Fairmont

Land Development in Anguilla Clicks into Overgear just as the World Economy goes into Recession. It is great to see that Anguillians are getting in on the land development act. We were all afraid that only foreign developers would receive the benefits of government’s light hand when it comes to matters of the environment and planning. When Flag at Cove Bay was given the green light to do more or less what it wanted, we were all a bit shocked. Then the Kor/Viceroy boys at Barnes Bay were given the green light to do whatever they wanted, regardless of the environmental implications. Some persons even said that it was only because these were foreign corporations that government was not insisting that they build according to the strict standards that previous developers had been subjected to. Now, we know better. Even local developers are to benefit from government’s liberality.

The Minister of Finance in his recent Budget speech pointed to a very active tourism construction period involving millions of dollars. The new projects that have been approved and are going to come on stream include the following. The KOR Group Meads Bay project of 350 rooms on 18 acres is scheduled to open in January 2009 with a build out period of 10 years and with a projected investment of US$250 million. The Gumbs’ Family Rendezvous Bay redevelopment and expansion project will consist of up to 450 rooms on 40 acres with a build out period of 10 years and a projected investment of US$300 million. The Lake & Kentish family’s Conch Bay project will consist of up to 730 rooms on 361 acres with a build out period of 12 years and a projected investment of US$475 million. The Harrigan Family’s Shoal Bay development project of up to 100 rooms on 7 acres will have a build out period of 3 years and projected investment of US$50 million. The Cap Juluca Maundays Bay development and expansion project anticipates up to 360 rooms (including the existing 98 rooms) on approximately 95 acres, and with a build out period is 10 years and projected investment of US$400 million. Needless to say, all these will take thousands of Chinese and Indian construction workers to complete on time. But, then as my friend the contractor said recently, “I shall never employ an Anguillian worker again for as long as I live”, so that should not be a problem.

I recently came into possession of the proposals for the Conch Bay Project, and I thought I would share them with all Anguillians. This project is not something that we should keep quiet about. Actually, it is very well advertised. A Google search for “Fairmont Anguilla” came up with 831 results.

These are some of the artist’s renditions. Clicking on the photographs will enlarge them for better viewing.

The Fairmont project is certainly the biggest and most ambitious of all those planned for Anguilla. It will transform the south coast of Anguilla.

There will be a golf course.

There are plans for the beaches and coastline.

The Overall Site Concept Plan gives an idea of the magnitude of the project. It may be my eyesight, but I seem to have lost the public road to Forest Bay and as far as the government jetty. Has it all been given away?

Beaches will be recreated where they do not exist.

Another interesting concept is to blast out the rock and to create a new swimming area.

A residents’ beach club will be created.

The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by government in January 2007. The MOU provided an extremely liberal planning regime for the developer. An Environmental Impact Assessment was called for. But it was not to be taken seriously. Government assured the developers that they would not be bound by anything negative disclosed in the EIA, nor be subject to any control by the Land Development Control Committee. And so it should be. Why should only foreign owned developments be permitted to ignore the recommendations of the Planning Department? Why should any one be concerned about something as ephemeral as the environment? Anguillians, or some of them anyway, have to get their slice of the pie! The Anguilla National Trust was shouting into the wind when it wrote:

The performance of an EIA almost seems like a process in futility since the Memorandum of Agreement, as signed between the GoA and the developer restricts the application of the results in as far as the recommendations contravene what the developer deems to be significant alterations. This term is not only subjective, but it leaves very little room for remedial or alternative measures to be employed even if it is the best interest of the communities to be affected, the country and the project as a whole. The ANT therefore suggests that the LDCC recommends to the Executive Council that in the future all DRAFT Memoranda of Agreements should at least be commented upon by the LDCC before finalization and signing.

Of course, nobody will be paying any attention to this type of reasoning. Damien is going off to work in the private sector. And, we don't need any public beach to be left in Anguilla. We can all use our swimming pools.

