Monday, November 9, will be recorded as a sad day in Anguilla. It was then that the galleries of the House of Assembly exploded into an angry and high-pitched scene as demonstrators forcefully shouted down the first reading of the Banking Bill 2015. While the conduct of a number of persons was deplorable, it is understood that persons have a right to express their concerns and fears on any matter, but with reasonable respect and dignity.
The stringent draft Banking Bill, giving certain wide powers to the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank over the indigenous commercial banks, and related matters, was tailored for conformity and adaption by all eight member territories. This includes, of course, Anguilla with its own peculiar on-going problems stemming from the August 2015 conservatorship of the National Bank of Anguilla and the Caribbean Commercial Bank, both owned by the people of the island as shareholders.
By all accounts, the Banking Bill is not a “just come” piece of legislation since it has been reluctantly, or otherwise, passed in the parliaments of the other islands. It has been reported that the former Government of Anguilla was not only aware of it, but that it was allegedly “signed off” for eventual adaption in Anguilla by the then Chief Minister and Minister of Finance, Mr. Hubert Hughes. The Bill is part of previous pieces of controlling legislation originating from the Central Bank’s Monetary Council, some of which was already passed by the Anguilla House of Assembly following the conservatorship of the island’s banks.
What happened in the House of Assembly, the likes of which have not been seen before, should never have been allowed to happen – in the sense that vital information appears to have been withheld from the people. On one hand, the people were allegedly led to believe that the former Chief Minister, who was a member of the Monetary Council, was not privy to certain information about the conservatorship of the banks. On the other hand, the present Government, which was swept into office on April 22, in the general election, have been saying they have to catch up on the situation to know what was happening. They too, had no available information to disseminate.
It was only when Mr. Victor Banks became Chairman of the Monetary Council, in July this year, that most of the people of Anguilla recall hearing about the Banking Bill and some veiled official disfavour about it. At that time, taking into account that other territories had adapted and passed the Bill, Mr. Banks, also considering its application to Anguilla and the island’s differing circumstances, remarked: “One size does not fit all”. It now appears, however, that there is a developing situation where Anguilla, with all its attendant banking problems, is being pressured into submission one way or the other to resolve the banking crisis. In the words of the Minister of Home Affairs, “we are between the devil and the deep blue sea”.
It came out of the Government’s press conference this week that Anguilla has two options: one to go the Central Bank way where the island can pass the Banking Bill and safeguard one, if not both banks, but with greater control by the ECCB – and can, like Tortola, eventually say goodbye to the ECCB and become its own regulator. The other option is to allow the banks to continue as they are, giving the UK Government an opportunity to step in and take control of their regulation through the Financial Services Commission. The fear was even expressed that if, for some reason, the latter option fails, the Anguilla Banks, like one or two Turks and Caicos banks, may eventually be closed down at a loss to everyone. But how much of this can be accepted at face value is something to ponder.
Returning to the Banking Bill, it is fair to conclude that there had been a deafening silence about it by the previous Government. Secondly, with the Bill coming to the attention of the present Government, somebody could have brought its provisions and intent to the Anguillian public before now. Its sudden appearance on the Order of Business of the House of Assembly, and the flying rumours and fears it engendered, could have been avoided. It is a case of a lack of advanced public consultation and a gross failure in public relations. The ruckus in the House of Assembly, though it may be claimed as a normal and democratic reaction of a concerned or uninformed people, was nevertheless a sad day in Anguilla and should never have been allowed to reach that far. At the same time, the demonstrators could have been more civil and obedient to the Police, the Speaker, and those of their own number who sought unsuccessfully to control their heated emotions.
