses. As well as his love for horses his interests also covered singing, sailing, photography, railways, ornithology, philately and rifle shooting. Peter Craine was a true and proud Manxman and he is the only person to date to be elected to the House of Keys as a Manx nationalist, standing in the 1976 general election as a member of Mec Vannin, the Manx nationalist party, and successfully gaining a seat in Douglas South. As a member of the Keys he also played a vital rôle in promoting and securing the government s purchase of the then privately owned Isle of Man Railway, which at that time was going through a most difficult stage in its history. There can be no doubt that without his intervention in helping to persuade Tynwald to agree to the purchase of this unique and much loved railway, which brings so much pleasure to so many people, it would have been lost to the Island for ever. The Isle of Man and this House was fortunate indeed to have had such a true Manxman willing to serve his town and his Island. Hon. members, on behalf of the House I extend our condolences to June and the family at their sad loss, a loss that we all share. Hon. members, let us now stand for a moment in remembrance and in honour of a friend and former member of the House of Keys, Manninagh Dooie, Mr Peter Alfred Craine. The House stood in silence. The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. Questions were taken at this point and concluded at a.m. They are published separately. Bills for First Reading The Speaker: Hon. members, now we go on to item 3 on the order paper, Bills for first reading and I call on the Secretary to the House. Secretary: Mr Speaker, there are four Bills for first reading. They are the Inquiries (Evidence) Bill introduced by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill; the Fireworks Bill introduced by the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie; the European Communities (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. member for Onchan, Mr Corkill; and the Litter (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Submarine Cables Bill Clauses Considered The Speaker: Hon. members, we now go on to item 4 on the order paper, Bills for consideration of clauses, and I call on the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin Submarine Cables Bill, clause 1, sir, and schedule 2. Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The second reading of this Bill was taken in December. All hon. members should have received explanatory notes and there were no questions addressed at the second reading stage, sir. As means of reminder and introduction, the Submarine Cables Bill is intended to fill a gap in Manx law whereby there is currently no statutory K206

3 requirement to provide controls in respect of laying of submarine cables within territorial waters. The legislative framework of the Bill is similar to that applying to pipelines. Under the stewardship of the DoT the Bill will strengthen the department s ability to control activities and will achieve specified standards in Manx territorial waters. This would be instead of relying on the good will of owners and contractors working voluntarily to establish good practice. The Bill and the regulations leading from it would require those proposing to lay a cable to apply to the department to be granted an authorisation for such works. This would require the applicant to provide information such as an environmental impact assessment, survey data, project layout et cetera. In spite of there being no financial implications to the department in respect of the Bill, it does, however, provide for regulations to be made to provide for licence or inspection fees. Moving to clause 1, sir, along with schedules 1 and 2, this prohibits the laying of a cable within territorial waters without an authorisation issued by the DoT and provision is made for applications for authorisations to be issued. The authorisation mechanism is based on part 3 of the UK Petroleum Act 1998 which relates to submarine pipelines and applies to the Isle of Man. Schedule 1 sets out the procedure for granting authorisations. The department is unable to make regulations requiring Tynwald approval as to applications for authorisations which may include provision for application fees. In the first instance, the department can decide whether to consider the application, in which case it is to give directions and would require the applicant to publicise the application. Alternatively the department could reject the application and would normally give its reasons for doing so. If my department thinks that the proposed route of the cable should be altered, we can notify the applicant and the applicant can request a hearing by an appointed person if the applicant disputes a notification. The department may, if it wishes, hold an inquiry into the application once it has decided to consider it and the applicant has publicised it. An appointed person chosen for the purpose will hold the inquiry and the applicant, any persons who made representations in response of the publicity and any other person who the department thinks has a vested interest in it are entitled to appear. The appointed person can allow anyone else to appear at his or her discretion and shall consider the question of an altered route if the proposed cable route has been raised by the department. He or she is to report to the department and shall send a copy of the report to the applicant and other parties. Provided the applicant has complied with any directions and the department has considered any representations the department shall make a decision on the application. The department shall notify the applicant and certain other persons of its decision and, if it decides to reject the application, give its reasons, except where it would be against the national interest to do so. Following this, the department is required to give certain persons details of the authorisation and to give public notice of it. Subclause (3) enables the department to include terms in an authorisation including terms relating to matters in schedule 2 which are as follows: its duration; who may carry out works under it; the route of the cable; the limits within which works may be carried out; the design and capacity of the cable; what the cable may carry electricity could be at a stated voltage, or telecommunications; what is to be done to reduce interference with fishing et cetera; the removal of the cable on the termination of the authorisation; the giving of a bond or guarantee to secure the performance of the holder s obligations; insurance against loss or damage caused by an escape of electricity; transactions, for example leases or assignments, relating to the cable which require the department s consent; restrictions on who may require interest in the cable, how and by whom the cable is to be operated, information to be provided and directions by the department. I beg to move clause 1 and schedules 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second that, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Could I ask the hon. minister: in determining any decision on the conditions that have to be applied these will be based, no doubt, on the environmental assessment that is provided to the department is that environmental assessment provided by the applicant or is it done independently by the department or the department s agents? Perhaps the argument might be that the applicant s environmental assessment might perhaps be different to that which would be provided independently. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin, to reply to clause 1 and schedules 1 and 2. Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, it is my understanding that the applicant would have the environmental assessment completed. I will confirm that for the third reading, sir. the House is that clause 1 and schedules 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, hon. member. K207

4 Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 2: provision is made for an authorisation to be terminated at a time provided for in the authorisation by agreement between the department and the authorisation holder or following the contravention of the authorisation terms. Furthermore, the department can terminate a licence by giving notice to the holder if the works have not begun within the time prescribed, which is normally three years from the commencement of the authorisation, but this may be extended on application by the holder. Notice of an application for the extension of time is to be served on certain persons and the department must consider any representations they make. The department can by notice terminate an authorisation where the holder has contravened its authorisation terms, but the department must give the holder an opportunity to make representations before taking action. Provided that it would be unreasonable to do so and the holder has taken steps to prevent future contraventions, the department is prevented from taking action. Public notice of the termination of an authorisation is required to be given by the department, and the terms of an authorisation can be enforced against the former holder even though the authorisation has terminated. I beg to move, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 3, sir. Mr Shimmin: In clause 3 the department may make safety regulations with respect to submarine cables which would require Tynwald approval. The regulations can apply to vessels et cetera in the area and operations or work in the sea or on or below the seabed. Particular matters with which regulations can deal are: measures for the safety of the cable and associated apparatus; safety measures when cable laying, maintenance et cetera is in progress; the movement of vessels and the precautions they must take in the area; the way in which or the place where any operations are to be carried out. This legislation is based on the Mineral Workings Offshore Installations Isle of Man Act Other regulation-making powers are not curtailed by this, in particular powers under health and safety legislation and shipping legislation. I beg to move clause 3 stand part of the Bill, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I just clarify: who will actually enforce these regulations? The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Shimmin, to reply. Mr Shimmin: The authorisation of the regulations will be undertaken by my department, and that may be assigned to the territorial seas committee or directly by myself, sir. the House is that clause 3 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 4, sir. Mr Shimmin: Clause 4 enables a breach of safety regulations under clause 3 to give rise to civil liability for compensation for personal injury caused by the breach. This enables a breach of safety regulations under clause 3 to give rise to civil liability for compensation, but only if the regulations so provide and only for personal injury caused by the breach. Civil liability extends to cover liability under the Fatal Accidents Act to the dependents of a person whose death is caused by the breach of regulations. It is made clear that clause 1 and 2 do not affect any liability which may arise otherwise, such as liability for negligence of common law. There is provision so that where regulations provide for a special defence such as due diligence to be available in criminal proceedings for a breach of regulations. That defence is not available in civil proceedings either under clauses 1 and 2 or at common law. For interpretation purposes the personal injury for the purposes of clause 1 is defined to include disease, mental disorder and death. I beg to move, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Could I suggest, hon. member, that we take clauses 5 and 6 together? Mr Shimmin: Certainly, Mr Speaker. Clause 5 makes it an offence to break or injure a cable in territorial waters. This corresponds to provisions as contained in article 113 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which applies to cables under the high seas. It is an offence and penalties are applicable to break or injure a cable in territorial waters or to act in such a way as to be likely to do so. An exception to this is if action is taken to K208

