Examination of Witnesses (Questions 68-79)
THE HON
OSBOURNE FLEMING,
DR THE
HON LOWELL
LEWIS AND
DR THE
HON MICHAEL
E. MISICK LLB, MLC
3 DECEMBER 2007
Chairman: Welcome and thank you for being
patient with us while we had that delay. Can each of you introduce
yourselves?
Osbourne Fleming: I am Osbourne
Fleming, the Chief Minister of Anguilla.
Lowell Lewis: I am Lowell Lewis,
the Chief Minister of Montserrat.
Michael E. Misick: I am Michael
Misick, the Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Q68 Chairman: Thank you very much.
May I remind the public to switch off their mobile phones?
I will begin by asking each of you what your
relationship is with your Governor.
Osbourne Fleming: First, I want
to say how thankful and grateful I am to be here. I know that
this is the first evidence session in the Committee's inquiry,
and I am very pleased to be a part of it. Secondly, I know that
my colleagues have come prepared with their scripts, but I do
not have any because we were not advised on how comprehensive
this discussion would be. However, we move forward.
Our relationship with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office has been remarkable. We have no serious problem with Her
Majesty's Government and the FCO— and I am sure that my
colleagues will agree with that. We have been candid and clear
about what we want from them. However, one thing that has caused
us some pain and headache with the FCO is an issue related to
appointments, which we have brought to this table before. As elected
Members, we feel that the time has come when senior appointments
should not be made with the consultation of the Governor, but
with the advice of the elected Members. We think that that is
something that should happen. I hope that after this meeting our
concerns will be raised with the appropriate authorities.
I have one serious concern that I would like
the Ministers of the Government to hear. In 1984, the Government
of Anguilla had four Ministers. We had a budget at that time of
less than $3 million. Today, we have four Ministers and a budget
of over $270 million. Since then, we have initiated the following
Departments: probation, youth and culture, environment, community
college, prison and disaster preparedness. Four Ministers cannot
do justice to the people of Anguilla. To that end, I am asking
you to help us put in place a fifth Minister now, even if it is
a designate Minister. The four of us cannot carry the burden of
a country that is progressing as rapidly as Anguilla.
Q69 Chairman: Chief Minister, you
have a Deputy Governor who was appointed in 2006, who is an Anguillan.
Does that mark a significant improvement in the relationship?
Osbourne Fleming: Yes, we are
very pleased about that. We were a part of that and, as a Government,
we endorsed that and the person as well.
Q70 Chairman: Thank you. Dr. Lewis,
what is the position in Montserrat?
Lowell Lewis: First, let me express
my gratitude at being here to speak to the Committee. I am impressed
by this part of the building. However, I thought that by now you
would be voting with a button, instead of having to get up and
go to the House.
In Montserrat, we have good personal relationships
with the Governors, but we at times feel that the system is undemocratic,
and sometimes the relationship is humiliating. You have a situation
where the Governor, being responsible for the appointment of staff,
can in fact ignore the advice of the political directorate, and
that has happened on occasion, with disastrous consequences. It
is important for us to move towards a situation where we have
an Executive public service commission and the authority for the
selection of appointments does not rest solely with the Governor.
The Governor should be obliged to act on the advice of the public
service commission and the Governor's influence should be no more
and no less than the influence of the political directorate. If
anything, local representatives have more, let us say, detailed
knowledge and should be in a position to guide the Governor.
On the subject of Ministers, the issue, again,
is resources. We were once ahead of Anguilla and the British Virgin
Islands, but because of the volcano way back, we are now 5,000
people and a struggling economy. However, we still think we need
about five Ministers so that we can have the capacity to deal
with the range of different activities that need to be covered.
Q71 Chairman: You said "disastrous
consequences." Could you be a little more specific? Are you
referring to a specific episode or a series of episodes?
Lowell Lewis: There are several
things. To give a single example, if you appoint somebody at permanent
secretary level and they prove three months later to be totally
inadequate, you have lost three months' work. I can think of an
instance where delays in the completion of Executive Council memorandums
and project memorandums have cost us $3 million or $4 million
in lost aid because we did not make the deadline for an EU-funded
project. Those are examples of where it is important for Governors
to take the advice of the local political directorate if they
feel that a particular person is not suitable, competent or capable
to do a particular job.
On the other side, we have had many instances
in Montserrat where our local knowledge of the situation relating
to the volcano has put us at an advantage in terms of making decisions.
We have the situation of the dome collapsing, with no real threat,
but six or eight weeks later, we have to wait for the Governor
to do something that could have safely been done six weeks before.
You have a constitution in which, to some extent, the discretion
of the political directorate is not given as much weight as the
discretion of the Governor.
Michael E. Misick: Thanks for
the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. In relation
to your question about my relationship with the present Governor,
there is to some extent a question of personality, and the relationship
with HMG is also of great importance. The present Governor is
a pleasant gentleman and we get along well personally, as one
would with most persons.
We do not have some of the same issues as Montserrat
and Anguilla in relation to appointments because we have an independent
public service commission, but we believe that it is time for
all the Territories to embrace real Cabinet government, as in
Gibraltar and Bermuda, where the Chief Minister or Premier is
president or chairman of the Cabinet. Throughout the Territories
you see that there are different standards, or that the constitution
is not uniform, so different Territories are treated differently.
We feel that, if, in our various constitutions, domestic concerns
are a matter for the local government, then the Premier or Chief
Minister should be chairman of his Council of Ministers and should
make decisions based on domestic areas, and, as a matter of course,
the government should be informed. To answer your question directly,
I have no personal qualms with the present Governor. He is a nice
man with a very nice family.
