18
Examination of witnesses
Blondel Cluff, Kei-Retta Farrell, Charles Washington Misick, Dr Natalio D. Wheatley and Kim Wilkerson.
Q50 The Chair: A warm welcome to this meeting of the House of Lords Constitution Committee. We are continuing our inquiry reviewing the UK-Overseas Territories Joint Declaration. Today, we hear from a panel of representatives of five of the overseas territories. We are delighted to welcome Blondel Cluff CBE DL, overseas representative and special adviser to the Premier of the Government of Anguilla, and Kei-Retta Farrell, UK representative of the Government of Montserrat. Both of them join us here in person. We are also delighted to welcome the Hon Charles Washington Misick OBE, Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Hon Dr Natalio D. Wheatley, Premier of the British Virgin Islands, and the Hon Kim Wilkerson, Attorney-General to Bermuda. All of them join us remotely, but we will hear from them as much as we hear from anybody else.
The Cayman Islands was also invited to join today’s meeting but was not available. It has submitted written evidence, as have many of the territories represented at today’s meeting, and we are extremely grateful for that. This evidence will be published on the committee’s website after today’s meeting. Today’s meeting will be supplemented by a further evidence session on 25 February with representatives of the other overseas territories.
The list of members’ interests relating to this inquiry has been published on the committee website, and members will declare these the first time they speak. One of our members, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has given his apologies for today’s meeting, but asked me to declare on his behalf that he chaired a constitutional tribunal set up by the Governor of Bermuda, which concluded its work in April 2025. I should add that I have no relevant interests of my own to declare. That is by means of introduction.
As I said, the Constitution Committee is conducting an inquiry into the joint declaration between the UK and overseas territories published in 2023. Some people disagree with its conclusions or impact. This is an opportunity for us to look more closely at the relationship from a UK point of view, whether the department is carrying out all its obligations and duties, and where to go to next.
I start with a general question. As Blondel is in front of me, I ask her to answer it first, but I am very happy to take an input from each of you over the course of the next few minutes. As far as the UK is concerned, what are the key issues currently facing your territory?
Blondel Cluff: The principal issue for Anguilla is the negotiation of a new constitution. We have the oldest one by far, dating back to 1982. Through that new constitution, we will seek greater autonomy for the democratically elected Government of the territory. We also seek parity with other members of the British family of nations on matters that affect the lives and life chances of our citizens, in particular equal pensions, which are important to people at a very vulnerable time of life and which may also affect our service men and women who defend this very nation.
Similarly, access to the NHS is very relevant to us because we have the second-largest diaspora. We have been here for almost 80 years, contributing to the creation of the National Health Service, the defence of this nation et cetera and, in so doing, paying our taxes and national insurance. Therefore, we query why, if we retire and return to the territory, our pensions are frozen. We may live in that territory for decades after that, but we would be penalised for having returned to another part of this very undivided realm.
Q51 The Chair: Thank you very much indeed for that. Can I ask Kei-Retta Farrell for her thoughts on the key issues currently facing her territory?
Kei-Retta Farrell: To understand the key issues facing Montserrat, it is important to start with the context. Over 30 years ago the Soufrière Hills volcano erupted and that impact continues to shape the development of Montserrat. A significant proportion of the island is uninhabitable and a large amount of the population live here in the UK today. Our ambition is to move towards long-term financial stability and sustainability, and that ambition underpins our current policy focus. This includes infrastructure development, access, connectivity and sustainable provision of health and educational services. At the same time, Montserrat has significant assets and untapped potential, particularly in the green and renewable energy space, the blue economy and mineral resources.
There are a small number of areas where our constitutional status intersects with wider UK systems in ways that produce inequitable outcomes. The most significant areas for Montserrat currently are health and pensions. Given our scale, access to specialist healthcare is essential. Where access pathways are complex or inconsistent, this can often lead to unequal outcomes for Montserratians compared with UK residents. From a parity and justice perspective, people should not experience materially poorer access to essential healthcare simply because of where they live within the same constitutional family. Pensions also raise a similar issue of fairness. Many Montserratians lived and worked in the UK for long periods, often following migration linked to the volcanic displacement, and have made contributions to the UK system. That absence of operating for UK state pensions paid in Montserrat creates unequal real-world outcomes, which are difficult to reconcile with principles of equity. I will leave it at that for the moment.
Q52 The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Can I go to the Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands? Charles Misick, would you like to say something on the key issues currently facing your territory?
Charles Washington Misick: Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to you on the issues that impact TCI’s relationship with the United Kingdom. Turks and Caicos is completely self-sustaining and does not really depend on the United Kingdom for any kind of aid. It does not really have a substantial number of Turks and Caicos islanders living and working in the United Kingdom. Our biggest challenge is the security of the Turks and Caicos Islands given our geographic location 100 miles north of Haiti and the destabilisation of the whole Government. It could be classified as a failed country. That is an issue of grave concern to us, as well as the level of United Kingdom engagement. We have a relationship with the United States and the Bahamas in terms of security issues. The UK is often criticised in that sometimes it is absent from the tripartite conversation or arrangement. That is our major threat.
