|
CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 147-v House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 26 March 2008 JIM MURPHY MP, JAMES SHARP and IVAN SMYTH MEG MUNN MP, LEIGH TURNER and SUSAN DICKSON Evidence heard in Public Questions 244 - 338
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday 26 March 2008 Members present: Mike Gapes (Chairman) Rt hon. Sir Menzies Campbell Mr. Fabian Hamilton Rt hon. Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory Mr. Eric Illsley Mr. Paul Keetch Andrew Mackinlay Mr. Malcolm Moss Sandra Osborne Mr. Greg Pope Rt hon. Sir John Stanley Ms Gisela Stuart ________________ Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr. Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, James Sharp, Head of Western Mediterranean Group, and Ivan Smyth, Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence. Q244 Chairman: Minister, welcome to you and your colleagues. We are pleased to have you here. This, as you know, is a two-part session in which we have two Ministers-first, yourself, talking about Gibraltar, and then your colleague, Meg Munn, talking about the other Overseas Territories. It is interesting that we have this split of ministerial responsibilities. May I ask you to introduce your colleagues, and then we will begin? Jim Murphy: Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I look forward to the time that will be devoted to Gibraltar. James Sharp is head of the Western Mediterranean Group, and Ivan Smyth is a legal adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Q245 Chairman: May I begin by asking you a general question about the new Gibraltar constitution, and what it means for the UK? Are there risks in increasing and maximising the level of self-government to an overseas territory? Jim Murphy: In Gibraltar's case specifically, the new constitution that it agreed to by referendum is about the right balance. It does not jeopardise UK sovereignty, and that is very clear. There is general acceptance of that, and that was the basis of the understanding around the agreement and the referendum. It changes the relationship, while not jeopardising sovereignty, and shows that the UK is involved only when it is appropriate to be involved. It gives the Gibraltar Government a greater formal role in the governance of Gibraltar in an important and sensible way. It is a modernisation, and it has been described by others as an end to the colonial relationship, although I have never described it in those terms. It is a modernisation and improvement, and a sensible move forward, while establishing and protecting the principle of British sovereignty. Q246 Chairman: But it will mean that on some issues relating to, for example, social policy, there will be different legal requirements in Gibraltar than in the UK. Jim Murphy: The Government of Gibraltar will come to their own policy and legal positions within the terms of the agreement. That is the unavoidable consequence-but a desired one on occasion-of the nature of devolution and such constitutional arrangements. Q247 Sandra Osborne: These differences in policies between devolved Administrations and others are issues that we are familiar with. Despite the constitution, as far as the UN is concerned, Gibraltar is still a colony and is listed as such in the UN Special Committee of 24. How important is it for Gibraltar and the UK for Gibraltar to be de-listed as a colony as far as the UN is concerned, and what are the UK Government doing to try to achieve that? Jim Murphy: I will not respond to the initial comment, because we are here to talk about Gibraltar rather than Scotland. Chairman: That is not an overseas territory. Jim Murphy: I look forward to it never being so. On Gibraltar, the fact is that the UN Special Committee of 24 process is still there. We do not think it reflects the modern sentiment between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. We continue to argue the case, but we continue to co-operate on the fantastically titled form 73E-Ivan will correct me if I am wrong-on the basis, first, that it is part of the UN charter and, secondly, that it shows a determination to continue to co-operate in a process and sea change. It is important, not just in Gibraltar, but in terms of the UN's posture on that committee. Generally, the committee's colonial description does not reflect the modern reality of Gibraltar, and perhaps Meg Munn, my fellow Minister, will reflect on whether it reflects the modern sentiment in other overseas territories. Generally, I do not think it does, and we should move away from that UN process. We continue to argue that. Q248 Sandra Osborne: Presumably the Spanish would oppose Gibraltar being de-listed. Would that be a stumbling block? Jim Murphy: I think we must get agreement through the UN, and Spain's voice is important. We continue to discuss, and to convince. It is not and cannot be-Mrs. Osborne will be aware of this-a matter of us shouting our case more loudly. It is about making our case increasingly coherently, based on the modern arrangements between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. That is a task that we continue to be committed to. Q249 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Can we visit the European Union for a minute? It is a subject on which we have exchanged views in the past and, I am sure, will do so again, because it touches on the interest of Gibraltar? Mr. Peter Caruana gave evidence to us, and said that Gibraltar was not given any opportunity to influence the outcome of the treaty negotiations, even though it is, of course, part of the European Community and looks to the Government to defend it. It was told that it was a fait accompli and that its concerns could not be addressed. Is that your reading of the situation? Jim Murphy: I look forward to our future endeavours in debates, of course, on the EU, but I thought that we would find common cause in the view that Gibraltar at least was able to agree its new constitution by a referendum. The fact is that the Lisbon treaty is pretty clear, and I think we have reassured Peter and others. We are certainly clear that Gibraltar's status as a consequence of the Lisbon treaty is unchanged. There is a declaration to that effect, and on that basis the remaining substantial issue-Peter is more than capable of speaking effectively for himself-is the role of the Parliament. The facts are, as the Committee will be aware, that these issues are outstanding not just in terms of what happens in Gibraltar and the deliberations of politicians in Gibraltar, but in terms of politicians here in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the devolved Administrations throughout the United Kingdom. That is something that must be worked out with Peter and his colleagues-the exact democratic opportunity for the Parliament and the Government to be involved. Q250 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am talking about negotiation of the treaty, which will be binding on Gibraltar. Directives that we agree to are, of course, binding on Gibraltar, so it will be affected by changes to existing treaties and their replacement by the treaty of Lisbon. Mr. Caruana said that the memorandums that he submitted were effectively ignored, and that he was told that the negotiations were a fait accompli-that was the phrase he used. That is not very good stewardship of an overseas territory. Will you tell us whether you met his concerns, and, if not, why not? Gibraltar is a self-governing entity, but it seems to have been unrepresented at the negotiations, which affect it. According to the Chief Minister, you failed to do that. That is serious. Jim Murphy: I met the Chief Minister to discuss those very points, and I think that the Committee has copies of the relevant correspondence between him and me. Let me give details of the chronology: he sent his memo, and I received it, after the intergovernmental conference mandate had been negotiated. The United Kingdom was involved on that basis-you rightly followed the issue with great care, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, over that period-and its chief negotiating position was about achieving the much-discussed red lines. The memo from Peter came after the mandate was concluded; we did not want to reopen the mandate, for well rehearsed reasons, and we felt that there was no requirement to do so because Gibraltar's position was unaffected. As I have said, I received the memo after the conclusion of the IGC mandate. Q251 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Mr. Caruana says that he submitted a memorandum in 2004-before the final terms of reference on the treaty were decided, so you had plenty of time. Again, we did not meet his concerns. Given that the Bill ratifying the treaty is still before Parliament, is not there a way in which to correct some of this by ensuring that Gibraltarian concerns are met, at least regarding the degree of oversight of how the treaty is implemented? Jim Murphy: There is obviously no opportunity today, and nor has there been in recent months, to reopen the IGC mandate process or to rewrite the treaty. As I have said, the treaty does not affect Gibraltar's status; both we and Spain are clear about that. The major consequence for Gibraltar is about providing an opportunity for politicians there to be part of the important new role for regional or sub-national Parliaments. In terms of the earlier memos, there was, of course, earlier correspondence based on the old constitution. I do not think that the Committee would thank us for rehearsing our arguments of recent months on that. That memo was relevant to the old constitution. On the IGC negotiation process on the Lisbon treaty, I received a memo after the IGC mandate had been concluded, so the opportunity was not there. Of course, there is still to be a process of debate in the House of Lords on whether the treaty should be ratified in the Bill, but it is for their lordships to reflect on whether this issue should gather their attention. I reiterate, however, that the situation in Gibraltar is unaffected. The memo on the treaty was received after the mandate. This issue might have been mentioned occasionally during our recent, prolonged debates in the House of Commons-some would say that the debates were not long enough-but it was not a issue on which parliamentarians or the Government were lobbied by the Government of Gibraltar on specifics during the passage of the Bill. Q252 Andrew Mackinlay: The suspension of the Chief Justice of Gibraltar is a source of considerable disquiet, although not necessarily because of the circumstances. The suspension of any Chief Justice anywhere cannot be done lightly or in a fickle way-I am not suggesting that it was-but some of us are concerned that there are not sufficient safeguards. However, there is a London Foreign Office dimension, through the Governor, because he is a creature of the Foreign Office and he has acquiesced to the suspension. In the UK, there is a high hurdle to clear before suspending or dismissing a judge. Are you happy about the machinery to deal with the specific instance, because at this moment the Chief Justice is suspended? Are we meeting international norms? There is considerable disquiet among your colleagues here about that. Jim Murphy: I am sure you are right. The