Source: http://caymaninstitute.org.ky/parliamentary_debate_on_the.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 04:14:47
Document Index: 639239647

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7']

Parliamentary Debate on the British Overseas Territories | Cayman Institute
Parliamentary Debate on the British Overseas Territories
UK debate on Overseas Territories
http://www.caymannetnews.com/news-15266--1-1---.html
Gillian Merron: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Last Thursday, 23 April 2009, the 2008 Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) Report on the British Overseas Territories was debated in Westminster Hall – part of the British Parliament usually reserved for non-contentious debates.
The report was introduced for debate by FAC chairman Mike Gapes, who said that it had been more than 10 years since the last report on overseas territories by the Committee.
“That is probably far too long,” Gapes said.
“We initially thought that it would last only a few months; but in fact, it was far more detailed and intensive than we originally envisaged,” he added.
Much of the debate centred on the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where the constitution is expected to be partially suspended within the next month or so by means an Order in Council, following a highly critical interim report by the Commission of Inquiry into government corruption.
Mr Gapes responded, “I do not believe that the Government had much alternative in the short term but to act quickly with regard to the interim report.”
The FAC had also received allegations about corruption in other overseas territories, including in Bermuda and Anguilla and Mr Gapes asked Gillian Merron, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to reassure the House that the Government are looking closely at these matters.
Ms Merron said that the FCO has instructed Governors to review the Turks and Caicos Islands commission interim report and to ensure a thorough assessment of any systematic controls that need improvement in their territory.
The FAC had recommended that the Governors of those territories should use their reserve powers to bring in more external investigators or prosecutors to strengthen their investigative capacity. The Government accepted that recommendation, but stressed that using reserve powers to bring in those people would be a last resort.
“That may be true, but there is a question over when they should use their last resort,” Mr Gapes said.
“That was not accepted by the Government,” Mr Gapes said.
The FCO had, however, agreed to consider whether judges in overseas territories would be less vulnerable to interference if they were on longer, non-renewable contracts, with appropriate safeguards in case of incapacity.
Mr Gapes asked Ms Merron to update the House in this regard, but she failed to cover this point in her responses.
In her contribution to the debate, Ms Merron said, “I recognise that the UK’s OT relationship needs improvement.”
She pointed out that the FCO has revised the requirements on those being appointed to governorship to ensure that they have the right capabilities for the job and that they are clear about their responsibilities for good governance.
“We have also made it clear—I hope that this will be welcome—that Governors who raise concerns about good governance will have support from the FCO,” Ms Merron added.
“The Government are committed to working closely with the overseas territories to ensure security and good governance,” she concluded.
As much of what was said illustrates the attitude of the British parliament and the government towards the Overseas Territories in general and the Cayman Islands in particular, Cayman Net News will be serialising the transcript of the debate in its entirety. Part One starts on page 16 of this issue.
Debate on Foreign Affairs Committee Report - Part 1
“It had been more than 10 years since the last report on overseas territories by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. That is probably far too long.” - Mike Gapes, FAC Chairman
“Orders in Council …
is an extremely undemocratic process that bypasses any democratic accountability.” - Jeremy Corbyn, Member of Parliament
“I just wanted to say a few words … in support of Sir John Stanley, whose tenacity in leading the delegation to the Turks and Caicos Islands led to some of those changes.” - Mr Greg Pope, FAC Member
On Thursday, 23 April 2009, the 2008 Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) Report on the British Overseas Territories was debated in Westminster Hall – part of the British Parliament usually reserved for non-contentious debates.
As much of what was said illustrates the attitude of the British parliament and the government towards the Overseas Territories in general and the Cayman Islands in particular, Cayman Net News will be serialising the transcript of the debate in its entirety.
Part One starts with the introduction of the report by Mike Gapes, FAC chairman.
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08 HC 147, on Overseas Territories, and the Government’s response, Cm 7473.]
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): I am pleased to introduce the report. It had been more than 10 years since the last report on overseas territories by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. That is probably far too long. When the Committee decided in 2008 to set up an inquiry into the overseas territories, we initially thought that it would last only a few months; but in fact, it was far more detailed and intensive than we originally envisaged.
