Dear Mr Editor,
Your readers may be interested to learn the following, which I consider to be of public interest.
On 15 April 2019 I received by email an invitation from the Clerk to the House of Assembly to attend a two-day meeting of a Committee of the Whole House of Assembly scheduled to be held in two days’ time, on 17 and 18 April. The purpose was said to be essentially to plan the way forward on the 2017 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee.
I replied by email that I was willing to attend, but as I had to leave the island immediately to attend an important private engagement in London on 18 April, I was regretfully obliged to miss the meetings of the House. I urged that the most active members of the 2017 Committee (who had carried most of the heavy load in preparing the Report) be invited in my place. They were Ms Marie Horsford, Ms Kristy Richardson, and Mr Stanley Reid, OBE. I explained that I was confident they could ably represent the views of the Committee to the Members of the House.
Enclosed with the notice of the meeting of the House was a copy of Professor Vernon Bogdanor’s January 2019 comments on the draft Constitution. Your readers will recall that, though the Committee did include in its Report a suggested draft of what the new Constitution might look like, the Committee was careful to explain that its mandate was not to draft a new Constitution. The draft which we did prepare on our initiative and which we included in our Report was not meant to be definitive. It was merely an attempt to demonstrate what the Committee’s recommendations might look like when converted into the language of a Constitution. We made it clear that we expected professional constitutional draughtspersons to complete the real Constitution in accordance with established constitutional drafting principles and incorporating all the important points in the Report.
Your readers will recall from press reports that Mrs Blondel Clough subsequently introduced a Professor Bogdanor to the government of Anguilla. He undertook to look at the Committee’s draft and to make some observations for Government’s consideration. A copy of his report to government was included in the invitation from the Clerk to the Assembly. On reading the Professor’s report, I learned with interest that he submitted it to Government as long ago as January 2019. I do not recall any public announcement of the receipt of the Professor’s report, but I may have missed it.
Some of the Professor’s main observations and recommendations include the following:
1. He queries whether the Constitution’s Preamble should contain, as proposed, a reference to God as this may suggest that atheists or agnostics are second-class citizens.
2. He suggests that we look at the European Convention on Fundamental Rights, and perhaps adopt it wholesale. Or, we might adopt the recent more comprehensive European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.
3. He notes that protection of the environment is missing.
4. He notes that the European Convention provision for a right to education is missing.
5. He suggests considering whether the European Union’s Charter provision for a right to healthcare, as well as various other more modern rights, including a wide-ranging right to equality, should not be in the Constitution.
6. On the appointment of the Governor, he suggests that the consent of the Premier to any appointment should be a prerequisite, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
7. On the appointment of the Deputy Governor, he recommends that the Premier and Leader of the Opposition should jointly decide on a single name, subject to a veto by the Governor.
8. He argues against fixed term parliaments, as that would mean that deadlocks cannot be resolved. He sets out a number of scenarios for dissolution of parliament, and concludes that even with a fixed term, parliament should be enabled to vote for an earlier dissolution.
9. He recommends that the Constitution should provide that the leader of the largest party not in government shall be appointed Leader of the Opposition.
10. On referendums he has a number of suggestions, mainly to provide that a referendum outcome should not be binding.
11. Finally, he suggests that Anguilla should have some powers, to be shared with the British government, on international affairs in relation to Brexit, and also perhaps on financial services.
Having returned to Anguilla from London on Sunday 21 April, I hoped to receive some report on the outcome of the meeting of the House. Your readers will not be surprised to hear that I was particularly concerned to learn whether members of government had given any hint of provisions of the 2017 Report that they did not accept. However, to this date I have not heard anything.
Now, on 30 April, I am invited by the Clerk of the House to a further meeting of the Committee of the Whole House to discuss “a first draft of the House Committee Report of it’s [sic] findings. which will be forwarded to all on the 2nd May.” The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, 7 and 8 May. From the invitation, I learn that the Committee of the House has flagged certain of the 2017 Report’s recommendations as being “of concern”. I gather that the House is finished with the Committee’s 2017 Report. Which specific provisions are referred to as being of concern are not explained. What the concerns are is not revealed.
It is now Sunday 5 May. I am now concerned. I still have not received the promised draft of the House Committee Report. I am apparently expected to turn up at a meeting in two days’ time to discuss constitutional concerns of which I have not been made previously aware.
Given the importance of this exercise, I would have thought that at least two weeks’ notice, with a copy of the concerns that are going to be discussed, would be beneficial before the House meets to finalise its Report for submission to the public.
