Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-338)
MEG MUNN
MP, LEIGH TURNER
AND SUSAN
DICKSON
26 MARCH 2008
Q320 Ms Stuart: Now that we have
arrived at the Falklands, one of the things on everybody's lips
is the fact that President Kirchner is visiting the United Kingdom
and is expected to meet the Prime Minister. Can you confirm that
that meeting will take place, and do you have any indication whether
sovereignty, flights and the rights of veterans' families to visit
the Falklands will be discussed? What are the nature of the discussions
that you expect to take place?
Meg Munn: My understanding is
that President Kirchner has been invited to visit, and that she
wants to visit. I do not know whether that is going ahead, what
the nature of it will be or whether there will be individual meetings
with the Prime Minister. I assume that that will happen, but I
do not know what is currently on the agenda, or whether those
particular issues will be discussed.
Q321 Ms Stuart: Before I hand over
to my colleague, Eric Illsley, I should say for the record that
the people in the Falklands are extremely concerned about that
visit. They are extremely concerned about the discussions on sovereignty,
and there is a sense that although the British Government are
supportive in action, we are not quite as assertive as they would
sometimes like us to be.
Meg Munn: Can I be absolutely
clear? There are no plans to have any discussions on sovereignty.
The British Government are absolutely clear about the sovereignty
of the Falkland Islands, and there is absolutely no reason to
doubt that, as I made clear myself when I was there. There are
no proposals to discuss sovereignty with the Argentinians, and
in any of our dealings with Argentina, we are always absolutely
clear about that.
Q322 Mr. Illsley: The relationship
with Argentina is crucial, and the issue was raised with us on
a number of occasions during our visit, as it probably was during
yours. In particular, there was the question of flights into the
Falkland Islands from other countries in South America, especially
Chile, which operates a Lan Chile flight into the Falklands once
a week. Time and again, the future development of the Falkland
Islands seems to be dependent on increasing the number of flights
into the islands by only a small amount, but any increase in flights
is determined by Argentina, which has complete control over the
airspace of that area and has, if you like, the whip hand over
Chile. It can dictate to Chile how many flights go into the Falklands
and could even stop those flights, if it wanted to, by putting
pressure on that Government—similarly, with Brazil.
Are the Government standing up to Argentina
sufficiently robustly to put the case for the Falkland Islands
in terms of improving communications on to the islands? Are we
doing anything to say to the Argentinians, "Why don't you
take this air blockade away and allow other flights?" For
example, in respect of the proposed visit of Argentinian relatives
of those buried on the Falkland Islands, the Argentinians are
pressing for a flight into the islands for some 600 relatives,
while at the same time preventing any use of their airspace for
charter flights into the Falkland Islands.
Meg Munn: I discussed that at
length with the Falkland Island councillors when I was there.
I have also discussed it with some of the councillors when they
have been in the UK. The Falkland islanders are, if you like,
in the driving seat on discussions about flights and we talk to
them about other options, because we have concerns about the reliance
on the air bridge, and whether there are any other options that
could be looked at.
In relation to Argentina, as I say, we are always
clear that sovereignty is not an issue for discussion. We believe
it would be beneficial to co-operate with Argentina on a range
of issues, including fishing and the like, because that would
help with the relationships. But that has, in a sense, gone the
other way in more recent times and there has been less co-operation.
On the specific issue about the families' flight,
I entirely understand the position of the Falkland Island councillors,
which is that if Argentina will not allow any charter flights
through their airspace into the Falkland Islands, why should they
agree to a specific flight from Argentina? I talked to the councillors
about whether there might be a way to begin to open up discussions
further on charter flights, but you will know where the Falkland
islanders are on that matter.