The other issue is that I do not know whether the UK is doing sufficient to resolve a long-standing issue of the EE zone between ourselves and the Dominican Republic. Over the past 10 years or so, the Dominican Republic has defined itself as an archipelago, basically claiming some Turks and Caicos territory. Those are issues of great concern to us.
To recap, Haiti is a potential existential threat. In the past couple of years—it has now abated significantly—we have had a situation of rampant crime as a result of some discombobulation created in the community by irregular immigration, which I am sure you can relate to in the UK. Border security issues and the EE zone with the Dominican Republic are key concerns. Every territory is interested in the continual advancement of its constitution. We have had amendments in the past couple of years, so we are not quite as far behind as some other territories. Dialogue is currently going on for some incremental amendments. That seems to be going fairly smoothly at the moment.
Q53 The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Can I turn now to the Premier of the British Virgin Islands?
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: Thank you, Chair. Greetings from the Virgin Islands to you and members of your committee. We are grateful for the opportunity to be able to present to this committee on the joint declaration and the relationship we have with the United Kingdom. The challenges we face in the Virgin Islands are quite similar to those that most small island developing states will be subject to. Of course, we have the challenge of climate change. In 2017, we were devastated by two category 5 hurricanes. As you know, our territory contributes very little to greenhouse gas emissions, which add to the challenge, but we are on the front line of the impacts and negative effects of climate change. Hurricanes Irma and Maria wiped out two to three times our GDP—over $3 billion—and set us back. We are still seeking to recover from the hurricanes. We do not have access to the United Nations Green Climate Fund, the Loss and Damage Fund, or mitigation and adaptation funds. We have to depend on very expensive loans to be able to rebuild our infrastructure. We believe that the world can do more, especially those nations which contribute heavily to the challenge of climate change, for those who are in a very vulnerable state.
Of course, the world right now has great trade instability with tariffs and threats of tariffs. We import just about everything we consume, so when this trade instability takes place it can create great inflation in the Virgin Islands, causing rising prices and costs. We have the challenge of ensuring that we are able to maintain a stable and prosperous economy. As the Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands stated, the Virgin Islands, too, is self-sufficient and does not rely on the United Kingdom for grant in aid. We have not had grant in aid from the United Kingdom since about 1978. We have been able to build an economy to take care of the needs of our people, but we have to remain ever competitive to produce the revenues necessary for that.
You will be aware that recently the Virgin Islands went through a massive governance reform, of which we are extremely proud. It is the greatest governance reform in the history of the Virgin Islands. We amended laws and policies. We overhauled administrative processes to ensure we are able to deliver government services for our people in a way that reflects good governance, transparency, accountability and shows respect for the rule of law. These are challenges that many others face. I join with my colleagues in acknowledging some of the challenges that they face. The Virgin Islands has faced similar challenges. There are other challenges we could speak about, but that is just to name a few.
Before I end, we, too, seek constitutional reform. We have been on a journey where we have been increasing our autonomy since our Parliament was restored in 1950. We recognised that milestone last year, but we want to continue growing, developing and evolving, and become an even greater part of the Virgin Islands story, steering our ship and determining our destiny.
Q54 The Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much indeed for that. We have the Attorney‑General to Bermuda, Kim Wilkerson. Please give us very briefly the key issues currently facing your territory.
Kim Wilkerson: Thank you very much. It is Bermuda’s pleasure to be heard in this forum this morning … to talk about the impact of the joint declaration and our priorities at this point in time. I note that you said “briefly”. To be brief is good guidance for lawyers.
Although Bermuda has one of the most advanced constitutions among the overseas territories, like other OTs such as Anguilla and the BVI, we are also in order of priorities seeking further constitutional autonomy. Bermuda is embarking on a process. We are certainly working with the FCDO around a framework to engage further with the electorate on constitutional reform. That is in the set of our priorities. Informed, mature and more respectful consultation with the UK is certainly one of the desires of Bermuda as it relates to our engagement. That would be around some specific areas that are not all-inclusive—for example, illicit finance and how we approach registers of beneficial ownership, and cannabis legislation. For Bermuda, parity for BOTC passport holders is also an issue that has been talked about by other OTs.
Very briefly, those are among the priority issues for Bermuda. A level of engagement with the UK, shoulder to shoulder, as it relates to issues that affect our territory is what is desired as we think about advancing our relationship towards a modern democracy and a partnership that we believe is the high line in the objectives of the joint declaration.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Thank you all for giving us a foundational view of the issues you are confronting. I turn to Lord Bellamy, who has a question. I suggest that, whoever answers first, if you disagree with them come in on this, but if you agree there is possibly no need. Otherwise, we will be here all day.