5 save life or one s ship, provided that all necessary precautions were taken. Clause 6 means that a person laying or repairing a cable is liable for any damage caused to another cable or pipeline. A mariner, provided he has taken proper precautions, is given the right to claim against the holder of the authorisation for anchors, nets or gear lost as a result of fouling a cable. This is a correspondent provision to articles 114 and 115 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I beg to move clauses 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks. the House is that clauses 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 7, sir. Mr Shimmin: This clause enables regulations to be made giving powers to authorised persons such as inspectors and the facilities to be accorded to them to assist the department in carrying the Bill into effect. The regulations would require Tynwald approval. I beg to move, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second, Mr Speaker, and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 8, hon. member. Mr Shimmin: Clause 8 creates offences under the Bill, provides for penalties and gives the department power to require contraventions to be remedied and to carry out works itself in default. Certain contraventions are a criminal offence such as: (a) laying a cable without an authorisation or otherwise than in accordance with its terms or damaging cables; or (b) making false statements to obtain an authorisation but to induce the department to act or not to act under clause 2. Mr Speaker, prosecutions for offences are to be brought and are triable either by magistrates or deemsters in the Court of General Gaol and carry up to two years and/or an unlimited fine, and the department must serve a notice requiring an authorised cable to be removed. This obliges the recipient to comply with a notice, and the department may act in default and recover the costs from him or her. Emergency powers are given to the department to remove an unauthorised cable, and the department is given the power to recover the cost from the person responsible. The fact that something was done pursuant to subclauses (3), (4) or (5) does not exempt the person responsible from civil liability for any loss or damage caused where the loss or damage was caused by the department in exercising its powers under (4) or (5). It can claim to be indemnified by the person responsible. I beg to move clause 8 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 9, hon. member. Mr Shimmin: Clause 9 contains miscellaneous provisions relating to criminal proceedings for offence under the Bill or regulations. An offence is to be treated as if it were committed in the Island, thus avoiding problems over the course of jurisdiction. Private prosecutions are prevented for offences under the Bill or regulations, except for offences under clause 5(1), or regulations as to powers of authorised persons. However, it is a defence to prove that an act took place outside territorial waters, not for the prosecution to prove that it took place within them. Proceedings can be taken against the directors or officials responsible as well as against a company. There is a general defence of due diligence for failing to comply with the terms of an authorisation. I beg to move clause 9 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 9 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Hon. member, can we take clauses 10 and 11 together, please? Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 10 makes a general provision for regulations under the Bill such as safety regulations and regulations as to powers of authorised persons. Exceptions from the Bill are existing cables and applications. The department must consult interested parties before making any regulations. Regulations to create offences are to be limited in their application to provide for inspection fees et cetera and to contain supplemental and transitional provisions. The department can make regulations which require Tynwald approval, excepting specified kinds of cable, either generally or subject to conditions. K209

6 Clause 11 provides for the interpretation of the Bill. Saving provisions are made so that no civil claim for compensation can be made for breach of the Bill or regulations, except as provided by clause 4 in relation to safety regulations under clause 3. Other statutory restrictions and other civil or criminal remedies are not effected. I beg to move clause 10 and 11 stand part of the Bill. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 10 and 11 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 12, hon. member. Mr Shimmin: Mr Speaker, clause 12 provides for the short title of commencement of the Bill and its application to existing cables laid in territorial waters. I beg to move clause 12 stand part of the Bill, sir. The Speaker: Hon. member for Malew and Santon. Capt. Douglas: Mr Speaker, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. the House is that clause 12 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Submarine Cables Bill. Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill Consideration of Clauses Commenced The Speaker: We now move on to item 4.2, and that is the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill. Hon. member for Douglas East, Mr Braidwood clause 1, sir. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I commence the clauses stage of the Bill I would like to remind hon. members what I said at the second reading of the Bill last month: much of what is included in the Bill is not new. It re-enacts those provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990 which remain necessary, with a number of modifications, for example applying provisions to all categories of international terrorism and not restricting them to the affairs of Northern Ireland. In brief, the Anti-Terrorism and Crime Bill updates the Island laws by: introducing measures to proscribe terrorist organisations dealing with fund raising and other means of support for terrorism; providing greater powers so the police investigator can arrest terrorist suspects; introducing ancillary offences for terrorist weapons, training and directing terrorist organisation; providing the Treasury with new freezing orders and powers, including the power to freeze assets related to terrorism; introducing new powers in regard to the disclosure of terroristrelated information by public bodies; providing new offences for bomb and substance threats; and dealing with international bribery and corruption. Mr Speaker, the Bill is based on the Anti-Terrorism Act 2000 of Parliament and some of the provisions of the Anti- Terrorism and Crime and Security Act 2001 of Parliament. Clause 1, sir: under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990, terrorism means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear. The definition in the Prevention of Terrorism Act is limited in that the powers and offences in that Act only apply to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, Irish terrorism or Irish and international terrorism. The Bill adopts a wider definition, recognising that terrorism may have religious or ideological as well as political motivation, and covering actions which might not be violent in themselves but which can in a modern society have a devastating impact. These could include interfering with supply of water or power where life, health or safety may be put at risk. Subsection (2)(e) covers the disrupting of key computer systems. Subsection (3) provides that where action involves firearms or explosives, it does not have to be designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public to be included in the definition. This is to ensure that, for instance, the assassination of key individuals is covered. Subsection (4) provides for the definition to cover terrorism not only within the Island but throughout the world. This is implicit in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but the Bill makes it explicit. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. sir. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks, The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. Could I ask the minister: who is to decide, under section (4), what action happens which could bring this legislation into being? It states, Action includes action outside the Island lots of things happen outside, so why and when would this Bill come into being under this legislation? Could I also ask the minister he suggested that it was terrorism for political ends why it has not been necessary just to change the legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism Act that is still in being, to include all K210

7 Acts? Why does it need to bring in legislation which, in actual fact, re-enacts the Act of Parliament and does not re-enact the Prevention of Terrorism Act that is our own Act, when it does not recognise some human rights and other issues? Mr Braidwood, to reply to clause 1. Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, the definition in this Bill has been widened because it represents a reasonable definition of terrorism. The thing about terrorism is that it is very often a crime committed for particular terrorist purposes. In the absence of this purpose, it becomes an ordinary crime; the overlap is inevitable. On the action which includes action that is outside the Isle of Man, I presume that if there is any terrorist action taken by an organisation, then that would be one of the proscribed organisations which would be in schedule 2 of the Act of Parliament 2001, which would apply in the Isle of Man, and that terrorist organisation would then be banned. the House is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 2, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The proscription régime under the Bill differs from the Act it replaces as follows: the Prevention of Terrorism Act listed the organisations that are proscribed gave a power to amend the list by order. The Bill treats as proscribed organisations those that are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 of Parliament. This will ensure consistency between the jurisdictions and avoids the need for complicated appeal procedures for those appealing against proscription. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act proscription is only applicable to organisations concerned in Irish terrorism. Proscription under the Bill can cover organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism. Proscribed organisations are those listed from time to time in schedule 2 of the UK Terrorism Act The UK schedule can include any organisation deemed to merit proscription and it will be proscribed throughout the whole of the UK. Subsection (3) imposes an obligation for the governing council to maintain a public list of proscribed organisations and to publish alterations to the list. