Britain's FAC 'shocked and appalled' at situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands
LONDON, England: British Member of Parliament Sir John Stanley, a member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) said last week that he was “shocked and appalled” at the responses given by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official to questions concerning the situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
British MP Sir John Stanley is “shocked and appalled” at the situation in the Turks and Caicos.
The reaction from Stanley came during last Wednesday’s final evidence session of the FAC’s inquiry into the exercise by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) of its responsibilities for security and good governance in the British Overseas Territories, which include the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) and several other Caribbean territories. The principal witness answering questions in relation to the Overseas Territories at last week’s session was Meg Munn MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the FCO, with responsibilty for the Overseas Territories. Members of the FAC questioned her and Leigh Turner, Director of Overseas Territories at the FCO, about their oversight in all Territories with respect to a wide range of issues, including devolution of power, human rights, civil partnerships, appointment and role of governors, and immigration. In particular, Stanley queried how the TCI could possibly cope with an immigration problem that is “equivalent to illegal immigration to the UK of between 4 to 5 million people.” “Certainly illegal immigration from Haiti is an important issue... And things are improving. I haven’t got the details in front of me, but perhaps if I can write to the committee with the work that’s been done on that. But I entirely take your point on that...” Munn responded. However, it was the Committee’s focus on the FCO’s apparent failure of oversight with respect to alleged corruption in the TCI that dominated the session. Committee members seemed especially concerned at the volume of complaints that Turks and Caicos Islanders submitted to the FAC. “The largest number of memoranda that this committee has received from a single overseas territory has come from the Turks & Caicos Island, both public memo and memoranda sent to us privately,” said Stanley. But the Committee’s most forceful questioning of Munn stemmed from its own findings on the torching of the office of the UK-appointed attorney general and on the sudden departure of the UK-appointed chief auditor. Again, Stanley expressed the FAC’s concern: “[I]s it not a matter of the utmost concern when the attorney general’s house, sorry office, was arsoned a few months ago and when he sought additional security and protection from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office he was told that this is not a matter of the Foreign Office even though the Foreign Office has specific responsibility under the constitution for internal security in the TCI? “And is it also not a matter of equal concern that the chief auditor -- whose term of office expires about today and is about to leave the islands, if he hasn’t done so already -- he is not being replaced because the Foreign Office have not found a replacement for him and that the appointment is now the subject of a local job share by existing members of his staff?” In response, Munn and Turner seemed to be largely uninformed about the relevant facts and circumstances, and appeared to deflect blame onto Britain’s governor in the TCI, Richard Tauwhare, who, they said, “has a weekly police briefing from the head of the police force and [knows] what is happening and what can be done.” Turner indicated that the local governor sounded no alarm, and did not keep them properly informed. This response provoked an apparently outraged Sir John Stanley to say, “I have listened to your official’s response and I have to say I am shocked and appalled on those two issues by the response which he has given. “It is I think disgraceful that apparently nobody in the Foreign Office is aware that the attorney general requested additional security following the arsoning of his office and was fobbed off by saying that this is not a matter for the Foreign Office. And I think it is quite appalling that your department in London is unaware that we face a key vacancy right this minute in the post of chief auditor.” Committee member, Greg Pope MP, followed Stanley's reprimand with an equally outspoken observation about the spectre of corruption in the TCI and, by implication, about the FCO’s failure to ensure good governance in this Overseas Territory: “[W]hen we hold inquiries the committee receives lots of written evidence on any inquiry. Typically, a handful of the evidence that we receive, the senders request confidentiality. With the TCI, a very large number of people did. This is a real concern.“When we were there, let me put this in context, the only other place I’ve been to where people insisted on confidentiality of this kind was in [China]. I’m just shocked that in some place with the Union Jack on the flag people are doing that.” Much of the Committee's questioning raised the prospect of the appointment of a commission of inquiry in the TCI. When pressed on this issue by members, Munn responded, “I am very exercised about what I’m hearing from your visit... I have a completely open mind on this and in terms of establishing a commission of inquiry... So far there has not been sufficient evidence that’s been stood up in order to proceed with a commission of inquiry. And if we had evidence we would want to see that happen.” This apparently casual approach seems unlikely to satisfy the FAC, however. In fact, Committee member Paul Keetch MP, summed up the FAC’s view of the “evidence that’s been stood up” by saying, “The three of us were quite astonished at what we discovered.” In addition, FAC members left little doubt that they expected their view of the evidence to prevail in the House of Commons and that the appointment of a commission of inquiry is warranted. “So let’s be quite clear... if the governor wants to appoint a commission of inquiry which he has the power to do without consulting the cabinet, he expects the cabinet then to pay for it, and we won’t pay for it. I mean, that to me sounds ridiculous. If I were a governor of one of these places and I wanted to appoint a commission of inquiry, I would expect Her Majesty’s Government to pay for that...,” Keetch added. “[C]an you give us an assurance that if the governor of the TCI wanted to commission an inquiry that if the cabinet locally refused to fund that we would fund that?” he added. Turner responded that this was in theory possible. Keetch persisted: “But he could?” Munn and Turner responded in unison: “Yes, yes...” Keetch peristed further: “But just to be clear, because there was some confusion on this, the governor tomorrow, if he wanted to, could set up a commission of inquiry?” To which Turner responded: “Yes.” The Committee is scheduled to make a report to the House of Commons by the end of July. The UK government will then have two months to reply to the findings in its report.