Q55 Lord Bellamy: Our focus in this committee, as you know, is on the joint declaration. The first rather general question is: what, if anything, has been the impact of the joint declaration as far as your territory is concerned? If the Chair agrees, perhaps we can go round in the same order, starting with Anguilla and finishing with Bermuda.
Blondel Cluff: I am sad to say that the joint declaration of 2023 appears to have had little or no impact. No mention of it was made during the joint ministerial council in 2025. The strapline, which is deemed to be a principle, “nothing about you without you” is most certainly not practised. Indeed, what happens is that things are discussed and agreed within the United Kingdom without reference to our Government, or they are given a very small window of opportunity to go through their own processes, so we are invariably bounced into decisions.
With regard to the compacts and charters referred to, that was mentioned at the 11th hour. Indeed, looking forward, we have been told that the Foreign Office has the capacity to deal with only two, and the first two will be a test case. Therefore, if you look at the situation, the whole process of introducing compacts and the charter may take a number of years. That is relevant because during that period the 2012 White Paper will become more and more outdated, and arguably it is not fit for purpose at present. The idea of the Foreign Office using a huge amount of capacity to negotiate a dozen bespoke compacts with the territories, as opposed to refreshing a fundamental document such as the White Paper, is somewhat incongruous.
Kei-Retta Farrell: By way of context, I joined the Montserrat UK office after the joint declaration, so my comments are not about any change that can be attributed to it. However, the joint declaration has limited visibility in routine engagement. It is not consistently referenced as an operational framework guiding day-to-day interaction. I would attribute any success more to reflecting an established relationship, or an issue-specific arrangement, rather than any explicit reference to the joint declaration.
The Chair: Do any of those who are joining us remotely want to comment on the impact of the joint declaration which Lord Bellamy asked about?
Charles Washington Misick: It has had no impact whatever.
The Chair: That seems to be pretty much your view. What about the Virgin Islands?
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: Perhaps I can reflect on this a bit. First, I think that the joint declaration between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories is a useful document. I was very active in influencing the final text at the joint ministerial council. I acknowledge David Rutley, who led that process and I thought did a good job of incorporating the views of overseas territories in the joint declaration. I believe it is a useful document because it provides the overarching principles that should guide this modern relationship. It speaks about supporting overseas territories that desire more autonomy, and about defending the rules-based order, respect for human rights, and ensuring that we administer government services in a way that reflects good governance, transparency, accountability and so on. The impact of it has yet to be seen.
Some of our territories have just expressed that they are going to negotiate constitutions. It will be interesting for us to see whether the principles that have been espoused in that joint declaration inform the constitutional negotiation process, because these joint declarations are meaningless unless they are adhered to. If the principles that are enshrined in this declaration are simply ignored, it will be of little effect. When we spoke about the joint declaration, quite a number of the territories advocated, as Anguilla stated, for a new White Paper. We still believe that a new White Paper is needed along with the joint declaration, and we certainly do not have a challenge with bilateral compacts, because those same principles that underpin the joint declaration should inform the very practical areas of co-operation that would be outlined in a bilateral compact. I certainly hope that what Anguilla stated would not be the case, where these bilateral compacts would take years to be negotiated, because that will further stagnate the relationship between the overseas territories and the United Kingdom. We need something a lot quicker. The overseas territories are willing to contribute to the work of developing this White Paper as well as the bilateral compacts. If capacity is a challenge, we should invite the overseas territories to play a greater role in the process of the formulation of these documents.
The Chair: That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Bermuda, is there anything else that you want to add to what you said previously?
Kim Wilkerson: Thank you. For Bermuda, we reiterate that we stand with what you have heard from the other OTs’ leaders. We find that the joint declaration had little impact from our perspective. It has not been clear what is the guiding framework in our relationship. Is it the joint declaration? Is it the 2012 White Paper? That uncertainly leads Bermuda to join the other OTs in the call for a revised, modernised White Paper that we understand would set the guiding principles.
The Chair: Thank you. We heard most of your contribution there, but the line with Bermuda is a little distorted.
Q56 Baroness Laing of Elderslie: Before I ask my question, I formally declare an interest because I am in the very fortunate position that at the end of this week I am going to visit the Cayman Islands with the Cayman Islands All-Party Group. I find it particularly interesting to have this briefing from all of you before I go there. I will make sure that the other members of the all-party group are aware of the issues you raised and the answers you have given us when we discuss these matters in the Cayman Islands with the Cayman Islands Government. Thank you for that.
It is very interesting to hear what you say about the joint declaration. Dr Wheatley mentioned that he thinks there is a need for a new White Paper. I wonder if we can explore that further. I ask Ms Cluff first: do you consider that it is time to put together a new White Paper?
Blondel Cluff: The first thing that we must all accept—indeed, this has been confirmed to us by the Foreign Office—is that it is the White Paper that takes precedence. That is the thing that we must bear in mind. The 2012 White Paper dominates the joint declaration of 2023, compacts and anything else relating to us. That of itself is pertinent.
