The Tynwald Standards Committee has found that language used by the Chief Minister about his former health minister was unacceptable and should be withdrawn.
In a report published today, the committee concluded that Chief Minister Alf Cannan’s comments about Lawrie Hooper during a Tynwald debate on October 16 last year breached parliamentary standards.
The remarks included accusations of “fabrication,” “falsehood,” and “gaslighting” in response to Mr Hooper’s resignation statement.
Mr Hooper resigned as Health Minister on October 15, citing concerns that the Chief Minister aimed to privatise the Isle of Man’s health service.
Convinced
In his resignation statement, he said: “I am now convinced that it is his ultimate aim to try and privatise our health service, and that is not something I am able to support.”
The following day, Mr Cannan said: “That statement on privatisation was of course a fabrication. It is a falsehood and a slur on the Council of Ministers, and the Minister has done it to perpetrate a distraction.”
He also accused Mr Hooper of “gaslighting” the public and government, saying: “What I was not expecting, though, was the gaslighting of Council to extend far beyond the confines of the Council Chamber.
Mr Cannan added that Mr Hooper had “decided that gaslighting the public that the service was underfunded was the best way forward to cover inaction”.
Committee Findings
The Standards Committee ruled that such language was inappropriate for parliamentary debate.
The report stated: “We conclude that the manner in which Mr Cannan responded in Tynwald on October 16 2024 to Mr Hooper’s resignation statement of the day before was unacceptable.
“We conclude that, specifically, it is not acceptable parliamentary practice for one Member to characterise what another Member has said as fabrication, falsehood or gaslighting.”
The committee noted that while political disagreements are expected, accusations of dishonourable conduct should not be made without thorough inquiry.
False
Mr Cannan defended his remarks, arguing they were a necessary rebuttal to what he called a “deliberately false statement” by Mr Hooper. In a written submission, he said: “My response was firm but fair, and more to the point, I can evidence every point if so required.”
He also cited examples from the UK Parliament where similar language had been used without censure. However, the committee dismissed this, stating: “Westminster practice is not binding on us.”
The committee recommended that Tynwald formally request Mr Cannan to withdraw his remarks. It also called for training for all Members on parliamentary language standards.
The report will be considered by Tynwald at its May sitting
4 Comments