E-borders Referred To In Chief Secretaries Service Delivery Plan 2008!

[Dodger]

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/cso/plan/chiefsecretaries.pdf

 

The recently published Chief Secretaries Service Delivery Plan 2008 confirms her office's 'Strategic Objective' as:

 

“Participation in the UK e-Borders programme”

 

But the Council of Ministers high level strategic group is also looking at the effect of e-Borders on the Isle of Man. In the COMIN minutes for January 2008 (No. 7) states that:

 

“Council considered a paper submitted by the Chief Secretary updating Council on the current position in relation to both e-Borders and the Common Travel Area (which are inter-related) and seeking Council's further agreement on how to proceed. “

 

Therefore the Chief Secretaries office IS the high level strategic group!

 

So who is writing the policy on e-Borders? The Chief Secretary (who gets her policies from the UK and is responsible for passports and immigration), or our own Council of Ministers?

 

The Chief Secretary states her office will:

 

'Develop a legislative and regulatory basis for a Borders Strategy that meets the needs of the IOM in consultation with stakeholders in and outside Government.'

 

Does the Chief Secretary think the voters are also stakeholders? Does she mean those eligible to vote? Who speaks for the children who will also be expected to have their travel and personal details taken and stored for up to 10 years?

 

It is very disconcerting that information about e-Borders is being delivered piecemeal and released within a standard document at the same time as 20 other Government policy documents.

 

If we are to use our passports to travel across as well as handing over our personal data to a UK database surely this is a matter for public consultation? As a minimum there should be a select committee looking into it so we have an open debate! There are outside parties that can provide information on policy. The debate should be in the public domain, and not hidden behind closed doors within multiple releases of documentation!

 

When will Tynwald debate the matter? Will it be when legislation is brought before it? Will the Council members be given a free/conscience vote or will it be as per the House of Keys Hansard minutes for 13th March 2007, in which the Chief Minister states: “I would hope that in terms of anything such as this that the Council of Ministers will have considered it very carefully, if there is a need to introduce such legislation and in fact will be as one to take it forward”.

 

With the Chief Secretaries offices providing all the information, will we ever have access to the minutes from the meetings of this high level strategic group so we can have an informed local debate? How will the debate be balanced so as to avoid a likely bias towards compliance with UK policy? The Chief Secretaries Office supports 'Good Governance’. Surely that means consulting the voters on major changes to our travel freedoms!

[bluemonday]

support the good government of the Isle of Man

Made I laugh that did.

We will:-

Develop and co-ordinate the policy framework to

regenerate the Island’s towns and villages

Fear not Ramsey!

[Skeddan]

...

Therefore the Chief Secretaries office IS the high level strategic group!

 

So who is writing the policy on e-Borders? The Chief Secretary (who gets her policies from the UK and is responsible for passports and immigration), or our own Council of Ministers?

...

Dodger, I think you are quite right if you are suggesting that the Chief Secretary's role is one of carrying out the UK's responsibility for 'good government' and gets policies to be implemented in IoM from Westminster.

 

How will the debate be balanced so as to avoid a likely bias towards compliance with UK policy? The Chief Secretaries Office supports 'Good Governance’. Surely that means consulting the voters on major changes to our travel freedoms!

No, it doesn't necessarily mean this. The prerogative for ensuring 'good government' doesn't require democratic approval. At least no more than an Administering Power or Occupying Power is obliged to obtain democratic approval for policies for 'peace order and good government' in territory in its possession. It may be politic to keep a semblance that there is autonomy and democratic home rule in such affairs, but it doesn't mean the voters or MHKs have any right to any say in executive matters managed by Westminster through the Chief Secretary.

 

This comes down to the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK (yawn). This is just another example of this 'custodian' relationship in practice. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and 'in effect' behaves like a duck, then why suppose it is a strangely behaved swan? The legal stuff to do with this relationship and 'Crown possession' might be obscure and boring, but if you dissect it, I think you'll find 'Crown Dependency' doesn't mean quite what some people might like to think it does.

[Cronky]

The Chief Secretaries Office supports 'Good Governance’. Surely that means consulting the voters on major changes to our travel freedoms!

 

Interesing that. If I remember rightly, when the 'Crown Commissioner' debate was going on Her Majesty wrote to the Isle of Man Government and asked if there had been sufficient public consultation.

 

I.e. in a matter of constitutional reform it was seen by the UK as 'Good Governance' to seek the opinion of the locals.

[Dodger]

I wonder if the consultation process (if they have one) will be as well balanced as the Floridation and all island speed limit!

[Skeddan]

If I remember rightly, when the 'Crown Commissioner' debate was going on Her Majesty wrote to the Isle of Man Government and asked if there had been sufficient public consultation.

 

I.e. in a matter of constitutional reform it was seen by the UK as 'Good Governance' to seek the opinion of the locals.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion from this letter that seeking the opinion of the locals is seen by the UK as 'good governance'.

 

In any case having obtained that opinion there is no obligation to abide by it.