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. Mr Gill: Sir, I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer. Mr Singer: Could I ask the hon. minister: do we comply only with the United Kingdom government list or if we felt that a particular organisation should be proscribed for whatever reason within the Isle of Man would we not be able to do that on our own? Would it have to be approved by the UK Government? The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. It is interesting that we accept for the purposes of this legislation who the UK list as being a proscribed organisation. It seems strange that we are introducing our own legislation but in actual fact we are accepting organisations which are listed by another country and we are saying, without even looking at these organisations, that these are terrorist organisations. I just wonder why we are doing that. Why are we moving away from what has been accepted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act that we would look at organisations and we would list them if we deemed that they were terrorist organisations, as we have done under the Prevention of Terrorism Act with regard to Ireland? It seems that we are just following on the coat tails of the UK; the UK decide that an organisation is to be proscribed and therefore we just accept it without question and it seems strange that we introduce our own legislation to say just that. Maybe the Chief Minister can explain why the government has gone down this road to introduce this legislation it is not just the Department of Home Affairs, surely, that has decided this; it is the government that has decided that we should enter into an arrangement such as this. If this is the case, why go through this sham of introducing our own legislation? It is a sham the whole of this legislation is a sham, and we are being dictated to by the UK for very many reasons, not just the prevention of terrorism. It is all to do with finances, and all sorts of other things, making us comply with the UK, another government, and that government is hanging on the coat tails of the United States of America. I really think that the Chief Minister should explain to this hon. House why and how this has happened. Under subsection (2): (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in schedule 2 of the UK Act if its entry is the subject of a note in that schedule. So what is a note to that schedule? It would be interesting if the minister could explain that as well. And the department shall maintain a list of organisations it is all very well the department having a list of organisations, and it is all very well publishing a list, but how often is the list to be published? I would suggest to this hon. House that is really another way of putting money in the hands of the newspaper circulating in the Island because that is what the legislation says. We only have one newspaper there is only one. So how can we publish in two newspapers circulating in the Island? Are we just going to rely on the UK newspapers that come in every K211

8 day? It says nothing about putting a list on the radio or anything like that. In a recent sitting of Tynwald, we voted more support for the radio station and that is for public service broadcasting. There is nothing in here to do with broadcasting and actually getting to the people. How are people to know what organisations are proscribed, unless they pick up the paper maybe once a year which has a list in, or if some organisation is listed and then removed from the list from time to time? We know when orders go through the House, they are just nodded through. Hardly anyone takes any notice of sanctions being brought in against organisations. There is a list printed from time to time which mentions all the names, but that paper then is gone and it is out of date. I just wonder how often this is going to be broadcast, but I really feel that there should be a statement from the government to say why we should enter into this area under clause 2 that the UK should dictate to us who appears on this list and then introduce legislation, when it means absolutely nothing? Mr Braidwood, to reply. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In reply to the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Singer, if the Isle of Man did require an additional organisation that was operating in the Isle of Man against the Isle of Man Government then it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would have any problem in adding this organisation to their list. In answer to the hon. member for Peel s queries, this is a very serious Bill for the security of the people of the Isle of Man. It is a lot easier for the Isle of Man to proscribe those terrorist organisations which are those proscribed in the United Kingdom, and proscription is very often a matter which flows from international agreement. In reply to the hon. member for Peel, the adoption of the United Kingdom list is not unheard of, for example the schedules for the Misuse of Drugs Act The Isle of Man would be seen as a soft target if organisations could come over here, if we had an appeal procedure to remove their organisation from this proscribed list. This would then be very detrimental to the Isle of Man and the international community. Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 2 stand part of the Bill. the House is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and the voting resulted as follows: For: Mr Anderson, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, Mr Quayle, Mr Rimington, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, Mr Houghton, Mr Henderson, Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie, Mr Bell, Mr Singer, Mr Corkill and Mr Earnshaw 16 Against: Mrs Hannan and the Speaker 2 The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries with 16 votes for and 2 votes against. I call the hon. member, clause 3, sir. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I take clause 3 and 4? The Speaker: Yes, you can, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These offences are based on those in section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and have similar effects. The offence in clause 4(1) is not confined to support by providing money or other property, because that kind of support is dealt with in part 3 of the Bill. Subsection (4) of clause 4 is intended to permit the arrangement of genuinely benign meetings. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clauses 3 and 4 stand part of the Bill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I am surprised that under subsection (5) of clause 4 there is reference to a meeting meaning three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted to a meeting and that that meeting is public or private. I wonder how the Department of Home Affairs relates this to anybody holding a meeting, whether it is in a house or... Because it could be in a house or in a meeting hall where the public are admitted, and it could be whether the public are admitted or not. I just wonder why it has been necessary to say whether the public are admitted or not, in relation to this Act. In relation to membership, many of us belong to or support organistions, and I wonder how anyone is supposed to know whether those organisations are proscribed. Re the comment that the minister mentioned that terrorism was to do with politics I would suggest to this hon. House that many of us could over the years be described as being maybe not terrorists but certainly interested in politics enough to join together in such meetings, which could be decided by somebody to be doubtful, in what was happening at these meetings. I am surprised at convictions of 10 years or whatever in relation to supporting such organisations. It could be that we have people it does not matter where they are from, but we have a number of Chinese people living in our community who might meet together on a regular basis to talk about what is happening in their own home county or what is happening to their relatives, and that might be deemed by some organisation or some country to be an illegal K212

9 act. Would then the government here act on information such as that because in some roundabout way that organisation or that meeting was deemed to be a meeting which supported or created a membership for some organisation? We have had, in China, some Christian organisation which is being persecuted by that government could that happen in this situation? People join together to discuss these sorts of issues, and the British Government decide that because they have been pressurised by China... Or it does not matter where, it could be the Turks and Kurds, Turkey coming into the European Union, any of these issues, and it seems strange to me that because people are deemed to be meeting together, for whatever reason, talking politics about their home country, about what is happening there, maybe about what has happened to their relatives, they are deemed to be... Under this legislation, could they end up with a 10-year prison sentence or a fine or both? Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. Mr Braidwood: Mr Speaker, I know the hon. member for Peel has mentioned previously that one man s terrorist is another man s freedom fighter. We are talking about proscribed organisations. It is only if there is a meeting of a proscribed organisation, that clause (4) becomes operational, not a general meeting of people. It is only if that organisation is proscribed in the UK schedule. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. the House is that clauses 3 and 4 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Clause 5, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This clause repeats the offence in section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. As was the case under the PTA, the offence is summarily only with a maximum custodial penalty of six months. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. The Speaker: Hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington. Mr Rimington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be, unfortunately, voting in favour of this clause, but I would ask the hon. mover just to consider the actual wording of this clause and consider the areas of great subjectivity that are within that clause, i.e. that a person in a public place commits an offence if he wears an item of clothing or wears or carries or displays an article in such a way or such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Then we look at the long list of proscribed organisations. Would this mean then, sir, that if I was to be wearing a beret, as the Irish Republicans have often worn, that I could be arrested and locked up for six months or fined 5,000? And how do we possibly know what the uniforms of all these various organisations are that could distinguish them from an ordinary member of the public deciding to wear his clothing in a certain manner? Given that he would see, especially in this field of media communications that we are in now whereby children can access all sorts of things through the internet and computer games and see a whole range of manners of clothing and descriptions and emulate those in their everyday dress... What I am saying, Mr Speaker, is that it brings in a huge area of subjectivity into how the forces of law and order can decide whether somebody they do not like should be locked up or not. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell. Mr Bell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My concern really mirrors exactly what the previous speaker has said. I think it is inadequate to claim, Mr Speaker, that this is simply a re-enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provision. I do believe we need some far more in-depth explanation as to precisely how this is going to work. Over the years we can think of lots of people who have been considered terrorists. You are going back to the 1960s for the Sheik of Arrah; you have got Bin Laden people now who are depicted, for example, on T-shirts that does not mean that they are either a member of a proscribed organisation or, in fact, even supporting it. How far does this provision actually extend? There are a lot of people, I am sure in fact I know who would like to see George Bush as a proscribed organisation. At what point do we draw a line between what is ordinary everyday wear, and how do you interpret what an item of clothing is which depicts support for a proscribed organisation? Potentially somebody in this position could be jailed for six months. That is a very draconian measure for someone wearing an unfortunate piece of clothing. I do think we need a much greater explanation of the implications of this, rather than what we have had today. The Speaker: Hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan. Mrs Hannan: Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. I would just like to follow on from some of that: maybe the Minister for Home Affairs would explain what al- Qa ida wear I am sure that the rest of the world would love to know what al-qa ida wear. The legislation says, to wear in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion. Well, obviously if al-qa ida were going to wear something that would arouse suspicion they would have all been rounded up by now (Laughter), but in relation to somebody wanting to K213