The journalists of the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail, who I assume are not here reporting our debate, sometimes choose to put pictures in their publications denouncing hon. Members for travelling to the Turks and Caicos Islands. They should understand that the work of three members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, two of whom are here with me—there is another behind me as well; that makes three—led to a change in the Government’s attitude and approach. As a result, the Government have intervened to deal with serious corruption and other difficulties that had been occurring for some time in the Turks and Caicos Islands but had not been dealt with until then. The journalists who write about Committees’ work and travel do not understand the role of Members of Parliament, which is to hold the Executive to account and scrutinise the work of different Departments. No doubt, my remarks will not be reported, but if they are, they will be reported adversely. However, I am prepared for that.
Mr Greg Pope (Hyndburn) (Lab): I just wanted to say a few words, knowing that my hon. Friend will be too modest to say it himself, in support of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), whose tenacity in leading the delegation to the Turks and Caicos Islands led to some of those changes. That needs to be placed on the record.
Many people wrote to us in confidence, afraid that their names might be revealed, to allege corruption, especially in regard to the sale of Crown land, the distribution of contracts and development agreements, the granting of belongerships and the misuse of public funds by Mr Michael Misick and his cronies and relatives. There was also a deep concern, borne out by my colleagues when they visited the TCI, about free speech and people’s ability even to be seen to talk to hon. Members. People wished to speak to us only in confidence, away from the eyes of friends or officials of the Administration. That was extremely worrying, and we reported back on it.
As a result of our visit and the publication of our report on 6 July, the Government announced on 10 July through the outgoing Governor that they would establish a commission of inquiry into the Turks and Caicos Islands. On 16 March 2009, after the publication of the interim report by Sir Robin Auld, the Government announced that they would make provision to suspend parts of the TCI constitution through a draft Order in Council unless the final report significantly changed their view of the situation. Premier Misick had resigned and been replaced by Galmo Williams as leader of his party. However, when the Government made their announcement, they did not pay tribute to the work of our Committee. We are disappointed by that. We issued a press notice on 31 March welcoming the Government’s action and pointing out the fact that we had been instrumental in making the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at last take seriously the problems in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Mike Gapes: I do not believe that the Government had much alternative in the short term but to act quickly with regard to the interim report. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the fact that the Governor of the TCI, Mr Wetherell, has just announced that although the original deadline for the report was November 2008, which was extended until April 2009, the final report will now not be published until 31 May. Therefore, the interim period before the Order in Council comes into effect has been extended for several more weeks, raising some questions about what will happen in the meantime. There are provisions and powers for the British Government to stop further land sales or other measures. Nevertheless, it is not entirely satisfactory that the period before the Order in Council comes into force has been extended.
Our inquiry received allegations about corruption in other overseas territories, including in Bermuda and Anguilla. The Committee recommended that the Government should encourage the Anguillan Government to introduce anti-corruption measures and to hold an independent inquiry into the allegations that Ministers accepted bribes from developers. The Government have declined to do so and have told us that “no substantive evidence has come to the Governor’s attention that Anguillian Ministers have accepted bribes from developers. The Chief Minister of Anguilla has publicly rejected the allegations. Nevertheless, the Governor will ask the Government of Anguilla to explain how they plan to deal with the allegations made to the Committee.”
In a letter to the Committee, the Anguillan Government commented that they were “not disposed to sanction a system of governmental accountability based on gossips, rumour and unproven innuendo”.
Concerns have been expressed over matters of governance in the British Virgin Islands. There is a difficult relationship between Premier Ralph O’Neal and the Governor and deputy governor. I understand that the Minister has been in close contact with the British Virgin Islands through correspondence and through a visit just a few days ago. Did she have a fruitful, productive and friendly discussion with Mr. O’Neal?
Have the outstanding issues been resolved to her satisfaction?
Is she confident that relations between the Premier, the political establishment, the Governor and the deputy governor will get back to an even keel?
Following the Guardian report that the Prime Minister has written to all British Crown dependencies and overseas territories setting a September deadline to sign up to agreements to share tax information with the authorities, will the Minister say what response, if any, there has been from the relevant overseas territories?
How will that matter be taken forward?
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 2
“…the US’s treatment of those islands, particularly for the purposes of rendition, might well change…” - Andrew George, Member of Parliament
“The failure of the United States Administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK Government inadvertently misleading our Select Committee and the House of Commons.” - Mike Gapes, FAC Chairman
“…pursuing an incredibly expensive and ultimately
futile legal battle to deny islanders the rights that
they, like everyone else in
this world, deserve.” - Jeremy Corbyn, MP
Part Two continues with a summary of the report by Mike Gapes, FAC chairman.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): [Cont.] The Committee recommended that the FCO continue to work with the Department for International Development to introduce a financial services regulatory regime in St. Helena that is appropriate for the local economy and for development. We are pleased that that recommendation was accepted.