It is clear that the Falkland islanders do not
prevent Argentinian families from visiting the graves—that
goes on regularly—but this is a visit of a different nature
given the number of people. In relation to the logistical problems,
it is fair to say that you can look at this both ways. On the
one hand, if people flew into the Falkland Islands in those numbers
and if, for any reason, particularly during their winter, they
were unable to fly off, there would be a logistical problem of
a population of 3,000 people accommodating 600 others all of a
sudden. That is a real concern and a real issue. On the other
hand, the suggestion of a ship, which is an option that the Falkland
islanders have said that they would be happy with, gets over the
problem of accommodation, because people can stay on it. However,
I understand that that would mean that it would take considerably
longer for the Argentinians to get to the Falkland Islands and
back than if they flew. There are issues on both sides.
It would be good if we could find a way through
this. That would be a positive message for both populations and
it would be humane as far as the Argentinian families are concerned.
But I understand entirely the problems on both sides.
Q323 Mr. Illsley: The point being,
of course, that if the Argentinians co-operated, they could fly
into the Falkland Islands at any time.
Meg Munn: Yes.
Q324 Mr. Illsley: Let me mention
another point that was raised with us, concerning the application
of our international treaty obligations in respect of the various
organisations—the United Nations and so on—and their
applicability to areas such as the Falkland Islands. One matter
that springs obviously to mind is the Ottawa convention on de-mining,
which I am sure was raised with you in terms of the minefields
in the Falkland Islands. Although it would be good to have them
removed, the cost and danger involved in doing so could be disproportionate
to the population of the Falkland Islands. Similarly, civil aviation
regulations applicable to small overseas territories place an
enormous burden on places such as the Falklands to comply with
requirements on their aircraft. Such regulations are intended
for much larger overseas territories that fly larger fleets.
Another matter that came up while we were there
was the World Health Organisation convention on the searching
of ships at sea, which again places a huge financial burden on
a small community to meet a convention that is more applicable
to larger territories. Is there any way in which we could have
a de minimis principle that says that such conventions should
not apply to places such as the Falklands or our smaller territories?
That would avoid an excessive cost or burden being imposed upon
them.
Meg Munn: I would like to separate
those points out because the Ottawa convention and the issue of
de-mining is separate to the other matters. In theory, the former
is a one-off as opposed to the other two issues, which are ongoing.
We are aware of our obligation under the Ottawa
convention. We are also aware of the difficulties that there are
and, having been to the Falkland Islands, I am aware of the views
of the Falkland Islanders that you have expressed. We have had
a feasibility study done to assess how practicable de-mining would
be in relation to the Falkland Islands and whether it could actually
be done. Anyone who has been there knows that the terrain is quite
difficult. Having had that report done, we have to reflect on
that matter and consider whether we should go ahead, what the
time scales would be and other such issues. That is actively under
consideration at the moment.
On the other issues, you are getting beyond
my knowledge in terms of whether it is possible to have things
adjusted in that way—on a de minimis principle.
Susan Dickson: Generally, treaties
that are concluded within the UN tend to not to have territorial
application provision because there is a reluctance in that forum
to talk about colonies or to recognise that states have "colonies"—that
is what they are often called. Such forums tend to be silent on
that, which means that we take the position that we decide ourselves
whether we want to extend the treaty to the territory or not.
Other conventions, usually in Europe, tend to have territorial
application provisions that set out the mechanism for extending
treaties to the territories.
Generally speaking, there is not an automatic
application of a treaty to a territory. That is something we usually
look at and take a decision on. I do not know what happened 50
years or more ago, but nowadays we never extend a treaty to the
territories without consulting them. We have the power to do so—we
could extend a treaty if we wanted to—but we always have
consultation. We tend to be accused of not consulting properly
but to my knowledge, we never extend anything without consultation.
To answer the question, there is a de minimis
consideration because not all treaties are extended to all territories.
Sometimes the territory says no because it does not have the infrastructure
or facilities in place to have it applied. Therefore, we do not
extend it. I could give examples of treaties that have not been
extended.
Q325 Mr. Illsley: Just to give you
an example, on the searching of ships at sea, we arrived in the
Falkland Islands at the same time as the health director of the
Falkland Islands returned from a conference he had attended in
London where that matter was discussed. The Falkland Islands had
not been invited to the conference and they were not informed
about it. They did not know of its existence until they found
out about it on the grapevine. They attended the conference to
determine whether it applied to them. They found out from the
NHS, which organised the conference, that it did not know whether
the conference applied to the Falkland Islands or not, so they
were left in a bit of a quandary. That is why I raised my eyebrows
when you said that there is consultation with the islands on all
conventions.