10 wear any of these black shirts, brown shirts, whatever they were Moseley and his lot what is it? Mr Henderson: Brown shirts. Mrs Hannan: Brown shirts, thank you. They were actually displaying their... And it did arouse, I suppose, reasonable suspicion that he was a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation well, I do not think it was proscribed at that time. But somebody who belongs to one of these organisations, I would suggest to you, is not going to wear something which identifies him or her from the crowd. Otherwise the legislation that is before us now would not have been needed, because they would be going around with bright ties on like many members are today. If somebody wants to wear a badge or something which could be seen as... Mr Singer and myself were in Namibia and we felt a bit reluctant to give people our three-legged pins (Interjections)(Mr Henderson: Shame!) no, because of the very closeness of South Africa and the very right-wing party that uses that sort of thing. We felt quite reluctant to we did, and the people who received them received them well, but you have to think about these things. We could be identified by some of the things that we wear as being terrorists or that sort of thing, so I think before we pass legislation such as this, we ought to look at ourselves and see what messages we are giving out to people. I believe it is draconian legislation, especially because of what has been whipped up at the moment about very unfortunate people who are having to try to seek safety in the UK and here because of their political leanings in the country that they have come from, and I think we ought to respect some of that. There was somebody who was a member of the Taliban, the ruling party that was recognised in Afghanistan, that sought political asylum in the UK and now it has been suggested that they should not because they could be a danger to the UK. The member says, Exactly but it is not. It is one person s terrorist is another person s freedom fighter. What this legislation is doing is coming down on the side of the British and we are not questioning it, and I believe that we should be questioning it in this House. The Speaker: Hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine. Mr Quine: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are, of course, speaking about criminal law and there is a very clear principle involved here and that is, of course, that before anybody is going to be found guilty of this offence or any other offence, it is going to have to be clearly established before the court with the various jurisdictions that follow from the initial hearing that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, not through one step but ultimately through three or four steps where it can be contested. And as with any criminal offence, part of proving that offence is that the court has got to be satisfied there was in fact a criminal intent. So the court is going to have to be satisfied through the evidence led by the prosecution because the onus does not pass onto the accused but through the evidence led by the prosecution that there was in fact an intent, an element of criminality involved in this as spelt out in this offence. If you take those two situations and then relate it to the wording of this section I think, by and large, the fears I have heard expressed are not well-founded. It makes it quite clear here that it has to relate to a proscribed organisation and there has to be reliance both in terms of the way and the circumstances, and this is coming back to what I said. It is going to ultimately depend upon the prosecution being able to prove that guilty intent beyond all reasonable doubts. I do not have any undue concerns about this, when you take the totality of that process into account. So I am perfectly content to support this clause, sir. Mr Gill: Eaghtyrane, I am just mindful of the comments from the previous speaker and putting them into a location that we can all identify with. The first fourteen lists on the explanatory notes relate to Irish groups which are proscribed both with nationalist and loyalist. It would not be fair, however, to say that because you support a particular football club that is identified with a nationalist or a loyalist organisation or belief that you would reasonably be a supporter of it. So you might wear a Celtic or a Glasgow Rangers shirt, that does not mean that you support the IRA or any of the listed loyalist terrorist groups. So there is an element of reasonableness and we would all expect and see that on a daily basis. So whilst I accept some of the concerns that have been raised and have some sympathy with them, I do think that the points that the previous speaker, Mr Quine, has raised, quite rightly and quite convincingly, and our day-to-day experience really should be a reassurance that there is not a secret plot to suddenly have an intolerance in position of a police state here. We would all resist that and we are supported on the basis that this is not the intention. This is quite clear and it is quite appropriate the circumstances it would face. Thank you, Vainstyr Loayreyder. The Speaker: Hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie. Mr Downie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really prompted to rise mainly because of the particular interpretation that the hon. member for Peel has put on this particular clause. I would ask hon. members to accept that over this weekend we actually saw a period in time which has been set aside now to commemorate the holocaust, and I think this particular clause is trying to identify certain groups which may exist within our community. They definitely existed in the past: we have all seen the Sir Oswald Mosley riots in Manchester; the paramilitaries on the streets of Belfast parading in their uniforms; people dressed up in a certain way who go out to promote ill-feeling, K214

