Confusion was to the fore in the Brexit Bill deliberations as Chief Minster Howard Quayle and some ministers appeared unaware of the precise details of what they were proposing in a key change.

The European Union and Trade Bill, to use its full title, is designed to enable the government to be ready for the UK leaving the EU next March.

It contains a raft of measures, including provisions for EU laws that were applied to the Isle of Man to be retained after Brexit.

There is a risk they could otherwise fall by the wayside, especially if the UK leaves with a no-deal Brexit, which could mean there is no transition period for laws and regulations that were applied to the Isle of Man.

One of the key proposals is to enable the government to retain these laws using secondary legislation - Tynwald orders that can be approved at a single sitting - rather than having to draft bills that would require to be considered by both the House of Keys and Legislative Council, which the government fears would be too laborious.

But others have expressed concern this would hand too much power to the Council of Ministers, so at an earlier stage of the bill’s consideration, Mr Quayle gave a commitment to add an amendment allowing for a review of the retained legislation.

Mr Quayle argued the Council of Ministers’ amendment, introducing a new clause calling for a report reviewing retained legislation in five years’ time, would ensure there was a Tynwald debate - even though the amendment only proposed that a report should be ’laid before’ Tynwald.

Lawrie Hooper (LibVannin, Ramsey) argued that the CoMin suggestion fell short of his proposed amendment, which in addition to the provision for a review included a sunset clause - thus effectively guaranteeing a Tynwald debate - and a requirement for recommendations.

Mr Quayle quoted a standing order that he believed supported his claim that the report must be debated in Tynwald, under his proposal.

’Tynwald would have to debate this in five years’ time,’ said the Chief Minister. ’The member has not conceded on that point.’

Awkwardly for Mr Quayle, it was pointed out by Mr Hooper and effectively confirmed by Clerk of Tynwald Roger Phillips that the CoMin amendment stated only that the report be ’laid before’ Tynwald - rather than stipulating it be subject to a Tynwald motion - so that standing order did not apply.

The government, however, remained against Mr Hooper’s amendment because of the sunset clause - that would have meant any EU laws that were kept after Brexit, under the Bill, but were not subsequently approved again in five years’ time would cease to exist a further two years after that. Ministers argued this would create uncertainty for business.

Environment Minister Geoffrey Boot also contended it would be unfair and cumbersome to have to carry out a review of every piece of legislation that had been retained after Brexit - even though the Council of Ministers’ amendment also demanded such a review.

Mr Boot said legislation retained under the Brexit Bill would not be new.

’Why would we want to sunset clause it or indeed review it at a later date?’ he asked, saying it would be a ’humongous’ task for his department.

’Do we really want to face a situation where we have got to report on 400 pieces or 300 pieces of legislation that is business as usual and we are just rolling it over?’

In the end, Tim Baker (Ayre and Michael) arrived on his white charger, suggesting an amendment to the Council of Ministers’ amendment. Mr Baker’s proposal was to word the new clause so that it ensure that the review of legislation was subject to a Tynwald debate, but did not include Mr Hooper’s clause.

Earlier, in pushing the case for a sunset clause, Mr Hooper said up to 500 pieces of legislation would need to be processed quickly ahead of Brexit, making it crucial there was proper scrutiny further down the line,

’Is it likely that this much legislation, being pushed through between January and March next year, will get mindful scrutiny?’ he argued.

Both his amendment and that tabled for the Council of Ministers, by Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas called for a review period of five years, before the end of which CoMin must lay a report before Tynwald.

Mr Hooper’s amendment also stipulated that report should contain recommendations, whereas Mr Thomas’s did not.

The most crucial difference was that Mr Hooper’s sunset clause would mean any retained EU legislation would expire after seven years unless Tynwald resolved it should continue.

Mr Quayle and other ministers argued that sunset provisions would create uncertainty. Treasury Minister Alfred Cannan said it would effectively be ’Brexit stage two’.

Bill Shimmins (Middle), a Treasury department member, warned it would put off potential investors.

But Mr Hooper received support from Chris Robertshaw (Douglas East), who warned about the danger of placing too much power in the Council of Ministers.

’Let us be very careful that we do not fundamentally change the relationship between the executive and the parliamentary process,’ he said.

He hit out at what he called ’dramatic’ claims of a legal cliff-edge if MHKs did not take the CoMin route.

’They seem to be creating an unnecessary sense of fear,’ he said.

Mr Baker’s amendment, which kept both sides’ proposals for a review, but stipulated the report should contain recommendations and also be subject to a Tynwald debate, was approved.

Mr Hooper said it was an improvement on the original CoMin proposal but argued his amendment would have given Tynwald the final say because the government could choose to ignore any Tynwald decision.

’That is the risk that you run,’ he said.

Mr Quayle said Mr Baker’s rapidly drafted proposal reflected the intention of the original CoMin amendment.

’This is purely a clarification of what we always wanted - Tynwald to have the final say.’

Members voted 18-5 against Mr Hooper’s proposed new clause, but unanimously supported the new clause as outlined by Mr Baker.