process and the specifics will cause disquiet to anyone who is in personal contact with the Chief Justice. It is a remarkably difficult time for the individuals involved, so I will not comment on the specifics of the case. Q253 Andrew Mackinlay: No, I was not asking you about that. It is the principle. In a democracy, can you have a small legislature, or Government or even a Governor suspending a Chief Justice? Should not the hurdles be high? Indeed, should not there perhaps be a London dimension to this? Jim Murphy: The Committee will reflect on this in its findings. The established process is that this is not a decision for London; it is a decision for the Governor. Under the constitution, it is for the Gibraltar Judicial Services Commission to address these very points on whether to suspend the Chief Justice. There is a legitimate debate as to whether that is something in which London should have a smaller or greater role. It is a judgment for the Committee and it is a judgment generally. Our judgment is that it is an issue that should be handled by the Governor in the context of this constitution. We talked earlier about Gibraltar having an additional power and role in terms of its own democracy and its own functioning. This is an important part of it. Q254 Andrew Mackinlay: I may want to return to this when we speak to your colleague Meg Munn later on the wider principles. Is this Chief Justice a contract Chief Justice, or-I am not sure of the correct legal term-is he there in perpetuity until normal retirement age? Sir Menzies Campbell: Ad vitam aut culpam. Jim Murphy: I am advised that he is there for a set period of time. If that is not the case, I will write to the Committee. Q255 Andrew Mackinlay: May I explore this with you and you may want to come back to this? A judge who is there for a specific period of time, both in this overseas territory or anywhere else, is particularly vulnerable. Basically, if he is not liked, he can be got rid with a little bit of patience and by his contract not being renewed. This cannot be right, can it? Judges should not be fearful that their contracts might not be renewed. Jim Murphy: This is an important point about the independence of the judicial process, but without being tempted-I know that you are not tempting me to do so-to trample on to the specifics, I should point out that some of the material that is already in the public domain may be pertinent. Chairman: We will move on to the wider issue of the Overseas Territories generally and then I will bring you in again later, Mr. Mackinlay. Q256 Mr. Hamilton: Minister, may I move to relations between Gibraltar and Spain? As you know, we have had quite a few meetings with the Trilateral Forum since September 2006. When the Government of Gibraltar gave their memorandum to this Committee, they spoke very positively, as you would expect, about the forum. They said, "The agenda is open, and thus not focused or preconditioned on sovereignty. And nothing can be agreed unless all three sides agree, thus giving Gibraltar an effective veto on unacceptable agreements." However, when the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar, Joe Bossano, gave his evidence to the Committee, he totally contradicted that, as you might expect. He said, "little comes out of these things... If anything new is in the pipeline and we are on track to achieve it, we will know it after the event and will then have to judge it post hoc. We cannot evaluate it beforehand, because no information is available." Are you satisfied with the outcomes of the meetings of the Trilateral Forum since September 2006? Jim Murphy: Generally, yes. First of all in terms of the structure the trilateral process is a better more mature structure. That is an important new architecture-if you like-of agreement and discussion that enshrines the right of the Government of Gibraltar to be an equal partner in those discussions. In principle, having all three parties in the room at one time, rather than the series of bilateral meetings, is a step forward. I do not wish to get involved in the internal disagreements between Peter and Joe but it is generally regarded that, on the freedom of movement of people, roaming charges and other important matters, there has been substantial movement during this process: on ease of movement across borders, traffic lines and additional lanes. Important improvements of substance, not just structure, have been made on those things. It might be helpful if I inform the Committee-I do not know whether this is in the public domain or the Committee is aware of it-that in November last year the relevant officials agreed a shortlist of six new areas for future agendas, which included co-operation on the environment, financial services and taxation, maritime communications, education, justice and law enforcement, and visa issues. Those are substantial and important additional subjects that will now be placed within that trilateral process. The important thing is that the structure is now in place and that we can go beyond just celebrating its establishment, which inevitably was what happened initially-in itself, its establishment was a step forward. We must now ensure that the structure delivers. It has done so in important ways already, but we can now do much more. Q257 Mr. Hamilton: Clearly, following the election of Zapatero's Government, and their subsequent re-election, there was a sea change in relations between Spain, Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. Of course, before that, there were constant discussions about Gibraltar's sovereignty and whether it had a right to continue as it was. Are sovereignty discussions between Spain and Gibraltar now permanently off the agenda, or is the sovereignty issue still in the background as far as Britain's relations with Spain and Gibraltar are concerned? Jim Murphy: I share your assessment about the very mature and principled position of the Spanish Government. We have seen a real willingness to engage on the principle and the detail. Without infringing on Spanish politics, I should say that we now have a very healthy dynamic. Of course, on occasions, we disagree. Is sovereignty off the agenda for ever? Such conversations cannot stop people raising matters, but we have made it very clear-I think, Mr. Hamilton, that you were at the Gibraltar day celebrations at the Guildhall when I made this speech-that the UK Government will never-"never" is a seldom-used word in politics-enter into an agreement on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process without that agreement. The word "never" sends a substantial and clear commitment and has been used for a purpose. We have delivered that message with confidence to the peoples and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. It is a sign of the maturity of our relationship now that that is accepted as the UK's position. Q258 Mr. Hamilton: I am sure that the people and Government of Gibraltar will be very grateful, as is the Committee, for that statement and reiteration. Chairman: Now can we switch our focus? Sir John Stanley please. Q259 Sir John Stanley: The Cordoba agreement was a huge step forward that had eluded previous Governments of all political complexions in putting relations over Gibraltar between Britain and Spain on a sensible and constructive basis. I commend and congratulate the Government on that achievement. However, I am not easily satisfied, and I hope that the Government will now achieve the same resounding success in the military sphere as in the civil sphere. I am sure that you will agree that it is intolerable and indefensible that a NATO ally of this country should continue to impose restrictions on NATO flights and Royal Navy sea passage to Gibraltar in the area of Spain. Those restrictions, as I know you will acknowledge, are totally contrary to the letter and the spirit of the NATO treaty, and I hope that you will tell the Committee what steps the Government will take to produce a military and NATO equivalent to the Cordoba agreement on Gibraltar in the civil field. Jim Murphy: Sir John makes a fair point about the agreement, which has eluded Governments of both political persuasions; it is a testament to the consistent work done over a number of years not only by politicians, but by a number of very dedicated and talented officials, and it has been warmly welcomed. On the military issues, you are right that it is unacceptable-in a NATO sense and because this is a nation with which we have otherwise excellent relations-for such restrictions to be in place. We will therefore continue to press the Spanish authorities. We are also monitoring the consequences. Although some of the public comment has suggested that this will undermine Gibraltar, and people can make that point, the more substantial impact in the long term will be on the UK's military posture and military capacity as a result of that lack of sea, air and road movement. We monitor the consequences in precise detail, and, thus far, despite our objecting in principle to Spain's position, the measures have not had an impact on military capacity. There have been issues about pieces of kit, and I think diving equipment is the one example where there has been an issue on the border. Generally, however, we monitor the situation, and we will continue to press Spain because it is unacceptable for a NATO ally and a country with which we have great relations to have such restrictions in place. We are determined to make progress on this and we do so through the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Q260 Sir John Stanley: Can you tell us whether ongoing negotiations are taking place to produce a NATO military equivalent of the Cordoba agreement? Jim Murphy: Whether it is equivalent or parallel to Cordoba, there are certainly ongoing efforts to bring a solution to this. Whether you could call it parallel to Cordoba, we will know only by the end of the process, but there is a process of bilateralism. Perhaps the Committee would find it helpful if I said that, despite the Trilateral Forum mentioned earlier, this remains a bilateral process, for understandable and important reasons. Bilaterally, we are working hard with our friends in Spain on this matter. It may be helpful in time to update the Committee as that progresses, Mr. Chairman. Chairman: Thank you. In fact, if you can send us a note on that, we would be very grateful. Unfortunately, because of our time constraints, there are one or two other issues that we may want to pursue in writing. However, we are conscious of the fact that we have another Minister waiting to come in, so we thank you, Mr. Murphy, and your colleagues, Mr. Sharp and Mr. Smyth, for your contributions, and we look forward to seeing you on future occasions. We will now break for a few minutes while we change witnesses and we will then continue the session. Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Meg Munn MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Leigh Turner, Director, Overseas Territories, and Susan Dickson, Legal Counsellor, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence.
