FCO Response

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has published its response to the Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The part dealing with Anguilla starts at paragraph 63. It reads:

63. The Governor of Anguilla continually monitors governance issues in Anguilla, including possible cases of corruption. In the first instance it is for the Territory Government and competent authorities to investigate allegations of bribery. No substantive evidence has come to the Governor’s attention that Anguillian Ministers have accepted bribes from developers. The Chief Minister of Anguilla has publicly rejected the allegations. Nevertheless, the Governor will ask the Government of Anguilla to explain how they plan to deal with the allegations made to the Committee. The Government will inform the Committee of the response.

64. The Government agrees that the constitutional review process is an opportunity to introduce improved good government measures in Anguilla. That is why the Government encourages Territories to move the process forward, while respecting the position that it is for the Territories to bring forward proposals for reform.

It is more than I expected.

It will be interesting to see what the final report of the FAC will look like.

It will be even more interesting to see what the response of our government will be to the Governor’s question.

Inquiry

When Can Anguilla Expect to See the FAC-Recommended Inquiry? I have been looking again at the Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament. The FAC has recommended that there be a public inquiry into allegations of corruption in Anguilla. The Hon Eddie Baird pointed out recently on the “To the Point” radio talk-show why a public inquiry is to be desired, even by the Ministers. It is in the interest of the Ministers to put the wild allegations to rest. It is not to their long-term benefit to sweep the matter under the carpet. People will only continue to hurl irresponsible allegations around. But, in my opinion, it is very doubtful that the recommended Inquiry will be held.

The Hon Chief Minister has said repeatedly in the House of Assembly that he is opposed to the holding of such an inquiry. He must be speaking for the government when he says so. The Turks and Caicos government was similarly opposed. The Inquiry was still set up, in spite of their Premier's protests. It was done within days of the FAC recommendation being published. The TCI Commission of Inquiry is pursuing its investigation, despite legal challenges made by government supporters. What makes Anguilla different? To understand, you need to look at the actual words used in the FAC Report.

The Report was published on 6 July 2008. You can download a copy of the entire thing here. Be patient, it is 3.17 MB in .pdf format. Or, you can just look at the two relevant extracts copied in red below for you.

The TCI recommendation is quite different from the one for Anguilla. It begins at page 157 of the Report. The relevant part reads:

“We conclude that the UK Government must find a way to assure people that a formal process with safeguards is underway and therefore recommend that it announces a Commission of Inquiry, with full protection for witnesses”.

The recommendation for Anguilla begins at page 132. The relevant part reads:

“We recommend that the [British] Government should encourage the Anguillan government to establish an independent inquiry into allegations that Anguillan ministers accepted bribes from developers in the Territory”.

These are fundamentally different recommendations. In the case of TCI, the FAC recommended that the British Government should announce a Commission of Inquiry. The British Government did so almost immediately. In the case of Anguilla, the FAC recommends that the British Government should encourage the Anguilla Government to hold an independent inquiry.

So, it is for the FCO to first react, if it chooses. The Mandarins in the FCO have to decide whether they see any advantage for themselves in recommending an Inquiry to the Anguilla Government.

They may reject the recommendation. They may decide that they should continue their history of benevolent abandonment of all principles and policies of good governance in Anguilla. That will be the end of the matter. This is the choice I believe the FCO will make in the end. Why should they accept the FAC recommendation that they shoot themselves in their own foot?

Even if the FCO should comply with the recommendation, that is not sufficient. The FCO may accept the FAC recommendation. They may “encourage” the Anguilla Government to hold an Inquiry. Then, it is up to the Anguilla Government to respond.

The Anguilla Government may decide to hold the Inquiry. Alternatively, they may decide to reject the “encouragement”. The Anguilla Government has a choice. The recommendation was not made in binding and obligatory words, as in the case of the TCI. It is open to the Anguilla Government not to take the encouragement. If they do not call for an Inquiry, they will not be flying in the face of anybody. They will be exercising a choice they were given.

If they decide to hold the Inquiry, that is not the end. They have to decide who they will appoint as the Commissioner. Unlike in the TCI, it will not be the British Government who will decide on who the Commissioner in Anguilla will be. The Anguilla Government could bring in anybody they think suitable.

Meanwhile, the FAC has washed its hands of Anguilla. They are now busy considering what the British Parliament should be doing about the Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia. It is hardly likely they are going to want to waste their time coming back to consider the problem of Anguilla.

