Ascension : Ascension's Councillors Put Their Case to Lord Triesman
Submitted by The Islander (Juanita Brock) 24.01.2006 (Article Archived on 07.02.2006)
Ascension's Councillors are determined to preserve their right to self determination.
ASCENSION’S COUNCILLORS PUT THEIR CASE TO LORD TRIESMAN
We, the Elected Members of the Ascension Island Council, are writing to you collectively as a consequence of the “summit” held at Ascension Island on 30th November. We feel that writing this letter directly to you is necessitated by the manner in which the “summit” was conducted. As you have been no doubt already briefed by your officials from the Overseas Territories Department the public of Ascension Island have been somewhat devastated by the statement read to them by Tony Crombie that you will be writing to the Island Council in the near future to deny Islanders the possibility of Right of Abode or Land/Property Ownership.
The news in itself is disappointing enough but the way in which it was delivered has led to feelings of frustration and anger. It was obvious from the outset that consultation with stakeholders had been selective and when, the day before the public meeting, FCO Officials refused to even discuss the situation with the Island Council it became evident that there would not even be an attempt to win the hearts or minds of Ascension’s population.
Only two weeks prior to this meeting Council Elections were held and all Nominees reflected the aspirations of Ascension’s Community by having Right of Abode and Property Rights high on their manifestos. We are not as naïve as you perhaps have been led to believe (our only naivety has been to trust UK Government Officials) and it is obvious that prior to the election the Governor and Administrator knew which direction the emergent thinking was taking. Yet they still allowed the election to go ahead and the Public to believe that these two issues were still a viable possibility.
Since the introduction of taxation on 1st April 2002 the people of Ascension Island have desperately sought to engage with the UK and to foster working partnerships to take the Island forward. At every turn we have been fraught with either dictatorial edicts or worse, complete silence from the UK. From the outset, the first Council made it clear that the mission statement for the Island was to promote family life, property ownership and the right of abode. At no time have we been discouraged in this pursuit. Quite the opposite, HMG has funded assistance (to the tune of £60,000 in the case of Michael Bradley QC) to enable us to draft legislation to realise these issues.
Earlier this year the Attorney General provided Council with a timetable indicating that legislation on property, immigration and residency rights would be completed by the end of this year. It is inconceivable that he was unaware of current HMG thinking as regards this matter.
Prior to the meeting on 30th November, Council had been told that this was not to be the much vaunted ‘Summit’ but a preliminary discussion to set the framework for a ‘Summit Proper’ to be held in London early next year. We were informed that all stakeholders (i.e. all of the “User Organisations”) would be given a chance to participate in a round table debate with the Island Council and FCO. Unfortunately the “summit” failed to live up to this billing on three counts.
First and most importantly there were no substantive discussions. The day before the “summit” we were given a half hour meeting during which FCO Officials flatly refused to discuss any real issues. Prior to the public meeting, Council were hit by the bombshell in the form of a carefully prepared statement and then given less than an hour to prepare a response and no time in which to consult with the Public. It should be noted that Council had requested this first meeting with the FCO team in private but in fact the MOD team also attended. During the Public meeting Tony Crombie again read out the statement of “Ministers’ current thinking”. While our and the Public’s responses were solicited and most points raised were either noted or responded to, there was absolutely no discussion in the sense that the views of Ascension’s Population would have any influence on the decision process. As a “preliminary summit” we expected that HMG’s, the User’s and the Population’s aspirations and concerns would all be aired and quantified so that all Participants would then be able to fully prepare for the promised “summit proper”.
Secondly only two of the “User Organisations” were present, VT Merlin (BBC), Cable and Wireless plc, and C.S.O. were not present and we believe that in at least the cases of the Commercial Organisations, they were not consulted prior to the “preliminary summit” nor during H.M.G.’s visit to Ascension. Given that these Organisations supply the Island’s utilities (power, water and communications), that they own a large proportion of the Island’s housing stock, employ a substantial proportion of the population and contribute a large proportion of local taxation, we are astonished by their exclusion, which leaves us in no doubt as to who the real puppet-masters are.
Thirdly we were told that there will not be a “proper summit” and instead you will be writing to us in a month or two giving us your decision and reasoning. In consequence none of the reasons for “Ministers’current thinking” have been made available to us, nor have any of the contingent liabilities been quantified. This denies the Council any chance to develop alternative proposals to put before you.