 

The letter as you give it makes public consultation sound a bit like a persuasion technique. i.e. if the public hasn't been won over to support the desired position in an important matter, there hasn't been sufficient public consultation - in which case a bit more 'consultation' might have to be used.

[Cronky]

Skeddan, you make a couple of interesting points:

 

it doesn't mean the voters or MHKs have any right to any say in executive matters managed by Westminster through the Chief Secretary.

 

So why doesn't Westminster choose to manage our tax rates??

 

The letter as you give it makes public consultation sound a bit like a persuasion technique. i.e. if the public hasn't been won over to support the desired position in an important matter, there hasn't been sufficient public consultation - in which case a bit more 'consultation' might have to be used.

 

Quite so. Keep having a referendum until you get the result you want! It will be interesting to see where the flouridation 'consultation' takes us!

[bluemonday]

The letter as you give it makes public consultation sound a bit like a persuasion technique. i.e. if the public hasn't been won over to support the desired position in an important matter, there hasn't been sufficient public consultation - in which case a bit more 'consultation' might have to be used.

 

Perhaps a visit from Doug and Dinsdale Piranha?

[Skeddan]

it doesn't mean the voters or MHKs have any right to any say in executive matters managed by Westminster through the Chief Secretary.

 

So why doesn't Westminster choose to manage our tax rates??

What makes you think they don't?

[triskelion]

it doesn't mean the voters or MHKs have any right to any say in executive matters managed by Westminster through the Chief Secretary.

 

So why doesn't Westminster choose to manage our tax rates??

What makes you think they don't?

What makes you think the IoM just does what the UK tells them?

[Skeddan]

it doesn't mean the voters or MHKs have any right to any say in executive matters managed by Westminster through the Chief Secretary.

 

So why doesn't Westminster choose to manage our tax rates??

What makes you think they don't?

What makes you think the IoM just does what the UK tells them?

BBC Licence Fee (a Television Tax) is an example. (Westminster legislation extended to IoM by an Order in Council). If Westminster can impose this tax on IoM in this manner, then no reason why Westminster cannot manage other taxes in IoM if they chose to.

[Hermes]

There is a long history of Westminster passing laws on the IOM - The Fiscal Reform Act of 1844 being a case in point. This imposed the rates of insular customs tariffs, effectively harmonising them with those of Great Britain. It was never read in Tynwald but was passed into law.

 

Political apathy is a big problem here at the moment.

[Skeddan]

There is a long history of Westminster passing laws on the IOM - The Fiscal Reform Act of 1844 being a case in point. This imposed the rates of insular customs tariffs, effectively harmonising them with those of Great Britain. It was never read in Tynwald but was passed into law.

'long history' - certainly since 1765, but nothing at all before then. Had Westminster been able to impose rates of customs tariffs before 1765, then they'd have dealt with the 'running trade' in this manner and wouldn't have needed a naval blockade of IoM etc.

 

If all that happened in 1765 was that the Crown bought the rights held by Stanleys and Atholls, then how would this give the right to impose laws on IoM without consent of Tynwald? (unless Stanleys and Atholls are supposed to have had that right).

 

There is a simple straightforward answer - the UK can impose laws on IoM for 'peace, order and good government' because they are in possession of IoM as an 'Administering Power' - and have been since British forces took control of IoM in 1765.

[Cronky]

Back to the topic in hand . . .

 

The Sunday Telegraph had a piece yesterday explaining how the UK Home Secretary is prepared to hand over travel data to the Americans:

 

New anti-terrorism rules 'allow US to spy on British motorists'

 

So, is our own 'Chief Secretary' going along with this? Will e-Borders mean that our travel journeys accross the UK end up on a searchable database in America? e-Borders data will include you car registration number. So, you start a car journey in Douglas, the Steam Packet will have your car registration number from your booking, the UK ANPR cameras pick your number plate up in Liverpool and your movements are tracked accross the UK and all this information ends up on a database for the Americans to trawl through.

[Dodger]

It is worrying that there seems to be more and more loss of privacy and personal rights under the need for National Security. Why was all this not needed for the IRA? They crossed borders to carry out their terrorist activities, why didn't the USA do something to stop it? Was because they supposedly held fundraisers in the USA..........that could be an interesting freedom of information request!

 

These same terrorists have now been allowed into Government..........UK and Northern Ireland?!

 

Does this mean that once the radical cleric Abu Hamza is released from prision, therefore a free person, he could then potentially become an MP!

 

There are so many reasons to be concerned about all this, but in real terms what can our Government do? Can they say no? If so how will that affect the finance sector? If they say no and the UK Government push it in anyway, what can they do? Tourism will stop as people will not want to have to go through the hassle of the full id process, certainly the idea of a shopping/football trip to the UK will need careful consideration, because even if we say no, can the UK still demand the information for those leaving the UK ports and airports and therefore you are on the UK and world databases anyway?!

 

I still think that we should not give up our rights which have been fought for in the past so easily! We should say NO to the UK Government, who has won if we turn into a police state?