Q261 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister, and good afternoon to your colleagues. I ask members of the public who have just joined us to switch off mobile phones or put them on silent. Welcome, Mr. Turner and Ms Dickson. As you are aware, we are continuing this afternoon's double-hatted session with discussion of the other Overseas Territories, in which we have much wider responsibilities, both geographically and in terms of complexity, than the Minister for Europe has. Nevertheless, we are pleased to see both Ministers. Can you give us a sense of how the Foreign Office deals with the Overseas Territories overall in establishing consistency among them with regard to amendments to their constitutions? How do you decide how much self-government and responsibility we are prepared to entrust to particular territories, given their differences and complexities? Meg Munn: Perhaps you will permit me to say a couple of sentences first about how we approach that overall as it leads into the constitutional basis. When I first came into post, I obviously wanted to understand the relationships, so I went back to the 1999 White Paper, which clearly set out the principles on which the relationship between the Government and the Overseas Territories is worked out. Four fundamental principles basically still hold true in terms of the territories: self-determination, mutual obligations and responsibilities, freedom for them to run their own affairs to the greatest possible degree and a firm commitment from the UK to help the territories develop economically and assist them in emergencies. That is the broad framework within which we operate. In relation to the constitutions, the White Paper set out the view that it was important to modernise them to take account of the current situation and developments that had happened. One of the key issues is the size of the territories themselves, their capacity and what the people of the territories want to see in terms of their constitution. A negotiated process takes place. There is an important aspect. We continue to have legal obligations, in relation to which there are certain points that we will not give to them: our responsibility for international obligations, defence and, broadly, security. I think that covers the broad framework. Q262 Chairman: What we will not give over in the general sense is one thing, but within the different territories there are different criteria, or at least different practices, as regards the level of self-government. Could you be more specific? For example, do you make judgments about the competence of people, or the degree of influence by undesirable elements, both locally and in the region? Meg Munn: I do not think that is part of the discussion. Perhaps Leigh Turner, who is a bit closer to some of the ongoing negotiations, can give you a more specific response on that. Leigh Turner: Broadly speaking, we have principles that apply to all the Overseas Territories, which the Minister has set out. There might be a case, such as St. Helena, where the Governor retains responsibility for shipping. There might be a case, such as the Falklands Islands, where we have retained responsibility for permission to develop hydrocarbons. There will be a range of specific instances, varying from territory to territory, but we would also look at the capacity of the territory concerned. If it were a big territory, such as Bermuda or Cayman, it might have well developed institutions, compared with somewhere such as Pitcairn, which has limited capacity to run itself. There would be a sliding scale. I do not believe that we have ever said that a territory is so problematic that we cannot give it powers. Q263 Chairman: But in the case of Pitcairn, which has so few people, you cannot give it many powers, can you? Meg Munn: In relation to Pitcairn, clearly the structures and the way in which it operates are different from the way in which Cayman or Bermuda operate. There is a locally elected body, but it is clearly at a different level. Q264 Mr. Keetch: What about human rights-for example, a Bill of Rights? On legislation covering, for example, homosexual equality and civil marriages, would you require all overseas territories to have the same level of what we might call western European human rights views, as opposed to the different tradition that some of those territories might have on some of those issues? Meg Munn: There is a range of positions within what you said. In terms of UN conventions, the British Government are responsible for those, including in the territories, so we want the territories to be able to sign up to them and to have them as part of their legislation and the like. That has been one of the things that I have been particularly concerned about. At the Overseas Territories Consultative Council we discussed the fact that some territories had not signed up, particularly to some key conventions, and we want that to happen. In terms of the constitutions that are now being discussed for territories that have not put new constitutions in place, our view is that they should include issues relating to human rights, so that is part of the negotiation. Where there is a difference, we do not intend to say that territories must enact, for example, civil partnerships. That is not something we have gone that far with currently. It is an issue that I was questioned about at great length when I visited Cayman, which expressed concern that signing up to human rights within its constitution would automatically mean that it would have to have civil partnerships. That was not our view. Q265 Mr. Keetch: So, to be clear, you will not insist that any overseas territory would have to write civil marriages into its constitution. Meg Munn: No. Q266 Mr. Illsley: You gave the example of the Falkland Islands and said that the Government's permission would be needed to develop hydrocarbons. Is that what you meant-that the Falkland Islands would need the Government's permission to develop the hydrocarbon industry? Leigh Turner: What happens at the moment is that the Falkland Islanders have, in a number of cases, requested permission to license areas of hydrocarbon development. Those permissions have been granted and the development of hydrocarbons is going ahead, but if there were to be a major new change of policy on hydrocarbons, for example in relation to licensing a number of major new areas of Falkland Islands' waters, we would expect that to be cleared with us. Q267 Mr. Illsley: Does that imply that Her Majesty's Government own the rights to hydrocarbons around the Falklands? I know that issue is part of the negotiations on the new constitution. Leigh Turner: No, the Falkland Islands own the resources about which we are talking. But the point is that we regard something as important as the development of hydrocarbons as having potential international implications so it is right that we have some sort of handle on it. Q268 Mr. Illsley: Does that mean income as well as some sort of input and responsibility? Will HMG demand an income from any revenues from hydrocarbons? Meg Munn: We have not yet got to the position where any have been located. That would be a discussion we would have with the Falkland Islanders. Q269 Mr. Illsley: But will the Government be looking to obtain an income stream from that development? Meg Munn: That would be part of negotiations with the Falkland Islanders. They have not found any so we have not had that discussion. Mr. Illsley: I will take that as a "yes" then.
Q270 Chairman: We will come on to some detailed questions about the Falklands later. At the moment, may I focus on more general questions? This may seem academic, but I think I should ask the question anyway. Could an overseas territory be granted independence without a referendum taking place in that territory? Meg Munn: The Government's position is that that is the way by which we would expect a territory to indicate that it wanted to have independence, but that does not rule out other mechanisms that might be acceptable-for example, if a political party went into an election on the basis that it would pursue independence and there was a clear majority for that party. We would have to look at each circumstance, but our position is that a referendum is the preferred route. Q271 Chairman: At the moment, because of changes with regard to relationships with the European Union, but also because of their own desire, there is not a pressing demand for independence in any overseas territory, is there? Meg Munn: I have not heard any territory Government express that view, but there are varying views. Certainly, when I was in Cayman they were in the process of constitutional discussions and some people wanted greater independence but still wanted to keep a link with the UK. I was clear about the issues on which we would not negotiate. Beyond that, I have not heard any expressions of a desire for independence. Q272 Mr. Moss: I was part of the delegation that went to Bermuda and as you well know, it had its referendum some years ago. It was put to us strongly that many people there would be against the second proposal to which you alluded, whereby a party could go into an election with a manifesto commitment to have independence. If you look at the results of the last Bermuda election, the percentage difference in votes was tiny. If there is a low turnout, there would be a move towards independence on less than 50% of the popular vote. Are you suggesting that would be acceptable? Meg Munn: No, which is why I was saying that if a territory wanted to go for independence on the basis of something other than a referendum, it would entirely depend on the circumstances. If a political party went into an election saying that it wanted independence and received 90 per cent. of the vote, that would be a different situation from the scenario that you have described. We would want to consider that matter. Q273 Mr. Moss: May I turn to the appointment and role of Governors? What level of consultation does the FCO carry out with the Governments of the Overseas Territories before Governors are appointed? Meg Munn: There is a discussion with the particular overseas territory, ahead of the Governor's appointment, about the characteristics, experience and so on that they think are important to the position. That happens before the advertising and recruitment takes place. Q274 Mr. Moss: Is there any evidence to suggest that relations are improved if the appointment of, say, the Deputy Governor is a local appointment? Meg Munn: Not necessarily. Sometimes it can be the other way around, because we are talking about relatively small communities. Even the larger overseas territories are still, in our terms, relatively small communities, and there can sometimes be friction due to the long personal or political histories of people who are appointed as Deputy Governor. On another occasion, they can be somebody who is perfectly acceptable to, and enjoys the respect of, a range of people, so there is no clear correlation from appointing somebody who is local. Leigh Turner: In a number of recently agreed constitutions, there has been a slight trend towards Deputy Governors being locally appointed. We think that it is a good thing in principle; the question is how well it works in practice, and we are still sucking it and seeing. Q275 Mr. Moss: What are the key criteria that you consider when appointing a Governor? Meg Munn: I shall ask Leigh to give you a little more detail about the experience of appointments, but generally, one of the things