Expectations of right of abode and land tenure have been raised by a whole raft of Ministers, FCO Desk Officers, our previous Governor and Administrator and there must now be some accountability for this. Tax Payer’s money has been spent on the construction of four houses with the full knowledge of the Administrator and Governor, neither of who challenged this development at any stage, and Individuals on Ascension Island have invested money, time and effort in small businesses and now face losing everything. We note that the 1999 White Paper on “Britain and the Overseas Territories” states that “The governance of the territories must have a firm base. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are all as relevant in the Overseas Territories as elsewhere … Future action will focus on
- measures promoting more open, transparent and accountable government …
- promotion of representative and participative government …
- adoption of modern standards of respect for human rights.”
As the Representatives of Ascension’s Community we continue to expect H.M.G. to give effect to the principles which it has itself set out in the White Paper and, which until the 30th November 2005, its Officers had been pursuing in relation to Ascension. The Island Council has acted openly and in good faith on all of these issues and will not be left to bear any responsibility to those individuals who may well now seek fiscal redress.
We will also be seeking legal advice on the statements made during the “summit” that the inhabitants of Ascension have willingly forfeited human rights by accepting employment on Ascension Island, that any children born to us here have also forfeited those human rights by virtue of their parents actions, and that we have no right to expect real democracy.
We note that HMG, MOD and the USAF have concerns over contingent liabilities and security issues but we do feel that, if you would give us a chance, we could seek solutions and compromises. To date no one in authority has given any specific details as to what these concerns actually are. Tony Crombie was asked to request from you, these specifics. A request he refused to promise to carry out. If we are not given the chance to address your specific concerns then any decision you make will not be based on all of the available facts and cannot possibly be fair.
Therefore, we the Island Council, would appreciate that the ‘Summit Proper’ be honoured and that any decision on the long term future of Ascension Island be deferred until after that time; that we be given the opportunity to address all of the issues directly with you and that you undertake to make available to us those issues in good time prior to the Summit.
Yours etc.
Signed by all elected members of the Ascension Island Council.
Dear Councillors
Thank you for your letter of 7 December about some key issues affecting the future of Ascension Island.
Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on your election to this, the second Island Council, and to pay tribute to your predecessors. The Island Council has achieved a great deal since its inception. The quality of life for those living and working on the island and the management of resources have both improved significantly. This is a testament to the hard work and dedication shown by Councillors. I believe the introduction of democracy to Ascension has worked well, and should continue.
In your letter, you raise the issue whether those now living on the island should be granted the right of abode and opportunity to purchase property on the island. As the team of officials that visited the island in November indicated to you, this issue gives rise to some fundamental questions for the UK Government. Ascension is unique. All those who currently live there do so for a particular purpose, either because they are associated with the British or US military forces; or are involved in some way in communications; or work for the Ascension Government in supporting the Users. Without the Users, the economy of the island and its very raison d’être would be put in jeopardy.
It follows that, in considering the future of Ascension, the UK Government must take into account whether fundamental change, of the sort you propose, would impose new financial liabilities on UK taxpayers, or would introduce significant new risks. On this I am answerable through Parliament to the UK electorate.
I have therefore had to balance the aspirations of those living and working on Ascension Island against the risks to the UK in terms of contingent liabilities and security and developmental costs. I have done this extremely carefully, in the light of evidence from a wide number of sources; the views of the Users; and in particular of the points which you and others on island have made now and in the past to the Governor, Administrator and visiting FCO officials. To grant permanent right of abode and rights of property on Ascension Island would constitute a very fundamental change in the nature of the Territory, and could not fail to bring an unacceptable level of risk to the UK. I have therefore concluded that the right of abode and the establishment of the right to purchase property will not be developed.
I realise that this decision will come as a disappointment to some on Ascension Island. I want to assure you that the UK remains committed to trying to ensure that the Territory continues to provide an appropriate environment for those who work and therefore live, on Ascension. But this must be within the existing framework.
I have sent copies of this letter to the Administrator and the Governor for publication in the local news at the first available opportunity.
Yours etc
Comment on Lord Triesman’s Reply
by the Elected Members of the Ascension Island Council
We specifically asked that the Islander publish our letter to Lord Triesman and his reply side by side so that it can be easily seen that either a) he didn’t actually read our letter or b) he read it and then chose to disregard it in its entirety.
The opening of para 3 of Lord Triesman’s letter states “In your letter, you raise the issue whether those now living on the island should be granted the right of abode and opportunity to purchase property on the island”
Although these two issues are at the root of the FCO U-Turn our letter was specifically aimed at the manner in which we had been, or more accurately not been, consulted. Our only request to the Lord, which he has chosen to ignore, was to have the summit proper honoured so that we could at least be allowed to try and address FCO concerns over contingent liabilities.
Unfortunately the Island Council, since it’s inception in 2002 to the present day, has been a victim of the FCO’s most tried and deadly weapon……..if you don’t want to have to defend the indefensible just ignore the problem until everyone forgets about it or goes away.
|
