Tynwald has voted against taking a vote on allowing a £20m top up for health overspending.
Speaker Juan Watterson moved that the vote not be taken saying it breached rules on financial matters while disagreement broke out over whether or not a memo was not published.
Treasury Minister Dr Alex Allinson had sought to move that the £20m be used from reserves to cover an overspend of £15.8m, with the rest to allow for further contingencies.
However, as the matter has not been on the Register of Business for four week, it required members’ permission to be taken.
Objection
Juan Watterson SHK said he was objecting to it being moved, telling members that it “doesn’t actually comply with financial regulation”.
He said: “It isn’t actually being moved by the designated body that’s overspending, and it doesn’t come with a report from the designated body stating why it’s overspending.”
The Rushen MHK added that the motion should not be taken as it isn’t required to be voted on before the end of the financial year and he would feel more comfortable voting for an overspend once it is confirmed what it is.
He added: “Does it [Tynwald] want to give a round sum allowance to the department to Manx Care, or does Tynwald would want to know exactly how much the overspend is going to be?
“For my part, I’d prefer to know exactly what the overspend is going to be, because that will give certainty, it sets a benchmark for future years, it provides clarity to ensure that the funds end up at the final destination, and where that final destination is.
“It also prevents the risk that the Treasury has to come back for a real a supplementary, supplementary vote in April or May, when they’ve blown the extra money that we’ve already provided.”
Memo
Dr Allinson said it was right that he was moving it as the motion was clear in what it wanted.
Dr Allinson added: “I will check with officers in terms of the Honourable Member, Mr. Speaker’s assertion that I am breaking with financial regulations.
“But if I am, Mr. Speaker, surely, very many of my predecessors have also done exactly the same and have brought motions to this house in the past, often in terms of individual departments or multiple departments in the past.”
However, the disagreement broke out when he referred to an explanatory memo, which was pointed out to him is not on the order paper.
It later transpired that it had been issued on the Register of Business, but the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office had not published it on the order paper.
Dr Allinson said: “I apologise that the memorandum was not on the order paper. It was submitted for Clerk of Tynald’s Office and I’d be very grateful if the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office could see exactly what what’s happened with this because unfortunately, I’ve been accused in the past of also not publishing explanatory memorandum where when they have been submitted by the various departments involved.”
While that memo may now be on the Register of Business, Manx.News notes that we had not seen the memo before today either and have submitted an FoI request for confirmation as to exactly when that file was uploaded.
As MHKs were locked at 11-11, the motion was not moved.
4 Comments