S.Atlantic : CONCLUSION OF THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL (10/12/03)
Submitted by SARTMA.com (Juanita Brock) 17.12.2003 (Article Archived on 31.12.2003)
The 1999 White Paper set out the balance in our mutual relationship. It talked in terms of mutual responsibilities and obligations but said that the UK has the right to expect high standards of probity, governance and adherence to international obligations - and to minimise the extent to which the UK is exposed to contingent liabilities
CONCLUSION OF THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL (10/12/03)
Event: Overseas Territories Consultative Council
Location: London
Speech Date: 10/12/03
Speaker: Bill Rammell
I welcome the discussions that we had on Monday, particularly on the role of Governors and the need to clarify our mutual responsibilities in the constitutional review process. I want to underline the message that I sought to put across.
The 1999 White Paper set out the balance in our mutual relationship. It talked in terms of mutual responsibilities and obligations but said that the UK has the right to expect high standards of probity, governance and adherence to international obligations - and to minimise the extent to which the UK is exposed to contingent liabilities. This is what we expect Governors to monitor and, if necessary, to ensure.
This is why there have to be discussions on the implementation of each of your constitutional reviews. We welcome the fact that these reviews are, for the first time, locally driven but, once completed, there must be consultation with us. We have to retain reserved powers. We also need to protect key values, such as the political impartiality of the civil service (including the police) and the independence of the judiciary. UK Ministers have maintained this line consistently at all previous OTCC meetings and in discussions with you. It is not a new - or revised - message. Some of you have argued that the Governor should not chair Cabinet or Executive Council. I remain convinced, however, that Governors should be involved at an early stage in the decision making process and therefore that, where Governors chair such bodies, they should continue to do so.
I fully acknowledge that this balance needs to be handled sensitively. Governors do consult you all the time and it is right that they should. Governors are bound by the collective responsibility of Executive Council. But they have to have reserved powers to intervene when good governance is being, or could be, undermined or when international obligations are not being met. The occasions on which such powers are used are few and far between - and only in exceptional cases. Our mutual, shared aim must be, where necessary, to improve standards of government in all respects.
You have argued that responsibility for the public service should rest not with the Governor but with independent Public Service Commissions. In most territories, such Public Service Commissions already exist - and generally Governors accept their recommendations. But the Governor will have to retain ultimate discretion, particularly over key appointments even where there is full consultation with Chief Ministers.
But this does not mean that you should be or indeed are completely divorced from responsibility for the civil service, including the police, and the administration of justice. These are important sectors of government and their efficient management and resourcing (including funding) is a matter in which you are rightly involved and on which you are regularly consulted by Governors. In all territories, you have a significant degree of control over your own affairs.
You have a strong case, however, for arguing that we should involve you more closely at the earliest possible stage in the negotiation of international agreements which might affect you. Other Whitehall departments are not necessarily as alert as they should be to potential implications for the territories. As I have said, Jack Straw and Hilary Benn jointly minuted their Cabinet colleagues in September to stress the importance of this. We shall continue to remind other departments to ensure that you are consulted where possible before entering into the negotiation of international agreements.
We spoke over lunch on Monday about contingent liabilities. Because we have overall responsibility for the territories whilst they retain the link with the UK - and because the world will look to us if ever there is a crisis in an Overseas Territory - we have to be able to ensure that your Governments pay proper attention to risk management and that contingency plans against natural and man-made disasters are prepared and regularly exercised - and that your international obligations are properly met. Risk management is important to all territory governments.
The same principle applies in our approach to borrowing. We accept that borrowing and private finance initiatives are legitimate tools of economic management. You are right to say that we deny direct legal liability unless we guarantee a particular loan. But there will always be a moral pressure on us if things go seriously wrong, particularly if territories risk slipping back to a position where budgetary support may have to be revived.
We think it important - and see it as a requirement - that all territories, where they have not already done so, adopt prudent borrowing practices and that they are agreed with us. The ratios and guidelines that we have advanced are sensible practice and we aim to develop similar guidance on private finance initiatives. But the principle is clear - so long as your economies are healthy and your financial management procedures, including the evaluation of projects, are sound, we have no reason to interfere: it is only when territories approach or go beyond the borrowing ratios that we need to be involved.
The same applies to membership of regional organisations. As a general principle we support membership (or associate membership) when territory governments consider this to be beneficial and there are no legal complications. But for that, it is for the territories themselves to weigh up the costs against the benefits of membership (or associate membership). But where there may be direct cost implications to the UK, eg in Montserrat's proposed membership of CSME, then the issue has to be considered between us. And that is why, since we are responsible for the territories' international commitments, we still require you to seek an entrustment before you enter into negotiations on an international treaty.
Our approach to the role of Governors and constitutional reform is based on the principle of partnership. The concept of free association advanced by the UN C24 Committee is not inconsistent with that if it means mutual acceptance by both sides - because we, as the UK Government, have responsibilities to protect. But if, as I sensed it was being argued by some territory governments after the Anguilla seminar, it means freedom for territories to draw up their own Constitutions free of outside interference, then that is not on.
We value our relationship with the territories. It is a matter of pride that you and your citizens wish to retain the link with the UK. I am pleased that some of you have expressed your own pride at being British Citizens. Certainly, we do not wish to force you into independence (although we shall respond positively, where this is an option (ie not Gibraltar) if that is the clear and constitutionally expressed wish of the people) - and we respect the fact that some of you may have independence as a long-term objective. But whilst the territories retain a link with us, the governance of the territories must be a partnership between us. Governors have a crucial role to play in this, in partnership with you. Ours is a joint endeavour for the benefit of all.
|