11 terrorism and really frighten the living daylights out of the community, and I think that there has to be a situation in law where a certain offence is committed if persons are wearing a particular brand or a uniform, they can be identified in this particular way, particularly those who personally go out to whip up hatred and cause all sorts of problems such as terrorist acts within the community. However, it does not prevent an Arab wearing a shamag or an Arab woman wearing a burka cover nor should it prevent a Jew from wearing a skullcap or a prayer shawl or a Sikh from wearing a turban. Lots of us have different approaches to our dress and as the hon. member for Ayre said, it is quite easy to see that there has to be an interpretation of the criminal law attached to this and there has to be some intent. The courts are not fools and one only has to see the legal system in operation. It is very, very difficult to convict people who are charged with terrorism and I think when terrorist cases do come before the courts, you will see that the success rate in convicting terrorists is quite small, when you look at the actual numbers of people who are charged within the system. So I know it is difficult for some members to accept, but I think this is an attempt to try and identify some of the issues and the way which the legislation can be brought in to deal with the situation when there is prima facie evidence that these people have been involved in these covert and terrorist organisations and they utilise a form of uniform or dress to terrorise other people and frighten the living daylights out of the community. Mr Braidwood, to reply to the debate. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon. member for Ayre, Mr Quine, the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Gill and the hon. member for Douglas West, Mr Downie for bringing some reality back into this debate. This morning one of the questions we were talking about was zero tolerance and discretion of the police. Mr Speaker, the police would use their discretion if they saw a youngster wearing a badge of al-qa ida or a T-shirt or whatever, they are not going to come along and arrest him. We have to remember that this clause is already in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990 and there has been no problem in the subsequent 12 years since it was passed. I think in actual fact the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Peel, Mrs Hannan, the hon. member for Ramsey, Mr Bell and the hon. member for Rushen, Mr Rimington have been answered by the other members in this hon. Court. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. the House is that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say aye; against, no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and the voting resulted as follows: For: Mr Anderson, Mr Cannan, Mr Quine, Mr Rodan, Mr Quayle, Mr Gill, Mrs Crowe, Mr Henderson, Mr Duggan, Mr Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Mr Downie, Mr Singer, Mr Corkill, Mr Earnshaw, Capt. Douglas and the Speaker 17 Against: Mr Rimington, Mrs Hannan and Mr Bell 3 The Speaker: Hon. members, the motion carries with 17 votes for and 3 votes against. Therefore clause 5 stands part of the Bill. Clause 6, hon. member. Mr Braidwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This definition comes into play in the money-laundering offence clause 10 and the power to seize and forfeit terrorist cash clause 17 and schedule 3. Subsection (1) makes it clear that terrorist property can include both property to be used for terrorism and proceeds of acts of terrorism. Subsection (2)(a) makes explicit that the proceeds of an act of terrorism cover not only the money stolen in a terrorist robbery but also any money paid in connection with the commission of terrorist acts. Subsection (2)(b) makes it explicit that any resources of a proscribed organisation are covered not only the resources they use for bomb making, arms purchase et cetera, but also money they have set aside for non-violent purposes, such as paying rent. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 6 stands part of the Bill. Mr Gill: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mrs Cannell. Mrs Cannell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a little bit concerned this morning that on the back page of this Bill that we are considering it says, Approved by the Council of Ministers for introduction into the House of Keys. (Mr Henderson: Hear, hear.) And we are being faced with the situation where my colleague, the hon. Minister for Home Affairs and my colleague for Douglas East has been attacked by two of his colleagues who are in the Council of Ministers (Mr Cannan and Another Member: Hear, hear.). I believe, Mr Speaker, we need some clarification of this because I am a little bit confused. I thought that the Council of Ministers, when approving legislation, all approved it and pulled together. I certainly did not think that there was, within the guidelines issued, a procedure where ministers could get up and vilify another minister for moving a Council of Ministers Bill. I would like the Chief Minister, who has the rick on this situation hopefully, to advise hon. members as to why we are being faced with this situation today. Clearly if there is a difference of opinion, and I would have thought it had been previously expressed at Council of Minister s level, then I think at the very K215