that we bear in mind in the appointment of Governors is that it is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office role unlike any other. For people who have had experience in a number of other posts or missions in the Foreign Office, it demands a range of skills and abilities in addition to those that they have, so the right person may not necessarily be somebody who has had a career in the Foreign Office. People who have spent time in the Overseas Territories Directorate often make good Governors, but there is a range of specific issues. Leigh Turner: The basic principle, as for any other appointment, is that we want to get the best possible person to do the job. It is extremely demanding: it requires a good understanding of policy and, what we call these days, delivery issues-the ability to make things happen, often in environments where making things happen is not that straightforward. We have recruited several Governors while I have been in this job, and in some cases we have had a good field from within the diplomatic service or we have trawled Whitehall. On one occasion, in the case of the Governor of St. Helena, we recruited together with DFID, because it has large interests there, and we ended up advertising externally. We had 147 applicants before the deadline-a few came in after-and we appointed somebody from outside the diplomatic service, although they had Overseas Territories experience. It is a range of things. We have just appointed in the Turks and Caicos Islands somebody who does not have OT experience, but has a range of other experience operating in small posts-a very experienced character. In other cases, we try wherever possible to appoint people with direct experience. Q276 Mr. Moss: Are you saying that there are in place mechanisms that the Foreign Office can use if there is a problem with an incumbent Governor? Leigh Turner: Do you mean if somebody has already been appointed? Mr. Moss: Yes. Leigh Turner: That was not what I was saying. Q277 Mr. Moss: All right. May I extend the question to ask you whether such mechanisms are in place? Leigh Turner: Certainly, as with any other appointment. It has not happened in recent memory, not while I have been in the job, but we monitor the performance of our Governors very carefully. We try to keep very close communications with them. They operate in quite remote environments, and often they are the only people of their type there. It is not like being an ambassador in a big post, with a lot of ambassadorial colleagues, so we try to offer Governors as much support as we can and stay in close touch with them to ensure that they are doing a good job, which, I am happy to say, they all are. Q278 Mr. Moss: Why was the decision taken to upgrade the posting of the Governor to the Turks and Caicos Islands? Leigh Turner: Basically, we always look at all our posts, and we try to ensure that we have resources in the right place. We looked carefully at TCI, and we had been considering upgrading it for quite a while. Partly as a result of more flexibility in the way we are allowed to move resources around within Foreign Office budgets, which came to my aid, we were able to upgrade that post, which seemed to us an important one, in which we could use even more fire power than we had already. Q279 Mr. Moss: Should the head of the Overseas Territories Directorate be a less experienced official than the Governor who is reporting back to him? Leigh Turner: That is not really a question for me to answer. Meg Munn: I think that the process within the Foreign Office is to recruit people with the required skills and abilities to take on the role. It is essentially competence-based. That is the process for all posts. Some of the skills and abilities that one needs to run the Overseas Territories Directorate would overlap with what was needed to be a Governor, but some would be different. Someone who was a director of the Overseas Territories Directorate might well make a good Governor, but they might not. Those are different roles and competences, so it is not a question of more or less experience: it is about the right competences. Chairman: You touched in a previous answer on the Turks and Caicos Islands. May we now focus on those? Q280 Sir John Stanley: Minister, you may wish to be aware that at the present time the largest number of memorandums that the Committee has received from a single overseas territory has come from the Turks and Caicos Islands-both public memorandums and those sent to us privately. In our recent visit we discovered that in the Turks and Caicos Islands there is no prohibition on Ministers having commercial business positions while they are serving as Ministers, and there is no publicly accessible register of Ministers' interests. The single largest and most valuable traded commodity in the Turks and Caicos islands is Crown land released for development, and there are no publicly accessible texts of planning applications. Also, the electorate is a mere 7,000 and a considerable number of people inside and outside Government are related to each other. Against that background I hope that you would agree that a key responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to give the utmost support to, and ensure the continuity of appointment of, the handful of people in the Turks and Caicos Islands who are appointed by the Foreign Office from outside and are therefore independent of local political pressures: in particular, the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Chief Auditor. Is not it therefore a matter of the utmost concern that when the Attorney-General's office was subject to an arson attack a few months ago and he sought additional security protection from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he was told that it was not a matter for the FCO, even though it has specific responsibility under the constitution for internal security in the Turks and Caicos Islands? Is not it a matter of equal concern that the Chief Auditor, whose term of office expires about today, and who is about to leave the islands, if he has not done so already, is not being replaced, because the FCO has not found a replacement for him, and that that appointment is now the subject of a local job share by existing members of his staff? I put it to you, Minister, that that is a quite shocking display of lack of support of key personnel in the Turks and Caicos Islands, and of singular lack of competence in ensuring continuity of appointment. Meg Munn: If I can respond to the wider issues first, I agree absolutely about the importance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office supporting key personnel there. I also agree with you about the importance of those people, because they are not subject to local political pressures. A lot of what we look at in terms of good governance recognises that some of the problems that we encounter in overseas territories are as much a factor of them being small island communities as they are of them being overseas territories. Therefore, the relationships and pressures that you described are something that we have to be very aware of. I will ask Leigh to deal with the positions of Attorney-General and Chief Auditor. Leigh Turner: The Governor clearly works very closely with the Attorney-General in the Turks and Caicos Islands, as in any territory. I know that they discuss all matters frequently. To be quite honest with you, I had not heard about the issue of the Attorney-General requesting security and being refused. That is the first time that I have heard that. Clearly, security in the TCI is a gubernatorial responsibility, but at the same time, operational police matters are dealt with in the TCI itself, and the money for policing comes from the TCI Government. What happens in practice is that all those matters are discussed regularly between the Governor and the police. I know that the Governor has a weekly police briefing from the head of the police force on what has been happening and what can be done, so I will be happy to look into that question. Similarly, I am afraid that I am unsighted on the Chief Auditor not being replaced. We will have to get back to you on that one. Q281 Sir John Stanley: Minister, I have listened to your official, and I must say that I am shocked and appalled by the response that he has given on those two issues. It is disgraceful that apparently nobody in the Foreign Office is aware that the Attorney-General requested additional security after the arson attack on his office and was fobbed off with, "This is not a matter for the Foreign Office," and it is quite appalling that your Department in London is unaware that we face a key vacancy, this minute, in the post of Chief Auditor. Meg Munn: I agree that they are important issues. Obviously, we have not been made aware of them. We need to find out why, and we will give that great priority. Q282 Mr. Pope: When we hold any inquiry, the Committee receives lots of written evidence. Typically, the senders of a handful of that evidence request confidentiality, but for the TCI, a large number of people did. That is of real concern. I am finding it hard to put that in context, but the only other place that I have been where people have insisted on such confidentiality was the People's Republic of China. I am shocked that people are doing that in a country that has the Union Jack on the flag. What is your view? Meg Munn: In relation to the specific issue about allegations and concerns, I am very concerned to hear that people have such a level of worry that they will be passed on. I have, obviously, looked on your Committee's website for the ones that have been made public, but I understand that a significant amount have not. We take extremely seriously issues of allegations and corruption. I have had discussions with the Government about it. I also discussed the general issues that Sir John Stanley raised about Crown land with the Premier when he was here in December. There have been a number of attempts to obtain firm evidence about it. There was a process some time back where police officers from the UK went to the Turks and Caicos Islands to take evidence and information about it, but insufficient evidence was provided to take the matter forward. There have been other issues exactly the same where that has not been possible and people have not followed through, despite reassurances about confidentiality and how such things happen. I am very exercised about what I hear about your visit there. It gives me great concern that there continue to be allegations that are not being substantiated, and I think that we need to look in more detail at the whole situation there. There are a number of legislative measures in progress to improve some of the matters that Sir John Stanley raised. We will need to continue to keep them in mind to see whether they deliver greater transparency and confidence in the systems. Q283 Mr. Pope: Will you keep an open mind as to whether there should be a commission of inquiry by a British judge, because there are serious concerns? I do not expect you to answer yes or no to having a commission of inquiry, but will you at least keep an open mind? Meg Munn: I have a completely open mind on that. If the Committee wishes Susan Dickson to give some of the legal bases on which a commission of inquiry could be