It has been well said that, “There is many a slip twixt cup and lip”.

Related Posts

Intimidation

Chief Minister Osborne Fleming Responds in the Anguilla House of Assembly to the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee Recommendation for an Inquiry. Those of you who follow Anguilla’s public affairs will know that the FAC has recommended a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corruption in Anguilla. I will not repeat all the history of this recommendation and the events leading up to it. Those of you who are not familiar with the subject of the FAC Investigation can read all about it at the links below at the foot of this post.

On 15 July 2008, using the privilege of not being liable to be sued for anything defamatory said in the House of Assembly, the Hon Chief Minister Osborne Fleming reacted to the FAC recommendation. Two Anguillians had made written submissions to the FAC. He accused them of deliberately destroying Anguilla. He referred to them as foreigners who have no love in their hearts. His language was violent and vituperative in the extreme. His words can fairly be described as a call for all right thinking Anguillians to shun and avoid the two persons.

The dramatis personae are Don Mitchell and Harry Wiggin. The theory the Chief Minister advances in his speech is a simple one. In case you have difficulty following his argument, I will explain. Harry Wiggin married an Anguillian. He sent a submission to the FAC. His must have been a marriage of convenience. Don Mitchell and his wife decided not to have any children. Don Mitchell sent a submission to the FAC. Any man who is deliberately without a child is incapable of love. Don Mitchell must hate all Anguillians. Both Mitchell and Wiggin are evil persons who are bent on the destruction of Anguilla. That is the only reason why they made their submissions to the FAC. And, they are doing all this because they are opposed to the government trying to go for full internal self government for Anguilla.

If you would like to hear his words in living audio, I have the speech divided into two parts here.

Part 1:

Part 2:

If you would like to read his words, I have tried my best to accurately transcribe them below for you. Read the speech for yourself.

Transcript of a portion of a speech by the Hon Chief Minister, Mr Osborne Fleming, in the Anguilla House of Assembly on 15 July 2008.

The big question this morning, Mr Speaker, as I deal with tourism, is that I was called this morning and I was told that the major hotel operators in Anguilla are concerned about the accusation about corruption and bribery with the ministers in Anguilla, to the extent that they are so nervous, for one, the US government will get wind of it eventually, and begin to tighten up on them, and two, the people who are potential investors and buyers will ward off. They are very concerned about this loose talk about bribery going on in Anguilla today.

I made the point last night that these accusations are not the ministers, you know. Each of us, each of us here will pay the price for that. Each of us in Anguilla will pay the price for that loose talk that went on.

But, you must remember, Mr Speaker, that the perpetrators of the destruction of Anguilla, because that is just what it is, it is the destruction of Anguilla, deliberately destroying Anguilla, deliberately destroying Anguilla! I want to make this point, that there is nothing like a mother's love.

Oh, when you see a woman does not have a child, Mr Speaker, when a father does not have a child, it is a sad thing. You take a child, that mother takes that child and she holds that child in her lap, and she feeds him from the breast, and she looks at his beautiful eyes as he sucks. That reminds you of true love, true love. Take that child. I am not a mother, but I see it in my children. And the mother gloats with pride and joy. But, when people have no children, there is no love in them. Hardly, I say hardly. Not everybody.

It is a good thing, Mr Speaker, to have a child. It is a good thing to have a child, because you have love for your fellow men and your country. But, when you don't have, then you have problems. I thought of that last night.

We have one mother here, and she can tell you the joy she has when that little baby is in her hands, how sweet. But, when people deliberately do not want that joy, they can't have love for their country, they can’t have!

So, I come back to the point of the bribery, and to say that me and the ministers, and the members on the other side, you are affected the same way. Understand that. It is not Mr Banks, Mr Rogers, Mr Fleming, Mr Harrigan and Mr Hughes, it is all of us paying the price for this.

I am not guessing what I am saying. The document that I have here is clear. And I want to say, Mr Speaker, where we are even threatened by the Foreign Affairs Committee not to say nothing to these people. Well, I want to tell you one thing. I am in Anguilla, in Anguilla, and I am not afraid of any of them.