The year 2012 was long before Brexit and a number of other things that have affected us. As Premier Wheatley highlighted, we are being subjected to more frequent and fiercer climatic events within the Caribbean, which again have stepped up considerably since 2012. That is the fundamental platform. I commend Premier Wheatley and others who contributed to the joint declaration, but unless the provisions are properly reflected within an updated White Paper and the compacts, as Premier Wheatley said, it is of no value to us whatever.
The chilling development was a letter written by the British Overseas Territories Minister, Stephen Doughty, to all our leaders, dated 12 November 2025. He said that policies relating to the British Overseas Territories may be altered by parliamentary statements, ministerial correspondence, public statements and even speeches. That begs the question: what can we hang on to? What is it that we can rely on? I agree with Premier Wheatley about an updated White Paper. Maybe look at the legislation itself, as the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 is 23 years old, and perhaps update that; also, bespoke compacts with respect to the terms that have been agreed in the joint declaration of 2023, a charter to entrench the cross-governmental approach to the territories, which is sadly inconsistent, and constitutions that reflect the standard of being British, which means that each and every one of our citizens is entitled to equality, equity and justice, and should not be punished by virtue of identity. We are meant to be part of an undivided realm. That is all that I have to say. The White Paper is the thing that dominates. Bear that in mind.
Kei-Retta Farrell: In short, I echo the same points that my colleagues raised. The operating context is very different from 2012. I also highlight that the gap is in not the absence of principles but the implementation. A White Paper would be really valuable if it helped to clarify cross-departmental ownership, consultation, expectations and monitoring rather than just restating agreed values. It would have a value as a strategic and parliamentary tool, and its usefulness would be in bringing together coherence and delivery. Thank you.
The Chair: Turks and Caicos, do you want to add something on Baroness Laing’s question about the need for a new White Paper?
Charles Washington Misick: Premier Wheatley articulated my position quite clearly.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you, Premier Wheatley. If there is nothing else that you wish to add, that is very clear.
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: I just want to associate myself with what Anguilla stated, in particular about the White Paper. That is further to what I said before. Anguilla’s contribution certainly reflects the position of the British Virgin Islands.
Kim Wilkerson: I agree that Anguilla’s position encapsulates Bermuda’s as well. We would further say that a new White Paper should prompt a review of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and assess whether that Act remains fit for purpose and genuinely reflects the territories as part of the UK family.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. Lord Cryer wishes to take us in a slightly different direction.
Q57 Lord Cryer: Could you give us an overview of what your engagement with the UK Government looks like on an official and ministerial level? Perhaps, with the Chair’s permission, we could start again with Ms Cluff because you mentioned a letter from Stephen Doughty from last year, which sounds as if it is relevant to this question.
Blondel Cluff: Yes, indeed. It is relevant in terms of our ability to rely on statements made by the UK Parliament that they can be changed with such ease and, in certain cases, unilaterally. That is very concerning to us.
I presume you mean the quality of engagement at official and ministerial level. The conduit to all the other departments is the Foreign Office, which takes the lead. Let us stop for a moment and think of that word “foreign”. Are we foreign? Are we meant to be foreign? Is this the correct department in any event, apart from of course those that require developmental aid? Given the notoriously poor cross-governmental interplay between departments, we should be encouraged and supported to have more direct relationships with departments across government. Even then, the interplay between our politicians is invariably micromanaged to a stifling degree.
For example, we had three days of the joint ministerial council, during which time our Premiers had a matter of minutes of bilateral engagement, and that was basically it. If you tot it up over the course of a year, if we get an hour bilaterally, we are fortunate. Other territories have additional joint ministerial engagement, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Indeed, in their cases they even have their own separate ministerial briefs. For those of us within the Caribbean and Bermuda, who account for 81% of the population of the British Overseas Territories, our engagement may be a matter of minutes per annum, which I do not think is adequate.
At an official level, it can be very difficult as well. There is the well-known civil service playbook. If we are making progress on behalf of our territories, we may be subjected to gaslighting, troping, or the strategy of playing one territory off against another—the usual chestnuts that you can refresh your memories with from an episode of “Yes Minister”, only it is not funny. It is actually quite important because we are dealing with the lives and life chances of our people. Our democracies are far more Athenian than that of the United Kingdom, meaning that we hear from our public directly day in, day out. The accountability of our politicians is of a much higher level than one would experience here. All said and done, it is not a great situation, could be better, and maybe the wrong department. Perhaps we should think about that.
The Chair: Which department would you rather have, then?
Blondel Cluff: We want one that can corral the other departments into listening. It could be the Cabinet Office. I do not know. It seems as though the Crown dependencies, which are similarly cousins of the mainland United Kingdom, are in the Ministry of Justice. I do not know. At the end of the day, the playbook can be pretty abusive at times, and I do not think it has any place in terms of the relative power base. We are tiny compared to the United Kingdom. As representatives, we are here on a level that we are not afforded in terms of recognition, so all that should be taken into account.