Susan Dickson: There is consultation
at the time of extension. Sometimes, the problem is that the territories
lose sight of what applies to them. But we have lists in our treaties
section. They can ask, and we can give them the information.
Chairman: We must now move from discussing
the Falklands and go back briefly to the subject of Bermuda.
Q326 Andrew Mackinlay: I want to
ask three swift things about Bermuda. First, were you aware that
the Auditor-General was placed under arrest and held in custody?
I cannot say the exact duration of that, but I think that it was
for a day. Were you aware of that?
Meg Munn: I was not.
Leigh Turner: We were aware of
it, yes.
Q327 Andrew Mackinlay: What was your
reaction? What happened then? He was the equivalent of the Comptroller
and Auditor General.
Leigh Turner: I understand that
it was just for a day and that he was released subsequently. I
cannot go into details at this point.
Q328 Andrew Mackinlay: The second
question concerns judges. There are apparently two categories
of judges in the Overseas Territories. There are judges who are
appointed—Menzies Campbell helped me with the Latin term—not
in perpetuity, but for a term until they eventually retire. There
are also contract judges. They are very vulnerable because, if
they aggravate people locally, they might not be reappointed.
What say you about the veracity of that, and are you confident
that that is an acceptable norm? Do you understand the point?
Meg Munn: Yes. I am not aware
of the specifics in relation to Bermuda.
Andrew Mackinlay: I was going pan-Overseas
Territories on that point.
Meg Munn: I understand your point.
Q329 Andrew Mackinlay: You might
want to come back to us about that, because it is an important
constitutional point. If Miss Dickson is happy about the point
that I am making, I really want her reaction.
Susan Dickson: Some judges have
different terms. Some are appointed until they retire, while others
have contracts. [Interruption.]
Q330 Andrew Mackinlay: My colleague
rightly says, "Why, why?" A contract judge might aggravate
those who have jurisdiction over you, and that might include the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is a serious point. If some
essence of their appointment is local, their independence is impaired
by the fact that they are contract judges.
Susan Dickson: The first thing
to note is that the judges are not appointed by the United Kingdom.
They are appointed by Her Majesty or by the Governor in right
of the territory.
Q331 Andrew Mackinlay: Well, a judge
might aggravate the Governor.
Susan Dickson: They have security
of tenure, and that can be for the duration or within the contract.
It is possible to have security of tenure within a contract. What
is not desirable are short contracts. The other point is that
there is a procedure for the removal of judges in the constitution
of some of the very small territories.
Q332 Andrew Mackinlay: But removal
would not apply to a contract judge who just would not be reappointed.
Susan Dickson: But he could be
removed within the term of his contract.
Andrew Mackinlay: Of course, yes, but
I think that you are missing the point.
Susan Dickson: There is no objection
to a judge having a contract, as long as it is of sufficient duration
.
Andrew Mackinlay: Perhaps that is a matter
for the Committee to return to when we make a submission.
Chairman: We have literally seven minutes.
President Sarkozy will not wait.
Q333 Andrew Mackinlay: In one minute,
I want to deal with the Bermuda Regiment. Both informally and
in the House, the Minister has said that it is a matter for the
locals. We have probed the matter and it is not quite like that.
The fact is that the Bermuda Regiment is under the Governor—a
creature of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Bermuda Regiment
has conscription, but it is discriminatory on gender, which I
put to you is unacceptable and should be alien to this Government's
policies.
