Memorandum submitted by Michael Dun
1. Jersey is not mentioned, yet again, in
the Annual Human Rights Report.
2. This is not altogether surprising because
this small territory seems to be one of the UK Government's little
secrets. Not because it is an unspoilt tropical paradise (although
it is still very beautiful in parts) but more because of its shameful
failures to achieve minimal Human Rights standards and for its
role as an international finance centre and regulation haven.
3. Jersey might as well be part of the BCCI
group of Islands on the planet Enron in the galaxy of Parmalat
for all the UK Government cares to tell the world.
4. Nothing much has changed since my previous
(2003) memorandum and Jersey still has no anti-discrimination
legislation at all in place, there is no Human Rights Act, no
proper consumer protection rights, an inadequate prison with inadequate
facilities for young offenders or females, an outdated legal system
without a proper legal aid scheme, no minimum wage or unemployment
benefit (except under the Parish Poor Law), inadequate labour
and Trades Union Laws and so on.
5. There are blatantly discriminatory Housing
Laws which even the President of the Housing Committee describes
as unfair and which cause 20% of the working population to be
treated, so he says, as "second class citizens".
6. Jersey has still not ratified many important
international Human Rights instruments like the UN Convention
to Eliminate Discrimination against Women, or the UN Convention
to Protect the Rights of the Child or the Council of Europe Social
Charter.
7. There is a nil priority in Jersey towards
the achievement of basic human rights standards and the government
devotes minimal funds and effort to this cause. The UK Government's
failure to initiate appropriate reform within Jersey is scandalous
and it is contrary to national duties and international obligations.
8. By way of example, in January 2004 the
States of Jersey has just established the Jersey Community Relations
Trust with minimal funding for one year only but with most of
its finance expected to be raised through charitable funding.
This, in the absence of any human rights legislation in place,
is the Island's PR attempt to convince the world that it is taking
Human Rights seriously. It is a sham.
9. The pretence of adherence to international
obligations, both by the Jersey and UK Governments, was exposed
in February 2003 through questions asked in the Jersey States
(government) assembly by Deputy Hill. Deputy Hill asked if Jersey
was required to prepare a Human Rights Plan of Action as recommended
under the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
10. The reply from Jersey's Policy and Resources
Committee President (Senator) Frank Walker claimed, that following
consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office;
"that the Declaration does not place any
obligation on member states as it is not a treaty or convention
and is not registered on the FCO treaty database. It appears to
be nothing more than a declaration made following the world conference
on human rights in Vienna in 1993".
11. Further, Senator Walker referred specifically
to the Report of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in which it;
"urges the state party (the UK) to prepare,
as soon as possible, a national human rights plan of action in
accordance with paragraph 71 of the 1993 Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action"
and he continued;
"the Committee could only urge the UK to
comply with a previous non-mandatory recommendation and I confirm,
again, that as it has no obligation to do so, the UK is not preparing
such a plan and neither is Jersey".
12. Evidently, the recommendations of the
UN Human Rights Committee are not taken seriously by either the
Jersey or UK Governments and they don't even warrant registering
on the human rights database.
13. The work of the UN and its officers
is meaningless if state parties and their dependencies choose
to treat even such a simple UN recommendation fur preparing a
Human Rights Plan of Action with disdain.
14. The reference to the murder of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in the 2003 Report and the
words of Jack Straw to his memory and in the Foreword are rendered
especially hollow when considered in this context.
15. A state party which fails even to draw
up a Human Rights Action Plan for its own citizens is hardly placed
to pontificate on human rights failings in foreign territories.
16. It is relevant to record that Deputy
Hill has himself sought unsuccessfully to action the Housing Committee
in the Jersey Courts for human rights violations against his family
while he was a member of the same Committee. It must be unusual
for a member of any British government to bring such an action
against his own government and this serves to demonstrate the
inadequate attitudes towards human rights at all levels.
17. The year 2004 has been embraced by
the Jersey government to celebrate Jersey's so called 800 years
of allegiance to the Crown. Various misleading constitutional
claims are being made about independence and the festivities have
been given a mediaeval theme as though feudal times were in some
ways glorious. However, it is significant to note that feudalism
is not yet dead in the Bailiwick of Jersey and that ancient and
obscure laws can still be exploited for the enrichment of a few
and the disadvantage of many.
18. Thus, by the device of having secured
title to an ancient feudal fief for a few £ hundreds, a group
of business people trading as Les Pas Holdings Ltd have been able
to claim ownership of publicly reclaimed land with a value of
over £10 millions.
19. Neither Jersey's inadequate government
and Crown Officers nor the UK Government would appear to have
had the ability or knowledge to prevent such an abuse of the public
interest over absurdly unfair and outdated seigniorial rights.
Feudalism lives!
20. Page 73 of the Report refers to Protocol
13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and it is significant
that the other rather more famous, picture postcard feudal outpost
of Sark (pop 600), has now agreed to abolish the death penalty
.This may be viewed as progress except for the fact that the little
island has no powers to administer such a punishment.
21. It is a pity that the UK government
seems unable to exert its influence over the more meaningful human
rights gaps in the Channel Islands armoury.
22. Page 73 also refers to the UK's Review
of ratification of Human Rights instruments but makes no specific
reference to Dependent Territories like the Channel Islands and
the Isle of Man nor does it attempt to clarify which instruments
apply to the Islands. If such a review is to apply to the Islands
then Islanders should be informed and be equally encouraged to
participate in any consultative discussions.
