Written evidence submitted by Mrs. Saskia Hughes-Tjeerdsma (TTC 29)

Background

I am a Dutch citizen formerly resident in Sint Maarten in the Dutch Caribbean, which shares an island with the French overseas collectivity of Saint-Martin while my late husband was from Anguilla, its northern neighbour and a British Overseas Territory.

As a result, I am in a position to compare and contrast the constitutional arrangements of the three European countries in respect of their overseas territories in the region, not least in the wake of Brexit, with Anguilla ceasing to be one of the EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs).

Reason for this contribution

Unfortunately, in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s 2019 report, “Global Britain and the British Overseas Territories: Resetting the relationship,” there was no mention at all of the Dutch Caribbean islands, nor anything from the Dutch Embassy in London. By contrast, the French and Danish ones both answered queries from the FAC, as did the New Zealand High Commission.

Consequently, the FAC was deprived of information on a model more pragmatic and flexible than the French one, one that takes into greater account socioeconomic and geopolitical differences from the metropolis, with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, covering the Dutch Caribbean islands as well as the Netherlands proper, being more like a loose confederation than a unitary state.

Following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles in 2010, the Dutch Caribbean comprises three constituent countries within the Kingdom, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten, and three special municipalities of the Netherlands proper, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, collectively known as the Caribbean Netherlands. These have different relationships with the Netherlands proper, including in relation to “metropolitan” voting rights and parliamentary representation.

This is an important point as there is an assumption in the UK that all other European countries with overseas territories give all of them full metropolitan voting rights and parliamentary representation, this has never entirely been case with the Netherlands.

While I do not wish to idealize the Dutch Caribbean arrangements, any examination by your Parliament of the constitutional relationship between the British Overseas Territories and the UK should have a comparison of similar relationships such as this one, which, regrettably, has been lacking.

Kingdom of the Netherlands vs The Netherlands

As many English-speakers are unable to differentiate between “The Netherlands” and “Holland”, it is not surprising that the difference between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and The Netherlands is not well understood. In Dutch, the former, known as Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, is in the plural, whereas the latter, Nederland, in the singular, but this is lost in translation.

However, there is a similar confusion between “UK” and “British”, especially in relation to the Overseas Territories, with the two terms being used interchangeably, with the latter being an adjective in search of a noun, since “British Empire” is politically incorrect.

The constitutional framework, known as the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was first established in 1954, with the Kingdom then comprising the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, akin in some respects to the short-lived British West Indies Federation, and Suriname, which became an independent republic in 1975. 

In Dutch political terminology, “Kingdom” is used to refer to matters affecting all of the constituent countries, hence the responsible government department in The Hague being the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, while there is a Select Committee of the House of Representatives for Kingdom Relations, separate from that for the Interior, despite falling under the same Ministry.

Also, there is a Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which comprises the Council of Ministers of the Netherlands, formed following elections to the House of Representatives, and the Ministers-Plenipotentiary of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, who represent their respective governments in The Hague. This means that they continue to be represented in the Cabinet even if a new election is called in the Netherlands and/or a new Dutch government is formed. 

In the UK system, by contrast,  responsibility for the Overseas Territories is just one portfolio of several held by a junior Minister, usually in the Lords instead of the Commons, with few lasting long in the job. Only last year we saw the consequences of this, with the OTs being left without a Minister, just as their leaders had arrived in London for the Joint Ministerial Council, only to learn it had been postponed!

Essentially, “Kingdom” matters, and hence “Kingdom” Acts of Parliament, are limited to defence, foreign relations, citizenship, immigration and national symbols, comparable to those reserved to the UK in respect of its Overseas Territories, and considerably smaller in number than those of France in its overseas departments, regions, and collectivities.

However, there are also “Consensus Kingdom Acts”, which extend to domestic matters in all parts of the Kingdom, though these are seen less as consensual and more as constitutional overreach by The Hague, especially over their finance centres, including those in the special municipalities, echoing concerns in the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies about this by Westminster.  

Originally, the Caribbean islands were not given voting rights, neither able to vote for the same candidates as the metropolis, nor for their own members. Under the Charter of the Kingdom, the parliament of the then Netherlands Antilles, and until 1975, Suriname, had the right to elect delegates to the House of Representatives, who could speak in debates, but not vote on any law, those rights were usually exercised by their Minister-Plenipotentiary in The Hague.

Parliamentary representation

One feature of the Dutch parliamentary system is that it does not divide the country up into smaller constituencies, either single-member ones, as is the case with the UK’s House of Commons and France’s National Assembly, or multi-member ones, like the Danish Parliament, with Greenland and the Faroes electing two MPs each. Unlike Denmark, which has a unicameral system, the Netherlands retains a bicameral one with an indirectly elected Senate, similar to France. 

Instead, the Dutch House of Representatives is elected from a single nationwide constituency, with its 150 members representing the Netherlands as a whole, European and Caribbean, but not the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Consequently, while Joris Wuite, the former Minister-Plenipotentiary of Sint Maarten, is now an MP, she does not represent it as it does not form part of the Caribbean Netherlands.

Similarly, the 75 members of the Senate no longer represent individual provinces, although it is still indirectly elected by members of provincial assemblies, and by those of island councils in the Caribbean Netherlands, special municipalities because they do not form part of any province.

When the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved, and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba became special municipalities of the Netherlands, and as such, gained full metropolitan Dutch voting rights, though with barely 28 000 people, it made virtually no difference. A local campaign group, Nos Kier Boneiru Bek (NKBB, or in Papiamento, “We Want Bonaire Back”) points out that in the European Netherlands, it takes 70 000 voters to elect an MP, whereas Bonaire has an electorate of only 12 000.

