Ascension : OPEN LETTER TO LORD TRIESMAN
Submitted by The Islander (Nathan Prince) 23.02.2006 (Article Archived on 09.03.2006)

As the vast majority of the points raised in our letter to you dated 7 December 2005 remain unanswered, there are many unresolved issues for the people of Ascension Island.

OPEN LETTER TO LORD TRIESMAN

Dear Sir,

As the vast majority of the points raised in our letter to you dated 7 December 2005 remain unanswered, there are many unresolved issues for the people of Ascension Island.

At the latest Council Meeting the Administrator when questioned, stated that the previously promised Consultative Poll would not now be undertaken, instead we have heard repeatedly from FCO Officials and Ministers that “there is no indigenous population and people only live and work there for the duration of their contracts”. The Council is astonished that you were able to make your decision regarding property rights and right of abode without such a Consultation.  We are now conducting such a poll for ourselves.  The facts are that some people have lived in Ascension for more than 40 years.  Some inhabitants have children and grandchildren born in Ascension.  Some people have always lived in Ascension and consider it their home.  HMG has a responsibility for these people whether they live on St Helena, Ascension or in the UK.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that the basis on which people come to Ascension has not changed.  Of course it has.  The past 5 years has seen a relaxing of the Entry Control Ordinance to allow people to move to Ascension to be with families and to seek employment should they so wish after their arrival.  Local businesses have been developed whereby the owners are not covered under any main ‘User’ contracts. 

During the Adjournment Debate held on 15^th February, Douglas Alexander stated that perhaps there had been confusion on our part over what the FCO had proposed for the future of Ascension.  We attach as an appendix¹ a short resume concerning the divergent backgrounds, qualifications and careers of the members of the First Island Council in order to accentuate our point that at no stage were any of the Elected Members of the First (or for that matter the Second) Council “confused”; the inference that we were is somewhat insulting. As Mr Douglas mentioned during the Debate the Ascension Island Council has three non-elected members, these are the Governor, the Attorney General and the Director of Finance for A.I.G.; is he seriously suggesting that during the Council’s first term two Governors, two Attorney Generals, two Directors of Finance, a QC and at least one Administrator have been similarly confused by their own department’s intentions, as these people have actively encouraged the Council in its moves to right of abode and property ownership.  In fact copies of the minutes of all Council meetings were sent to FCO which demonstrates that FCO was aware of and approved of the island Council’s Strategic Plan for Ascension. We also found it completely incredulous that those persons on Ascension who have invested substantial sums in new businesses, in some cases after abandoning their former careers, did so while in a state of “confusion”.  This is simply not true, the Council and Individuals acted having had expectations created and built up by the words and deeds of several FCO Officials during a period of years.  Finally we note that in Douglas Alexander’s concluding remarks in the Debate he stated that “I have been most scrupulous in my language today, making it clear that there may have been confusion. … It is helpful to have clarified that point, but I would draw a clear distinction between expectation and confusion.”  Yet moments earlier (three paragraphs higher in the Hansard record) Mr. Alexander stated that “when they [FCO Officials] visited the Island in November it was made clear to them [the Island Council] that those with expectations of securing property rights …. ”  So it appears that if anyone is “confused”, it is Douglas Alexander and certainly not ourselves. The “confusion” referred to by Mr Alexander did not arise through lack of understanding on the part of Islanders, it has arisen because islanders understood what the FCO’s previous position was and acted upon it.  It is the change of position without warning or adequate explanation, which is apt to confuse.

Council are finding it impossible to obtain real and definitive information from FCO officials and representatives and are now being ignored by them.  We can only presume that your emergent thinking did not include the consequences that would arise and how to deal with them.  It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is an absence of effective policy and equally apparent that Council is to be excluded as far as is possible from the formation of any new policy.  Please refer to Minute 5 of Island Council meeting of 26 January 2006.

Therefore we ask you once again in the interests of fair play, openness transparency, democracy and good governance that you quantify the contingent liabilities that have led to your decision, agree to reconsider your decision if solutions to these liabilities can be found and, as requested in our original letter, that the ‘Summit Proper’ be honoured and that we be given the opportunity to address all of the issues directly with you and that you undertake to make available to us those issues in good time prior to the Summit.

Yours sincerely

Elected Representatives of the Ascension Island Council.

¹ not included for publication in the Islander in the interests of brevity but has been sent to Lord Triesman.