23. Page 74 refers to David Lammy MP, Minister
with responsibility for Human Rights at DCA (Department for Constitutional
Affairs) and the Ministerial Forum. This page contains the only
reference to the Crown Dependencies in the Report and the claim
is made that the Forum is established to monitor progress in these
and the UK Overseas Territories
24. Such monitoring is not known to the
general public of the Channel Islands and David Lammy has not
made any attempts, that I am aware of, to meet directly with residents
other than those serving in government.
Islanders have no say either in the choice of
the Minister appointed by the UK Government to look after their
interests in Whitehall and there are no established channels for
islanders to communicate directly with him or his office. The
Minister's status with regard to the Islands and islanders is
as mysterious as the Indian Rope Trick.
25. The process whereby important decisions
are made on Human Rights matters for the Dependent Territories
without any NGO participation is referred to in my previous Memorandum.
This lack of proper dialogue extends throughout the ever changing
London administration and through to UN proceedings.
26. Page 111 includes observations from
Bill Rammell MP Foreign Office Minister for Human Rights but nowhere
is his relationship with or accountability for Island residents
clarified. He makes claims about his role with the UN Commission
on Human Rights; "I look forward to working with fellow CHR
members to promote adherence to human rights more widely, as well
as focusing attention where necessary on countries with appalling
records of human rights violations".
27. It is to be hoped that his attention
might also be focused on those little British Dependent territories
where Human Rights adherence is so neglected and yet are geographically
closer to London than many parts of the UK.
28. Page 257 refers to a Realisation of
Human Rights project to identify the human rights issues for people
in the Overseas Dependent Territories of Anguilla, Bermuda, British
Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Falkland Islands,
St Helena and Turks and Caicos Islands.
This initiative promoted open discussion and
the formation of NGO' s and there were other initiatives with
regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and reporting
to and participation with the UN.
29. All of these initiatives are clearly
desirable and commendable but why they have not been extended
to include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is not explained.
30. The Channel Islands and the Isle of
Man are part of the British Isles (Islands for the pedantic) and
it has been agreed (Royal Commission on the Constitution Report
1973) that the British Isles are an entity in the eyes of the
world and, therefore, it is essential that institutions and practices
in the Dependencies should not differ substantially from those
in the UK.
31. In my previous Memorandum I commented
upon the role of the Dependent Territories as Off Shore Finance
Centres and regulation havens. I expressed the view that the lack
of adherence to human rights obligation went hand in hand with
the finance centre activities and that the international network
of centres were harmful to the political and economic well-being
of other countries. I also referred to the harm that was actually
caused by the off-shore business to the small host communities
themselves.
32. In Jersey there is an ever growing
apprehension now evident with regard to the future economic and
political well-being of this community. This fear is centred on
concern at the demise of the island's agricultural and tourism
industries and reforms to be made in raising tax revenues as a
result of stricter regulation and control of the offshore finance
business.
33. Although bank deposits in Jersey exceed
£150 billions and managed funds are reported to be similarly
buoyant there is a growing realisation that the application of
EU rules on tax harmonisation and exchange of information will
dramatically impact upon the Island economy. The "finance
industry" is currently reported to generate between 60% and
80% of Jersey's tax revenue.
34. The retiring Head of Jersey's Statistics
Unit expressed his concerns to the Jersey Evening Post in January
2004 when he predicted "rocky times ahead" and that
he is "unsure whether the island will survive the major tax
change in 2009".
He continued;
"I think it's difficult to see how Jersey
is going to cope with the perceived need of a severely reduced
corporation tax and the shift of the burden onto the individual
resident. There is going to be strong resistance and I am not
sure how well Jersey is going to weather that . . ."
35. Evidently Jersey's future economic and
political well-being is in doubt and yet the Island's special
relationship with the EU was specifically negotiated supposedly
to prevent this very same thing happening.
36. When Britain was agreeing to join the
EU (EEC) in the 1960's the case was made for the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man to have special terms negotiated otherwise
the Islands would be required to implement legislation on taxation
and other domestic matters which the Islands would take no part
in determining. Entry into the EU, it was claimed, would do grave
harm to the Islands' economies. Harmonisation of taxation within
the EU, indirect tales at first and direct taxes later would deprive
the Islands of their favourable tax positions. The cost of imports
would be much increased. The Islands agricultural industries would
suffer due to the loss of the preferential arrangement of exporting
produce duty free to the UK. Food prices would increase. Additional
burdens would result from EU provisions on the freedom of movement,
right of establishment and reciprocity of social service benefits.
All these changes would increase the cost of living for residents,
make the islands less attractive to tourists and new residents
and would lead eventually to depopulation.
(Refer to the Royal Commission on the Constitution
Report 1973)
37. All these things are happening in spite
of the fact that special terms with the EU were negotiated for
the Islands by the UK government.
38. It is beyond the scope of this brief
Memorandum to discuss the role of the Offshore Finance Centres
network around the world or their relationships with the EU and
other organizations. Sufficient to repeat that they are significantly
harmful to the well-being of other territories and that a reliance
upon a tax haven economy is destructive of the Islands themselves.
39. Jersey is a community that needs the
urgent and active intervention of the UK Government to secure
its good government and well-being and compliance with international
standards on a wide range of issues.
40. Jersey's own government is inadequate
to this task.
M Dun
28 January 2004
| 
