The House of Keys is expected to sit next week - to scrutinise legislation and also consider moves to change the way the chief minister is elected.

Although a sitting is pencilled in for December 19, it is unusual for the House of Keys to set between the final session of Tynwald of the year - which starts today - and Christmas.

There is a caveat in the Tynwald calendar that, although the sitting is scheduled, it can be dropped.

However, it is understood that Speaker Juan Watterson will give the sitting the go-ahead, following representations from Middle MHK Bill Shimmins, who is in charge of the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill and wants to get it through the clauues stage before the end of the year, and Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas, who is keen to modernise the chief minister electoral process before a time limit expires.

But the Examiner has learned that there has been some dissent after Mr Watterson, who is also in charge of a committee examining parliamentary reform, appeared to criticise Mr Thomas and his proposed motion. Some members are understood to have been upset at the criticism.

In an email to members, Mr Watterson comments on Mr Thomas’s timing to put through the Council of Ministers (Amendment) Bill, which was voted down by Legislative Council.

In such circumstances, a motion can be brought back to the House of Keys to push something through. Although the original bill was put forward by the now Treasury Minister Alfred Cannan, it is Mr Thomas who has tabled the motion for next week.

’There is an 18-month period within which the provisions of the Constitution Act can be used, yet Mr Thomas has chosen to wait until the last possible sitting,’ Mr Watterson says in the email.

’I am not sure why, especially as the motion was lodged in time for a very light sitting on the 5th (of December).

’I am interested as to why Mr Cannan, as a mover if the original bill, is not taking the motion forward, although I appreciate this isn’t a requirement.’

Mr Watterson points out that MHKs voted to refer the matter of electing the chief minister to the select committee on the functioning of Tynwald, which he chairs. That is due to report in February.

’Noting the success we have had in removing the election processes from the statute books for LegCo elections, it seems anomalous that we should move in the opposite direction for election of the chief minister,’ Mr Watterson comments.

As the presiding officer in the Keys, Mr Watterson will not be able to participate in any debate on December 19. He says in his email: ’You will see from Mr Thomas’ paper just how much amendment was required to move the original bill into something remotely workable and I cannot pretend that it represents a fully satisfactory outcome.

’Primarily, it does not guarantee a result. This is more important in a chief minister election than a LegCo election.’

Some MHKs have privately expressed concern at the criticism directed towards Mr Thomas over the timing and also with what they felt was implied criticism of Mr Cannan for not bringing forward the motion himself.

They have argued that Mr Thomas is entitled to act in the way he proposes.