established, I am very happy for that to happen. So far, there has not been sufficient evidence to proceed with one. Obviously, it is a serious matter to take forward a commission of inquiry, and we would want to do so on the basis of good evidence. My mind is completely open on that, and if we had that evidence we would want to see that happen. Q284 Mr. Keetch: The three of us were quite astonished by what we discovered. There are three communities on the Turks and Caicos Islands: the belongers, who are not just those born and bred on the island, because people can be given belonger status by the Government, often at short notice; the long-term expatriates; and those who want to gain belonger status, but are not necessarily expats. Concerns were expressed in all three communities, not just one. I want to ask you a specific question. When we visited the Cayman Islands, the Governor had instituted a commission of inquiry, without the Cabinet's knowledge, which is due to report either at the beginning of the week or almost immediately. Can you make it absolutely clear-I echo what Mr. Pope said about not saying yes or no to any inquiry-whether the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands could order a commission of inquiry without consulting the Cabinet or the Chief Minister on the island? I want to be clear about whether the Governor's powers are the same as those that we understand were exercised by the Governor of the Cayman Islands recently. Meg Munn: I should like to ask Susan Dickson to explain this, because we have looked into it since receiving the feedback from your visit. I should also like us to clarify what the Governor of the Cayman Islands did, so that everyone is absolutely clear about the relevant powers and processes and how they work. Susan Dickson: Commissions of inquiry are dealt with in local legislation rather than in the constitutions of the Overseas Territories. Both the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have a Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance that governs the creation and operation of commissions of inquiry. I have here the ordinance of the Turks and Caicos Islands: it allows the Governor to appoint commissioners to inquire into the conduct and management of any public body, the conduct of any public officer, or into any matter whatsoever which is, in his opinion, of public importance. The Governors of both the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have discretion to set up such commissions, so they do not have to act on the instructions or advice of anyone else. Meg Munn: May I ask Leigh Turner to explain what happened in the Cayman Islands, so that we are absolutely clear? There is an interesting aspect to the issue that he will explain. Leigh Turner: I shall attempt to explain it; Susan will correct me if I get any of it wrong. The Governor proposed to hold a commission of inquiry, but the Cabinet did not want it to go ahead, thinking that it was unnecessary in Cayman, and declined to fund it. Of course, the Cabinet has control of the purse strings. At that point, the Governor consulted the Foreign Office and said, "We think that it is very important to hold a commission of inquiry; please will you give me instructions to overrule the Cabinet," which is the way that it happens. We consulted Ministers and agreed that it was important, so the Governor was issued with instructions to overrule the Cayman Islands Cabinet in order to allow a commission of inquiry to be set up. Q285 Mr. Keetch: So let us be quite clear: if the office of the Attorney-General-our appointment-is attacked, he will require money from the local police and voted for by the local government to protect him, and if the Governor wants to appoint a commission of inquiry, which he has the power to do, without consulting the Cabinet, he expects it to pay for it, but we will not pay for it. That sounds ridiculous. If I were a Governor of one of these places, and wanted to appoint a commission of inquiry, I would expect Her Majesty's Government to pay, even though it might be looking into aspects of management of that territory-I am not saying that that is the case here-that are directly affected by whether it would pay for it. Can you give us an assurance that, if the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands wanted to commission an inquiry, and the local Cabinet refused to fund it, we would? Leigh Turner: We would not need to, because we could issue an instruction to overrule it. Q286 Mr. Keetch: And he could do that without previously consulting the Cabinet? Leigh Turner: It would not be the normal way of doing business for the Governor by himself to do something like that without consulting the Cabinet. Q287 Mr. Keetch: But he could? Leigh Turner: In theory, yes, but we usually try to do things by consensus. Susan Dickson: The point is that the Governor needs the power to do that on his own, because he might be looking into what the Government have done-the rest of it, because he is a part of it. He might be looking into the conduct of a Minister. If it was reliant on him getting permission from the Cabinet to set up the commission, it could obviously block it. The other thing to remember is that this is a local inquiry conducted under local legislation. It is not a UK inquiry. The Governor is acting as the Queen's representative in the territory and in right of that territory, not as the UK's representative. Q288 Mr. Keetch: I accept that, but there was some confusion about this: if he wanted to, could the Governor appoint a commission of inquiry? Meg Munn: Yes. Q289 Mr. Pope: On a separate issue, but still relating to the Turks and Caicos Islands, one of the other things that struck us while we were there were the extraordinary problems that its Government are having with illegal immigration-they discover about 400 or 500 illegal immigrants a week, which is an astonishing number. They also estimated-although it is very difficult to judge-that the actual number of illegal immigrants might be double that, but that they are only catching half of them. They have a detention facility before returning the illegal immigrants to Haiti, which we looked at. It is safe to say, in life's lottery, we were all pleased that we were not in the detention facility for long. Can the British Government provide any further help to the Turks and Caicos Islands either to do with the detention facility or with assisting them in catching those illegal immigrants? They told us that things are noticeably better when a British frigate is patrolling the territorial waters, during the hurricane season, providing radar and technical assistance. Are the British Government willing to do anything? Meg Munn: The illegal immigration issue is complex, because it also relates to those working on the Turks and Caicos Islands. As is the case with all immigration, it is not just a matter of what happens externally-patrol ships or whatever-but of labour markets and so on. The Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands need to be more active in relation to work permits and clamping down on illegal working. We have discussed with them what they need to do in order to reduce the pull factor. In relation to the external waters, again, that is a devolved matter for them. Therefore if they feel that they need more help on that, they would need to consider what they want to do. We could certainly assist with advice and technical assistance. In relation to the detention facilities, we have had some general concerns about the prisoners there. I think that the adviser for the area is visiting. Leigh Turner: We have a regionally based prisons adviser who regularly visits the prisons in the region. He has recently been to TCI. Meg Munn: So that is the additional assistance we are giving. Q290 Sir Menzies Campbell: Would you have expected the Governor of the TCI to report back on issues such as the Attorney-General's request for greater security and the fact that it was not possible to replace the auditor? Leigh Turner: I do not know how much to make of the question about the Attorney-General's security, because I do not know why the Governor did not bring it to my attention or to- Q291 Sir Menzies Campbell: That is why I am asking you the question. Would you have expected him to do so? Leigh Turner: It would have depended what happened in the discussions. I do not know whether, in this case, for example, he discussed it with the police and they said, "Okay, we'll provide additional protection", but the Attorney-General was not happy with that. I just do not know the background on that. But we would expect the Governor to bring to our attention anything that we considered to be of major importance. If the Attorney-General was not happy with his security, that would be quite an important thing. Q292 Sir Menzies Campbell: Is reporting back done on a regular or ad hoc basis? For example, do you expect a report every month or every three months? What are the time scales? What are the criteria for the contents of these reports? Leigh Turner: It depends on the territory, but as a rough rule of thumb we would expect to have some kind of round-up of what is going on about every week from a major territory. We are in touch with Governors or Governor's offices nearly every day in many of our territories, including, for example, the Turks and Caicos Islands. We are in ceaseless contact with the Governor's office there on a range of issues. We do not talk so often to some of our territories that-shall I say?-do not cause us so much policy interest, such as Bermuda, for example. Q293 Sir Menzies Campbell: Were you aware that the Attorney-General's office had been fired? Leigh Turner: Yes, we knew all about that. Q294 Sir Menzies Campbell: You knew that? Did anyone from the Foreign Office make inquiries about how that came about and whether any consequences flowed from the fact that it happened? Leigh Turner: We discussed it with the Governor. The Governor informed us of it and informed us that they were looking into what they could do about it. Q295 Sir Menzies Campbell: That would have been a natural context in which to consider the question of additional security for the Attorney-General. Leigh Turner: As I say, I was not aware that he had problems with the level of security that he was being provided with. Q296 Sir Menzies Campbell: So far as Her Majesty's Government's powers are concerned, as I understand the legislation, which you helpfully read out, the co-operation of the Governor is required before there can be an inquiry under the legislation. Do Her Majesty's Government have the power to-forgive the colloquialism-send the heavies in themselves if they are not satisfied with the conduct of any part of the Government? Meg Munn: Yes, ultimately. In relation to a wide range of concerns, the Government could do that. Obviously, as we set out our relationship, we need to be aware of what the implications are for it. But if you look at the issues in relation to Pitcairn a few years ago, where there were allegations of child abuse and subsequent prosecutions for that, clearly, the Government got very involved and the whole process went through to prosecutions and imprisonment. Q297 Sir Menzies Campbell: Has any consideration being given to mounting an investigation into the conduct of government in the Turks