Submission from Mr Eric W George, Speaker
of Legislative Council, St Helena
INTRODUCTION
1. Over the past 14 years I have held office
as a member of the Executive Council of the Government of St Helena
(SHG). My responsibilities during that time have included:
— Member of Executive Council;
— Chair of Public Health Committee;
— Chair of Building Authority
1993-2001;
— Chair of Highways Authority;
— Chair of Water Authority;
— Chair of Electricity Authority
and Public Works Committee;
— Member of Finance and Development
Committee 2001—2006; and currently
— Speaker of Legislative Council
2. I have previously given evidence to the
Foreign Affairs Committee in December 1997, which helped form
part of the Overseas Territories White Paper Partnership for
progress and Prosperity. The subjects on that occasion were
the four Cs: Citizenship, Constitution, Communications and Commitment.
I would wish to give evidence on the various subjects submitted
below, if accepted by the Committee to do so on this occasion.
3. I am submitting information to the Foreign
Affairs Committee, as evidence of what I consider is the result
of the lack of practicing Good Governance in the overseas territory
of St Helena. I became more aware of what is absent and what is
expected after being attached to the Kent County Council earlier
this year, and studying their Code of Governance and the operations
of the Council. A copy of my report will be sent by electronic
mail as a part of my submission, for your information.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4. St Helena throughout its history has
never been financially self-sufficient, as it was not intended
to be. It was taken possession of and settled by the British Government
and run by the East India Company to safeguard British interests
in the lucrative sea trade route to the Far East around Cape Horn.
5. The Department of International Development
(DFID) previously known as the Overseas Development Administration
(ODA) administers the level of financial input by the British
Government to meet the basic needs of the Overseas Territory of
St Helena. The two main sources of revenue for the Island are
the British aid and remittances and related incomes from Islander's
working offshore on contracts, often not accompanied by their
wives.
6. Having recognised the state of St Helena's
economy, the British Government through its responsible administrative
department has not addressed the situation of the poor state of
the island's economy, nor accepted the assessment of the St Helena
Government in negotiations about the level of financing and the
impact on the lives of the people of St Helena. The economic situation
on St Helena has not improved and has now reached a crisis. Almost
half the local the working population work offshore (often not
being accompanied by their family) with adverse social consequences
and a strain on the running of essential services. (See copy of
SHG Press release) The situation has now reached a point where
personnel are being imported from other countries to help run
the medical and education services. Certain issues given below
draw also draws attention to the seriousness of the matter.
7. HMG reneged on a signed agreement with
SHG not to increase local revenue until evidence of a substantial
growth in economic development had taken place, which "In
the absence of a significant improvement in economic growth, leading
to the possibility of greater SHG revenues, more budgetary aid
will be required" (see Development Assistance Planning Mission
report 10-14 January 2000). This was endorsed in 2004 by the DPAM
team. The Governor of St Helena and the Head of OT's DFID both
signed the aid memoir.
8. Unfortunately, increases in local revenue
continued as before, including shipping freight charges and fares,
driving food prices, etc, higher and exposing the vulnerable to
even greater hardship. As an example, the Electricity Distribution
Project to upgrade line plant to a safe and efficient state has
just been approved after some four years of discussion. Electrical
services were held up until an agreement was reached on Full Cost
Recovery. In the meantime, project costs escalated and restrictions
on new electrical connections were put in place that slowed down
private sector house building and delayed the connection to the
new Elderly Care Centre. An improvement in the distribution system
will realise a saving in line loses of 19%, which will reduce
the need to increase electricity charges to the public. However,
this delay has had a negative impact on the Island going forward,
and is encouraging more people to leave the Island. Up to 50%
of the Island's key staff have left, which in turn means the recruitment
of key staff from overseas to fill vacant posts in education,
health and other public sector posts at much higher cost to the
UK Government and detrimental to the Island.