I strayed a little bit. I want to come back to this, “Finally, the Committee concludes . . .” this is what the document says that went from the Foreign Affairs Committee to the British Government. They conclude by saying that, “It would be deplorable and totally unacceptable for any individual who has assisted the Committee with its inquiry to be subjected to threats, intimidation or personal sanctions or violence in any form.” We are not doing that to anybody. We are going to talk the truth. “If the Committee is informed of any such retaliatory measures being taken against any person who has submitted formal or informal evidence to this Inquiry, it will take all appropriate steps within it powers . . .”

We are going to come down. We are in Anguilla.

Mr Speaker, I mention all this because it encumbers our tourism, our livelihood, our life.

And, the list of written evidence to the Commission . . . Members are free to have a look at it . . . “Overseas Territories. Anguilla: Don Mitchell CBE QC, and Harry Wiggin.” I was to have approached the Queen long ago, and ask her, how is it they give people QC. I want to do it, and I am going to have to do it soon. These two people have seeked to destroy the livelihood of the people of Anguilla and our children by deliberately spoiling Anguilla's name. Deliberately, these two people.

They talk about corruption. You know, Mr Speaker, when I get in here I am going to talk, I am going to talk. They tried their best. And, the main reason for all of this is to stand in our way for seeking full internal self-government. That is the only reason. We are not saying that we are going to get there. But, we are trying to get there. And, they are doing everything to block us.

Could you imagine a Committee receiving a letter about the Ministers of Government and immediately publishes it all over the world, where my friends, and I am sure all members concerned. My children called and asked me what this was all about. Do you think it is an easy thing for us to go through this?

I do not know Mr Banks' position financially. But, I personally believe that if he received a bribe, he would have had on a totally different shirt and suit today. I would not owe a soul in the world. I have some loans at the bank. I would not owe a soul. If I was getting bribes, I would pay off my debt. This is what we are subjected to today. They have done that.

But, I am glad to say this, Mr Speaker, the people of Anguilla know better, know better.

There are people in Anguilla, Mr Speaker, who obtained belongership in the following ways: one, by legitimately and decently marrying somebody. That is one. Two, by being married to somebody for five years, automatically you get it. And, if you live in Anguilla continuously for fifteen years, you get Anguilla belongership.

And, we have had a number of cases of marriages of convenience. We had a young man who was in gaol here, who was being deported to St Kitts, and a girl from Anguilla went in the gaol and married him, so he could stay here. That is what is going on. Is that corruption? I don't know. But, what I do know is that we have that system in high places. A lot of Anguillians do not know this, that we have people in high places doing things of a similar kind.

And, I want to bring this House up to date on a case in point. One of the writers to the Foreign Affairs Committee . . . I want us around the table to be the judge of this . . . one of the writers here got married to an Anguillian girl. I have no problem with that. After three years, that person can apply for belongership. This writer applied for his belongership on the exact date that made three years. Gentlemen, listen to what I am saying, listen to what I am saying. You are decent. You are not corrupt. What did you come here for? You come for belongership? On the exact day that made three years he applied for his belongership. It came to my Permanent Secretary's attention. I got it. I said, let him bleach for a while, because this is clear cut to me. Something else!

And, these are the people that would seek to destroy Anguilla. People who are married here apply for belongership three or four months, sometimes a year after. The exact day! The fifteenth of March: the fifteenth of March. He could not wait a day, not one day could that . . . I wish I could . . . Not one day could he wait! He wants his belongership on the third day.

[change of tape]

It would not go as easy as this.

Mr Speaker, I want you to forgive me if in any way I have behaved unseemly in this House. But, you must understand that we are only human, and that this is the only place in the world where we do not have to line up to get time. The only place. You go to St Maarten, you have to line up. This is the only place where you do not have to ask for time. Home, Anguilla! This belongs to us. And, it hurts when someone, when two foreigners, two foreigners, could come in here and try to destroy the life of all the people of Anguilla.

Mr Speaker, one of the writers is in Court right now for accusing us of corruption, in court right now accusing us of corruption, and we are going to push it to the hilt. Because, you cannot admit, apologise, and you go back. Because, in one statement made here by the other one, the foreign fellow from England, says that the other one was charged for accusing us of corruption, and it went on to talk . . . I can't find the item. But, this letter I have in my hand here is a copy of the submission from Harry Wiggin, Anguilla, sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the 21^st of January. It is right in there.

I have sympathy for any Anguillian girl who subject themselves to be used by people like that, where, as far as I am concerned, there is a marriage of convenience. It is wrong. I have no respect for anybody to take that position.

