Ascension : No Right of Abode for the People of Ascension Island
Submitted by The Islander (Juanita Brock) 30.01.2006 (Article Archived on 13.02.2006)
The BBC's Dee Palmer chats with Cllr. Lawson Henry.
NO RIGHT OF ABODE FOR THE PEOPLE OF ASCENSION
A Report for BBC World Service “Calling the Falklands by Dee Palmer (DP) 27/01/06)
The British Government have announced that the people of Ascension Island will not, after all, be given the right to live there permanently. This would appear to be a complete reversal of the policy of the last few years. We asked the Foreign Office for an interview with the Minister who bears responsibility for the Overseas Territories – Lord Triesman. The FCO was not able to agree to an interview but instead, gave us the following statement:
“In considering the questions of right of abode and property rights, the UK Government had to balance the aspirations of those living on Ascension Island against the risks to the UK in terms of contingent liabilities and security and developmental costs.
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.
The UK Government therefore concluded that the right of abode and the establishment of the right to purchase property would not be developed.”
To find out about the reaction on Ascension Island itself, I spoke to one of the Council Members, Lawson Henry (LH).
LH: I think if I could sum it up very briefly I would say “Absolute Shock!” (I am) Dumbfounded that in the 21st century a modern British Government should treat British Citizens the way they have done. It’s shameful.
DP: You say, “shocked.” Does that mean the announcement was totally unexpected?
LH: Totally unexpected. If I can just give you a brief History, you will probably recall in 1999, the late Robin Cook authored the British Government’s “White Paper for Prosperity.” The document created a new partnership with Britain’s Overseas Territories. Following on from that, the Foreign Office set out broad statements that they were going to introduce democracy on Ascension. There were going to be opportunities for right of abode for those who qualified and there would be land tenure. And, suddenly in late 2005 this was all scrapped. On the 28th of November 2005 we had this high ranking team, chaired by the Governor of St. Helena, who callously came out and gave us a pre-prepared statement to say the right of abode is off the table.
DP: So, If I can sum up, you pay taxes, you have instituted democratic local Government, you were setting about the development of the Island and now that has all ended. Is that right?
LH: It is off the table but we continue to pay taxes.
DP: So, what does this mean for Ascension Island – for its natural environment for a start?
LH: As you know, if there is a success story in the world about how we care for the environment it is clearly on Ascension. Significant sums of British taxpayers’ money were rightly spent on Ascension through the RSPB. There has been a success story with the eradication of wild cats. Birds are now coming back to nest on the mainland. It’s a success story. We have created the Island’s first National Park. This couldn’t have happened without the commitment of the community.
DP: So do you feel that if you return to the status of, if you like, squatters, rather than owner-occupiers there is no incentive for you to continue the kind of conservation work that has been carried out in the last few years?
LH: there is all the danger and potential for that to happen because there are three generations of families living here, who have lived here for over 60 years. You can’t just squash that. Knowing Britain and its human rights, I am just so saddened by this decision.
DP: As Lawson Henry said, in the last few years, the people of the Island have become involved in a number of conservation projects, largely funded by the Foreign Office, which is advised by the Overseas Territories Conservation Forum. Its South Atlantic Working group is chaired by Anne Brown (AB). I asked her how the new policy on Ascension Island will affect conservation efforts.
AB: We think the impact will be very serious indeed. Already we have heard stories from the Island that the Government here treats the birds more seriously than the people. But the reality is that the birds and the turtles and the other wildlife on Ascension simply won’t involve the local people because they know they are not going to be there for long-term.
DP: So the feeling is that if they have no stake in the Island, why should they bother continuing the work with the Green Turtles and the seabirds.
AB: Absolutely. It’s not their land. And, we are very concerned for the major projects that have been underway in the last two or three years that have had huge success to a large extent because the local people have begun to get involved because they were lead to believe that they were going to get right of abode.
DP: We talked on “Calling the Falklands” about the Turtle Project, making sure that the animals were safe when they came ashore to lay their eggs.
AB: And, there is, I believe, a voluntary scheme of wardens who assist with that but whether or not they will want to do that in future, we don’t know.
DP: And, there is another element that looking after the environment also could have encouraged ecotourism, which would have brought money into the Islands’ economy.
AB: That’s right and this is just starting to take off in the Island. They are at the very beginning of trying to encourage ecotourism. And, I think they have a huge amount to offer. But it will seriously discourage, if not completely stop the hope of what we will probably see a sustainable future.
DP: So, will you be making representations on this issue to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
AB: We have written in fairly strong terms to Lord Triesman – the minister who we understand is responsible for making this decision. We haven’t heard yet whether he is going to take our views into account. Our particular point is that in making this decision, that review itself doesn’t seem to take any environmental issues into account. And, we think that’s a big mistake.
|