I understand that the FCO and the MOD are negotiating on a joint policy statement on civilian use of the air bridge. There has been controversy over the pricing structure. There is currently a single tariff with no concessions for children. Concerns were expressed to us by Falkland Islanders who have sons or daughters who wish to come to the UK for education. The lack of concessions would mean additional costs when such children want to get in touch with their families or to return home. The MOD has stated that the islands’ Government are able to take their own decisions on fares and discounts on the route and, presumably, therefore expects them to make the necessary payments for that.
Another issue for Falkland Islanders is the strategic environment in which they find themselves. On 28 March, during his tour of Latin America before the G20 summit, the Prime Minister stated, prior to a meeting with the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner, that there was “nothing to discuss” regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is reported that he also said there were “ongoing discussions about flights to and from” the islands. At the moment, anyone who leaves the Falkland Islands by air has to fly around Argentina to Chile, or has to go via the air bridge. Clearly, that is not ideal for people on the islands.
The Committee had previously recommended that the Prime Minister should press the Argentine President to agree to the establishment of a regional fisheries management organisation for the south-west Atlantic and to reiterate the islands’ right to develop a hydrocarbon industry. I am interested to know whether those issues came up in the discussions with President Kerchner and whether there has been any improvement in the attitude of the Argentine Government to those important matters, which are of concern not only to Falkland Islanders, but to the UK, because the islands are UK territory.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned St. Helena. The Committee concluded that the building of an airport and related infrastructure on St. Helena could be a significant step towards self-sufficiency for the territory. However, there was concern about the cost, and we asked the Government to provide figures to demonstrate that they had selected the most cost-effective option for bringing St. Helena off dependency on aid. The Government responded:
“While the airport is a higher cost option than sea access, in terms of the projected benefits to St Helena the airport is the most cost effective option for the Government over the long term.”
That was the Government’s position, as expressed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in September 2008, but on 8 December 2008, the Secretary of State for International Development decided, in light of the global economic situation, to pause negotiations on the airport. Subsequently, on 9 April 2009, a letter was sent by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) that seemed to kick the whole thing into the long grass. I understand that a firm of contractors was there and that the process was about to begin, but that everything is now in disarray. Much concern has been expressed by people in St. Helena about the implications for the viability of St. Helena and about having the most cost-effective solution, as that was accepted by our Government only three months before they decided to put it on hold. Clearly, this matter raises some big issues, and I would be grateful to hear more from the Foreign Office about it. The Minister has experience of DFID, so perhaps she can understand where it is coming from. Can she speak on behalf of both Departments to give some hope to the people of St. Helena that this issue will not drag on for years, that the uncertainty will be brought to an end and that the most cost-effective way forward will be found?
I also want to discuss Diego Garcia, but I am conscious that other hon. Members might want to talk about it, so I shall not spend too long on it. We had meetings with and heard evidence from the Illois—the Chagossian people who were disgracefully excluded from their homeland and sent away in the 1960s—and we were very concerned about that issue. In May 2007, the Court of Appeal decided that those people had the right to return to the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Subsequent to our report, however, the Government won their appeal in the House of Lords, on 22 October 2008, and the Orders in Council that were made in 2004 to prevent the Chagossians, or Illois, from returning now stand.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend’s Committee for taking up this issue and for its two recommendations on the matter, which I fully endorse. Will he also try to persuade the Foreign Office that it is time actively to consider ways and means of returning the islanders to the islands? Does he agree that it is time to update the feasibility study on doing that, rather than continue pursuing an incredibly expensive and ultimately futile legal battle to deny islanders the rights that they, like everyone else in this world, deserve?
Mike Gapes: I hope that the moral argument will be considered. I am not sure whether the legal process can be taken much further following the House of Lords’ decision, sadly, but I am not a lawyer. Perhaps other people will consider other options.
Diego Garcia is the largest island in the British Indian Ocean Territory, and has been leased to the United States to become a major military base. Our Committee has been expressing concern for years about extraordinary renditions. We concluded that “it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false. The failure of the United States Administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK Government inadvertently misleading our Select Committee and the House of Commons.”
That was the result of information that came to light early last year, and led to the Foreign Secretary making a statement to the House at that time. We also said in our report that we intend to examine further “the extent of UK supervision of US activities on the base, including all flights and ships serviced from Diego Garcia.”