I do not mind the personal attack. I am used to it, and, now that I am retired, there is little else, short of physical violence, they can do to harm me. What concerns me is the implied threat to any other Anguillian who gives information to the proposed Inquiry if it should take place. Not everyone in Anguilla will be as immune as I am. Most Anguillians will be terrified at the thought of being at the receiving end of similar vilification if they cooperate with any inquiry.

Most Anguillians of working age are employed by government, by far the largest employer on the island. Their jobs and future promotions will be at risk.

Most public servants are parents of school age children. They depend on political favour to get scholarships for their children. All children in Anguilla are eligible for scholarships. These scholarships, however, are awarded by favour. There is no selection process that is not subject to a final political decision. Anyone giving evidence or information to any Inquiry will know that there will never be any hope of a scholarship for their child.

All Anguillians presently live in fear of victimisation, real or imagined. In the face of this warning, to cooperate with any Inquiry will actually appear to invite victimisation.

That intimidation has got to be addressed.

Related Posts:

22 July 2008

9 July 2008

5 July 2008

18 January 2008

15 December 2007

5 November 2007

11 July 2007

Inquiry Coming

The Question is, What Good Will the Inquiry Do by itself. Last month, according to The Anguillian Newspaper, the Governor spoke at a conference of Deputy Governors held in Anguilla. He observed that the principal focus of the conference would be the role of the public service. This, he described as a key element in the process of ensuring good governance in all of the territories. “While the Public Service must evolve and adapt to face many of the different challenges we are dealing with in the years to come, there will be elements that we must always ensure that we preserve,” he said. He reported that, “Among those elements, in particular, which the Deputy Governor had been working on, were the ethics of the Public Service in preserving integrity, impartiality and a commitment to ensuring the proper use of public monies, and ensuring that the public interest was always at the forefront.”

But, what about persons appointed to Statutory Boards and Government Committees? What about Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Department? What about public servants of ministerial rank? Has any one of them ever participated in a workshop on ethics and integrity? Has any PS ever read the Constitution, far less been instructed in its implications? Have they any idea what are the rights of our citizens under the Constitution? Have they ever been guided in the principles of 'natural justice' and the ‘legitimate expectation’ rules? From some of the personal stories that are emailed to me, I doubt it.

One can argue that a knee-jerk reaction to the odd occurrence of petty avarice or cupidity, if such should be found, on the part of one or two individuals will not solve the systemic problem of poor governance in Anguilla. The real problem is an absence in our political culture of any awareness of the principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability. The illness that we should be addressing is the absence of a sensitivity to conflict of interest and good governance issues. In such a culture, no matter how often you change the personalities, the new ones will always succumb to the pressures of public office and misbehave. It is almost an inevitability. They will not be acting unethically in their own eyes. They will just be doing the generally acceptable thing. And, we will smile and wink at each other as we do now.

Look at what happened to the Turks & Caicos Islands twenty years ago. The Premier, Norman Saunders, was arrested trying to import cocaine into Florida. The British suspended the Constitution and ruled TCI directly for some two years. They did nothing to change the TCI culture of bad government. No educational courses for politicians or public servants were given. We all watched the opposition get elected. The wrongdoing in TCI just got worse. As soon as he got out of prison in Miami, the electorate re-elected the nice Mr Saunders back to the House of Assembly. It is Saunders’ party that is back in government now.

In Anguilla, we have a tradition in government. Every time the government changes, the new ministers divide up the appointments to all the Boards and Committees among themselves. One takes the Anguilla Development Board. Another takes the Health Authority of Anguilla. Another the Social Security Board. Another the Anguilla Tourist Board. Another gets to appoint the government board members on Anglec. Another takes the Summer Festival Committee. Another, the Belonger Commission. Another, the Poor Law Board, and so on. And, these appointees receive absolutely no vetting or training. They are expected to be exemplary public servants imbued with grace and purity from the moment of their appointment. Mostly, their public business, proper and above-board as it may be, is done in secret. They frequently do not publish their accounts or reports. Yet, no one in Anguilla considers this odd. This is the way we have always done it.