and Caicos? Meg Munn: In relation to the range of allegations that have been made, I discussed the matter myself with the governor and, as Leigh Turner has said, there is regular contact. Sufficient evidence has not been provided even for the Governor to feel that it has reached the level where a commission of inquiry could be started. If further evidence in relation to that- Q298 Sir Menzies Campbell: That is the Governor's view, but I am asking about our Government's view. Meg Munn: We have not been provided with sufficient evidence even to go beyond that. There is, if you like, a hierarchy, and we would get involved if things went significantly beyond what the Governor could deal with independently, but it has not reached that level. Q299 Sir Menzies Campbell: Is it entirely a matter of coincidence that the post has been upgraded? Meg Munn: No. I think Leigh Turner explained earlier that there is a range of problems and difficulties there and that the situation is demanding, so he felt that it was appropriate that there be a Governor of a higher grade. Q300 Sir Menzies Campbell: That level of problems and difficulties has not yet triggered in the mind of Her Majesty's Government the need to mount an inquiry of their own? Meg Munn: No, because we have not got firm evidence that there is a need for that. Q301 Sir Menzies Campbell: So problems and difficulties to upgrade the post, but not problems and difficulties to mount an inquiry. Meg Munn: Yes. Chairman: I will take a couple more questions on Turks and Caicos, but we must then move on. Q302 Sir John Stanley: May I put to you just one further angle on the issue of illegal immigration into the Turks and Caicos Islands? When we were there-to give us and perhaps yourself a perspective on the scale of the issue-we were told that illegal immigration into the Turks and Caicos was equivalent to illegal immigration into the UK of between 4 million and 5 million people. It was put to us-I believe rightly-that this really is a ticking time bomb on the islands. There is already a huge cost associated with it. We saw that for ourselves when we went to the detention centre. A new detention centre is having to be built. We went to the prison, where a big extension is being built. We were given the figures for the way in which violent crime is rising. Have you had any discussions with the Haitian Government about what the British Government might be able to do to deal with the problem at source? I hope that you might reflect on the fact that, in anything but the short term, this might be far and away the most cost-effective solution for the British Government. We were told that the northern shores of Haiti, from which most of the illegal immigrants leave in their boats, are completely unpoliced and unpatrolled. Will you consider whether it would be a very sensible investment by HMG-whether through your Department or DFID-to do something serious to help the Haitian Government prevent these people from taking off for the Turks and Caicos Islands? Once they land there, as you may know from the topography, you have a huge area of absolutely impenetrable vegetation, so it is a matter of the utmost ease for people to disappear, and it is absolutely impossible for police and security forces to track them down. Meg Munn: Certainly, illegal immigration from Haiti is an important issue, and that relates not only to the Turks and Caicos Islands but to the Dominican Republic, which I visited in December. Our ambassador there is also responsible for Haiti, and we discussed the issues there. Work is going on in relation to the Haitian Government, and things are improving. I have not got the details in front of me, but perhaps I could write to the Committee about the work that is being done on the issue. I entirely take your point on that, and I accept the premise that both the push and pull factors are important in relation to immigration and issues in Haiti, and we will certainly look at what you have said. Q303 Mr. Keetch: May I have a one-word answer? Am I correct in assuming that because Britain retains responsibility for defence and internal security, visits by British warships to Turks and Caicos waters, or indeed the visits by any of Her Majesty's armed forces, can take place without the agreement or prior knowledge of the local Government? Meg Munn: I think that is a legal question. I am not sure of the answer on that. Susan Dickson: Technically, the answer is yes, but as a matter of practice, I do not think it would be done. Q304 Chairman: No doubt you will write to us if you need to amend that. Can I take you to a completely different part of the world-the British Indian Ocean Territory? As you are aware, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 21 February about rendition. My questions are specific. They are not about that statement but about the allegations in the evidence to us about US ships which have some role in this process being serviced from Diego Garcia. Has the UK sought reassurance from the United States about any of those allegations that ships outside the territorial waters were being serviced from Diego Garcia? Meg Munn: Just to be clear about ships generally, because that came up in the statement, we have had no evidence to suggest that any ships outside the territorial waters of Diego Garcia have been involved in rendition, nor that they have been serviced from the island. Q305 Chairman: My question was have we sought reassurance, not whether we have received any evidence. Meg Munn: I will come on to that. We have no evidence to suggest that that is the case. The issue in relation to the territorial waters is more complex. There is an issue about how far outside the territorial waters they are if they are outside them. We are still in the process of putting together the information that is will go to the US in relation to a whole range of issues. I do not know whether this would be one of the specific issues that we would ask. If they are outside our territorial waters our responsibilities are different from if they are inside. Q306 Chairman: So the answer to my question is that at this moment we have not yet sought reassurance. Meg Munn: No, and as you will be aware, we want to do an extremely thorough job in relation to the whole issue of Diego Garcia. So where there are any suggestions or there have been any allegations or any concerns about any possible flights and the like, all that information has been put together and will be passed on to the US. That information has not yet gone. Q307 Chairman: No doubt we will be pursuing this. You will be aware that I have written to the Foreign Secretary following his statement. As I understand it, the agreement, in the sense of the exchange of notes between the British and American Governments, that was signed in 1966 will continue in force for a further 20 years after 2016 unless it is terminated. Have you given any consideration or had any discussion with the US about the possibility of terminating the agreement in 2016? Meg Munn: No. Q308 Chairman: Or in terms of changing the terms of the agreement to increase UK oversight if it does continue beyond 2016? Meg Munn: No. I have not been involved in any discussions of that nature. Chairman: Perhaps we can get a note to the Committee if there have been any discussions of any kind and we can then consider them. Thank you. Q309 Mr. Keetch: Could I ask about the Chagossians? As you know, there has been a long, ongoing case. First, why did the FCO decide to appeal against the Law Lords? Meg Munn: There were three basic reasons for the appeal. First, there were the defence obligations to the US in relation to Diego Garcia, as we have just been discussing. Secondly, there is the legal point that, as I understand it-and I am not a lawyer-the ruling in and of itself would call into question the way in which we make legislation for all the Overseas Territories. Thirdly, the process that we went through some years ago in relation to the Chagossians was to consider whether it would be feasible for them to live on one of the outer islands. The feasibility study suggested that that could not be the case without incurring significant ongoing liabilities for the UK. Q310 Mr. Keetch: You have pre-empted my next two questions wonderfully, Minister. There has been a suggestion by the Chagos refugee group that that report in June 2002 was altered before it was published by the FCO. Can you guarantee that the consultants' findings were not altered? Meg Munn: As I understand it, and as I have been informed, it was an independent report and was not altered by the Foreign Office. Q311 Mr. Keetch: What that report basically said, as you rightly mentioned, was that if they went to live on that outer island, they would be caused some difficulties because they would not have generators and all sorts of other things. Surely, if they wanted to go there, it should be up to them. Meg Munn: That is a view that could be taken. As I understand it, I have read that the views of the gentleman who is leading on the court case are that he would expect the provision of resources so that they could re-establish living there. As the Minister for the Overseas Territories, I am well aware of the issues and concerns that arise when people live on small islands, particularly in small numbers. Pitcairn is an example of that and of being in need of budgetary support. I would be very concerned about the ongoing liabilities to the UK from people going to live in environments such as the Chagos Islands. Mr. Turner has been there, and as I understand it, the biggest of the outer islands is about the size of St. James's Park, so we are not talking about a big place. Leigh Turner: Hyde Park. Meg Munn: Sorry, Hyde Park. The islands are small and low-lying, so would be susceptible to storms and so on. Issues that affect many low-lying islands would face the islanders in addition to the problems of establishing the ability to live there in the first place. Obviously, there would also be issues such as employment and sustainability generally. Q312 Ms Stuart: Before I take you to Ascension Island, can I query your usage of a term that you have just used in an answer? When you said, "As I understand it," did you mean that you have asked the question and have been told the answer? Meg Munn: Yes. Q313 Ms Stuart: So you told the Committee that you asked whether the independent report was tampered with and were told no. Meg Munn: Yes, that is absolutely correct. As I was not there, because I was not the Minister at the time, I did not see it, but I have asked the question and was told no. Q314 Ms Stuart: Now, I turn to Ascension Island, which is somewhere else that is completely volcanic with not many people. In the introduction, you referred to the 1998 White Paper. I had the impression that that still roughly represents the Government's attitude to the Overseas Territories. Meg Munn: Yes. There are obviously a number of issues beyond that, such as climate change and 9/11, but essentially I was of the view when I became the Minister that that framework was still appropriate. Therefore, it does. Q315 Ms Stuart: If you talk to people on Ascension Island, they drew a conclusion from that White Paper that the granting of property and residential rights was something that the Foreign Office would be working towards. I perceive that there