The select committee tasked with investigating proposed reforms to the Legislative Council is on target to report back by October.

Speaker Juan Watterson is chairing a five-strong select committee looking at recommendations from the Lisvane Report into reform of Tynwald.

He said he could not comment on the specifics of the work the committee had undertaken so far, but added: ’It is on schedule to be tabled in October.’

A second report is due to be put before Tynwald in December.

Some of the recommendations of the Lisvane Report have been approved in principle by Tynwald and the select committee’s role is to look at their implementation.

Other recommendations were referred to the committee for yet more consideration.

In addition, at the July sitting of Tynwald, members backed a call to let the committee re-examine the issue of whether to remove the Bishop’s right to vote in Tynwald. A month earlier, a bid to remove that right failed when the two branches of Tynwald were divided.

Recommendations

The committee’s October report is due to cover recommendations that have received approval in principle from Tynwald including:

â?¢ MLCs should not vote on measures which are exclusively on taxation or appropriation.

â?¢ MLCs should not be ministers, except in exceptional circumstances.

â?¢ That the Bishop should remain an MLC.

â?¢ Whether the Bishop should be included in the quorum of the Legislative Council and whether he should be allowed to abstain.

Recommendations which were referred for further consideration that are due to be reported back upon are:

â?¢ That the voting process for Legislative Council elections be ’open’. (The House of Keys has already removed the secret ballot.)

â?¢ If and when MLCs should be appointed to government departments. (There are no current restrictions.)

â?¢ Review of MLCs’ pay should their responsibilities be amended.

The December report will cover the following recommendations that Tynwald has approved in principle:

â?¢ The first task of an administration should be to prepare and publish a Programme for Government. (Chief Minister Howard Quayle did this.)

â?¢ Public views should be sought on the programme, which should require Tynwald approval following an annual Tynwald debate.

â?¢ Tynwald addresses ’with energy’ the need to make its membership more diverse.

â?¢ Continuous ’professional development training’ for Tynwald members.

Matters to be considered further in the December report include:

â?¢ Departmental appointments made only where it is clear that ’substantial responsibilities’ will be assumed in recognition of higher salary.

â?¢ That the scrutiny role continues to be delivered principally by four standing committees of Tynwald: the Public Accounts Committee and, following reform, the Economic Policy Review Committee, the Economic and Infrastructure Review Committee and the Social Affairs Committee.

â?¢ Members of these committees to be paid the same rate as department members and receive training on their work.

â?¢ The Programme for Government be the focus of the reformed Policy Review Committees, which should have its terms of reference set down.

â?¢ Allow select committees to be supported by external advice.

â?¢ That the Tynwald Auditor General Act 2011 and the Tynwald Commissioner for Administration Act 2011 be brought into force.

â?¢ When leave is given to introduce a bill, the House of Keys approve the proposed topic of the bill as opposed to approving the long title.

Appointment

As well as gaining permission to consider the Bishop’s right to vote, at the July sitting, Mr Watterson successfully obtained leave for the committee to also consider whether MLCs should be able to vote on the appointment of the chief minister and whether sitting MHKs should be eligible for nomination to the Legislative Council.

Mr Watterson also gained leeway for the committee to consider further changes to procedures in drafting legislation.

At the same sitting, Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper failed in his bid to have certain measures approved immediately - including removal of the Bishop’s right to vote and MLCs’ involvement in the vote for a chief minister.