You may say that the systemic lack of transparency and accountability has gone too far. That it won't be changed by educational seminars. That all that's left is enforcement and prosecution. That we need to hit people with a piece of stick to get their attention. That later, we can have seminars. To a certain extent, I agree. One of the aspects of systemic, institutionalized surrender of standards in Anguilla is our refusal to prosecute criminal acts by civil servants and persons of influence. Each one of us knows of three or four examples of public servants charged with serious crimes of dishonesty and immorality who have been quietly sent home and the charges dropped. The officials explain this aversion to enforcing the law by saying that they do not wish to “criminalise” Anguillians. Yet, we know that all it takes is to make an example of one or two influential persons. Prosecute one or two, and you will not have to prosecute another one for twenty years. Everyone will behave properly after an example has been made.

The long term solution comes down to a matter of education, I feel. The British public service has a National School of Government . They teach good governance, not just to junior public servants in the UK, but up to the highest levels. How come they do so little in the Overseas Territories? I had the privilege of being involved in two workshops organised by Karen West. The first was in Antigua for one or two senior civil servants from each of the West Indian Overseas Territories. We shared our experiences on lack of standards in our individual territories. The second workshop was in Anguilla. There, we had a cross-section of public servants. They designed a Code of Ethics for the public servants of Anguilla. I subsequently read that Stanley Reid went off to Montserrat to help them with a similar exercise. That was years ago. What has happened since? More importantly, what has been done to educate the Anguillian public on what we should expect in terms of good government from our public servants?

I blame the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for encouraging all the rumours and ill feeling that there is in Anguilla today. They did it by neglect rather than by some deliberate act or policy. By their lack of attention to the need to inculcate notions of high standards of government in the territories under their care, they may be said to have incited the feelings of doubt and suspicion that exist today in the minds of our citizens. Now the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament has recommended an Inquiry into allegations and rumours of maladministration in Anguilla. The Inquiry can be expected to be announced shortly. But, you may ask, what good will such an Inquiry do by itself?

Should not our ministers be schooled in the techniques of good government? Not only when there is a change of administration, but throughout the term of government? I believe that the National School of Government should be giving all Overseas Territories parliamentarians regular courses on the principles and practice of good governance. Members of the House of Assembly should attend workshops on how to handle the day to day temptations that will be strewn in their path to trip them up. Just because you start off in power as a principled and ethical human being does not mean that you automatically know how to handle the ambiguous situations that you will, perhaps for the first time, find yourself in after you are elected.

This applies not only to the National School of Government and members of the House of Assembly. Our Public Administration Department should be organizing courses on integrity and good governance for all Boards and Committees, as well as public servants, on a regular and on-going basis.

When all that happens, I will close down this Blog. The mission will have been accomplished.

FAC Fallout

Mitchell and Wiggin unjustly accused of being traitors to Anguilla. The Foreign Affairs Committee has recently published its long-awaited report into the governance of the overseas British territories by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The FAC makes a number of recommendations for Anguilla. One of them is:

“We recommend that the [British] Government should encourage the Anguillan government to establish an independent inquiry into allegations that Anguillan ministers accepted bribes from developers in the Territory. We also recommend that the [British] Government should urge the Anguillan government to use the opportunity of constitutional review to introduce stronger anti-corruption measures in the Territory.”

The Hon Chief Minister and the Hon Minister of Finance have given a press release. They have said that Harry Wiggin and Don Mitchell are responsible for the allegations of corruption. The suggestion has been made that Mitchell and Wiggin do not have the best interests of Anguilla at heart.

So, my question is, what justification is there for Harry Wiggin and Don Mitchell to be accused in this way?

Just for background, the FCO is a department of the British Government. It is responsible for appointing governors of the overseas territories, and generally for keeping an eye on how the islands govern themselves.

The FAC, on the other hand, is a committee of British politicians who report directly to Parliament. It is the committee of the British legislature that keeps watch on the Foreign and Commonwealth department of the British government. It is similar in some ways to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the US.

The FCO and the FAC are, so to say, on the opposite sides of the fence from each other. One is part of the executive branch of government. The other is a part of the legislative branch of government. In any system of good checks and balances, one branch of government keeps watch on the other. It criticises as necessary. That is what the FAC was doing when it invited persons to make submissions, and later produced its report.

Before we come to the recommendations about Anguilla, a little more background is necessary. On Tuesday 26 June 2007, some of the Indian contract workers at the Viceroy project at Barnes Bay laid down their tools and went on strike. I published a story on their complaints over pay and working conditions. The Anguillian Newspaper published a story on it. The Indians and their Anguillian supporters were still demonstrating outside the Labour Department Office the following day. Many Anguillians joined in the demonstration. They brought them water and food as the Indians sat in silent protest. Questions began to circulate in the island about who had authorised slave wages and conditions in Anguilla.