Consequently, unlike the Falkland Islands, which have argued that a dedicated MP in the House of Commons would reduce their ability to lobby all 650 of them, for Bonaire the problem is the precise opposite, namely none of the 150 MPs in The Hague are able to represent its interests full time.

On the other hand, the constituent countries did not gain these rights in 2010, on the grounds they were not part of the Netherlands proper, so not subject to its laws, a position upheld by the Dutch Council of State (Privy Council) in 2017. Earlier in 2007, a case brought by Dutch citizens in Aruba before the European Court of Human Rights was ruled as inadmissible, on the grounds that they were eligible to vote for their own Aruban parliament, which in turn had the right to send delegates to The Hague.  

Parliamentary committee

There is a Select Committee for Kingdom Relations, of 30 permanent members, with a further 30 substitutes, in contrast to the more informal All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) system in Westminster, in which some Overseas Territories are better represented than others; there is currently no APPG on Anguilla, despite the presence of a Anguillan diaspora in the UK, mainly concentrated in Slough.

Unfortunately, Select Committee visits to the Dutch Caribbean are often branded as junkets, while in the islands, some of its members are accused of a lack of prior local knowledge; one official in Saba, when asked about the editorial independence of the local TV station, had to explain to them it didn’t have one!

In fairness, they have taken up issues in the Caribbean Netherlands, where integration with the Netherlands proper is a work in progress, relating to broadband speeds, access to NPO Start (the equivalent of BBC iPlayer) and the continued absence of a postcode system, complicating registration with government agencies. By contrast, French citizens in Saint-Martin and other French islands face less such problems, while even Anguilla has its own generic postcode “AI-2640”, even if UK companies won’t ship there.

With regard to Select Committees, there was talk of the UK setting up a dedicated Select Committee for the Overseas Territories, but there were concerns about this allowing MPs to be even more intrusive. In the Dutch system, the integration of the smaller Caribbean islands into the Netherlands proper is also a factor, with the National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands having much more of a “hands on” role on account of its responsibilities, greater than those of the UK in the British Overseas Territories.

Unlike their British counterparts, where pressure from Westminster to allow same-sex marriage has been more indirect, despite Lord Michael Cashman’s Private Member’s Bill, in the Caribbean Netherlands, metropolitan laws on this, and on euthanasia, were simply extended to them. This led to a referendum on Bonaire’s status in 2015, with “no” campaigners focusing on the imposition of socially liberal Dutch values on a socially conservative Caribbean society.

Parliamentary legislation

When Kingdom Bills are introduced in the Dutch Parliament, following the agreement of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, they are also submitted simultaneously to the parliaments of each of the Caribbean countries, which may then designate some of their members as special delegates to the House of Representatives to furnish debates, in addition to their Ministers-Plenipotentiary.

While the Minister-Plenipotentiary (or a special delegate) of a Caribbean country may not vote on a Kingdom Bill in the House of Representatives, they do have the right to request the postponement of a final vote if they do not agree with it, and if the bill does not have the required three-fifths majority, the proceedings are suspended. This, arguably, gives of the countries, if not a veto, then greater influence over Kingdom Acts than dedicated MPs in the House of Representatives would do.   

More contentious, however, has been the trend towards Consensus Kingdom Acts, which encroach onto domestic matters in the Caribbean countries, most significantly financial management, even though there has been a greater influence and input from those countries than there was from the Overseas Territories prior to the passing of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act (SAMLA) by Westminster.

Interparliamentary consultation

In addition to the Caribbean countries being indirectly represented in the House of Representatives, there is also a forum known as the Interparliamentary Kingdom Consultation. This meets twice a year, once in The Hague and once in one of the three Caribbean countries, to demonstrate, at least in theory, that the Caribbean countries within the Kingdom are constitutionally equal to the European Netherlands.

One weakness is the absence of a direct voice for the Caribbean Netherlands, given that they have neither a dedicated MP nor Senator, on account of the Dutch electoral system, and nor can their island councils represent them. As a result, they are represented in the forum by politicians who do not live in the islands, or even the surrounding region, although metropolitan politicians do make working visits to them.

Conclusion

The fact that the Netherlands uses a nationwide constituency for its parliamentary elections means it is even more removed from the British system than the French and Danish ones are; apart from Israel, few sizeable parliamentary democracies use this ‘pure PR’ system, Germany and New Zealand use a hybrid. It is highly unlikely the UK would adopt such a system for Westminster elections, irrespective of whether or not the Overseas Territories voted in them.

On the other hand, the system of indirectly elected delegates, with or without voting rights, could be more feasible, balancing metropolitan parliamentary representation on the one hand with local self-government on the other.  In 1991, some years before the Scottish Parliament was established, the Economist suggested that instead of Scotland continuing to elect MPs to the House of Commons Westminster, the devolved parliament in Edinburgh should send some of its members to only when it voted on UK-wide issues.

As I said in my introduction, I do not wish to idealize the Dutch Caribbean islands’ constitutional arrangements, and recognize the electoral system is the total opposite of the one you were elected under. In addition, while the relationship of the Dutch Caribbean countries with The Hague is looser than that of their French counterparts with Paris, it is still tighter than that of their British ones with London. 

However, given the Netherlands has a greater cultural affinity with Great Britain than France does in other respects, and has overseas territories in the Caribbean, unlike Denmark, its experiences with its wider “family” should be of equal relevance and interest to your Committee, if not greater.