Submission from Mr Albert A Poggio, Government
of Gibraltar's United Kingdom Representative
I write in response to the call for evidence
for the Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Overseas Territories.
Although I am the Government of Gibraltar's
UK Representative I would ask the Committee to note that I make
this submission in a personal capacity. This is based on my twenty
years experience of representing Gibraltar and in particular with
its representation to political audiences—a vital role given
the sovereignty dispute with Spain and the various political proposals
the UK Government has made in relation to that.
The focus of my evidence is on the representation
and status of the Overseas Territories in the UK and in particular
recognition of that.
1. REPRESENTATION
ON REMEMBRANCE
SUNDAY AT
THE CENOTAPH
Gibraltar has been of strategic value for the
UK for hundreds of years. However, during World War II it played
perhaps one of its most crucial roles. Despite the evacuation
of its civilian population, many Gibraltarians were killed fighting
with or supporting the thousands of allied forces based there
on land or at sea as a last defence against Hitler. Gibraltar
also played host to the Churchill/Eisenhower meeting to plan the
North African landings and gave the allies not only territory
but a vital strategic advantage from which to defend Malta. Indeed,
many military historians have made the point that without Gibraltar,
Malta would have fallen which would have, most likely, led to
a very different outcome in North Africa.
The people of Gibraltar made many sacrifices
during the war and they believe strongly that there should be
the opportunity for Gibraltar to place a wreath at the Cenotaph
in the same way that many organisations in the UK do. We appreciate
that the Foreign Secretary has undertaken this task on our behalf
since the war, but believe that the powers in our new Constitution,
which gives almost full autonomy to the Government of Gibraltar
in the area of external affairs, should be reflected in our undertaking
this important and symbolic task on our own behalf.
2. ACCESS TO
THE PALACE
OF WESTMINSTER
One issue which hinders the work of the UK representatives
of the Overseas Territories is the lack of automatic access to
the Palace of Westminster. We recognise that passes are limited
for security reasons. However, Westminster, is the sovereign Parliament
for the Overseas Territories and as representatives of the Overseas
Territories, I believe that UKOTA Representatives should also
receive a pass. The representatives are appointed by their governments
and very limited in number—therefore creating no issue for
either security or in terms of numbers. Given that Westminster
is the Sovereign Parliament for the Overseas Territories and members
of both Houses have responsibility for speaking on Overseas Territories
matters I feel that UKOTA Representatives should be treated in
the same way as a UK Government Department and given automatic
access to enable them to speak to Members of Parliament.
3. COMMONWEALTH
HEADS OF
GOVERNMENT MEETING
(CHOGM)
The Overseas Territories play an active role
in the Commonwealth and attend many international and regional
meetings. It therefore seems a strange anachronism that they are
represented at CHOGM by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
We recognise that it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth
Heads of Government to issue such invitations. However, we believe
that support from the UK would lend us great weight in making
our case. Many of the new Constitutions that many of the Territories
have or are in discussions on give greater autonomy to locally
elected Governments. It would seem to be appropriate timing to
make the case for the UK to support the attendance of Overseas
Territories' political leaders at CHOGM.
4. REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE
OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
IN THE
UK
The Representatives of the Overseas Territories
play a crucial role in terms of positioning the Territories in
the UK. However, their status can be uncertain and their title
"Representative" does not truly describe their role.
They are much more than a Representative—they are advocates
for their Territories, a source of information for the British
public and a point of call for citizens of the Territories in
the UK. In all these ways they act as an Embassy or High Commission
would. I therefore believe that they should be accorded an improved
status in the UK for which the title of "Commissioner"
would be more appropriate.
I hope that the Committee finds my comments
useful. The UK representation of the Overseas Territories and
the status of the Territories in the international arena have
both gained increased status and maturity over the past few years.
I believe that this should be recognised in the ways I have suggested
above.
If it would assist the Committee I would be
happy to be called to give oral evidence.
12 October 2007
| 