At the end of the second day of protest, the Chief Minister announced a settlement. We thought the grievances of the Indians had been met, and the trouble was over.

Then, on Tuesday 3 July the Indians marched on the Chief Minister’s office in protest again. The Anguillian Newspaper published a story about this march on 6 July. Emotions were running high. Maclean Webster published a very stern letter on the subject. Ijahnya Christian published a biting commentary on it. Colville Petty made suggestions for immediate improvement in the governance of our island.

Meanwhile, on 4 July, I had published on the blog a follow-up story on this latest demonstration. That posting has landed me in hot water. I have been sued for libel by the Ministers over some of the things I said in it. I am not denying that the letter went too far, and I should not have repeated what I did. I have apologized, offered to make a payment to charity, and withdrawn the piece from the blog. They are still pursuing me for damages!

Then, on Friday 20 July 2007, an almost unprecedented demonstration of Anguillians took place. They marched en masse on government house. The members of the Concerned Citizens Group met with the governor. Merlin Duncan read out a letter signed by Percy Thomas on behalf of the marchers. I published a story about the march on 22 July. The Anguillian Newspaper published a story on the march and the letter on 27 July. Their photographs give a good flavour of the mind of the marchers. The final paragraph of the letter, as read out to the governor, says:

“Anguilla’s reputation has been tarnished as a result of these reprehensible events and coupled with the fact that the Anguilla Government has on numerous occasions sought to bring into effect legislation which is harmful to the wellbeing and security of the Anguilla public. The People of Anguilla have lost confidence in the Anguilla Government’s representation of their interests and in the interest of good governance, transparency and accountability we hereby request an independent Judicial Inquiry comprising of an impartial body to investigate these and other matters of ethical conduct between Government, Foreign Investors and the extent to which it impacts on individuals and entities in this country.”

So far as I am aware, that was the only time anyone in Anguilla made any representations to the British Government concerning specific claims about lack of ethical conduct between government and foreign investors. [Unless you count the failed attempt of the Hon Edison Baird to raise the issue of the serving chairman of one of Anguilla’s premier indigenous banks, the CCB, serving contemporaneously as the Chief Minister of Anguilla. Only to be rebuffed by the Governor. Gov Peter Johnstone shamefully replied to Mr Baird saying there was nothing unusual about this. Can you imagine Gordon Brown being permitted to be Chairman of Barclays Bank while being Prime Minister of the UK? In what way does Anguilla deserve lower standards, you might ask?]

Meanwhile, back in London, On 5 July 2007, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee announced on its website that it was about to begin its first investigation in ten years into the management of the overseas territories by the FCO. The FAC invited persons interested in the good governance of the overseas territories to make oral or written submissions to the committee.

On 11 July, I published a story about this new development on this blog. I encouraged persons who had a complaint to write. I wrote:

“Anyone can volunteer to submit evidence to the FAC, either orally or in writing. The FAC can request or send for UK government officials to attend sittings of the committee to answer questions. The FAC can also consult any individual or organization on issues relevant to their inquiry. The committee decides what use to make of any information it receives. For more information on submitting evidence, visit the committee's website.”

On 3 December, Anguilla’s Hon Chief Minister appeared before the FAC in London. He and other Chief Ministers were there in response to a FAC invitation to make any representations they wanted to make. On 15 December, I read his testimony to the committee. It was fatuous to an extreme. I was so upset at his testimony that I published a story about it on the blog.

I became concerned that no one in authority might show the FAC a copy of the Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. This had been presented to government since August 2006. Since its delivery, it had lain dormant and ignored by the local authorities. The plea for stronger anti-corruption measures in the process of constitutional review had been one of the principle elements of the Commission’s Report. Most persons in Anguilla, even the Ministers of Government, agree that these should be included in the checks and balances proposed for the new constitution. My fear was that the FAC would produce recommendations concerning Anguilla without being aware of the Report.

So, on 23 January 2008, I wrote the FAC a letter. The contents are published in full on their website. You can read it for yourself by clicking on the link at the beginning of this paragraph. In it, I enclosed a copy of the Report. I referred the members of FAC particularly to the historical section and to the section with Recommendations. I nowhere mentioned the word ‘corruption’. That letter was the sole contribution of Don Mitchell to the FAC process. I wrote no other letter, nor had any other communication either to or from the FAC whatsoever.