Following the conclusion of the inquiry, the Committee decided to look at that issue as part of our ongoing human rights work. We will be taking evidence from the Foreign Secretary in June regarding the Department’s human rights annual report, when we will doubtless have the opportunity to raise that and other matters.
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): I am delighted to hear that the Committee will hold that further inquiry, which is certainly required. I am sure that the Committee respects the desire of many Chagossians to return not just to the outer islands, but ultimately to Diego Garcia. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the US’s treatment of those islands, particularly for the purposes of rendition, might well change if the Chagossians were allowed to return? Will his inquiry also look at the nature of the lease that the US has with the UK with regard to the future conditions under which the US can occupy that island?
Mike Gapes: We have already received a number of written submissions from various organisations and individuals, including some hon. Members, on exactly those matters. When we conclude our report, we will no doubt have lots of submissions and evidence to take into account, but I cannot prejudge what the report will say. It would be remiss of me to speculate on that, because I am dependent upon the decisions of my colleagues. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] My colleagues agree vigorously.
The Committee also concluded that any resolution of the UK sovereignty dispute with Mauritius over the British Indian Ocean Territory must take the Chagossians’ wishes into account. However, the Government response states simply that discussions about the cession of the territory would be “between the sovereign states concerned” and that “the views of other interested parties are welcomed”.
A further issue has recently arisen as a result of reports coming out of the United States. An article in The Daily Telegraph on 30 March 2009 quotes documentation that has been revealed in the United States. It shows that the US had planned to use Diego Garcia, rather than Guantanamo Bay, as the place to hold al-Qaeda people and others whom they picked up in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That article quotes Karen Greenberg of the New York university school of law, who interviewed a number of the senior military officers involved in setting up the camp for a new book called, “The Least Worst Place”. The article states:
“She said Gen Tommy Franks, in charge of the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, was desperate to move prisoners who had revolted at Mazar e-Sharif out of the ‘theatre of war’. She says that Diego Garcia was considered but ‘Europe posed a particular problem’. She wrote: ‘Not only would the relocation of prisoners there require negotiations and the consent of the host country to conditions and practices, but the European Court of Human Rights would inevitably become involved’.”
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 3
“The fact is—this is a matter of considerable concern –
that more than half of our British overseas territories
are on the OECD’s ‘name and shame’ list for tax havens.” – Sir John Stanley, Member of Parliament
“…we recommended that the Government should take steps to ensure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status is made illegal in all overseas territories.” – Mike Gapes, FAC Chairman
“…financial regulation
is wholly the responsibility
Kingdom Government.” – Andrew Mackinlay, MP
Part Three concludes a summary of the report by Mike Gapes, FAC chairman.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): [Cont.] I shall mention a number of other issues before I conclude. In correspondence with us, the Government have confirmed that the question of overseas territory representatives being able to lay a wreath at the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday is still under consideration. Given that we have six months in which to make the arrangements, I hope that a decision will be made and we will soon be informed of the outcome.
On human rights in general, we recommended that the Government should take steps to ensure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status is made illegal in all overseas territories. The Government have subsequently informed us that they raised the matter at the Overseas Territories Consultative Council, but that “the Caribbean territories stated that there were political difficulties with changing the law and some said in terms that they would not be willing to do so.”
Mr Pope: The British Government have a legal obligation under the European convention that applies to Gibraltar—there is case law that says it applies to Gibraltar—so it is reasonable for us to ask what the Government are going to do about the matter.
We also raised the issue of the so-called rights of non-belongers and wanted that to be an item on the OTCC’s agenda. I understand that it was discussed at last October’s meeting. However, we were told that there was resistance to change by the representatives of the overseas territories. The Minister told us:
“I encouraged Territories’ leaders to review the matter of rights for long-term residents and consider whether there was any scope for change, and for granting belongership within a reasonable timeframe.”
We took the view that the environmental funding that the UK currently provides to the overseas territories is grossly inadequate and should be increased. We described the Government’s position as “highly negligent”. They acknowledged that more could be done to help the territories tackle environmental issues, which are not so much a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as for the Government as a whole. The Government said that “the next inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Biodiversity involving DEFRA, DFID, the FCO and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will address the roles of individual government departments with regards to the Overseas Territories and look into the feasibility of carrying out a full strategic assessment of the needs of the Territories”.