Kei-Retta Farrell: In addition to what my colleague already said, I add that, as Montserrat is in receipt of development assistance, our interaction looks quite different from that of some of the other territories. We have a series of structured touchpoints throughout the year with senior officials on development funding programmes, delivery and oversight. More broadly, engagement works well where there are clear points of contact, continuity and early communication, and that is not always the case.
The Chair: Does anybody else want to contribute? Do you all feel the same way about the level of engagement with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level? I must say that Anguilla made it very plain what her views were. Thank you very much for that. Do you all agree with that?
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: We have had the unfortunate experience over the last few years of having shifting Ministers responsible for the overseas territories. Since I have been in this position we have had Amanda Milling, Zac Goldsmith and David Rutley. Thankfully, with Stephen Doughty, when there was a change in leadership and his Foreign Minister changed, he was maintained in the position for some continuity. Minister Doughty has shown a level of improvement. The fact that we have Ministers identified in the different departments who deal with the overseas territories has made some level of improvement. I want to acknowledge that there has been some level of improvement.
The joint ministerial council that I was a part of was one of the better ones, precisely because there was some level of follow-up on some of the issues that we had been speaking about for some time. It is really in the follow-up where the benefits of a functional relationship are. If the meetings take place and there is no follow-up, the meetings are superfluous and of no value. I know Minister Doughty sometimes seeks to have meetings every few months, which we appreciate. I believe that, when we introduce the bilateral compacts, have something to measure and goals that are time-bound, it will give us a better structure to be able to engage. We will be engaging based on progress against defined goals as opposed to what happens right now, which it seems is somewhat ad hoc.
Q58 Charles Washington Misick: From the point of view of the Turks and Caicos, we have a good relationship with the current Minister for the overseas territories. He is trying to be very receptive and accessible, which is helpful. The ability to communicate on a regular basis means that matters do not necessarily become stale and then confrontational. The issue that I experience as Premier here has to do with follow-through in the relationship to some of the other ministries. In particular, from the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence as it relates to security matters for TCI, I would expect more engagement, better engagement and follow-through, and a better appreciation for the challenges that we face as a small country. From what I can sense, there is even some frustration sometimes from Minister Doughty in terms of the responsiveness from those ministries.
I continue to highlight the two burning issues for the TCI as security and the clear establishment of our exclusive economic zone. Those are the two major issues that I have. The other issues are ones that I have been able to resolve or are continuing on a track that I expect will yield positive results. TCI is trying to be as independent as it possibly can without overreliance on the UK. We value the relationship, but we are trying to move towards a grown-up relationship with the United Kingdom and not one that would force it to think that we are incapable of managing our own affairs or are overly dependent on the UK Government.
Kim Wilkerson: I have a small comment. I broadly agree with what the other OTs said. There is a good relationship with Minister Doughty. Certainly, he has made efforts to visit the territories. He was in Bermuda last year. Making an effort to understand what our financial services sector looks like by being on the ground is important to us. We believe that the FCDO does a good job in managing the OTs. Our recommendation was that the FCDO could be better resourced. We found that it is quite responsive, but being better resourced would improve that relationship.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I turn now to Lady Hamwee.
Q59 Baroness Hamwee: This is a subsidiary question. Modes of communication have changed a lot since 2012, particularly online communication. I sometimes find it very useful and sometimes almost a sort of block. Superficially, you are in touch, but you are not getting any of the non-verbal things and so on. Would you like to say anything about whether that has helped, hindered or made no difference at all, which may be the case?
Blondel Cluff: In the instance of a good Minister, as we are seeing and experiencing with Minister Doughty, he uses the opportunity to interact with the leaders, and that is facilitated by our virtual meetings, et cetera. However, the point is whether these meetings amount to any form of tangible progress and implementation. The issue of pensions has been a problem since 1971, when I was 11 years old. It still goes on today. It is about implementation. We chat, and indeed there are monthly meetings with the Foreign Office, but seldom have I seen us manage to get to the end of an agenda. There may be a list of issues that can exceed 100 in some instances. I concur with the recommendation of Premier Wheatley that there should be a more structured approach to all this. The ability to communicate is wonderful, but we need a more structured approach to processing and implementing, with prioritisation, key performance indicators and road maps. All the tools that we normally use within the UK should be used in respect of the territories, and then perhaps together we can work towards genuine, sustainable progress.
Kei-Retta Farrell: I echo the comments made.
The Chair: Premier of Turks and Caicos, is there anything that you wish to add to that?
Charles Washington Misick: No, I am good. I will wait for the other questions to come up.
Q60 Lord Beith: Perhaps the most frequent reason given for legislative intervention by the UK Government in the affairs of territories is compliance with international agreements. Do the mechanisms for engagement, particularly at official level, give you the opportunity to contribute in any way to the UK decision whether to sign up to agreements? We had some interesting written evidence from Anguilla about the biodiversity convention—
Blondel Cluff: Yes, indeed.
