Tynwald rejects issuing censure

Members debated the issue for over two hours

Tynwald has voted against censuring Glenfaba and Peel MHK Kate Lord-Brennan over a Facebook post criticising a fellow MHK.

After a lengthy and at times emotional debate, members voted to receive the report of the Tynwald Standards and Privileges Committee but rejected the recommendation to censure Ms Lord-Brennan.

The issue centred on a Facebook post in which Ms Lord-Brennan criticised Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper over his delegated decision to allow an appeal for telegraph poles to be installed in Peel.

The committee decided the language used breached the Members' Code of Conduct, saying: "To call another member 'malevolent' or 'wicked' is to cast a reflection on that member's character. 

"To accuse another member of weaponising planning applications, or of hijacking and abusing authority, is an imputation of improper motives."

During the debate, Ms Lord-Brennan argued the process was flawed and that the new rules governing members' social media conduct were being interpreted too widely.

She said: "I am not asking this court to decide that members of Tynwald are above standards. I am asking the court to consider whether a new rule, introduced with one purpose, has now been interpreted so widely that legitimate political expression can become selective grounds for investigation and censure".

Ms Lord-Brennan also defended her original post, insisting the criticism was justified.

Several members expressed concern about the policing of social media. Tim Glover cautioned: "If we police social media, we are going into a swamp".

Rob Callister, reflecting on his own experience of standards investigations and urged members to resolve the matter promptly. 

He also sought clarity from mover of the motion Ann Corlett on what exactly members were being asked to vote on:

His constituency colleague Julie Edge said the situation ‘weighs heavily’, arguing the process was ‘not right and isn't fair’ and warned that the committee was now ‘conflicted’, calling for future cases to be handled through an independent process.

Members expressed a mix of views throughout the debate:

Committee vice-chair Ann Corlett confirmed the Standards Committee had "not had a chance to discuss" whether additional investigation was required following other posts by Ms Lord-Brennan about the initial report.

Ms Lord-Brennan's fellow constituency MHK Tim Crookall also spoke during the debate, suggesting the dispute could have been resolved more informally and regretted that the administration was ending this way.

He said: "I would have taken this. You just take it, you just suck it on social media, that's part of the job.”

He added: "None of us want to be discussing this. This is a grown-up job. Occasionally we have to let things go.”

Even as the issue came to a conclusion events threatened to take a further twist.

An amendment by Chris Thomas for Tynwald to receive the report without approving the censure failed to carry, only for him to call for a collective vote.

As this would have kicked the issue either to after the election or required a special sitting of Tynwald to prevent that happening, Mr Thomas ceded his right to call a combined vote.

The substantive motion to censure Ms Lord-Brennan was then rejected, with the report being received but the censure not approved.