That group met on 15 January. If possible, I would like to know the outcome of that meeting and whether any progress has been made. Are other Departments with responsibility for these issues coming forward?
Is the FCO taking the matter any further?
The deadline for submissions is May 2009, so I would be grateful if I heard whether the Government’s considerations have concluded and whether there will be a submission on the limits of the continental shelf in the areas I mentioned. In an answer given in December, the Minister said there had been no developments at that time, but I would be grateful if I heard whether there have been any since, given that it is nearly May.
Let me say in passing that the Committee’s report was long overdue. I hope that our successor Committee—whoever its members are—will look at these issues again relatively early in the next Parliament. Our work has shown the importance of keeping the FCO on its toes. It is also important that there are people of sufficient status and weight in the Department itself who can really make a difference.
It is also important that the choice of governors is given careful consideration, so that we have the right people in place. Governors have to deal with sometimes difficult political environments and personality issues, as well as fractious politics, in what are often very small communities where everybody knows everybody else. It is sometimes more difficult to deal with issues in such societies than it is in larger communities, which one might think would have bigger problems. In small communities, everybody knows everybody else’s business, and when misdemeanours occur, people sometimes do not want to take the risk of talking to strangers about them.
As has been said, this is the first time for well in excess of 15 years that the Foreign Affairs Committee has carried out an inquiry into the overseas territories en bloc, although we have dealt with them in a considerable number of other reports. We have done reports on individual territories, such as Gibraltar, and we have had occasion to refer to the overseas territories in our annual response to the Foreign Office’s human rights report. The present report was, however, a major undertaking, and I am glad that hon. Members have an opportunity to debate it and the Government’s response.
“We will also take action to protect the world’s financial system—and, therefore, our public finances—by cracking down on tax havens, and we note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the global forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information.”
“Can the Chancellor say how many of the countries listed today by the OECD as non-compliant are British dependent territories?”—[Official Report, 2 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 1137-43.]
Although the Chancellor made some generalised comments about tax havens in response to the hon. Gentleman, he signally failed to answer that precise question. He must have had the answer; he had referred to the OECD report, so he must have had it in his brief. Surely his officials would have told him how many of the countries on the OECD’s “name and shame” list were British overseas territories. However, the Chancellor declined to give an answer. I do not know why he did, but perhaps it was because he judged that it might have been something of an embarrassment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Twickenham as to how many overseas territories are on the OECD’s “name and shame” tax haven list is seven. I come to a slightly different score from the Chairman of the Committee in terms of the total number of overseas territories—I make it 15, but he and I will have a discussion as to which bit of Antarctica we have or have not missed out. However, it does not really matter whether it is 14 or 15. Three of them have no permanent resident populations. The fact is—this is a matter of considerable concern—that more than half of our British overseas territories are on the OECD’s “name and shame” list for tax havens. I will be glad to help the House by naming the territories concerned. They are Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands—
Andrew Mackinlay: The reason why I erupted is that financial regulation on the Cayman Islands is wholly the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. In their jurisdiction, over which they have responsibility, the British Government here in London—not the overseas territory’s Government—are acquiescing in something that offends the OECD guidelines, and that is happening with their full knowledge and full consent. On the Cayman issue, therefore, they do not even have the fig leaf of suggesting that these things are happening because the overseas territory Government and legislature are dragging their feet.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but even if there is a slightly lesser degree of delegation in the case of the Cayman Islands, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all seven of the British overseas territories that I mentioned are removed from the OECD’s “name and shame” list still lies with the British Government.
Does the Minister agree that it is somewhere towards shocking that half the British overseas territories are on the OECD’s “name and shame” list for tax havens?
If she does agree that that is pretty shocking, will she tell us what steps the Government will take to ensure that not one single British overseas territory will be on the OECD list when it is next published?
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 4
“…it was truly shocking to us that such a situation
was prevalent in a British overseas territory.” – Sir John Stanley, Member of Parliament, FAC Member
“One of the things that I found most shocking on Turks and Caicos was that citizens of a British overseas territory were afraid to be seen in public with Members of this House.” – Greg Pope, FAC Member
wrong in London
stewardship issue.” – Andrew Mackinlay, MP
Part Four commences an extensive contribution by FAC chairman, Sir John Stanley.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): [Cont.] I want to talk now about Gibraltar. I have not so far been wholly complimentary about the Foreign Office’s performance with respect to the overseas territories, but as—I hope—a reasonably fair-minded sort of guy, I want to say that I think its performance on Gibraltar has, under the present Government, been much better than under the previous Conservative Government. In particular, the Government have brought home the 2006 Cordoba agreement, which was a signal achievement. It involved the solution of a series of issues that had previously been regarded as intractable: the airport issue, the border control issue, the wretched Spanish pensions issue, which had gone on forever, and the issue of the number of telephone lines from outside that would be allowed into Gibraltar.
