Is 24 MHKs too many or not enough?

A common comment on social media and from candidates in this election cycle is to suggest that the number of MHKs is too high, and that cutting numbers would save money and make Government work better.  Whilst the former is obviously true, and paying less MHKs would save money, I really can't agree that less MHKs would make for better government.  Let me explain why.

First of all I think it's important to realise that, although we elect representatives from each constituency, that MHKs go into the House of Keys be national politicians and serve on behalf of the Island.  Although each constituency is electing two members, they aren't actually in the House of Keys to serve just local interests, and in fact if they end up as Ministers or members of departments, they will be expected to make fair and rational decisions in the national interest, not just in the interest of their constituency.  So as DoI Minister I couldn't pull out all the stops to get Port St Mary High Street rebuilt, no matter how many years I have been trying to get it done, because highways works are prioritised on a national basis.  I would have been failing in my role as a national politician if I have acted purely in the interests of my constituency.

When you vote for someone to become an MHK, you are not appointing a delegated mouthpiece to repeat your views to Keys or Tynwald.  You are voting for someone to act on behalf of the whole Island.  The candidate that you choose would never manage to represent every elector's views because that would create a range of conflicting opinions and we'd never get anywhere.  Instead MHKs should listen to your views, take into account expert evidence, challenge and test information that they are presented with and try to make the best (or the least worst) decision that is a benefit to the greatest number of people.  What you need are people who can do their research, consider all the papers that are presented to them, evaluate the options and have the courage to follow through on the necessary policy.

Let's think about what roles we need the 24 Members of Keys to fulfill:

• 1 x Speaker
• 1 x Chief Minister
• 8 (or 9) x Ministers

The Chief Minister and Ministers usually don't hold other posts outside of those associated with their roles.  They form the Government which is where executive power is wielded. Legislative Council Members could be Ministers, but usually only in extreme circumstances and generally Keys take a dim view.  It's at this point that we need to appreciate that there is a distinction between Government and Tynwald/Keys.  Government comprises those who are Ministers or Department Members.  But they are also members of our parliament.  Those outside of the Council of Ministers are known as "backbenchers."  There will be 14 backbenchers.

What do the 14 backbenchers do? Well, some of them will be heading up Statutory Boards and other functions:

• Chair of Isle of Man Post Office
• Chair of Manx Utilities Authority
• Chair of Office of Fair Trading
• Member of CURA

Each Government Department must have at least one other member alongside the Minister (or in Treasury's case two further members).  So backbenchers will be invited by Ministers to join their Departments.  Some Departments may have up to 3 or 4 additional members. Usually members are given responsibility for certain sections of the Department, and they will help the Minister to make policy decisions and be involved in overseeing all the Department's activities at Board level. That's a much better way of making decisions than leaving it all to the judgement of the Minister alone.

Once you accept membership of a Department you will be counted as part of the Government for that Department. You would vote with your Minister and wouldn't publicly ask questions of your Minister; you can of course question and challenge your Minister as much as you like in Department Board meetings.  Usually members will join 1 or 2 Departments.  If you are a backbencher who is not a member of a particular Department, then you are free to question that Minister, to challenge policies and legislation promoted by the Department and to 'hold them to account.' 

Due to our small number of MHKs, the number of Departments and the legal requirement to have extra political input into each Department, this can mean that the number of backbenchers who are left free to do the 'holding to account' role can be as low as 10.  The formal structures by which 'holding to account' happens is via the Tynwald Policy Review Committees (PRCs) and the Public Accounts Committee.  PRCs tend to cover a couple of Departments, eg Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee takes a view of the actions of DEFA and DoI.  So out of the available members (not Ministers and not Department members) each of the four PRCs  needs 3 members to be appointed.  Tynwald Scrutiny committees can examine the functions and performance of government departments and policy, they can conduct hearings, request information and will report on their findings.  Backbenchers have to fill these roles as there's no point a Government Minister being asked to mark their own work is there?

Members of the House of Keys often find themselves balancing a number of roles, sometimes all within the same day:

• Constituency Representative (supporting constituents and local organisations)
• Member of Government (as a Minister or Member of a Department)
• Member of Tynwald (acting as a backbencher, lobbying Ministers for change, bringing motions, asking questions of Government, scrutinising policy and performance)
• Representative of the Isle of Man (through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Crown Dependencies Network and various other forums).

I have had many conversations with Westminster colleagues and they report that in their time they never cover the breadth of parliamentary and government activities that we expect our Members to get involved in.  They may be on a scrutiny committee, but they wouldn't also be a junior minister/Department member.  They would be a backbencher because they are not in the party forming the government, so they'd never be serving in a department and also able to challenge other parts of government.

In contrast to other small jurisdictions including Jersey and Guernsey, the Isle of Man has the smallest House.  It's critical that every member of Tynwald pulls their weight and contributes as fully as they can to the various roles that we undertake.  So for everyone who thinks that cutting the number of MHKs would be a good idea, perhaps consider that you might not have appreciate that everyone is (or should be) quite busy.  Cutting the number of MHKs would mean less challenge to Government Ministers, less scrutiny of policy and less accountability.  It would create more of an unchallenged dictatorship style of government. Is that really what you are advocating for?