Lord Beith: —which suggested that you were told that you had an option, and then found that you were included anyway, putting you in breach from day 1.
Blondel Cluff: That is right. We were told by the governor. We must remember the role of the governors here. The governor is the representative of the Crown as well as the agent of the UK Government. At the end of the day, our heritage is such that the governor, historically, has always sat at the pinnacle of our societies. Being told by a governor that this is optional, only to find out that the draft legislation empowers the King and Privy Council to impose a provision through Orders in Council, is pretty disappointing, not least of all because in the case of the issue that you specified, my Lord, we would be in breach from day 1. We need to have scope and respect for our democratically elected Governments as well as the fact that under our constitution certain matters, including, dare I say it, the environment, are domestic matters that reside under the auspices of our Government. When the UK Government develop a policy, what invariably happens is that we are presented with something as being an international commitment on the part of the UK that we would then have to adhere to. You will find that there are many cases of mission creep under that particular umbrella. We have to look at the constitutions and instil better respect for them, otherwise we will be in breach of some of these international policies, and in that case possibly have an issue.
Lord Beith: Has that been anybody else’s experience?
Kei-Retta Farrell: This is not an area I am sufficiently briefed on to give the committee a full answer, but I would be happy to follow up after the meeting.
The Chair: Thank you very much. In that case, let me turn to the BVI and Premier Wheatley.
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: Of course, the joint declaration acknowledges that there should be more communication with the overseas territories when extending conventions or signing on to agreements that have an impact. We have had some cases in the past that clearly show that there has not been enough consultation on areas that have an impact on the overseas territories. I will give you one example. The negotiations for Brexit had quite a negative impact on a number of overseas territories. There was not sufficient consultation with the overseas territories. Even with some of the trade agreements taking place right now with various countries, there has been no real outreach to the overseas territories to see how they can be included in some of those negotiations and the impacts.
The joint declaration states very clearly that this is something that the UK Government should avoid. As we said before, if it is just words written on a piece of paper and is not being adhered to, it makes the joint declaration meaningless. We believe that we should adhere to the principle espoused in the joint declaration and do our utmost to consult the territories whenever there is anything that will affect them. Of course, Minister Doughty espouses the principle “nothing about you without you”. We would like to see that principle adhered to in all cases and situations.
I also endorse a point made by the representative of Anguilla. We also want to ensure that the role of the legislatures in areas that are devolved is respected, and that too is asserted in the joint declaration. In our constitutional change, we also seek formally in our constitutions that there must be consultation. That is something that we want included in our constitutions. Some overseas territories have language like that in their constitutions, but we believe we must have parity across overseas territories as it pertains to those types of provisions.
The Chair: Thank you very much; that is very clear.
Q61 Lord Jones of Penybont: I was struck by the evidence of Anguilla, and particularly the paragraph that says, “on occasion, interactions with certain personalities representing the UK Government may reasonably be defined as dominating and at times manipulative and discourteous”. Those are strong words, if I may put it that way. Bearing that in mind—I will ask Anguilla to deal with this first—the question that I would like to ask all our witnesses is this: what challenges still exist in dealing with the UK Government? How might those challenges be addressed?
Blondel Cluff: The words of our Premier are indeed strong, and they are borne out by recent experience. This goes on. It is live today. You ask how we can improve our situation. You need to look at whether we are welcome within this family, because often we do not feel welcome, and whether you wish to continue neglecting fundamental issues that affect the human rights and life chances of our people, because they still continue. Again, I refer to the frozen pensions. I refer to the fact that the population of 15,000 on Anguilla has more than doubled since the quota of five beds in the NHS was introduced. We are still lobbying for improvement on matters such as that, which could be fatal for some patients.
At the end of the day, how do we improve this? It is a question of whether you want us. Do you want us? How much do you value us? Do you value us to the same extent that you value the Crown dependencies and the devolved nations of the United Kingdom, or, to quote a former senior member of the Foreign Office, are we simply “obstreperous” “scraps of empire”? If that is the attitude that we see emanate from senior elements within the Foreign Office, the next question to you is whether the Foreign Office properly reflects the attitude of the UK as a whole, and by that I mean the people of the UK as opposed to solely its Government. It is a question for you.
We are trying very hard as territories to be part and parcel of this family, but at times we do not feel wanted, we do not feel respected, and, as my Premier said in her written evidence, we feel dominated at times, manipulated, and, sadly, on occasion abused. That is the situation. It is very important for the British in general and for the family of Britain in general that, if you are to continue to hold yourselves out as leaders in equity, equality and justice, invariably preaching to the world, you must practise what you preach. You should do so within your own family. Failing in that, ultimately, your own reputation will be at stake.