In addition, on a matter that, as Members of the House may know, is close to my heart, the Cordoba agreement paved the way to enabling the whole EU to ratify the 1996 Hague convention on the international protection of children. That was an important and significant achievement, but—and I am afraid there is a “but”—there is still one big issue outstanding. I do not mean sovereignty, because that is unresolved and probably will be for the foreseeable future. The remaining big issue is the continuing refusal of the Spanish Government to allow NATO aircraft and naval vessels into Spanish airspace or waters when they are going to and from Gibraltar.
“We recommend that the Government continues making strong representations to Spain and within NATO at the highest level about the unacceptability of Spain’s continuing restrictions on direct naval, army and airforce movements or military communications between Spain and Gibraltar.”
I am very disappointed by the lack of robustness of the Foreign Office’s response to our recommendation, which was:
“We believe the imposition of Spanish restrictions in relation to military movements between Spain and Gibraltar is inappropriate. We therefore support the Committee’s recommendation and have made representations to Spain to address the issue. We also work closely with Spain as a NATO ally and will, in this context, continue to engage with Spain to find a constructive solution.”
That is truly supine. I dug out some earlier parliamentary questions that I tabled, and the tenor of that response to the Committee’s latest report is almost the same as an answer that I got to a question I tabled for the Secretary of State for Defence seven years ago. The answer that I received on 31 October 2002 on the same issue was:
“Discussions between the British and Spanish Government in the context of the Brussels Process aim to resolve all outstanding issues between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 892W.]
Here we are, currently celebrating the 60th anniversary of NATO. The Prime Minister went to the celebrations and made a statement to the House when he came back; yet our Spanish ally is engaged in indefensible restrictions on the movement of NATO aircraft and vessels over its airspace and in its maritime waters. I accept that the issue is not a British one but, at root, a NATO one. I ask the Minister and, through her, going right to the top, the Prime Minister, whether, in the 60th anniversary year of NATO, this is the moment to bring down the full force of NATO’s persuasiveness—and particularly that of the United States under its new President—and say, “Let us forget about these ridiculous restrictions, get them removed, and normalise relations between Spain and the rest of NATO with respect to Spanish airspace and maritime waters.” Is not now the moment when the strongest possible pressure should be applied by NATO as a whole to the Spanish on this issue?
Mr Pope: One of the things that I found most shocking on Turks and Caicos was that citizens of a British overseas territory were afraid to be seen in public with Members of this House, afraid to give evidence and afraid even to be seen at a reception talking to us. The only other places I have been to on overseas visits where people were in fear of talking to me as a Member of Parliament are places such as the People’s Republic of China. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was a shocking thing?
Sir John Stanley: With his usual acuity the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next sentences that I was going to say, almost word for word. That was indeed our experience when we went to the Turks and Caicos Islands. The written evidence clearly demonstrated that there was a climate of fear. When we arrived there, that was wholly confirmed. We had to arrange meetings with individuals who were prepared to see us only on condition that the place, date and time of the meeting remained absolutely a secret. Some were not prepared to see us at all, under any circumstances, because they feared that it would result in reprisals against them.
The Committee recommended that a commission of inquiry should be set up. The Foreign Office, to its credit, accepted the recommendation and announced the setting up of a commission of inquiry within days of our recommending it. The interim report of Sir Robin Auld has wholly vindicated our recommendation and the decision of the FCO to accept it. I shall give the House just a few sentences from Sir Robin Auld’s interim report. He stated that the Government of the territory “is at a near stand-still. The Cabinet is divided and unstable...The Territory’s finances are in dire straits and poorly controlled. There is a settled pattern of recourse to disposals of Crown land to fund recurrent public expenditure, for want of governmental revenue from other more fiscally conventional sources. I should have added that the financial position is so bad that the Government cannot pay many of its bills as they fall due. Governmental and other audit recommendations lie ignored and unattended. In short, there are wide-spread fears on the part of the people of the Territory that they are leaderless and that their heritage is at risk of continuing to drain away...I am also satisfied on the information before me under Part (a) of the Commission’s Terms of Reference of a high probability of systemic corruption and/or other serious dishonesty involving past and present elected Members of the House of Assembly and others in recent years.”