On 31 January, Harry Wiggin made a submission to the FAC. This submission calls for an independent inquiry into allegations of corruption in Anguilla. It is one of the most restrained of the many submissions made to the FAC that I have read. Mr Wiggin gives his reasons for making his submission. They are:

“I and very many others (native Anguillians—not just expatriates) are deeply concerned:

(a) that Anguilla's birthright is in the process of being destroyed on the altar of short-term gain;

(b) that there are no adequate controls in place designed to ensure good government; and

(c) that the recommendations of the Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission, which were painstakingly and expertly assembled following a wide-ranging consultation process, are being sidelined for political purposes.”

Who in Anguilla can honestly protest at what Mr Wiggin says above? He complains, as we all do, about the lack of transparency in almost everything the government does. He repeats the complaints made by the Concerned Citizens Group, and almost every other person calling in on the many radio talk-shows, over the past year:

“The Government has had, but has not taken, the opportunity to answer straightforwardly the very simple question: why have they placed the country at the mercy of a few dominant investors? The fact that they have refused to answer perfectly reasonable questions, and have said only (to use the exact words of the Chief Minister) that they have "made mistakes" but they will "make amends", serves only to raise more questions. This is not good for them and it is not good for Anguilla.”

Mr Wiggin then goes on to recommend that there be an independent inquiry. He makes it clear that he is not meaning to suggest by this that there is any question of culpability:

“In my view the Ministers should be strongly encouraged by the UK Government to institute an official and authoritative independent enquiry into the events that have led to these troublesome questions, in the best interests of Anguilla and its people. My view that this is needed does not stem from any conviction that culpability is involved. But it does stem from a conviction that it is thoroughly unhealthy and corrosive that suspicions have been widely aroused and that those who are suspected apparently see no way to allay those suspicions. If, as I sincerely hope, they are innocent, then it should be seen as in their own best interests no less than the interests of Anguilla as a whole that an official independent enquiry should resolve the concerns which the explosive economic upsurge in development activity, and its adverse consequences, have engendered.’

I entirely agree. The main purpose that a public enquiry will serve is to clear the poisonous air that our Ministers have created around them. By their secrecy, their lack of consultation, and their having so frequently in the past ignored proper procedures, particularly in planning and work permit applications, they have caused all kinds of unhealthy suspicions to wash up around them. They should welcome the inquiry, not fear it.

Of course it is never possible to know how accurately the press have reported an issue. If the Wednesday July 9 edition of The Daily Herald is to be believed - and I have no reason to disbelieve it - The Chief Minister continues to labour under the impression that simply saying that his Government "is prepared, as it always has been, to address these issues transparently and effectively" is a substitute for actually doing so. Promises of explanations are worthless if the explanations are never forthcoming. So far they have not been forthcoming. Is this a lack of intelligence on his part? Or is it his political calculation that the Anguillian people lack the intelligence to recognise that what he is dishing out to them is nothing more than empty promises?

I have confidence that Anguillians are intelligent people. They will know cheap politics when they see it. They will recognise ‘politricks’ when they meet it. They will be aware that, in Anguilla, politicians regularly blame “foreigners” when things go wrong. They are unwilling to attack the Anguillians who organised the march of 20 July calling for an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations of unethical conduct. They are not brave enough to pursue influential Anguillians who stand up for what is right.

They think they have an easy target by going after “outsiders” who they characterize as tarnishing Anguilla’s good name.

We shall see how many fall for that one.

FAC Report

Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament Report. The FAC Report on the administration, expenditure and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies has finally been published. You can read your own copy here. Be patient with the downloading. The Report is 3.17 MB in .pdf format.

Nothing More

Time for Written Submissions to the Foreign Affairs Committee has been Extended to 31 January. There has been no announcement in Anguilla. Not by government. Not in the local press. Not on a single radio station. There has been a deathly hush all over. No, it is neither a conspiracy nor fear. It is pure indifference. We Anguillians have it good. Financially, at least. We have no time for concerns about where our island is going. We are busy earning a dollar. We have not a moment to give a thought for the island our children will inherit. After all, we do not have the time to give them breakfast or a lunch package in the morning when they set off to school. We give each of them a hundred dollar bill, and tell them to buy breakfast and lunch on the road. You cannot expect more loving care from us than that!