has been a complete U-turn by the Government. Is that the right perception, and what was the reason for that? Meg Munn: I have also visited Ascension Island, and had that conversation with people there. I understand from them that they were given that impression. It is the Government's view that, again, it would not be sensible to establish a permanent base there for people for a permanent overseas territory. The people who are there work for a limited number of organisations, and if they decided to move for any reason the same issues of sustainability difficulties would arise. I had a full and frank discussion with a number of people on Ascension Island, and I believe that at the end of it they were clear about the position and that we wanted to move forward on having an Ascension Island council re-elected, because we believe that people living there and working there, even without permanent rights, should be involved in governance issues-it makes for better governance. Part of that process will be to establish a mechanism by which, without having permanent property rights, it will be possible for businesses to develop in a more sustainable way than is currently the case. Q316 Ms Stuart: So you would say that the statements made in 2000 and 2001 were misunderstood on Ascension Island? Meg Munn: Again, I find it difficult to say, because I was not part of that conversation. The Ascension islanders told me that that was the understanding that they were given, and I regret that, because it is not the Government's position. Q317 Ms Stuart: But you do want to take forward the constitutional reform and the representative function? Meg Munn: Yes. Q318 Ms Stuart: But it appeared to us on our visit that they could not even find people to stand as candidates, and nobody had any idea how to take that forward. How would you suggest it could be progressed? Meg Munn: Discussions are ongoing with the Ascension islanders about it. A timetable was originally set for trying to have an election; I cannot remember if it was April or May. Leigh Turner: By April this year. Meg Munn: It was certainly in the early part of this year. In my discussions with them, it was clear that that was unrealistic, and that people still felt very angry and felt that they had been misled. It was my view that we needed a longer period, so that there would be absolute clarity about what would be allowed and what the role would be, provided that that could be achieved. Certainly, what they said to me was that while they might disagree about the issue of residence, their biggest issue was being misled, and that if we were moving to a stage where we would be absolutely clear about what could happen and what arrangements could be made, people might well be willing to reconsider standing for council, but in my view, that position would not be achieved before later this year. We are looking at autumn rather than spring. Q319 Ms Stuart: Having refuelled your plane, may we travel on to the Falklands? Meg Munn: I am retracing my steps as you speak. Q320 Ms Stuart: Now that we have arrived at the Falklands, one of the things on everybody's lips is the fact that President Kirchner is visiting the United Kingdom and is expected to meet the Prime Minister. Can you confirm that that meeting will take place, and do you have any indication whether sovereignty, flights and the rights of veterans' families to visit the Falklands will be discussed? What are the nature of the discussions that you expect to take place? Meg Munn: My understanding is that President Kirchner has been invited to visit, and that she wants to visit. I do not know whether that is going ahead, what the nature of it will be or whether there will be individual meetings with the Prime Minister. I assume that that will happen, but I do not know what is currently on the agenda, or whether those particular issues will be discussed. Q321 Ms Stuart: Before I hand over to my colleague, Eric Illsley, I should say for the record that the people in the Falklands are extremely concerned about that visit. They are extremely concerned about the discussions on sovereignty, and there is a sense that although the British Government are supportive in action, we are not quite as assertive as they would sometimes like us to be. Meg Munn: Can I be absolutely clear? There are no plans to have any discussions on sovereignty. The British Government are absolutely clear about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, and there is absolutely no reason to doubt that, as I made clear myself when I was there. There are no proposals to discuss sovereignty with the Argentinians, and in any of our dealings with Argentina, we are always absolutely clear about that. Q322 Mr. Illsley: The relationship with Argentina is crucial, and the issue was raised with us on a number of occasions during our visit, as it probably was during yours. In particular, there was the question of flights into the Falkland Islands from other countries in South America, especially Chile, which operates a Lan Chile flight into the Falklands once a week. Time and again, the future development of the Falkland Islands seems to be dependent on increasing the number of flights into the islands by only a small amount, but any increase in flights is determined by Argentina, which has complete control over the airspace of that area and has, if you like, the whip hand over Chile. It can dictate to Chile how many flights go into the Falklands and could even stop those flights, if it wanted to, by putting pressure on that Government-similarly, with Brazil. Are the Government standing up to Argentina sufficiently robustly to put the case for the Falkland Islands in terms of improving communications on to the islands? Are we doing anything to say to the Argentinians, "Why don't you take this air blockade away and allow other flights?" For example, in respect of the proposed visit of Argentinian relatives of those buried on the Falkland Islands, the Argentinians are pressing for a flight into the islands for some 600 relatives, while at the same time preventing any use of their airspace for charter flights into the Falkland Islands. Meg Munn: I discussed that at length with the Falkland Island councillors when I was there. I have also discussed it with some of the councillors when they have been in the UK. The Falkland islanders are, if you like, in the driving seat on discussions about flights and we talk to them about other options, because we have concerns about the reliance on the air bridge, and whether there are any other options that could be looked at. In relation to Argentina, as I say, we are always clear that sovereignty is not an issue for discussion. We believe it would be beneficial to co-operate with Argentina on a range of issues, including fishing and the like, because that would help with the relationships. But that has, in a sense, gone the other way in more recent times and there has been less co-operation. On the specific issue about the families' flight, I entirely understand the position of the Falkland Island councillors, which is that if Argentina will not allow any charter flights through their airspace into the Falkland Islands, why should they agree to a specific flight from Argentina? I talked to the councillors about whether there might be a way to begin to open up discussions further on charter flights, but you will know where the Falkland islanders are on that matter. It is clear that the Falkland islanders do not prevent Argentinian families from visiting the graves-that goes on regularly-but this is a visit of a different nature given the number of people. In relation to the logistical problems, it is fair to say that you can look at this both ways. On the one hand, if people flew into the Falkland Islands in those numbers and if, for any reason, particularly during their winter, they were unable to fly off, there would be a logistical problem of a population of 3,000 people accommodating 600 others all of a sudden. That is a real concern and a real issue. On the other hand, the suggestion of a ship, which is an option that the Falkland islanders have said that they would be happy with, gets over the problem of accommodation, because people can stay on it. However, I understand that that would mean that it would take considerably longer for the Argentinians to get to the Falkland Islands and back than if they flew. There are issues on both sides. It would be good if we could find a way through this. That would be a positive message for both populations and it would be humane as far as the Argentinian families are concerned. But I understand entirely the problems on both sides. Q323 Mr. Illsley: The point being, of course, that if the Argentinians co-operated, they could fly into the Falkland Islands at any time. Meg Munn: Yes. Q324 Mr. Illsley: Let me mention another point that was raised with us, concerning the application of our international treaty obligations in respect of the various organisations-the United Nations and so on-and their applicability to areas such as the Falkland Islands. One matter that springs obviously to mind is the Ottawa convention on de-mining, which I am sure was raised with you in terms of the minefields in the Falkland Islands. Although it would be good to have them removed, the cost and danger involved in doing so could be disproportionate to the population of the Falkland Islands. Similarly, civil aviation regulations applicable to small overseas territories place an enormous burden on places such as the Falklands to comply with requirements on their aircraft. Such regulations are intended for much larger overseas territories that fly larger fleets. Another matter that came up while we were there was the World Health Organisation convention on the searching of ships at sea, which again places a huge financial burden on a small community to meet a convention that is more applicable to larger territories. Is there any way in which we could have a de minimis principle that says that such conventions should not apply to places such as the Falklands or our smaller territories? That would avoid an excessive cost or burden being imposed upon them. Meg Munn: I would like to separate those points out because the Ottawa convention and the issue of de-mining is separate to the other matters. In theory, the former is a one-off as opposed to the other two issues, which are ongoing. We are aware of our obligation under the Ottawa convention. We are also aware of the difficulties that there are and, having been to the Falkland Islands, I am aware of the views of the Falkland Islanders that you have expressed. We have had a feasibility study done to assess how practicable de-mining would be in relation to the Falkland Islands and whether it could actually be done. Anyone who has been there knows that the terrain is quite difficult. Having had that report done, we have to reflect on that matter and consider whether we should go ahead, what the time scales would be and other such issues. That is actively under consideration at the moment. On the other issues, you are getting beyond my knowledge in terms of whether it is possible to have things adjusted in that way-on a de minimis principle. Susan Dickson: Generally, treaties that are concluded within the UN tend to not to have territorial application provision because there is