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: Perhaps I might add, Chair—thank you for the opportunity—that I believe one challenge that we face is that we are in a partnership that is supposed to be evolving and growing. We describe it as a modern partnership, but sometimes the ways of engaging and interacting seem quite antiquated. The way that we engage overseas territories does not reflect the modern partnership that we espouse. The challenge for us is to have a relationship that respects the principles and values that we espouse, whether it is the United Nations charter or our commitment to international law, Article 73 of the UN charter, this joint declaration, or aspects of the 1999 White Paper, or the 2012 White Paper that has not fully been implemented. I believe our lack of adherence to what we have committed to demonstrates the greatest dysfunction and lack of commitment. We must commit to what we have stated. I already espoused that we need a new White Paper that reflects the modern realities, as the representative of Anguilla said, especially as it pertains to climate change and things like that. To improve the relationship, we must have a level of accountability of adhering to the same principles that we have declared.
Kim Wilkerson: I endorse the comments of the other OTs in this realm. To the question of what could be improved, Bermuda certainly enjoys a high level of self-governance already, and we have made it clear that we are seeking more autonomy. One area for improvement that we believe could be advanced is that a Bermudian representative should be on the panel that selects the governor. When governors are deployed from the UK to the territories, an understanding of the culture to which they are coming and the issues in that territory, and for the territory to have some say about the compatibility of the governor for the territory, would be beneficial and respectful. That is one way in which we believe improvements could be made.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Lord Griffiths of Burry Port has an important question that I am sure you will be able to deal with.
Q62 Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: Thank you very much. Could I say thank you to the people who are helping us to focus our minds on the issues that are facing you? It is not a declaration of interest, but it is perhaps worth saying that I lived 10 years of my life in the Caribbean, and I have carried an affection for it in my heart ever since. It has been very good, since we have heard from Government Ministers and officials here, for us to have these complementary views, and I am sure it will be most helpful to us as a committee as we start to work with what we will have heard. I am very grateful for the clarity.
It is the United Kingdom and overseas territories, but it cannot just be narrowed down to that because all of you face not only a relationship with London but the issues that beat down on you locally in your part of the world from other directions as well, which I am sure you would want us in the United Kingdom to be aware of as much as anything internal to ourselves. Mention has been made of trade post Brexit and where some of the repercussions of all that have left the area, without feeling that you have been involved in the developments that have taken place as a result of that. From Washington, we have had the disappearance of overseas aid, and I do not know how much that affects the territories, but I cannot imagine that you have all steered clear of any effect from it at all.
Of course, there is always the question of migration. The Turks and Caicos situation was mentioned in Mr Misick’s introductory remarks. I lived for 10 years in Haiti, and I know there is a significant population of Haitians. With American policy about Haitians in America changing, you can expect a flood of more migrants coming before very long. I think I heard you say also that there are relationship difficulties with the Dominican Republic. I cannot think that migration is a topic that any of you feel unaffected by. The challenges facing you all from outside the narrowly defined agenda for today’s meeting, and yet very much part organically of the situation facing you as related to us in our family, might be useful for us to hear. At least a sketchy reply would help us see the bigger picture that is part of your context.
Blondel Cluff: First, we need to remember the geography: 81% of the population of the British Overseas Territories exist within the American continent. Indeed, if you watched the Super Bowl, you would have seen at half-time all our flags being celebrated as part of—and this is a very important word—that hemisphere.
With regard to Brexit, sadly, Anguilla had been overlooked, and we had to do a great deal of star jumping to have us taken into consideration, but, again, by then it was too late. We are heavily dependent on the French and Dutch for access to Anguilla, for the transshipment of goods, et cetera. We are a mere four miles away from the French borders. That, again because of our position within this family, was not a priority, but you could argue we have a direct border with the French and the Dutch.
With regard to migration, we have to look at the horizon of politics within the United Kingdom. It was mentioned by one political party that illegal immigrants to the United Kingdom may be sent to the British Overseas Territories, with particular reference to Ascension Island. Whereas that may sound amusing, cruise ships leave Southampton regularly and go towards the British Overseas Territories. It is not beyond the wit of man for us to be regarded as facing a tangible risk of our territories being used by the United Kingdom itself for that purpose.
I hear what my Lord says about the Haitian situation. Of course, I would have to defer to the Premier of Turks and Caicos. We do not yet face that. However, memoranda of understanding have been entered with surrounding islands in close proximity to Anguilla, for them to receive illegal immigrants from the United States of America. We have very little capacity to defend our borders from migration onwards to us. These are very realistic issues, and again I query whether anyone is taking these into consideration.
Harking back to an important point, the work done on the joint declaration of 2023 is obviously of huge value, but it is only of any consideration for us if it is placed in the right vehicle—I think that is a White Paper and possibly a refresh of the British Overseas Territories legislation—and, more importantly, if it is implemented and, more importantly than that, respected.
Kei-Retta Farrell: Montserrat is a full member of CARICOM and the OECS, so regional migration and the deportation arrangements presented by the recently signed MoUs by neighbouring islands like Antigua, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, present emerging security considerations for us. We are particularly exposed. We are engaging in regional conversations with those parties and bodies, and border security will continue to require our attention moving forward.