Complaints

Why Do We Need a Complaints Commissioner? I was reading through the Cayman Net News this morning. I saw that their Complaints Commissioner, Dr John Epp, has released a report. I found it instructive. We all have our favourite complaints about the Anguilla Public Service. There are the goods that were shipped from overseas and held in the Customs warehouse. When you returned to pick them up, they were gone. No one in Customs could tell you what happened to them. There was the Immigration Officer who was rude to you when you claimed you were an Anguillian. She told you that so long as you showed her a US passport, she would give you a limited time to stay on the island. There was the Planning Officer who would not permit you to build as you wanted. You had to go to the Minister to get him to tell Planning to stop harassing you. Indeed, in Anguilla almost the only remedy we have when we come upon a stubborn public officer is to go to the Minister and ask him to tell the officer to keep quiet. It is how we do it in Anguilla. We are not alone, many other islands function in this way. It is not the right way. It is a perversity. It undermines the public service. But, we needs must find a remedy when we believe that a public officer is not performing. That is where the Complaints Commissioner, or Ombudsman, comes in. He is the one to whom we take our complaints. He investigates and tries to fix the problem. He is paid by the House of Assembly and answers to no Minister. He is paid to be independent and fearless. We in Anguilla need and want such an institution. It was recommended at paragraph 181 of the2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission. It reads:

181. Complaints Commissioner. Anguilla has no Complaints Commissioner or Ombudsman. The only remedy for administrative abuse at present is an action for damages in the High Court. High Court proceedings are not only expensive but are often not the best remedy for improper conduct on the part of a public servant or government department. Representations have been made to the Commission that it is time that such relief be provided to citizens who have a complaint of oppressive or unfair treatment by any government officer. The Commission is satisfied that it is appropriate for Anguilla to have an Ombudsman at this time. The Commission recommends that there be provision in the Constitution for the office of Ombudsman, to report to the Assembly and to be regulated by an appropriate law.

In his report, Dr Epp gives some examples of the types of problems the Office of the Complaints Commission (OCC) had to deal with in the Cayman Islands last year. Let is look at some of them, taken directly from the Cayman Net News story. We will find that they are not so different from the types of complaints that we in Anguilla would like to make.

Case 1: Oil spills at the landfill – Investigation completed 10 November 2006
The OCC is still monitoring the outcome of one complaint that raised Environmental concerns at the George Town Landfill.

In February 2005, a complainant accused the Department of Environmental Health of failing to store waste oil drums from the George Town landfill securely and contaminating the surrounding area. He reported that leaking drums were littering the Harquail Bypass after being displaced in Hurricane Ivan in September 2004, and although the department was aware of the problem nothing was being done.

The OCC investigation found that drums had not been properly sealed or stored. While the DEH was taking action to clean up the contamination at the time of the complaint, the OCC considered the complaint justified. Poor storage and the excessive number of waste oil drums that had accumulated at the land fill during hurricane season had evidently contributed to the problem.

The DEH had also failed to keep accurate records of the waste oil it received. The OCC made seven specific recommendations to address storage and record keeping. At the time of publication almost all the recommendations had been implemented so the OCC continues to monitor the situation closely.

Case 2: Refusal of a Work Permit – Investigation completed 29 August 2006
Evidence revealed that the Work Permit Board (WPB) had made the right decision over a work permit renewal complaint which, was not upheld.

A work permit holder came to the OCC complaining that his renewal had been refused because his employer did not have a satisfactory training programme in place but, he believed his employer did indeed have a programme and other factors had influenced the board’s decision.

Investigations by the OCC and consideration of the evidence, including several resignations and contradictory submissions to the WPB by the firm, indicated that whatever training may have been in place was less than genuine.

The OCC decided that the WPB’s process and deliberations which led to the conclusion that the company had failed to meet the requirements regarding a proper training programme for Caymanians was sound. As a result the OCC found no case of maladministration.

Case 3: RCIPS fails to resolve complaint in time – Investigation completed 8 September 2006
Some five recommendations were made to the RCIPS Complaints and Disciplines Unit, (CDU) after it failed to properly act on a complaint made to them by an alleged victim of car theft.

Ten days after logging a complaint surrounding the details of the reported theft to the CDU, resident made a complaint to the OCC. After conducting an investigation this office found that although the CDU was hampered by the Vehicle Licensing office’s delay in supplying documents pertinent to the case, it was still at fault. It failed to contact the complainant about the progress of his case until the OCC began its investigation.

This case included input from the Governor and the Attorney General as it also raised issues about the OCC’s jurisdiction.

Importantly, however, it led to a greater understanding by the RCIPS that its internal complaints system needed to be reviewed and action to improve it.