The British FAC is making an inquiry into how our Overseas Territories are governed. They have invited written as well as oral submissions. Any one of us can write to the Committee. We can express any concern we might have about some matter of good, indifferent or bad governance. I seriously doubt any of us in Anguilla has written in. Well, we have until January 31 to do so. That is the new, extended, closing date for making written submissions to the FAC.

Compare our situation to that of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The TCI have a transparent system when it comes to tenders. So says Premier Michael Misick.

In TCI, there is a process in place at ministerial level for the allocation of Crown land. Parliament has a register of interests. The government is in the process of putting anti-corruption legislation in place to ensure that corruption does not rear its ugly head in that Territory. The police are within the ambit of the governor. There is an independent non-political Attorney-General responsible for prosecutions. Belonger status is given by the entire Cabinet, and not by one person. The Governor is the chairperson of Cabinet, and does not have to accept the advice of Cabinet. Our Anguillian public service and elected officials have much a greater autonomy than the government of TCI. Most of these checks and balances found in the TCI do not apply in Anguilla. Belonger status is given in Anguilla by an expert committee set up by a law. Our governor is obliged to accept the advice of our ExCo. Our parliamentarians do not have to disclose their assets to anyone. We could do with some of those TCI provisions in Anguilla.

Yet, in spite of these safeguards, accusations from TCI citizens continue to pour into the FAC about the poor level of governance in the TCI. According Mike Gapes MP, chairperson of the FAC, over one third of all written submissions received by the FAC from all the Overseas Territories put together have come from the TCI. This suggests an extraordinary degree of concern among the citizens of that Territory. Compare that with Anguilla, where there is no hint that any person has made any written submission to it. That, in spite of the many problems with governance that we all know about.

There is still time for you to change your mind. It is all our duty to be concerned about integrity in public life in Anguilla. You might try accessing the FAC website. There you will get all the information you will need on how to make a written submission to the FAC. You have until 31 January.

A report on the Overseas Territories will be produced at the end of the Inquiry, for submission to the House of Commons and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It would be sad to read in it that no one in Anguilla had anything to say.

Me? I made all my contribution when the Constitutional Commissioners delivered their report to government on 26 August 2006. I have nothing further of value to add!

FAC

The Foreign Affairs Committee. The FAC, about which I have previously written [link here], has begun its consultations. Our Chief Minister met with the Committee during the recent meetings in London. I was particularly impressed with the following answer to question 104:

Q104 Chairman: You are only the Chief Minister?

Osbourne Fleming: I am only that and I delegate and I leave the guys to themselves. However, we are doing well financially. When you consider our geographical position, we are edging up. Our offshore services are slowly coming up. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is here: sometimes I get tired of him over there.

To read the testimony for yourself, you might like to click on the following link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/uc147-i/uc14702.htm

Well, what do you make of it?

Anguilla/UK

UK Relations. My impression over the past months is that we in Anguilla have no interest in our relations with the UK. Other than a few constitutional lawyers, no one in Anguilla is even aware of the UK. We read a Dutch daily newspaper which carries US and international news. We look at US television. We have no British papers in circulation. We never hear any government official speaking about our relationship with the UK. The issue is a dead one. All talk about modernizing our Constitution has gone silent.

So, my attention was caught by an item in today’s issue of BVI News Online. Premier Ralph O’Neal has just announced that he has made a submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Committee is conducting an Inquiry into the Overseas Territories [link here]. This is one of the most senior committees of the UK Parliament. The last time it made a similar inquiry, it was followed by the momentous paper “Partnership for Progress and Prosperity”. This paper completely restructured the way Britain saw its relationship with the Overseas Territories. Ten years having passed, the Committee is now reviewing the exercise by the FCO of its responsibilities in relation to the OTs. The most important of these are the security and good governance of the OTs. The Committee will focus on standards of governance and transparency. It will make recommendations on the role of Governors and other office-holders appointed by the UK government. It will focus on the regulation of the financial sector in the OTs. It will propose new procedures for the amendment of our Constitutions. It will consider the application of international treaties and conventions to us.

But, we in Anguilla have no views on any of these topics. We are numb about our relationship with the FCO. We have no ideas on improving that relationship. We have never even thought about the subject. We have no views to communicate. Our preferred strategy is to wait and see what the Committee recommends for us, and then the shouting will begin. That will occur in the first half of 2008.