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 5
“…the Foreign Office was asleep on the job, or most certainly half asleep.” – Sir John Stanley, Member of Parliament, FAC Member
“…we continue with the mediaeval system of Orders in Council…” – Jeremy Corbyn, MP
“It has become clear that Governors have been incompetent.” – Andrew Mackinlay, MP
Part Five concludes an extensive contribution by FAC member, Sir John Stanley.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): [Cont.] The Committee was in an extraordinary position: we received a lavender-scented memorandum from the Foreign Office at the same time as we were being bombarded with distinctly malodorous memorandums from the Turks and Caicos Islands across the Atlantic.
Only one of two conclusions can be drawn from such a situation. If one were cynical—I am not—one could say that the Foreign Office was out to pull the wool over the Committee’s eyes, to mislead the Committee. I do not believe that that is the way in which present Ministers or their officials would wish to conduct themselves before the Foreign Affairs Committee. If one takes the view that the Foreign Office was not trying to pull the wool, I am afraid that only one other conclusion can be drawn: the Foreign Office was asleep on the job, or most certainly half asleep, and it simply had not woken up to what was happening on the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I will not detain the House long, because my two colleagues have covered a lot of territory, in more ways than one, and very effectively, but I want to pick up one or two points. What disturbed me—I think you will share my view, Mr Bercow—is the uncertainty of our assumption that the House is ultimately the Parliament for all the overseas territories. They may have delegated legislatures, but if the House decides to go to war, those territories go to war. They do not have an op-out. This is their Parliament, and the UK Government can rescind and vary their constitutions as and when they wish.
Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and if he will bear with me, I will come to Orders in Council and constitutions. I do not want to labour the point, but I want to emphasise it. The matter is a grave one for Parliament, and I was deeply disappointed at the ambiguous and uncertain advice that we received. I hesitate to say this, because I may be doing the gentleman wrong—I believe that it was Speaker’s Counsel—but it is unacceptable if parliamentary privilege does extend to overseas territories. That relates to witnesses’ anxiety, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) referred. We could not be confident that we would extend the right of parliamentary privilege to present stuff to our Select Committee. I hope that the matter will be addressed by the Government and, more importantly, the House authorities.
The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South also touched on the need to end discrimination in the overseas territories. That is particularly relevant given the Minister who will respond to the debate. I do not know precisely what she will say, but I find it bewildering that she would even attempt to excuse or defend acquiescence in continued discrimination on the ground of gender in overseas territories for which this place has the ultimate responsibility. That is happening and it must stop. It is a test of her veracity. I know that she is opposed to discrimination on the ground of gender and other categories of discrimination, but if she does nothing about it, she is acquiescing in it.
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 6
“Where are the flags of the Cayman Islands
or Montserrat?” – Andrew Rosindell, Member of Parliament
“He is slightly mistaken about the institutional nature of some aspects of the Foreign Office.” – Jeremy Corbyn, MP
“...all the overseas territories are critical to our international interests, our global reach.” – Andrew Mackinlay, MP
Part Six covers the contribution by Andrew Rosindell MP.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): [Cont.] My final point relates to the laying of the wreaths. It defies belief that there cannot be an immediate decision on that matter. There is all this bogus nonsense about how there would be too many people and about the time factor. I have watched the Remembrance service every year since I was a lad, and what happens is that the people come up in tranches. In one big movement—it is done in a very dignified way—the high commissioners of all the Commonwealth countries move up to lay their wreaths. It takes about five seconds, and they do it with great dignity. Either we could extend that line or we could allow five or six seconds more for the wreaths of the overseas territories to be laid.
We do not have a huge amount of time, so I will not go through all the different issues that have already been raised. There are a number of things that I agree 100 per cent with. I shall speak about one or two of them later, but first I would like to talk in general about the overseas territories and why we are in such a muddle when it comes to dealing with territories for which we are ultimately responsible.
Why has the United Kingdom never sorted out a sensible way of arranging territories and giving them representation and proper recognition?
Why is it that so long after all the countries that wanted independence were granted independence, those that remain—the British overseas territories—are left in limbo?
They are not really totally British—they are not treated as though they are British and as though their people are equal to our constituents. We have so many examples of that; I shall give a couple now.