Charles Washington Misick: Within the overseas territories, we are uniquely challenged by security issues and the relationship to illegal or irregular immigration. It has a significant impact on our borders and within our territories in relation to informal settlements. There is one particular area of about 20 acres that probably has somewhere between about 7,000 to 10,000 people living in it. We have set up an informal settlement unit to try to deal with the challenge humanely. The UK Government are fully aware of the problems that we are having. The UK has been helpful in some areas and at some times, though I do not think the level of support has been to my satisfaction.
In terms of assistance with surveillance, particularly aerial surveillance, with the support of the United Kingdom two helicopters are stationed in the Cayman Islands. I do not know what the details of that arrangement are, but I would imagine, given the exposure of the TCI, that there should be serious consideration to having better air surveillance. Our radar coverage has grown, but it does not completely give us the full coverage that we require. Those are some of the areas in which the UK can continue to escalate the level of support for TCI.
The truth of the matter is that, any day of the week that the Haitian population decide they are going to take over, they can, just by sheer numbers—particularly the sheer numbers of Haitian males who live in the community in TCI, both regular and irregular migrants. It is an existential threat, as I said. I know sometimes it is easy to think that our policies are discriminatory, but the reality on the ground, once it is known, would be better understood. I cannot stress how important it is for the United Kingdom Government to continue to be engaged with the resolution of a properly functioning Administration in Haiti, because as long as that is not the case we will continue to have an escalated issue in relationship to that threat.
Haiti is not going to go anywhere. You cannot put a rope around it and tow it away. It will always be a threat as long as there is not stability there. Even with a settled Government, I do not think that stability will come overnight. We treat it the same way you treat a chronic, non-communicable disease, except that this one may be communicable. Excuse my comparison. We made a huge investment in making sure that we could interdict, detain and repatriate, but that is a huge strain on our budget, literally tens of millions of dollars a year in repatriation and provision of safe places while people are waiting for repatriation. There is also the impact from crime, potential crime, gun-toting vessels and fast boats, and the explosion in human trafficking. The other issue has to do with the EE zone in the Dominican Republic, where illegal poaching and fishing on our banks poses a resource depletion threat, which I believe the UK is not paying sufficient attention to.
May I add one other issue here that I might have forgotten to mention earlier? TCI was home to a number of US bases as a result of a post-war agreement with the United Kingdom, and some of them have been left. We are being challenged by the removal and treatment of a significant stock of asbestos or asbestos structures. I have written to the UK saying that to a large extent it is part of its responsibility to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos from those sites. That includes if they need to engage with the United States, because when the exit agreement was structured that should have been a part of it. Of course, at that time, no one knew, to the best I can determine, the severe danger of the carcinogenic material that was part of the asbestos construction material. That concerns me a great deal. There is one site in particular that we have been trying to deal with for the better part of the last 10 years, but we have not been able to because of the challenge we have with how it needs to be dealt with and disposed of. I recently wrote to the Foreign Secretary about that, some three, four or maybe even five months ago, and have not received any response.
The Chair: Bermuda, is there anything that you want to add to that?
Kim Wilkerson: No. Given our geographical location, migration is not an issue for Bermuda. Certainly, on the converse, in the geopolitical landscape we are paying attention to what is happening in the United States as it relates to its actions in other parts of the world. Bermuda is very much staying alert in that regard.
Dr Natalio D. Wheatley: I endorse the points made by the Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Hon Charles Washington Misick, who has an enormous challenge with illegal migration from Haiti. The Virgin Islands, to a lesser extent, have a similar challenge. We have Haitians illegally migrating, along with a number of other nationalities, but it is not just illegal migration. Because of our geography, caught between North and South America, we face the challenges of human trafficking, gun smuggling and drug smuggling. The United Kingdom is responsible for our external security. These threaten our livelihoods, our economy and our tourism product. They are huge threats to us.
I agree with Premier Misick that more can be done by the United Kingdom to disrupt and to address the threat that we face from these illicit activities. Of course, we understand that the United Kingdom has capacity constraints, but they could even just work with us here and some of our partners in the region, including the members of CARICOM, OECS and the French and Dutch territories. We are right next to the United States Virgin Islands, a territory of the United States. We have big independent Caribbean nations such as the Dominican Republic and others. The United Kingdom could also play a very supportive role in facilitating discussions among all the various entities in coming up with a security framework. That would greatly reduce our vulnerabilities and would certainly be welcome.
The Chair: Thank you very much indeed for answering that question so fully. We have come to the end of all the questions that we want to put to you at the moment. We may have others, in which case we can come back to you individually, and see your written evidence and so on. On behalf of the committee, I thank you all very much for coming along and either appearing in person or remotely. It has worked extremely well. You may feel that you have already made a lot of these complaints many times in the past, but this is a new inquiry for us, a new direction. We have very much taken on board the messages that you have sent out during the course of the morning. We are aware that some of you have had to get up very early this morning indeed. I call this session to an end.
