Tynwald Debate on the end of the reciprocal Health Agreement

Monday, 16 November 2009 21:48 PAG
Print
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

The following has been lifted from The Manx Herald (click here for the full text)

Related:    Tynwald 'Early Publication' Report

Liberal Vannin Leader, Peter Karran MHK, expressed disgust at the fact that members had been provided with a thirteen page document that had no real costings or actuarial information and did not address the basic information that the national parliament should have had over such an important issue which affects one of the most vulnerable sections of our society. He put forward an amendment, basically asking the Council of Ministers to investigate the introduction of an off island transport levy. The income from this would have been used to buy an insurance scheme to cover this section of our community.


He went on to say that what came out of the debate just highlighted the concern that he has about the ministerial system being a one party state by patronage. This was illustrated by the fact that he could not get a seconder for what was, in reality, the only suggestion on the floor, so it was never discussed. It would have been a sensible way forward that would not increase the financial liability to the DHSS, which already has enough financial problems, and would not incur any addition to the head count in public sector. He went on to say. “My amendment would have forced the DHSS to have come back to the December sitting of Tynwald with something and would have forced them to justify their inaction. We saw, once again, crocodile tears from so many members of Tynwald who claimed that they wanted to do something over this situation but were too afraid to break the Council of Ministers party line.”.

David Cannon MHK put forward an amendment that in essence said that whatever the cost we must have medical cover for all our people travelling in the UK and that the funds would have be found from somewhere. Only six members voted for this amendment.

In the interests of transparency and so that you may make an informed decision in 2011 we publish details of the vote on Mr Cannan's amendment:

For in Keys (6)
Karran, Cannan, Houghton, Cannell, Gill, The Speaker
Against in Keys (16)
Quirk, Earnshaw, Brown, Crookall, Anderson, Craine, Bell, Quayle, Teare,
Malarkey, Braidwood, Corkish, Shimmin, Cretney, Watterson, Gawne.
For in LegCo (2)
Waft, Butt
Against in LegCo (6)
Callister, Crowe, Downie, Christian, The Lord Bishop, Lowey