BULK FUEL
INSTALLATION
9. The Bulk Fuel installation (BFI), the
only Island fuel supply, was designed to improve the island's
economy by providing cheaper fuel. However, The appointed managers'
in 1987 are, some 21 years later, still allowed to continue despite
the fact that the management contract has never been advertised,
but Solomon & Co, who are the current managers, is allowed
to continue. An investigation is needed in this area, because
there is a conflict of interest of SHG being involved in a commercial
Company and representing the people of the Island. This needs
to be investigated because of monopolistic occurrences that are
allowed, which is not in the best interest of the Island. An Ombudsman
would be well placed on the Island at this time and I recommend
one be appointed immediately.
SHIPPING
10. Shipping is one of the Governor's constitutional
responsibilities. Council have asked through questions raised
in the House about the shipping and why the SHG Auditor is not
auditing the management accounts of the ship. The annual shipping
subsidy of some £3.3 million last year is provided to offset
the shortfall in the operating account. All other SHG and Agencies
accounts are audited and accounted for by the Island's Public
Accounts Committee. Although the sum of £3.3 million forms
part of the Island's budget, the Island has no means of control
over how that money is spent.
11. St Helena Line, which owns the ship
on behalf of the Island, was appointed without contest from other
would be takers. St Helena Line has been superintending the RMS
management since 1990. An assessment and findings of their performance
can be found in the High-Point Rendel report: St Helena Comprehensive
Review of Shipping Arrangements of December 2003. There is
evidence to suggest a Value for Money Study should be carried
out, both in the interest of the British and St Helena tax payers.
In particular, there are answers the Island cannot obtain locally,
to justify increases in both freight charges and passenger fares
at the same time. as an increase in the shipping subsidy. I would
urge the National Audit Office (NAO) be requested to look into
our shipping service to see if the St Helena and the British Tax
payer are getting value for money.
12. I refer now to the Public Accounts Committee
of the House of Commons, Thirteenth Report of 17 April 1991 on
A New Ship for St Helena. In particular I would draw attention
to Questions 337-339 put by Mr Shersby MP and answered by Mr Lankester
Permanent Secretary, Overseas Development Administration, when
giving evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts. To summarise;
there are issues at present that need clarification: Are commitments
given to the above questions still valid? See also Para 30 of
the Introduction and Summary of the Committee of Public Accounts
Report, where The Administration assured us that the substantial
increase in cost would not affect in any future United Kingdom
aid to St Helena nor the annual operating subsidy which the British
Government had agreed to provide for 20 years at an expected cost
of £25 million. Excepting an element for inflation, it is
difficult to accept increases in freight charges and passenger
fares go hand in hand with increases in shipping subsidy.
13. During the tenure of the former managers
of the ship, the figure of £25 million was very much adhered
to, indeed often came under the stated allocation. One reason
for this is the ship kept to its original schedule. Since the
new managers were appointed, the subsidy increased and increased
further to an even greater level with the rescheduling of the
vessel. Our economy, already at a critically low level, has no
chance of recovery unless the Island is in a position to examine
the issues that are having a negative impact on the Island. I
am afraid shipping has one such effect on the Island, although
it is our only link with the outside world.
14. It would be of benefit if the Island
were to be given an opportunity to establish at the highest level
whether:
— The commitment given in the
Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons Report in Q
337-339 is still valid and
— The subsidy of £25 million
over 20 years (Q. 338) is extra to the £2.5 million allocated
to the shipping subsidy in the Island budget estimates for 2007,
is in keeping with the commitment given in the report mentioned
above, as subsidies increases with increased freight and passenger
charges are a regular occurrence.
It is recommended that an enquiry by the NAO
to establish whether the people of the Territory and the British
taxpayers are getting Value for Money.
15. Without the services of an Ombudsman and
a Scrutiny or Standards Committee, the Island becomes vulnerable.
Although a Resolution to this effect was given full support in
the House in July 1994 without any dissenting voice, the matter
has not been taken forward. The Office of an Ombudsman is a must
for St Helena if the good governance of the Island is to be taken
seriously.
