Examination of Witnesses (Questions 261-279)
MEG MUNN
MP, LEIGH TURNER
AND SUSAN
DICKSON
26 MARCH 2008
Q261 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister,
and good afternoon to your colleagues. I ask members of the public
who have just joined us to switch off mobile phones or put them
on silent.
Welcome, Mr. Turner and Ms Dickson. As you are
aware, we are continuing this afternoon's double-hatted session
with discussion of the other Overseas Territories, in which we
have much wider responsibilities, both geographically and in terms
of complexity, than the Minister for Europe has. Nevertheless,
we are pleased to see both Ministers. Can you give us a sense
of how the Foreign Office deals with the Overseas Territories
overall in establishing consistency among them with regard to
amendments to their constitutions? How do you decide how much
self-government and responsibility we are prepared to entrust
to particular territories, given their differences and complexities?
Meg Munn: Perhaps you will permit
me to say a couple of sentences first about how we approach that
overall as it leads into the constitutional basis. When I first
came into post, I obviously wanted to understand the relationships,
so I went back to the 1999 White Paper, which clearly set out
the principles on which the relationship between the Government
and the Overseas Territories is worked out. Four fundamental principles
basically still hold true in terms of the territories: self-determination,
mutual obligations and responsibilities, freedom for them to run
their own affairs to the greatest possible degree and a firm commitment
from the UK to help the territories develop economically and assist
them in emergencies. That is the broad framework within which
we operate.
In relation to the constitutions, the White
Paper set out the view that it was important to modernise them
to take account of the current situation and developments that
had happened. One of the key issues is the size of the territories
themselves, their capacity and what the people of the territories
want to see in terms of their constitution. A negotiated process
takes place. There is an important aspect. We continue to have
legal obligations, in relation to which there are certain points
that we will not give to them: our responsibility for international
obligations, defence and, broadly, security. I think that covers
the broad framework.
Q262 Chairman: What we will not give
over in the general sense is one thing, but within the different
territories there are different criteria, or at least different
practices, as regards the level of self-government. Could you
be more specific? For example, do you make judgments about the
competence of people, or the degree of influence by undesirable
elements, both locally and in the region?
Meg Munn: I do not think that
is part of the discussion. Perhaps Leigh Turner, who is a bit
closer to some of the ongoing negotiations, can give you a more
specific response on that.
Leigh Turner: Broadly speaking,
we have principles that apply to all the Overseas Territories,
which the Minister has set out. There might be a case, such as
St. Helena, where the Governor retains responsibility for shipping.
There might be a case, such as the Falklands Islands, where we
have retained responsibility for permission to develop hydrocarbons.
There will be a range of specific instances, varying from territory
to territory, but we would also look at the capacity of the territory
concerned. If it were a big territory, such as Bermuda or Cayman,
it might have well developed institutions, compared with somewhere
such as Pitcairn, which has limited capacity to run itself. There
would be a sliding scale. I do not believe that we have ever said
that a territory is so problematic that we cannot give it powers.
Q263 Chairman: But in the case of
Pitcairn, which has so few people, you cannot give it many powers,
can you?
Meg Munn: In relation to Pitcairn,
clearly the structures and the way in which it operates are different
from the way in which Cayman or Bermuda operate. There is a locally
elected body, but it is clearly at a different level.
Q264 Mr. Keetch: What about human
rights—for example, a Bill of Rights? On legislation covering,
for example, homosexual equality and civil marriages, would you
require all overseas territories to have the same level of what
we might call western European human rights views, as opposed
to the different tradition that some of those territories might
have on some of those issues?
Meg Munn: There is a range of
positions within what you said. In terms of UN conventions, the
British Government are responsible for those, including in the
territories, so we want the territories to be able to sign up
to them and to have them as part of their legislation and the
like. That has been one of the things that I have been particularly
concerned about. At the Overseas Territories Consultative Council
we discussed the fact that some territories had not signed up,
particularly to some key conventions, and we want that to happen.
In terms of the constitutions that are now being discussed for
territories that have not put new constitutions in place, our
view is that they should include issues relating to human rights,
so that is part of the negotiation. Where there is a difference,
we do not intend to say that territories must enact, for example,
civil partnerships. That is not something we have gone that far
with currently. It is an issue that I was questioned about at
great length when I visited Cayman, which expressed concern that
signing up to human rights within its constitution would automatically
mean that it would have to have civil partnerships. That was not
our view.
