Local authorities ask LegCo to 'protect democracy' 

Hearing held into controversial clause which authorities say could give DOI 'carte blanche' powers

A ‘threat to democracy’, ‘undermining trust and confidence’ and creating an ‘onerous financial burden’ were just some of the phrases used to describe a clause in a new piece of local authority legislation.

A hearing was held yesterday by the Legislative Council, with 16 local authorities in attendance, and it will now decide whether to adopt, remove or further amend it.

Currently, the clause would allow the Department of Infrastructure to impose any functions on to the authorities without financial aid.

The bill also includes clauses which would ‘strengthen’ the publication of minutes, declarations of interests as well as expenses for board members.

Each local authority which applied to speak was given the opportunity make an opening statement at the beginning of the hearing, some of these can be heard below:

DoI Minister Michelle Haywood, Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper (who introduced the clause) and Chief Officer Emily Curphey were in attendance on behalf of the department.

Minister Haywood said the department would always work with the authorities if the bill was approved.

She also confirmed during the session that Mr Hooper had already come up with the clause before joining as a departmental member.

Dr Haywood added that she ‘champions’ local authorities, and is a former member herself, but also said that there was a lot of ‘nonsense’ from the representatives at the hearing.

She said in respect of clause five that it is ‘not the DoI’s intention’ to ‘force’ functions onto local authorities:

Leader of Douglas Council Devon Watson told the hearing that none of the local authorities received a ‘robust and open’ consultation into the new clause.

He added that opinions were asked for in the middle of the Local Authority Elections in April this year – and requests for extensions were ignored.

Councillor Watson also said the concerns raised by the local authorities were not ‘nonsense’ and were instead ‘well founded’ – he pointed to a social housing plan which was once ‘mocked’ by members of Tynwald as a reason for a lack of faith.

He added that he would like to see clause five axed from the bill and believes that the Department should not be ‘regulating’ local authorities:

Chair of Arbory and Rushen Commissioners Kirrie Jenkins spoke first, and said there hadn’t been any consultation into clause five and the legislation would ‘fundamentally alter’ the relationship between local authorities and central government.

She added that it would replace collaboration with ‘command and control’ – and the current clause is ‘wholly’ out of step with ‘neighbours’ in the UK and Channel Islands:

One of the key concerns raised by the local authority representatives was if the clause was to be approved there would be no safeguards to protect them.

Both Minister Haywood and Mr Hooper agreed that the process of Tynwald and its procedures would ‘become’ the safeguard process and ensure consultation with local authorities and wouldn’t push anything through.

However, both Eliza Cox from Marown Commissioners and Juan McGuinness from Ramsey Commissioners felt that the current situation was contradictory to these assurances.

They said despite the ‘mass objection’ from 21 local authorities, Tynwald still ‘pushed through’ the clause and there are ‘worries’ that this will happen again.

Mr McGuinness said it was ‘unusual’ to see such solidarity from the authorities:

Former Chief Minister and Minister for Local Government Tony Brown said the bill ‘flies in the face’ of the Island’s democracy.

He told the hearing that the clause in particular would ‘grant’ the department and government the ‘power’ to impose functions and is ‘unacceptable’.

Mr Brown, who's now the chair of Castletown Commissioners, added that the clause gets to the ‘fundamentals’ of what local government is and ‘by the backdoor’ would scrap local authorities.

He believes that if the clause is approved it will give the department the means to ‘amend’ any local government law:

Following the evidence session the Legislative Council voted unanimously to move the bill (including clause 5) to the clauses stage where it will decide whether to keep, amend or remove the controversial clause from the bill.