16. I would earnestly request that the FCO/DFID
be requested as a referee, to initiate the process that will ensure
that good governance is seriously working in the territory and
it requires that governments of the UK and St Helena observe the
following principles:
— accountability—political,
legal, public, auditing;
— openness and transparency;
— maximise the effectiveness of
government; and
— encourage public participation
17. There is a need to strengthen democracy
and trust. It should be noted that an Island of some 4,000 people
has had at its disposal £1/4 billion over the last 20 years.
The question is: why are we continuing with the present situation?
The Island was striving for many years to come to a point of being
financially self-sufficient and to meet our Vision: "A prosperous
and democratic society for all achieved through sustainable economic,
environmental and social development leading to a healthy and
eventually a financially independent Island".
18. The author of the Island's 1996-2000
Strategic Review states in the "Economic Context":
"There is considerable evidence that the
fall in UK Aid was a significant factor in the contraction of
the economy."
In effect, the economy contracted because the
private sector (which includes: exports, offshore employment,
and domestic production) and SHG's offshore revenue source (which
included fishing licences and portfolio investments) were unable
to generate resources to replace those lost from the real fall
in UK Aid. The public Sector Reform Report of 1996 also gave the
same warning that the recommendations contained in their Report
would be placed in jeopardy if there was a continuing fall in
UK Aid. These were warnings from costly consultants that seem
to have been ignored. I recommend that the economic position on
the Island be seriously be investigated. I would be pleased to
elaborate on the above if the opportunity was there for me to
give oral evidence.
19. I would further recommend to the Committee
that the White Paper Partnership for Progress and Prosperity
of 1999 be examined to ascertain that the four principles mentioned
in the Secretary of State's Foreword, that underpinned partnership
are being met. I submit that they form the basis of the partnership
that remained for generations—the deep bond of affection
and respect that exists between the people of Britain and the
people of the Overseas Territories. I feel our future is threatened
by HMG imposing conditions on the Island's development aid projects
and reneging on signed agreements (as mentioned above), which
are contrary to meeting the aims of the White Paper.
20. Human Rights are also a pressing concern
where there is outright opposition by the British Government to
Islanders not having the right to nationality under Article 15
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are also differences
of opinion when dealing with a specific issue in that children
born after 1998 of St Helena parents are now deemed to have St
Helena status and not Islander status (as have those born before
1998). Islander status is included in the Ordinance, but must
be applied for by outsiders. To classify a child as having St
Helena status and not Islander status means they cannot inherit
property until the age of 15 years. Until such time their property
is placed in Trust. People who are none Islanders obtain Islander
Status through application, must first reside on the Island for
five years. One was allowed to purchase a huge property without
first applying for a licence under the Immigrants Land Holding
Ordinance. In doing so, it deprived Saints having an opportunity
of acquiring that land. No immigrant can purchase any land without
first obtaining an Immigrants Land Holding Licence. In short,
the child born after 1998 has no greater status than someone who
acquires St Helena status through application or by being resident
on the Island on an extended visa for a five year period. I wish
to go back to the position whereby all children born of St Helena
parents automatically acquire Islander status with the same rights
as all others born before 1998. In the Caribbean this is called
"belonged" status. In all other cases, St Helena status
must be applied for, and application must be sought in order to
be able to purchase land.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
(a) To appoint an Ombudsman for the Island
of St Helena—Para 9 to 14.
(b) To establish Scrutiny and Standards Committees
as part of the SHG—Para 15.
(c) To appoint the National Audit Office
to look into the Island shipping service to establish whether
the St Helena and the British tax payers are getting value for
money—Para 11 to 14.
(d) To examine the White Paper Partnership
for Progress and Prosperity to ascertain whether the four
principles mentioned in the Secretary of Stare's Foreword that
underpin the partnership between Britain and the Overseas Territories
are being met—Para 19.
(e) To reinstate the position whereby children
born after 1998 of St Helena parents are deemed to have Islander
status—Para 20.
(f) To permit the Speaker of the Legislative
Council of St Helena to give oral evidence to the committee on
these pressing issues—Para 2.
21. I trust I have advised the Foreign Affairs
Committee of information that could be used to the benefit of
the Territory of St Helena.
12 October 2007
| 