I know the Minister well; I speak to her regularly on all these issues. I know how committed she is to trying to improve the situation of the overseas territories, but to be honest, she is hamstrung because of an institutional feeling within the Foreign Office. I mean no disrespect to members of staff from the Foreign Office who are present, but there is an institutional feeling that the overseas territories do not matter, they are secondary, they are not that important, they can just be left. That is why we get these appalling situations such as those on Pitcairn and in the Turks and Caicos Islands. That all fits together if we think about our failure in this Parliament to work out a proper way of giving representation to British overseas territories.
There are many ideas on the subject. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), for whom I have enormous regard on this issue, spoke an enormous amount of sense and I agree with so much of what he said. He suggested, and I have suggested before, that we should have a Select Committee for overseas territories. This issue should not be under foreign affairs. They are not foreign; they are British.
Why is it under foreign affairs?
Why are British overseas territories—territories of Her Majesty the Queen—under the Foreign Office?
They are neither foreign nor Commonwealth. They are not members of the Commonwealth in their own right. There are British overseas territories in the Commonwealth only via Britain, so they should not really be under the Foreign Office at all. They should be placed in the same Department, whichever Department that is, as the British Crown dependencies. Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories should all be placed together under one Department, but not the Foreign Office.
It is shameful that loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen and British subjects are treated as they are, that they are not allowed to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday and that the flags of their territories are not flown for the trooping of the colour. We have the flag of Mozambique flown because it has joined the Commonwealth, but it has never been part of the British empire; it has never been under the British monarchy.
When it comes to the Queen’s birthday parade, however, where is the flag of the Falkland Islands?
Where is the flag of Gibraltar?
Where are the flags of the Cayman Islands or Montserrat?
Where are the flags of Crown dependencies such as Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man and Alderney?
They are nowhere to be seen—but the flag of Mozambique is.
We insult these people. We insult them when they have disasters—as, for instance, when Hurricane Ivan hit the Cayman Islands. I went to the Cayman Islands on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit in 2006, and I know how hurt those people felt. Disaster struck, and they needed our support.
Was the Government offering support?
The islanders received little support, if any. That is something for which we are all responsible, and we should not let such things continue.
Perhaps we should allow the British overseas territories to have elected representation in the House of Commons. Perhaps we should find a way to give them their own Members of Parliament; we would have to consider carefully how it could be done.
Would they have their own representation, or would each territory be linked to an existing constituency?
Either way, the hon. Member for Thurrock and I believe that it is wrong in the modern world that British people, for whom we have ultimate responsibility, should have no vote and no say. We can declare war on their behalf, and we can make foreign policy on their behalf. We could join the euro if we wished to—I hope that we never do—but if we did, what would happen to the Falklands pound?
We make the decisions on all those matters.
Why should we not have a Select Committee?
Let us consider what Australia does for its small number of territories. Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cokos Island do not have representation as elected representatives in Canberra; instead, there is an external territories committee. Those islands can air grievances and talk about issues that matter to them; they have a voice in the Canberra Parliament. As a result, they are not disregarded. Above all, they are not treated as foreign. They are treated as being part of Australia, even though technically they are slightly separate—rather like our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Australia and New Zealand treat their overseas territories far better than we treat ours.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I do not agree about much, but we certainly agree on that question. We are working together through the all-party group on the Chagos islands, because at the end of the day it is about treating people in a decent and humane way.
How could anyone justify what happened to those islanders?
I do not understand how any Minister could ever have justified that. We must put matters right. The Minister knows my opinion on the matter, and I have a deep suspicion that she has some sympathy with it, but the reality is that the institutional line taken by the Foreign Office can never be broken. We need to be truthful with ourselves; we should value the overseas territories, treat them as British and ensure that such mistakes are not repeated.
UK debate on Overseas Territories - Part 7
Part Seven deals with the ongoing controversy over the Chagos islanders.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): [Cont.] I know that the debate has been going on for many years, and I am sad that we are no further forward—that because of the House of Lords ruling, we are still stuck in this situation. I am deeply unhappy that there seems to be some sort of unofficial agreement with Mauritius—that once America decides to leave, Mauritius will take what is properly called the British Indian Ocean Territory. That is not right.
What do the islanders do next?
They have a right to, and will, take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, and they might well win. I am pleased that the Minister is taking this issue seriously, that she met with the all-party group on the Chagos islands and that she received a delegation consisting of myself and the all-party group secretary, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). I am also grateful to her for meeting Oliver Bancoult and a delegation of islanders, in order to understand their position, when they visited this country recently.