A letter from Baroness Amos

1. I have kept in close touch with the constitutional reform debate on St. Helena and know that Mrs. Quentin Baxter, the independent constitutional advisor appointed by St. Helena Councillors under Commonwealth Secretariat auspices to assist the progress has now made some recommendations that are being used as the basis for local debate. I want at the offset to make HMG’s position clear on two points to which we attach great importance.


2. Mrs. Quentin Baxter recommends a shift to a Ministerial form of Government in St. Helena with Ministers being assigned responsibility for Government Departments. We would have no objections in principle to this, provided there is broad support for it on St. Helena. It is a system that works well in the Caribbean Overseas Territories.


3. We do, however, have reservations about the proposal to make constitutional provision for a Cabinet, which is separate from Executive Council under which Ministers would use Executive Council Meetings merely to inform the Governor of decisions made by them in Cabinet and to advise him on the exercise of his reserved responsibilities. We have no objection to Ministers holding their own meetings on an informal basis outside Executive Council to discuss issues from a political point of view - this happens in several Caribbean Overseas Territories – but the operation of government business and decision-taking must formally take place in Executive Council under the chairmanship of the Governor. Otherwise the Governor would, in constitutional terms, be too far removed from the decision-making process and would not be able to discharge his responsibilities for good governance and, where appropriate, for ensuring compliance with the UK’s international obligations.


4. We also wish careful consideration on island to be given to the proposal to have a separate election for a Chief Minister. This is not the usual practice in other overseas territories. There may be implications for governmental security if a directly elected Chief Minister commands wide public support but does not enjoy the same degree of confidence from other elected representatives.


5. I look forward to the outcome of the current public debate. Any new proposals from St. Helena should, of course, be reconciled with the recommendations that Councillors have already accepted from the Commission of Enquiry on the Constitution. As I assured representatives at the Overseas Territories Consultative Council in September, HMG will give careful consideration to all proposals for constitutional reforms which have wide popular support in the territories. But there can be no guarantee that all such proposals will be accepted. HMG has to protect its overall responsibility for good governance in the Overseas Territories and ensure that the UK’s international obligations are met. There has to be dialogue and I have therefore tasked Alan Huckle, Head of our Overseas Territories Department together with Ian Hendry, the FCO’s Deputy Legal Advisor and Michael Bradley, our Constitutional Advisor to visit St. Helena in late April/early May to help the dialogue along. I hope that the outcome of their visit will be agreement for us to draft a new constitution, which then put to the people of St. Helena for further public consultation and, I hope, endorsement by resolution of the Legislative Council.


6. I should perhaps make clear that what is agreed now is not actually the last step in the longer-term reform process. Further constitutional reform can be made in the future as and when political and socio-economic circumstances on St. Helena develop.


7. Please explain publicly the reasoning behind this letter and make arrangements for it to be published in local papers in St. Helena.