Commentary
The White Paper - An exchangebetween Baroness Scotland and the Rev'd Nicholas Sykes
Acting upon the advice of his colleagues,Secretary of the Cayman Ministers' Association (CMA), The ReverendNicholas Sykes, in late October, wrote Parliamentary Under Secretaryof State in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), BaronessPatricia Scotland, drawing her attention to the many concernsthe organisation had about the White Paper on Overseas Territories.
In the letter, the Reverend Sykes noted that the Associationhad particular concerns relating to:
* the basis and theory of the proposed partnership
* Citizenship
* The international conventions and their implications for Cayman,and
* The financial implications for the community
The following is the text of Baroness Scotland's response:
24 November 2000
Dear Revd Sykes
Thank you for your thought-provoking letterof October 23. My apologies for not having replied to it sooner.But you raise some fundamental issues that I wanted to reviewcarefully.
The White Paper has at its heart proposals to modernise the relationshipbetween the UK and her Overseas Territories. The change of namefor the Territories is itself symptomatic of this. We want toenjoy a partnership with those territories which have freely decidedthat they wish to retain the constitutional link with Britain.
Within that relationship it is open to any territory to determinewhether it wishes to continue with it or to opt for some otherconstitutional arrangement, such as independence, where that isan option. We are also prepared, as we have done, to devolve agreat deal of responsibility to local legislatures to determinethe internal affairs of the territory.
But by opting to retain the link with Britain and with it acceptingwhat we offer you by way of security, international representationand support and so on, the territory is implicitly accepting obligationstoo. Some of those obligations are discussed in detail in theWhite Paper.
One area in which we are determined that our Overseas Territorieswill not be open to criticism is in the field of human rights.To ensure this, and to guarantee that the fundamental rights ofall people in the Overseas Territories to live without fear ofdiscrimination are respected, we have asked Governments of theOverseas Territories to introduce appropriate legislation wherenecessary. Only if this is not done will we impose legislationvia an Order of Council.
You asked about the offer of Citizenship that we set out in theWhite paper and the implications for freedom of movement of people.I cannot forecast what may happen in future, but I would say thatit is not our intention, either as a matter of policy or practice,to do other than we have said we would, namely to make the offerof Citizenship on a non-reciprocal basis.
On the point of international conventions, I think your fearsare largely misplaced. No international conventions are extendedto the Cayman Islands without the agreement of the Government.So there is always scope for discussion locally on this point.But in addition to formal conventions, there are issues that arenot formalised in this way that will affect the Overseas Territories.
If the territories want to be United Kingdom Overseas Territories,then they are accepting that ultimately we have the responsibilityfor their good governance. Over time, this means that we willwant to ensure that internationally accepted standards and bestpractice are observed in the Overseas Territories.
We discuss these as they emerged from international dialogue withour partners in the Overseas Territories and do so now more systematicallythan in the past and in a spirit of consultation that we wantto characterise the new partnership.
May I in conclusion reassure you and the members of your Associationthat we are conscious that for a partnership to be effective itrequires both partners to be willing to make it work. We lookforward to working with the Government of the people of the CaymanIslands to make our partnership with you a vehicle to help generatea better life for all the people of the territory.
Yours sincerely
Baroness Scotland, QC.
In a letter dated December 6, Rev'd Sykesreplied:
Dear Baroness Scotland,
Your letter of the 24th November was receivedby me this week, and we thank you for the communication. SinceMr. John White, Head of the Overseas Territories Department ,is currently in the Islands, we are writing now in time for himto be able to see the letter and take a copy of it.
Certainly we would agree that the link with Britain to which yourefer must involve not only benefits to Overseas Territories butalso obligations on their part. This is an issue that goes tothe heart of the discussion.
One of the things that the Association is uncomfortable about,and we believe we speak for the community as a whole in this,is that any attempt to reach a consensus in the community on theallowable nature and extent of the obligations expected of ithas up to now been altogether insufficient.
If the Cayman Islands government had merely been dilatory in notcompleting a legislative procedure that the community as a wholewas prepared for,then justification for imposing the legislationclaimed to be necessary on human rights
grounds might become apparent to us.
This is not, however, the case. In not responding in the way theU.K. government wishes in this matter, the Cayman Islands governmenthas in fact been fully in step with the community.
We believe that in the absence of reaching the "first post"in the process of achieving wide consensus in the community, whichis presumably what was hoped for when the White Paper was published,it would be exceedingly unwise of the British Government to drivethrough legislation by imposition.
Even the White Paper itself speaks of the matter in terms of whatthe UK government would like to see happen and in terms of whatit could do rather than in terms of what it would enforce.
This implied that consensus by the community was important. Wewant to question whether, in the absence of consensus, an impositionof social legislation, which is seen to bear directly on the communitywith considerable long-term effects upon it, can do anything topromote rather than devalue the partnership which the BritishGovernment itself desires.
Your letter implies that the current proposal to have the CaymanIslands homosexuality legislation changed might come under a generalheading of promoting good governance rather than one of conformingto international conventions.
We consider that since matters of good governance would be allowedsystematic discussion and a spirit of consultation characteristicto the new partnership, the patience in this matter to conductdiscussion and consultation (which must include the communitiesconcerned) should continue to be shown by the British Governmentand by governments of the Overseas Territories.
This would be preferable by far to seeing the process shot downby the untimely imposition of a change. If this sort of disciplinedapproach is followed not only to this but to other issues also,both parties can expect to benefit from the partnership.
We thank you again for your letter, and pray for God's blessingson the Government and people of the United Kingdom.
Yours sincerely,
(The Rev'd) Nicholas J.G. Sykes, Secretary, Cayman Ministers'Association