a reluctance in that forum to talk about colonies or to recognise that states have "colonies"-that is what they are often called. Such forums tend to be silent on that, which means that we take the position that we decide ourselves whether we want to extend the treaty to the territory or not. Other conventions, usually in Europe, tend to have territorial application provisions that set out the mechanism for extending treaties to the territories. Generally speaking, there is not an automatic application of a treaty to a territory. That is something we usually look at and take a decision on. I do not know what happened 50 years or more ago, but nowadays we never extend a treaty to the territories without consulting them. We have the power to do so-we could extend a treaty if we wanted to-but we always have consultation. We tend to be accused of not consulting properly but to my knowledge, we never extend anything without consultation. To answer the question, there is a de minimis consideration because not all treaties are extended to all territories. Sometimes the territory says no because it does not have the infrastructure or facilities in place to have it applied. Therefore, we do not extend it. I could give examples of treaties that have not been extended. Q325 Mr. Illsley: Just to give you an example, on the searching of ships at sea, we arrived in the Falkland Islands at the same time as the health director of the Falkland Islands returned from a conference he had attended in London where that matter was discussed. The Falkland Islands had not been invited to the conference and they were not informed about it. They did not know of its existence until they found out about it on the grapevine. They attended the conference to determine whether it applied to them. They found out from the NHS, which organised the conference, that it did not know whether the conference applied to the Falkland Islands or not, so they were left in a bit of a quandary. That is why I raised my eyebrows when you said that there is consultation with the islands on all conventions. Susan Dickson: There is consultation at the time of extension. Sometimes, the problem is that the territories lose sight of what applies to them. But we have lists in our treaties section. They can ask, and we can give them the information. Chairman: We must now move from discussing the Falklands and go back briefly to the subject of Bermuda. Q326 Andrew Mackinlay: I want to ask three swift things about Bermuda. First, were you aware that the Auditor-General was placed under arrest and held in custody? I cannot say the exact duration of that, but I think that it was a for a day. Were you aware of that? Meg Munn: I was not. Leigh Turner: We were aware of it, yes. Q327 Andrew Mackinlay: What was your reaction? What happened then? He was the equivalent of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Leigh Turner: I understand that it was just for a day and that he was released subsequently. I cannot go into details at this point. Q328 Andrew Mackinlay: The second question concerns judges. There are apparently two categories of judges in the Overseas Territories. There are judges who are appointed-Menzies Campbell helped me with the Latin term-not in perpetuity, but for a term until they eventually retire. There are also contract judges. They are very vulnerable because, if they aggravate people locally, they might not be reappointed. What say you about the veracity of that, and are you confident that that is an acceptable norm? Do you understand the point? Meg Munn: Yes. I am not aware of the specifics in relation to Bermuda. Andrew Mackinlay: I was going pan-Overseas Territories on that point. Meg Munn: I understand your point. Q329 Andrew Mackinlay: You might want to come back to us about that, because it is an important constitutional point. If Miss Dickson is happy about the point that I am making, I really want her reaction. Susan Dickson: Some judges have different terms. Some are appointed until they retire, while others have contracts. [Interruption.] Q330 Andrew Mackinlay: My colleague rightly says, "Why, why?" A contract judge might aggravate those who have jurisdiction over you, and that might include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is a serious point. If some essence of their appointment is local, their independence is impaired by the fact that they are contract judges. Susan Dickson: The first thing to note is that the judges are not appointed by the United Kingdom. They are appointed by Her Majesty or by the Governor in right of the territory. Q331 Andrew Mackinlay: Well, a judge might aggravate the Governor. Susan Dickson: They have security of tenure, and that can be for the duration or within the contract. It is possible to have security of tenure within a contract. What is not desirable are short contracts. The other point is that there is a procedure for the removal of judges in the constitution of some of the very small territories. Q332 Andrew Mackinlay: But removal would not apply to a contract judge who just would not be reappointed. Susan Dickson: But he could be removed within the term of his contract. Andrew Mackinlay: Of course, yes, but I think that you are missing the point. Susan Dickson: There is no objection to a judge having a contract, as long as it is of sufficient duration . Andrew Mackinlay: Perhaps that is a matter for the Committee to return to when we make a submission. Chairman: We have literally seven minutes. President Sarkozy will not wait. Q333 Andrew Mackinlay: In one minute, I want to deal with the Bermuda Regiment. Both informally and in the House, the Minister has said that it is a matter for the locals. We have probed the matter and it is not quite like that. The fact is that the Bermuda Regiment is under the Governor-a creature of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Bermuda Regiment has conscription, but it is discriminatory on gender, which I put to you is unacceptable and should be alien to this Government's policies. There have also been a sufficient number of complaints to justify an independent assessment about the nature of the training regime, which is the subject of dispute. In fairness, we were courteously received by the Bermuda Regiment and had a frank discussion. There was a rebuttal of some of the accusations that have been made. However, there have been accusations about bawling out in recent times, things that you should be familiar with and also with some of the training regimes. Do you not see that there is a case for you to request from London, as has happened before, that our military attaché in DC or wherever else should go down there and make an assessment? That military outfit is very proud, and the people are very proud of it-we were impressed by that. Could it be a modern defence unit, comparable to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment-there are parallels? The Royal Gibraltar Regiment sends people to Kosovo and other theatres on secondment. That could also happen with the Bermuda Regiment. Is there not a responsibility for you now to look at the Bermuda Regiment in the round, for reasons which, because of the time factor, I have had to brush over rather? Meg Munn: In relation to the second point, on complaints and concerns about their treatment, my expectation would be that, if the Governor felt that there were real concerns there, he could request someone from the UK to go and have a look and make some kind of assessment. I do not think that that would be a particular problem, in that we would want to see in relation to a whole range of things that human rights were respected and the like. In relation to the legal position, because we have had a number of conversations about this, again I have asked Susan Dickson to clarify the responsibilities-which matters are devolved and which ultimately come back to the UK Government. Susan Dickson: The Bermuda Regiment is not provided for in the constitution of the territory. That is something created within the territory. The regiment was established by the Bermuda Defence Act, so it is established under local legislation. I am afraid that I do not know the details. Andrew Mackinlay: But I do. Chairman: Perhaps we will not have that discussion now. In the four minutes left, I would like to get in a question on the Cayman Islands from Mr. Keetch, who wanted to ask something briefly. Q334 Mr. Keetch: Very briefly. Environmental protection in the Caribbean is hugely important. The highest point on the Cayman Islands is the rubbish dump. The islands get visited by cruise ships, with a lot of garbage and waste going on there. We need to do something to help them to deal with this waste management problem. Would the FCO be willing to offer the Cayman Islands any technical assistance or any ideas about how they can help do this themselves? Meg Munn: Certainly in relation to issues of technical assistance, one of the things that I have been keen to do is to look to other Departments where that might be appropriate. So, there is no problem about us seeking to identify some technical support for that. That happens in relation to a range of areas. Q335 Chairman: Finally, representation of the Overseas Territories-we met the members of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council and took evidence from some of them in December. How do you ensure that your decisions and discussions are followed up-not by yourselves, but by other Departments? Meg Munn: In relation to the Overseas Territories and the other Departments, that is done from within the Overseas Territories Directorate-liaison and keeping in touch with the other Departments. Q336 Chairman: May we have a note on that? Meg Munn: Yes, certainly. One of my personal views is that where the territories lack expertise, that is something we could probably do a great deal more about. I want to develop that with other Departments and Ministers. Q337 Chairman: Related to that, can you give us a note on the relationship with DFID and its aid programmes-Montserrat, St. Helena, Pitcairn? Finally, do you think that there is a case for individuals from the Overseas Territories being offered or given membership of the House of Lords on a personal basis, or having a role in some reformed institution or second Chamber, as for example happens in France? Meg Munn: Our relationship with our overseas territories is very different from those of France. I really hesitate to step into Lords' reform at all. Chairman: Everyone else is. Meg Munn: I do not see that, in the relationship that we have with the Overseas Territories, we would want to have people in the Lords who were there as representatives of the territories. Whether they are there on a personal basis would relate to wider issues of appointment to the Lords. Q338 Ms Stuart: When you do the note on St. Helena, could you also justify why the airstrip is the length that it is and why it is not longer, which would allow flights from there on to South Africa? Leigh Turner: I can answer that immediately. The planned length of the airstrip, in the context of the entire design, would allow flights to go from there to South Africa. Ms Stuart: We were told they would not-okay. Chairman: Thank you and your colleagues, Minister. Some of us now have to rush off to pursue the entente. We thank you very much for your time.
|