Last Tuesday the Committee on the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill reported back to Tynwald.
It had a very well researched document, the sort of scrutiny that Tynwald so desperately needs if we are not to continue from one folly to another.
The debate is available here from page 29. The report itself is here.
MHK's Robertshaw and Houghton in particular detailed the reasons to support the bill. Even the President of the Law Society has said that the Bill was hard to follow.
No-one spoke against the bill, unless you include the Ministers response when Mr Houghton had the temerity to suggest that the Minister is reponsible for his own departments Bill. 'Oh no, it is not!' cried Mr Earnshaw!
Says it all really.
The silent majority of shadows voted against, though they knew not why, and certainly didn't feel it necessary to explain so.
In the absence of any debate from them a quick glance at the names suggests that most voted against this damning report into a chaotic Bill in order to preserve their ministerial incomes.
For the record, voting was:
FOR the report:
Mr Karran Mr Crookall Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Robertshaw Mrs Cannell Mr Cretney Mr Watterson The Deputy Speaker
AGAINST:
Mr Quirk Mr Earnshaw Mr Brown Mr Anderson Mrs Craine Mr Bell Mr Quayle Mr Teare Mr Malarkey Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Gawne
Would any MHK that voted against that report please explain to the public why they did - and why they did not partipate in the debate?
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Comments
Can one hope that the IOM voters will finally see the light and vote accordingly at the forthcoming elections?
RSS feed for comments to this post