Q72 Mr. Horam: We come to the matter
of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council, which you are
attending. How useful do you find it, and is it developing in
the way you would want? Perhaps we could start by Mr. Fleming
answering that point.
Osbourne Fleming: I have been
around here for the past seven years and I have been to London
for the consultative conference six times. I find it very useful.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing like seeing someone in front
of you and telling them how you feel about a matter. The Overseas
Territories, on the whole, have been blessed to be able to sit
around the table at least once a year in the common interest that
we all share. I think that we get that right and I hope that it
continues. I hope that one of these days the conference will be
held somewhere in the Caribbean, so that they can come to us.
But, all in all, the conferences have been very useful to me as
a representative of Anguilla.
Q73 Mr. Horam: Dr. Lewis, how do
you feel?
Lowell Lewis: I think that they
are very important meetings. As long as our constitutional status
remains in a state of change, we need to continue meeting and
discussing the issues with the United Kingdom. As long as we interact
with the rest of the world through the United Kingdom, it is important
for us to come face to face from time to time, so that we are
properly represented.
It is also important for the opportunity it
gives United Kingdom Ministers to meet Ministers from the Territories
and to come to an understanding that it is actually okay to delegate
responsibilities to political colleagues in another country, or
territory, as opposed to having to delegate them to a Governor.
Surely we aspire to the same level of integrity in governance
and, if we practise the same type of democracy, there is no reason
why a political colleague cannot delegate responsibility to the
political leader of a country. That is at the basis of the existing
differences over the resistance to reducing the powers of the
Governor. If the local political leader can achieve the same objectives
as the Governor, why does he have to be President of the Executive
Council and why does he have to be responsible for security and
issues of safety? It is by our having this dialogue that we believe
that we can break the ice and become greater partners.
Q74 Mr. Horam: Would you like to
add to that, Mr. Misick?
Michael E. Misick: Yes. Certainly,
every time that I have attended it has been constructive. However,
we believe and I believe that the presence of Governors is not
necessary. Governors have annual meetings with the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
Q75 Mr. Horam: So do you think that
they should be excluded?
Michael E. Misick: Well, if there
needs to be another meeting for Governors and leaders, there should
be one. It is unfortunate that during the opportunity that leaders
have to consult with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on issues
of mutual concern in our relationship, in the last two years a
lot of the time has been taken up by discussing whether Governors
should be there, which should be a moot point in my view. It is
a relationship between Her Majesty's Government, through the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, and the various governments headed by
the various elected leaders of those countries. I think that the
concept is a good one. Certainly, I would like to see more conclusions
coming out of it and more follow-through—more action—but
it is good to come and have discussions.
Q76 Mr. Horam: Some of your colleagues
from other Territories have said that there is sometimes excessive
delay in putting things through. Nice words were said at the meetings,
but none the less after two or three years nothing much had happened;
transportation was given as one example. Is that your experience?
Michael E. Misick: Unfortunately,
I was not here to hear exactly what they said, but I think that
our fear is: is it becoming another talking shop, with no conclusion,
no follow-through, no action? I believe that among the remaining
Territories—the Territories that opt to remain having relations
with the United Kingdom—most of our Territories are progressive,
most of their leaders are modern in their thinking and most of
us seek a modern relationship with the UK Government, whereby
we are seen and respected as leaders of our various countries.
We represent a constituency, so we want to be heard and taken
seriously. As I said, in some cases there has been more talking
than action.
In the absence of the Chairman, Sir John
Stanley took the Chair.
Q77 Mr. Horam: On the constitution,
you have a new constitution in Turks and Caicos. How is that working?
Are you satisfied with it?
Michael E. Misick: The present
constitution that we have is certainly working; we expect to get
more. We accept what we have but as I said in my opening statement,
I believe that more autonomy could have been given within the
framework of our relationship with the United Kingdom. One of
the things that I mentioned is the question of the head of government
heading his own cabinet, as is the case in Gibraltar and in Bermuda,
even if you have to define what domestic issues are. If, on one
hand, you say, "Okay, you have internal self-governance"
but still the representative of Her Majesty's Government chairs
that internal self-governance, that is a contradiction in terms.
I believe that that is an area that should be rectified.
Also, with some of my other colleagues, I believe
that on issues such as security, some foreign relations elements
and so on, there can be a degree of delegation. We deal from time
to time with the Caribbean Community and Common Market and all
of our neighbours in the Caribbean. There can be a degree of delegation
on foreign relations. We have a unique situation in Turks and
Caicos, where one of the greatest threats to our survival, our
economy, is illegal immigrants coming from Haiti. On average 400
or 500 people a week come on boats to Turks and Caicos. We spend
millions and millions of dollars repatriating them back to Haiti,
with no financial assistance from the UK. In this case it is considered
an immigration problem, and we feel that it is a foreign affairs
problem, as well. The point that I am making is that if we can
deal with the Haitian problem, we can deal with other elements
of foreign relations. I believe that the future constitutional
relationship between the Territories and the UK can be defined
in a way that gives the Territories maximum autonomy, while still
for the countries that want to remain British, preserving that
historic connection.
Q78 Mr. Horam: You mentioned the
expenditure you incur on repatriating illegal immigrants from
Haiti. Do you repatriate all of them who come, or do you accept
some immigrants and not others? How do you operate that policy
on immigration?
Michael E. Misick: Obviously,
they are processed. I do not know the percentage that is shipped
back, but most of them are economic rather than political refugees.
Q79 Mr. Horam: I wondered whether
you return most of them to Haiti.
Michael E. Misick: Yes.
| 