There have also been a sufficient number of
complaints to justify an independent assessment about the nature
of the training regime, which is the subject of dispute. In fairness,
we were courteously received by the Bermuda Regiment and had a
frank discussion. There was a rebuttal of some of the accusations
that have been made. However, there have been accusations about
bawling out in recent times, things that you should be familiar
with and also with some of the training regimes. Do you not see
that there is a case for you to request from London, as has happened
before, that our military attaché in DC or wherever else
should go down there and make an assessment? That military outfit
is very proud, and the people are very proud of it—we were
impressed by that. Could it be a modern defence unit, comparable
to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment—there are parallels? The
Royal Gibraltar Regiment sends people to Kosovo and other theatres
on secondment. That could also happen with the Bermuda Regiment.
Is there not a responsibility for you now to look at the Bermuda
Regiment in the round, for reasons which, because of the time
factor, I have had to brush over rather?
Meg Munn: In relation to the second
point, on complaints and concerns about their treatment, my expectation
would be that, if the Governor felt that there were real concerns
there, he could request someone from the UK to go and have a look
and make some kind of assessment. I do not think that that would
be a particular problem, in that we would want to see in relation
to a whole range of things that human rights were respected and
the like. In relation to the legal position, because we have had
a number of conversations about this, again I have asked Susan
Dickson to clarify the responsibilities—which matters are
devolved and which ultimately come back to the UK Government.
Susan Dickson: The Bermuda Regiment
is not provided for in the constitution of the territory. That
is something created within the territory. The regiment was established
by the Bermuda Defence Act, so it is established under local legislation.
I am afraid that I do not know the details.
Andrew Mackinlay: But I do.
Chairman: Perhaps we will not have that
discussion now. In the four minutes left, I would like to get
in a question on the Cayman Islands from Mr. Keetch, who wanted
to ask something briefly.
Q334 Mr. Keetch: Very briefly. Environmental
protection in the Caribbean is hugely important. The highest point
on the Cayman Islands is the rubbish dump. The islands get visited
by cruise ships, with a lot of garbage and waste going on there.
We need to do something to help them to deal with this waste management
problem. Would the FCO be willing to offer the Cayman Islands
any technical assistance or any ideas about how they can help
do this themselves?
Meg Munn: Certainly in relation
to issues of technical assistance, one of the things that I have
been keen to do is to look to other Departments where that might
be appropriate. So, there is no problem about us seeking to identify
some technical support for that. That happens in relation to a
range of areas.
Q335 Chairman: Finally, representation
of the Overseas Territories—we met the members of the Overseas
Territories Consultative Council and took evidence from some of
them in December. How do you ensure that your decisions and discussions
are followed up—not by yourselves, but by other Departments?
Meg Munn: In relation to the Overseas
Territories and the other Departments, that is done from within
the Overseas Territories Directorate—liaison and keeping
in touch with the other Departments.
Q336 Chairman: May we have a note
on that?
Meg Munn: Yes, certainly.[8]
One of my personal views is that where the territories lack expertise,
that is something we could probably do a great deal more about.
I want to develop that with other Departments and Ministers.
Q337 Chairman: Related to that, can
you give us a note on the relationship with DFID and its aid programmes—Montserrat,
St. Helena, Pitcairn?[9]
Finally, do you think that there is a case for individuals from
the Overseas Territories being offered or given membership of
the House of Lords on a personal basis, or having a role in some
reformed institution or second Chamber, as for example happens
in France?
Meg Munn: Our relationship with
our overseas territories is very different from those of France.
I really hesitate to step into Lords' reform at all.
Chairman: Everyone else is.
Meg Munn: I do not see that, in
the relationship that we have with the Overseas Territories, we
would want to have people in the Lords who were there as representatives
of the territories. Whether they are there on a personal basis
would relate to wider issues of appointment to the Lords.
Q338 Ms Stuart: When you do the note
on St. Helena, could you also justify why the airstrip is the
length that it is and why it is not longer, which would allow
flights from there on to South Africa?
Leigh Turner: I can answer that
immediately. The planned length of the airstrip, in the context
of the entire design, would allow flights to go from there to
South Africa.
Ms Stuart: We were told they would not—okay.
Chairman: Thank you and your colleagues,
Minister. Some of us now have to rush off to pursue the entente.
We thank you very much for your time.
8 Ev 357 Back
9
Ev 357
Back
| 