Q265 Mr. Keetch: So, to be clear,
you will not insist that any overseas territory would have to
write civil marriages into its constitution.
Meg Munn: No.
Q266 Mr. Illsley: You gave the example
of the Falkland Islands and said that the Government's permission
would be needed to develop hydrocarbons. Is that what you meant—that
the Falkland Islands would need the Government's permission to
develop the hydrocarbon industry?
Leigh Turner: What happens at
the moment is that the Falkland Islanders have, in a number of
cases, requested permission to license areas of hydrocarbon development.
Those permissions have been granted and the development of hydrocarbons
is going ahead, but if there were to be a major new change of
policy on hydrocarbons, for example in relation to licensing a
number of major new areas of Falkland Islands' waters, we would
expect that to be cleared with us.
Q267 Mr. Illsley: Does that imply
that Her Majesty's Government own the rights to hydrocarbons around
the Falklands? I know that issue is part of the negotiations on
the new constitution.
Leigh Turner: No, the Falkland
Islands own the resources about which we are talking. But the
point is that we regard something as important as the development
of hydrocarbons as having potential international implications
so it is right that we have some sort of handle on it.
Q268 Mr. Illsley: Does that mean
income as well as some sort of input and responsibility? Will
HMG demand an income from any revenues from hydrocarbons?
Meg Munn: We have not yet got
to the position where any have been located. That would be a discussion
we would have with the Falkland Islanders.
Q269 Mr. Illsley: But will the Government
be looking to obtain an income stream from that development?
Meg Munn: That would be part of
negotiations with the Falkland Islanders. They have not found
any so we have not had that discussion.
Mr. Illsley: I will take that as a "yes"
then.
Q270 Chairman: We will come on to
some detailed questions about the Falklands later. At the moment,
may I focus on more general questions? This may seem academic,
but I think I should ask the question anyway. Could an overseas
territory be granted independence without a referendum taking
place in that territory?
Meg Munn: The Government's position
is that that is the way by which we would expect a territory to
indicate that it wanted to have independence, but that does not
rule out other mechanisms that might be acceptable—for example,
if a political party went into an election on the basis that it
would pursue independence and there was a clear majority for that
party. We would have to look at each circumstance, but our position
is that a referendum is the preferred route.
Q271 Chairman: At the moment, because
of changes with regard to relationships with the European Union,
but also because of their own desire, there is not a pressing
demand for independence in any overseas territory, is there?
Meg Munn: I have not heard any
territory Government express that view, but there are varying
views. Certainly, when I was in Cayman they were in the process
of constitutional discussions and some people wanted greater independence
but still wanted to keep a link with the UK. I was clear about
the issues on which we would not negotiate. Beyond that, I have
not heard any expressions of a desire for independence.
Q272 Mr. Moss: I was part of the
delegation that went to Bermuda and as you well know, it had its
referendum some years ago. It was put to us strongly that many
people there would be against the second proposal to which you
alluded, whereby a party could go into an election with a manifesto
commitment to have independence. If you look at the results of
the last Bermuda election, the percentage difference in votes
was tiny. If there is a low turnout, there would be a move towards
independence on less than 50% of the popular vote. Are you suggesting
that would be acceptable?
Meg Munn: No, which is why I was
saying that if a territory wanted to go for independence on the
basis of something other than a referendum, it would entirely
depend on the circumstances. If a political party went into an
election saying that it wanted independence and received 90%.
of the vote, that would be a different situation from the scenario
that you have described. We would want to consider that matter.
Q273 Mr. Moss: May I turn to the
appointment and role of Governors? What level of consultation
does the FCO carry out with the Governments of the Overseas Territories
before Governors are appointed?
Meg Munn: There is a discussion
with the particular overseas territory, ahead of the Governor's
appointment, about the characteristics, experience and so on that
they think are important to the position. That happens before
the advertising and recruitment takes place.
Q274 Mr. Moss: Is there any evidence
to suggest that relations are improved if the appointment of,
say, the Deputy Governor is a local appointment?