Case 4: RCIPS follows procedures - Investigation completed 13 April 2007
The Office of the Complaints Commissioner was established to investigate complaints that government departments fail to resolve. When one complainant reported that the RCIPS had confiscated his belongings when he was arrested and given them away, the OCC discovered that the RCIPS Complaints and Discipline Unit police had investigated the accusations.

After the OCC met with the CDU it was apparent the case was being addressed properly and in accordance with procedure. The CDU was ultimately resolved in favour of the complainant, and the OCC decided that proper action had been taken by the CDU so the complaint was unfounded.

Case 5: Wastewater and the Turtle Farm – Investigation completed 30 August 2006
A complex complaint in April 2005 accusing the Water Authority, (WA) of failing to monitor the discharge of wastewater from the Cayman Turtle Farm, (CTF) revealed environmental concerns, but indicated the authority was not at fault.

When a concerned citizen reported that the discharge of effluent water from the CTF into the sea was not being regulated the OCC began a long investigation that involved a number of organizations and expert reports. The investigation was further complicated by the potential impact of a proposed dolphin facility at the same site.

Over 16 months the OCC watched the WA watch the turtle farm and found that the WA complied with the WA Law and was calling the CTF to account. As well as hearing evidence from the Department of Environment, the OCC considered expert research and an impact study. In the end it found that the WA was doing all it could within its regulator parameters. (After writing to the CTF with its concerns the WA deferred CTF’s license and warned of prosecution.)

In a case dragged out by the CTF’s failure to meet all the WA requests in a timely manner, the OCC concluded that the complaint against the WA was not founded.

Case 6: Trade & Business License Board to explain decisions – Investigation completed 13 December 2006
Regardless of the reasons for a deferral the Trade and Business License Board should explain its decisions to those directly affected was the conclusion of one investigation following a complaint against the board.

When an application to operate a small business was deferred in order for the board to collect evidence from the National Roads Authority, (NRA) the OCC discovered the board had not informed the complainant.

It said this was because of their concerns that an explanation would have caused the complainant to call the NRA, which they believed would have been inappropriate. The OCC concluded however, that the board need only have said it was waiting for information from an unnamed government office.

The OCC found in favour of the complainant and recommended that more detailed explanations of the decisions made by the board are given to applicants.

Case 7: The DEH and notification over a garbage skip – Investigation completed 13 September 2006
A poorly placed garbage skip led to a resident’s ill health and a complaint that involved the DEH and the Central Planning Authority, (CPA) being upheld.

When a resident found a skip some 20 feet from his bedroom window as opposed to at the opposite side of the development site as expected, he registered a complaint with the OCC.The subsequent investigation revealed that while the complainant was led to believe the skip would be sited in a given spot according to the original plans, a later meeting of the CPA granted permission to the developer to move it without offering the complainant a chance to object.

The timely involvement of the OCC ensured that the skip was moved to the original location, and that new processes were adopted to ensure proper notification.

Case 8: Public Transport Board improves procedures – Investigation completed 20 June 2007
A letter of apology and the establishment of a secretariat were two of the recommendations made by the OCC to the Public Transport Board, (PTB) after the commissioner found the board had failed to respond in a timely manner to a complaint.

Following the submission of an application for a specialist transport service, the applicant came to the OCC complaining that the PTB had failed to provide him with the correct information and was slow to respond to enquiries. An investigation by the OCC discovered that administrative and communication problems within the PTB had led to a delay in response.

The OCC concluded that while the PTB had provided accurate information it had not done so in an acceptable time period and the second part of the complaint was well founded. The case also resulted in a promise from the Minister of Tourism, Environment, Investment and Commerce that flaws in the administration of the PTB would be addressed.

Case 9: Child and Family Services to provide assistance - Investigation completed 13 December 2006
One parent was approved to receive school lunch assistance for her children when the OCC found a case of maladministration at the Department Child and Family services. After receiving a complaint from a parent who had been refused assistance, the OCC discovered that certain conditions had been imposed on her.

However, under the Poor Person’s (Relief) Law the department did not have the authority to do so. Moreover, there was an evident lack of Regulations in the current framework guiding the department’s decisions.

The OCC was therefore, concerned that arbitrary decisions could lead to injustice and discrimination. It was recommended that until relevant regulation was in place temporary relief should be given to children without (illegal) conditions.

Case 10: License deferrals by the EBE – Investigation completed 14 November 2006
A local contractor complained to the OCC that the Electrical Trade Licensing Board of Examiners (EBE) had undermined its right to a timely appeal by twice deferring license applications for its wireman and electricians.

