Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas is seeking to change the way the chief minister is elected - without the support of the Legislative Council.

If he succeeds, only the House of Keys would get to have a say in the appointment of the chief minister, as opposed to the whole of Tynwald - including the Legislative Council - as is presently the case.

The Council of Ministers (Amendment) Bill, which passed through the House of Keys in 2016, was voted down by the Legislative Council that same year.

But, in such circumstances, the House of Keys can vote to send a bill straight to Tynwald for ’signature’ before going for royal assent and becoming law. There is, however, a time limit within which to act.

Mr Thomas has tabled a motion that looks set to be included on the agenda for a House of Keys sitting on December 19, but Speaker Juan Watterson has been critical of the minister’s timing and the fact that the original bill was taken through the House of Keys by Alfred Cannan, who is now Treasury Minister.

Mr Thomas said: ’If this motion receives the votes of 17 MHKs before January 12, 2018, Alfred Cannan’s private member’s bill to amend the Council of Ministers Act 1990 could receive royal assent without Legislative Council support and the next Chief Minister would be elected by no fewer than 13 MHKs voting in the House of Keys, rather than by "a majority of Tynwald members present and voting".’

He said that, although the bill was amended by MHKs in spring 2016, the version that went to Legislative Council had unanimous support, only for MLCs to throw it out.

’The arguments made by MLCs were that the change was premature, pending Lord Lisvane’s report, that the upper bench of indirectly elected MLCs needed to be involved in the election of the chief minister, and a technical point about Westminster Lords having a vote for party leaders in the UK,’ said Mr Thomas.

He said the Constitution Act gave the House of Keys the power to pass a bill that had already been introduced in the House of Keys and subsequently approved, but not passed by Legislative Council within 12 months of it first being considered by the upper chamber.

He argued that Lord Lisvane was fully aware of what was in the bill when he made his own recommendations for parliamentary reform in June 2016.

That included that ’MLCs should not vote on the appointment of the Chief Minister (and, as a corollary, should not vote on a motion of no confidence)’.