Submission from The Rev Miss Jean Montgomerie
Introduction: I have had an interest in the
Island of St Helena since a member of my family first visited
in 1964. However, because of the Island's isolation, I had not
had an opportunity to take a trip there until recently. I have
now spent six weeks on St Helena, on holiday, but with ears and
eyes open! Although my understanding of the issues may therefore
be sketchy, I believe there are certain salient points that I
can add to the debate.
This is a beautiful Island rich in Maritime
and Napoleonic history, geological features, plant, marine and
bird life. Much loved by its native and adopted people, it is
nevertheless going through a period of depopulation—largely
due to the fact that many Islanders leave for work in the UK,
Ascension and the Falklands—primarily, I believe, due to
the fact that salaries on the Island are depressed, leaving some
on St Helena working for less than half the UK minimum wage, with
sporadic pension provision and a relatively high cost of living
(water rates/electricity/fuel/food and other necessary supplies).
On the political front, I have been impressed by the new Governor,
Andrew Gurr, but fear that the layers of bureaucracy he has inherited,
together with the expanding government structure, may well stifle
his best efforts.
1. The current situation expects a population
of around 4,000 people (the size of a village in the UK!) to constitute
a Government, and develop a sound infrastructure to promote greater
economic prosperity and thus independence from UK subsidies. This,
in my view is thoroughly impractical.
2. Government spending (sometimes referred
to as "aid"—why, when the Island is a British
Territory, and its inhabitants British Citizens?) is, I believe,
in the region of £16,000,000 per annum—a proverbial
drop in the ocean of the overall UK budget. As far as I understand,
the subsidy for the RMS St Helena, the Island's lifeline, is included
in this amount—simply putting St Helena on a par with the
Islands of Scotland. I was unable to ascertain any breakdown of
how the rest of this money is used, but imagine that a significant
proportion is spent in administration of the affairs of the Dependency,
and paying salaries to overseas personnel whose remuneration packages
can only be dreamed of by qualified `Saints' who work in similarly
skilled jobs on the Island.
2.(i) A greater proportion of aid needs
to be channelled into projects aimed at encouraging moves towards
increased self-sufficiency viz:
(a) Provision of rich fertiliser to improve
soil quality for agriculture and domestic gardens. (Kirkconnel
in Scotland provided an excellent model for this some years ago
by turning sewage and paper waste into fertiliser).
(b) Solar panels for every dwelling and business
premises—the climate is a gift!
(c) Eradication of fruit fly.
(d) Encouragement to use insecticides (organic
if wished) to aid healthy crops.
(e) Control of the Mina bird population and
other pests eg rabbits and rats.
(f) Investigation into the possibility of
supplying untreated water for irrigation to supplement householders'
own rainwater tank supplies.
2.(ii) The Jamestown breakwater project
is long overdue, not least in view of the stated aim of encouraging
more tourism to the Island. Presently, any cruise ships arriving
in harbour depend on totally benign weather conditions to allow
them to discharge passengers who wish to spend time ashore.
3. Tourism apparently viewed as the salvation
of the economy of the Island, and now (also apparently) driving
the move towards the construction of an Airport, a five star Hotel
and Golf Course, as well as the encouragement of inward investment
for tourism services. No one to whom I spoke was able to indicate
what research had been done into potential numbers of tourists
once the airport is built, nor whether that number would be significantly
larger than visitors from cruise ships if they were able to disembark
passengers at all times.
3.(i) Given the disruption during construction
phases, and the consequent impact on Island life—its people
and its environment—will the Airport truly benefit the Island
and its people?
(a) The demand for fresh and untreated water
will increase exponentially.
(b) Additional resources will be required
to expand medical services on the Island.
(c) Air-sea rescue services will be required—for
the airport; in anticipation of an increase in road traffic accidents
and in readiness for more casualties among those walking the rugged
terrain.
(d) Encouragement to expand the availability
of B&B and self-catering accommodation will require an increased
availability of eating establishments with extended opening hours
along with more abundant supplies of good quality fresh foods
and competitively priced groceries etc.
(e) Thus a ship—with the facilities
of the current RMS for unloading containers on to inshore vessels—will
still be required for imports.
(f) Travel for Islanders will be considerably
restricted, given that, as far as I understand it, there will
no longer be any direct link to Ascension Island—thus entailing
a flight to mainland Africa, then to the UK, and "back"
to Ascension. Seems strange—as currently Ascension is part
of the single territorial grouping of St Helena, Ascension and
Tristan da Cuhna!
3.(ii) Should there be a significant influx
of tourists once the Airport is built, this will put severe stresses,
not only on the infrastructure of the Island, but also on its
natural environment on land and sea.
4. CONCLUSION
St Helena and its Dependencies, Ascension Island
and Tristan da Cuhna, is currently one British Overseas Territory,
a part of the United Kingdom where a significant proportion of
the population earn comparatively low wages, where few have decent
pensions (no State Pension here), and where the cost of living
is high. The cost to the British Government a mere £16 million
per annum—by my calculation less than 9,000 Jobseeker's
Allowances, or the salaries and allowances of 160 Members of Parliament!
Yes, this money needs to be used efficiently, but to expect a
resident population of around 4,000 people on a remote outpost
in the South Atlantic Ocean to be economically independent is
absurd. Tourists are currently attracted to St Helena by its remoteness,
its history, its geology, its unspoilt natural features, its plant,
marine and bird life, and, `though this may not necessarily be
completely destroyed by the proposed tourist development,
the unique character of the Island will. And I remain unconvinced
that the developments envisaged will truly benefit the "Saints".
31 January 2008
|