During its investigation the OCC found that because the EBE were unable to ascertain independently information about the electrician’s qualifications it twice deferred the contractor’s applications.

After a refusal and then a resubmission the board finally granted the licenses. The delay of over three months however, caused by the deferrals was significant and the contractor was prevented from following through with a right of appeal.

As a result the OCC recommended that there should only ever be one adjournment to allow for more information before a decision is made, other than in exceptional cases.

The Aim of the OCC is to investigate in a fair and independent manner complaints against government to ascertain whether injustice has been caused by improper, unreasonable, or inadequate government administrative conduct, and to ascertain the inequitable or unreasonable nature or operation of any enactment or rule of law.

It is pathetic that we in Anguilla have no similar remedy. We are obliged to go running to some fixer to do us the favour of calling on the offending public servant to do his job. Then, we worry what favour we will be asked to give in return. As my Dominican friend likes to say, “You can do anything you want in Anguilla, so long as you have a Godfather”. What kind of a way is that to live? The answer is that we live as close to the jungle as it is possible to get in this day and age. We can only read and wonder at how luck those Camanians are!

Mid-Term Report

Cayman Islands Government Publishes Mid-Term Report. I was impressed when I read that the government of the Hon Kurt Tibbetts of Cayman Islands has published a report on what it has accomplished and what it still plans to do [link here] . Mr Tibbetts calls it his government’s “Mid-Term Report” [link here] . His government took office two years ago with a pledge to the people that it would embrace a style of government that was open, honest and transparent. As he says, such a report is an ideal vehicle for delivering on this commitment of openness. Copies of it have been left at places all over the country for members of the public to pick up and keep.

Hon Kurt Tibbetts, Leader of Government Business

Of course, his government is still brand new, and full of energy and good intentions. Most governments in their first term, when they are not yet burned out and jaded, make gestures like this. As the years go by, and the pressures of holding high political office take their toll, one of the first attributes to go out the window is transparency and openness. Ministers become worn out and reluctant to discuss what is happening in the country. After that, it seems always to be the same old, same old.

What about us in Anguilla? Have we ever had a Mid-Term Report? If so, when was the last one? Isn't one due?

Blogging

Do Bloggers Really Make any Useful Contribution? I am not the only one who has been asking myself this question. Recent developments with bloggers in Bermuda show that others are asking themselves the same thing.

Bermuda is a tiny British Overseas Territory in the North Atlantic, just off the coast of North Carolina. It enjoys the world’s highest GDP. The PLP, the ruling political party, has recently been re-elected to power, despite a crescendo of evidence of misdeeds at the highest levels of the party and government. Revelations of shenanigans on the part of Premier Brown were frequently published prior to the election in the courageous mainstream press such as the Royal Gazette.

Premier Brown

Yet, the PLP won power for the third straight time in a row, with increased voter turnout.

Blogger Dennis Pitcher raised the level of political commentary on Bermuda in his blog 21 Square Miles. The resulting personal attacks on him have made him tired, saddened and disillusioned. He is now bringing his blogging to an end. He has concluded that the government representatives and their supporters prefer to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message.

Software developer Phillip Wells, an Englishman married to a Bermudian, started his blog, Limey in Bermuda in August 2003. He regularly criticised the actions of the PLP government. Now, he has decided to close his blog. He has come to believe that by continuing his criticism, he will only make things worse. If you are white, you will be accused of being a racist. If you are black, you will be accused of being a race traitor. If you are a journalist, you will be accused of being in league with the opposition. If you are in the opposition, you will be accused of wanting to take the country back to slavery. If he is right, our system of politics is truly dysfunctional.

PC Allan Palmer is an independent thinker among the Bermuda Police officers. I knew him as a police officer in St Vincent. He used to take me climbing the Soufriere Volcano.

PC Palmer

He transferred to the Bermuda Police Force. He started a blog, Crushing Fools in December 2007. He challenged his readers to take back the island from the criminals on the street. He called on the community to “be courageous” and to unite against violence and crime. He came in for high praise in the media. After his first article, he published nothing more. He loves writing. He would not have stopped without pressure. I expect he was shut down by his superiors. Never mind he was asking the public to cooperate with their police. Independent thinkers in the police force are usually considered a dangerous threat to those in power. That is true not only of Bermuda.