Meg Munn: Not necessarily. Sometimes
it can be the other way around, because we are talking about relatively
small communities. Even the larger overseas territories are still,
in our terms, relatively small communities, and there can sometimes
be friction due to the long personal or political histories of
people who are appointed as Deputy Governor. On another occasion,
they can be somebody who is perfectly acceptable to, and enjoys
the respect of, a range of people, so there is no clear correlation
from appointing somebody who is local.
Leigh Turner: In a number of recently
agreed constitutions, there has been a slight trend towards Deputy
Governors being locally appointed. We think that it is a good
thing in principle; the question is how well it works in practice,
and we are still sucking it and seeing.
Q275 Mr. Moss: What are the key criteria
that you consider when appointing a Governor?
Meg Munn: I shall ask Leigh to
give you a little more detail about the experience of appointments,
but generally, one of the things that we bear in mind in the appointment
of Governors is that it is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office role
unlike any other. For people who have had experience in a number
of other posts or missions in the Foreign Office, it demands a
range of skills and abilities in addition to those that they have,
so the right person may not necessarily be somebody who has had
a career in the Foreign Office. People who have spent time in
the Overseas Territories Directorate often make good Governors,
but there is a range of specific issues.
Leigh Turner: The basic principle,
as for any other appointment, is that we want to get the best
possible person to do the job. It is extremely demanding: it requires
a good understanding of policy and, what we call these days, delivery
issues—the ability to make things happen, often in environments
where making things happen is not that straightforward. We have
recruited several Governors while I have been in this job, and
in some cases we have had a good field from within the diplomatic
service or we have trawled Whitehall. On one occasion, in the
case of the Governor of St. Helena, we recruited together with
DFID, because it has large interests there, and we ended up advertising
externally. We had 147 applicants before the deadline—a
few came in after—and we appointed somebody from outside
the diplomatic service, although they had Overseas Territories
experience. It is a range of things.
We have just appointed in the Turks and Caicos
Islands somebody who does not have OT experience, but has a range
of other experience operating in small posts—a very experienced
character. In other cases, we try wherever possible to appoint
people with direct experience.
Q276 Mr. Moss: Are you saying that
there are in place mechanisms that the Foreign Office can use
if there is a problem with an incumbent Governor?
Leigh Turner: Do you mean if somebody
has already been appointed?
Mr. Moss: Yes.
Leigh Turner: That was not what
I was saying.
Q277 Mr. Moss: All right. May I extend
the question to ask you whether such mechanisms are in place?
Leigh Turner: Certainly, as with
any other appointment. It has not happened in recent memory, not
while I have been in the job, but we monitor the performance of
our Governors very carefully. We try to keep very close communications
with them. They operate in quite remote environments, and often
they are the only people of their type there. It is not like being
an ambassador in a big post, with a lot of ambassadorial colleagues,
so we try to offer Governors as much support as we can and stay
in close touch with them to ensure that they are doing a good
job, which, I am happy to say, they all are.
Q278 Mr. Moss: Why was the decision
taken to upgrade the posting of the Governor to the Turks and
Caicos Islands?
Leigh Turner: Basically, we always
look at all our posts, and we try to ensure that we have resources
in the right place. We looked carefully at TCI, and we had been
considering upgrading it for quite a while. Partly as a result
of more flexibility in the way we are allowed to move resources
around within Foreign Office budgets, which came to my aid, we
were able to upgrade that post, which seemed to us an important
one, in which we could use even more fire power than we had already.
Q279 Mr. Moss: Should the head of
the Overseas Territories Directorate be a less experienced official
than the Governor who is reporting back to him?
Leigh Turner: That is not really
a question for me to answer.
Meg Munn: I think that the process
within the Foreign Office is to recruit people with the required
skills and abilities to take on the role. It is essentially competence-based.
That is the process for all posts. Some of the skills and abilities
that one needs to run the Overseas Territories Directorate would
overlap with what was needed to be a Governor, but some would
be different. Someone who was a director of the Overseas Territories
Directorate might well make a good Governor, but they might not.
Those are different roles and competences, so it is not a question
of more or less experience: it is about the right competences.
Chairman: You touched in a previous answer
on the Turks and Caicos Islands. May we now focus on those?
| 
