The Liberal Vannin Party has hit back at the Chief Minister after he sacked Peter Karran from his position as a government minister.
In a statement released this afternoon (Friday) the party says: ‘The Liberal Vannin Party is in no way attempting to get the decision to sack Mr Karran as Minister for Education and Children reversed, however the Chief Minister has made various statements regarding this situation that Liberal Vannin are now commenting on and/or rebutting.
‘After the numerous questions and Motions tabled in respect of the film industry and its finances over a number of years by Mr Karran and more recently Mrs Beecroft, most people would readily acknowledge that a pre-stated position was obvious.
‘However, in order for exemption from the rules of collective responsibility to be allowed by the Chief Minister, a Minister has to declare a pre-stated position in the Council of Ministers meetings.
‘The Chief Minister has stated that Mr Karran had not declared his pre-stated position. This is incorrect. It was declared and accepted during the meeting on 17 May but unfortunately it was not recorded in the Minutes of that meeting. Mr Karran has documentary evidence to support this statement. He also acknowledges that he did not notice the omission until after the Minutes had subsequently been approved.
‘This whole affair has highlighted, to many residents, that our parliamentary system is not fit for purpose. After a general election, Tynwald members (including the unelected members of Legislative Council) elect a Chief Minister from the recently elected MHKs. Whoever is so elected then has the power to appoint and dismiss all Ministers and departmental members. They are all then governed by the rules of collective responsibility subject to certain exemptions, a pre-stated position being one. The Council of Ministers, in effect, becomes a political party and one that is formed after the election with no mandate for its policies by the electorate and with its leader, the Chief Minister, in total control.
‘Liberal Vannin has always maintained that this is a crucial element of our system that needs to change.
‘The decision made by the Chief Minister to sack Mr Karran, also highlights how different Chief Ministers choose to exercise their power so it would appear to be discretionary rather than obligatory. The article below shows that the then Chief Minister, Donald Gelling, chose to exercise his power with a lighter touch.
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/dissenting_minister_keeps_job_1_1775843
‘The issue at that time, October 2001, was about a proposed burial site for foot-and-mouth infected animals. The then Home Affairs Minister, Allan Bell, had no pre-stated position and had supported the plan in the Council of Ministers’ meeting. After the meeting “he changed his mind” and voted against the proposal and was partly responsible for the failure of the motion.
‘Mr Karran says that he understands that the Chief Minister had to take this action to maintain discipline within his own party members (the Council of Ministers) but this will not prevent Liberal Vannin from working with government when they are right. He went on to say, “We are in extremely difficult financial times and we will continue to support government when it is in the interests of the Isle of Man”.
‘Liberal Vannin maintains that, regardless of who is Chief Minister and how they exercise their power, decisions under the current system are subject to the personality of the Chief Minister and is nothing more than a “one party state by patronage”.’
The lengthy statement continues: ‘Chief Minister, Allan Bell, is also misinformed in his claims that it was the leadership of Liberal Vannin that “forced” Mr Karran to vote against the motion. Mr Karran is the leader of the party so it can only be assumed that the Chief Minister is actually referring to the party executive.
‘The motion regarding the Pinewood Shepperton deal was on the Order Paper for the Tynwald sitting on June 19 and the Chief Minister informed Mr Karran, on June 14 that he was not allowing exemption from collective responsibility and that, if he voted against it, he would be sacked.
‘The Liberal Vannin executive had been consulted on Mr Karran’s acceptance of a Ministerial position so it was only proper that they should be consulted on the possible losing of that position and an urgent meeting was called by the party chairman for June 15. The correct position is as stated in our press release dated 16 June in which we stated: “The executive have requested that the Party’s parliamentarians, Minister Peter Karran and Kate Beecroft MHK, to take whatever actions they deem necessary and appropriate to gain sufficient information to enable them to support the motion or, if this is not possible, to table an amendment that the entire issue be scrutinised by the Public Accounts committee prior to the signing of any agreement or the purchase of any shares.”
‘Whilst it was only the executive that were consulted about the possible loss of Mr Karran’s ministerial position, all branches had voted at the recent branch meetings to support the Liberal Vannin MHKs in whatever action they chose to take but that, on the information available, the preferred course of action was that stated in the original press release (relevant excerpt is in the previous paragraph). It is only members of the Party that have a right to vote on such issues but these meeting are open to the public who are encouraged to take part in discussions.’
Roy Redmayne, party chairman, stated: ‘The idea that Mr Karran was forced to vote against the motion is ridiculous.
‘He had a pre-stated position and, quite rightly, stuck to his principles. His decision was a parliamentary one and he had no requirement to even discuss this with the executive but he wanted to hear the executive’s views as it could, and has, led to the party losing its only minister.’
There will be more on this story in the Isle of Man Examiner on Monday.