Bloggers do not exist simply for the purpose of criticizing a government or a particular political party. The most they can do is to offer an alternative perspective and ideas about how to make their island a better place. If you are trying to make a difference, it does not take long for the realization to sink in that blogging does nothing to really achieve positive change. After all, no politician is lying awake at night worrying about what is published about him on any blog. Blogs are usually read by people who agree with the blogger. This is little more than the case of a preacher preaching to the converted. If all the effort put into blogging and commenting is designed to make a change, you have to ask yourself what is the use?

Then I answer myself. You go on blogging because you enjoy the writing. You like expressing your views, no matter who agrees. You do not expect to make a difference. That would be a mistake.

Dolphin Risk

Government to Approve Dolphinarium at Blowing Point on Thursday. We would all have heard by now that the Ministers have agreed to give the “swim with the dolphins” company a licence or lease of part of the proposed national park at Blowing Point for as their new facility. Its approval by ExCo on Thursday is expected to be a mere formality.

In the past, concerns have been expressed over a number of issues. These have included on the “pro” side such matters as the need to provide visitors to Anguilla with more amusements, and the need to keep those Anguillians employed by the old facility at Meads Bay in their jobs. On the “con” side we have read of concerns about the pollution problem and its consequences, including damage to reefs and other marine life, risk of infection to humans, and the impact of fuel and oil from the Blowing Point harbour on the health of the dolphins.

Silently lying in the background has been the unspoken issue of the impact of this type of circus activity on the values of the multi-million dollar homes built in recent years along that coast.

Now, comes word of another factor that should be thrown into the equation. Are the visitors and participants safe when swimming with the dolphins? Are these really tame animals that love to hug and to be hugged? Marine Connection is a UK charity dedicated to protecting dolphins and whales worldwide. Reading through its web-pages, I came across a story about a recent incident in Curacao. A captive dolphin apparently deliberately dropped itself on three volunteer participants in a game. The dolphin was supposed to jump over a stick they were holding. Instead, it landed on three of them, seriously injuring one of them. If you are interested, you can read the story and look at footage of the incident [link here].

Dr Naomi Rose is a marine mammal scientist with Humane Society International [link here] . She has expressed interest in the dolphin activity in Anguilla. When approached, she provided an insight into the significance and meaning for us in Anguilla of this incident in Curacao. She writes:

"The Curacao incident is not as rare as the swim-with industry would have the public believe. Many people every year receive minor injuries from these animals, such as bites or bruises. The vast majority are never reported, mostly because the facilities behave as this one did (try to suppress the information) or because the people themselves believe they must have done something wrong to provoke the dolphin (and they are encouraged to think this by the facilities). More serious injuries, such as broken bones, lacerations requiring stitches, and so on, do occur but more rarely. Then there's this sort of thing: an unusual interaction - certainly rare, but nevertheless as significant a risk as, say, a plane crash - that could potential lead to permanent injury. I don't know the current condition of the woman in the middle of the three people who received that body blow, but she could easily have been paralyzed by what happened.

It was almost certainly not an accident either, no matter what the facility called it. Dolphins are very aware of their position in the water and when they "porpoise" or jump out of the water, even more so when they are in a confined, completely familiar space such as a tank. We must remember that the water is their element - we are the awkward, tentative, clumsy ones in it. Annie, the dolphin who did this, did it on purpose - I can say that with very high confidence, even without viewing the video clip but certainly after doing so! Why she did it is another question - she might have meant absolutely no harm by it, because to another dolphin, such a body slam wouldn't have caused any permanent damage, but could have made a point within the dolphin social hierarchy of this facility. She might have even been playing. But my guess is that she meant to make a dominance point. She was no doubt quite surprised when the people she hit didn't respond as dolphins would.

Captive swim-with encounters are at least as dangerous as some recreational sports, like skate-boarding. Generally speaking you don't get injured, but you might end up with bumps or cuts. When you do get injured, it could be serious. Some people might think that's a reasonable risk and so it may be - but the difference with swim-withs is 1) with its rhetoric, the industry misleads the public into thinking it's completely safe (just go to any facility's web site - there may be fine print somewhere about the risks of injury, but the big print is all about how lovely and gentle and happy dolphins are); and 2) the industry is not transparent when injuries do occur.

For what it's worth, some former customers who got injured by dolphins have filed lawsuits - I think most are settled out of court, precisely to keep the information confidential. The industry is *not* transparent - any authority permitting this activity needs to recognize that."

Members of the public are entitled to ask some questions about the proposed approval of the dolphin facility at Blowing Point. One is, do these people carry insurance against incidents such as this? How common are incidents such as this? Is there any liability on the part of government and the public purse if such an incident should occur at Blowing Point? Are our health and emergency agencies ready to deal with this sort of incident if and when it occurs?

Clean Cops

Anguilla Police Force Free of Corruption. We in Anguilla are fortunate. We have never had a police officer charged, far less convicted, of a serious crime. Indeed, I believe, of any crime! What is more, not at any time during the forty-odd year history of the RAPF! This is not just unique in the history of police services of the Caribbean, it is also highly commendable. Our Police Commissioner is to be congratulated for the care and control he has of the members of his force.

Commissioner Keithley Benjamin LlB, LEC

Not so poor Cayman Islands. There, they have had two police officers charged and convicted of offences of dishonesty over the past year. The earlier case was that of Police Constable Nathaniel Guthrie. He was convicted of accepting bribes in motor traffic incidents and sentenced in April last year to eighteen months in prison [link here].

The last case was that involving PC Richard Hanna [link here] . He raised funds to send Caymanian school children on trips. Then he pocketed the money. That was not all. He committed thirteen other offences of dishonesty. They charged him, the jury convicted him, and the judge has now sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment.

PC Richard Hanna

I am quite certain that if we ever had a police officer in Anguilla commit an act of dishonesty, that officer would be investigated. That officer would be disciplined. Court charges would be forthcoming without delay. Especially if it involved forgery or theft. We would never hear the brush-off words, "the file is still with the Attorney-General”. Nor, God forbid, would we ever hear the ominous claim that, “The victim has dropped charges, and does not want the matter to be prosecuted”.

That could never happen in Anguilla!

Colonialism

Chief Minister of Montserrat Embarrassed. There is, in my view, a lesson to be learned by Anguilla from a recent series of articles in the Montserrat Reporter. The Governor of Montserrat has, in effect, rejected a law passed by the Montserrat House of Assembly.

The Act in question was an amendment to the Legislators’ Conditions and Service Act. In Montserrat, Ministers of government receive a salary of EC$96,500.00, a housing allowance of EC$36,000.00, entertainment allowance of EC$10,800.00, duty allowance of EC$42,000.00, travel allowance of EC$16,800.00, and telephone allowance of EC$1,800.00 per year, or a total of EC$203,916.00 per year or EC$16,993.00 per month. Non-minister legislators receive EC$8,000.00. The pension is approximately two thirds of their emoluments. All in all, this is a very generous remuneration in a West Indian island with a population of perhaps 6,000 souls.

The amending Bill provided, among other things, that:

Where a person, who at the time of coming into operation of this Act, has attained the age of 55 years, is in receipt of a pension under this Act, and has served as a Legislator for periods amounting in aggregate to not less than 15 years, again becomes a Legislator, he shall be entitled to receive his pension in addition to the allowances payable during the period he serves as a Legislator.

Once a member of the House of Assembly has attained the age of 55 and has served in the House for a total of 15 years, he would be entitled to a pension. As a result of this amendment, if he became a legislator again after he had begun to receive his pension, he would be entitled to his salary and other perks, in addition to his full pension! The members of the House were voting to enable themselves to earn a double salary! It cannot be doubted that it is not right or normal for a person to receive both pension and salary from the one and the same employer. That is true even if we were not speaking about the people of an impoverished, volcano-devastated island such as Montserrat is. Compare that to the procedure followed recently by the House of Assembly of St Kitts-Nevis under the Dr Denzil Douglas Administration. There, the legislators appointed an independent, private-sector committee to advise them on increases in their salaries. The committee held public meetings, and made a report and recommendations. The House of Assembly acted on the recommendations and passed them into law. They did not just pick on a figure to pay themselves, and pass that figure into law.

In Montserrat, the amending Bill, when it had been proposed in the meeting of the House of Assembly, had been further re-amended in Committee Stage. The new amendment reduced the age at which the entitlement accrued. The Chief Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr Lowell Lewis, proposed this amendment. This was not what the Ministers had originally agreed to when they had discussed the Bill in Executive Council. The amended Bill was supported by the government members of the House. This included the non-elected, ex-officio members of the House, ie, the Attorney-General and the Financial Secretary. The four opposition members in the House spoke passionately against the measure. The government majority prevailed, and the Bill was passed.

A howl of protest went up in the press in Montserrat. In an editorial of 5 October, the paper accused the politicians of taking care of their income in a manner that was unacceptable. They were accused of just looking out for themselves and their friends. Governor Peter Waterworth had a different reason for objecting. His objection was the technical one that the amendment that was passed did not accord with what Executive Council had approved.

Governor Waterworth and CM Dr Lewis

In an article of 23 November we learn that the Governor had refused to “assent” to the Act. The Constitution requires him to do so to bring the Act into full effect. He had sent the Act on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking advice. This was the first time in the modern history of Montserrat that a Governor was refusing his assent to a Bill passed by the House of Assembly. The Chief Minister at first came out against the Governor’s delay. His position had been that the legislators had debated the Bill in the House. The government members had given their reasons why they wanted the Bill passed. He argued that under the Constitution they had not done anything unconstitutional. Then he goes on to say, “The next step really will be for that particular Bill to be amended by the Governor in such a way that he feels he can consent to it”.

Am I hearing right?

What nonsense is this?

No Governor of a British Overseas Territory in this modern era is to be permitted to unilaterally amend a law passed by the House of Assembly “in such a way that he feels he can consent to it” or in any other way. That is how it was done in the dark ages of colonialism and imperialism. That is a barbarism that I hope will never be permitted in Anguilla today. There are much more democratic and proper methods for getting an irresponsible or corrupt law changed. It has to do with public education, with public involvement, and with public protest. If the public, after they have been alerted to some impropriety on the part of the Legislature, do not demand that the law in question be changed by their own representatives sitting in the House of Assembly, then it is not for the FCO to intervene and to make alterations to an enacted law. For a West Indian Chief Minister to invite a colonial Governor to amend a Bill passed by the House in such a way that he feels he can consent to it is quite wrong.

The Constitutional improprieties of this episode did not end there. The Governor appears to have received instructions from the FCO. He indicated to the Chief Minister that he would not assent to the Bill. In an article dated 24 December in the Montserrat Reporter we learn that the Chief Minister has now announced that he accepts that introducing changes in Committee stage in the House of Assembly “was a significant variation from what was approved in Executive Council”. He invites the Governor to assent to the Bill “in the form approved in Executive Council”. He then requests that a Bill be introduced into the House of Assembly to repeal the Act once it comes into effect. According to the story, the Governor then writes back to him confirming that, if this were done, he would “assent to both Bills after they had passed through the Legislature”.

Let us accept that the Bill was corrupt. Let us agree that it was not proper procedure for Ministers to propose amendments to a finance Bill that would increase the burden on the public purse after they had agreed otherwise in Executive Council. The Governor of an Overseas Territory should not be admitted to have the power to amend a Bill that has been passed through the House of Assembly. This is entirely a matter for the citizens of the Overseas Territory to have sorted out for themselves. The Governor is entitled to bring moral and other pressure to bear. If British funds were at risk, the British Government might have withdrawn those funds.

Never again must a West Indian Chief Minister invite a colonial Governor to pass a Bill in a form “approved by Executive Council”. Executive Council plays no role in deciding on the final wording of a law. That is for the House of Assembly to decide. The Governor’s duty is to approve a Bill in the form passed by the House.

Never again must the Chief Minister of an Overseas Territory in the West Indies invite the FCO to interfere in the legislative process by refusing the Governor’s assent to a Bill that has been passed through all the stages in the House. If Members of the House abuse their position to provide jobs for friends, or increased remuneration for themselves and their associates, it is for the people of the country to be properly informed what has happened, and for them to be invited to take the appropriate action. It is not the business of the FCO to override the democratic process.

I don’t care what the Constitution says in this regard. The Constitution needs changing to reflect the modern reality.

At the end of the day, it was the FCO that behaved with impeccable propriety. They did not use the powers reserved to them in the Constitution. They did not accept the invitation of the Chief Minister to revert to a barbaric and outdated form of colonial legislative procedure. Instead, they did the right thing. They put pressure on the local authorities to correct their own mistake. It was left to the Chief Minister to eat the unmentionable and to propose a proper solution. He will see to it that a Bill is placed before the House of Assembly to amend the wrong things that were done in passing the previous Bill. It has been left for the Montserratian legislature to clean up its own mess!