PUBLIC MEETING: TUESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2003
(Part 2)
Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)
Second in this series is the first part of the public meeting that was held on Tuesday. This lively discussion and debate centred, firstly, Dr. Barry Elsby raised a question about under-age smoking.
Q1-P2: (Practically inaudible) I think there is concern that children are smoking underage and the Police do not seem to be dealing with this as well as they could. If children were seen walking along the street carrying cans of beer, underage, then, I think they would take action. I wonder what the Police reaction to underage smoking is, and whether they would enforce the law on this?
MS: Jan will take the question as Chair of the Police Advisory Committee.
JC: Not Chair, no. One of the members
MS: And member of the Health and Medical Services Committee as well.
JC: (Moderately audible) You are aware of the D.A.R.E. Programme initiated by the Police, which includes the subjects of smoking, drugs and Alcohol. It'’ been well received by teachers, students and parents. It’s a proactive move by the Police. The answer we have from the Police is that they take action, when students are caught smoking. Normally, the cigarettes and tobacco are confiscated and the parents informed. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an unfortunate reaction from some parents who claim the Police are picking on their children. So, I don’t think it’s just the Police who should be responsible. It’s the parents as well, without a doubt, and presumably, they provide cash with which the child spends on them. Anyway, Senior Police Officers do make it clear to new Constables that they should not be turning a blind eye (when they see underage smoking).
MS: Anybody think the Police should take a wander down "Smokers’ Street?"
JC: Unfortunately 1200 also coincides the time we also have to have Police to be watching the crossings at the Junior School.
Comment: Perhaps we could go after the licence of the person who sells tobacco to underage children in Stanley.
SL: You will probably find that there is a hard core of people who are over 18 that continue to supply the children with whatever they ask for.
NE: They may be like me. I used to steal them from my own mother when I was 14.
Comment: We don’t want to hear that, Norma!
NE: It is what happened and I expect it still does.
JB: Can I say, living on Drury Street, as I do, they come toodling along with their cigarettes and I very often have a word and get a fair bit of lip in return. One of the boys will continually say to me that he is 16. He is the eldest in the bunch. What happens is, he can smoke and presumably he hands them down. Somebody just said about booze. Whoever becomes 18 first in the class and can give proof, goes and buys it and that’s how it flows on down.
JC: (Poorly audible) Certainly, they probably won’t smoke when the Police are around at various times. But education is important and it’s being tackled both in school and hopefully out. But perhaps we should ask the Police, if they have the time, they should keep a better eye on it.
Comment: Surely, the police should be more proactive on the streets.
NE: Should we ask the Police if they could find time to do it?
MS: There should be a clear message from this table that, at the very least, we don’t condone the breaking of the law. It was passed not long ago for perfectly valid reasons and therefore ought to be enforced. If the parents get stroppy with the Police, for enforcing the law, then they should seriously look to their consciences.
Q2-P2: Do you think the trouble is that it is important to pay tax duty on tobacco, spirits and that the more you sell, the more revenue Government gets?
MS: The amount of money that’s raised from cigarette duty is insignificant in terms of the national budget. Some people are even of the view that it doesn’t actually make a very sensible contribution to our economic affairs but it’s a relatively small amount. I think it might be about £60,000.00 a year or something like that. The last time we put it up it raised an additional amount of £10 – 12,000.00, I think, that we allocated for Health Promotion.
Q3-P2: On one hand, you are trying to stop smoking and on the other hand, you are going to make people pay for nicotine patches. Where are you going?
MS: On the radio the Director of Health and Medical Services went through a series of options for ways in which he could reduce his expenditure budget if he was asked to do so. That clearly is an option.
Q4-P2: One defeats the other, doesn’t it?
MS: Don’t know.
Comment: I would think so.
RC: I think it is a Policing issue. I think the Police need to be more vigilant but it’s also an educational issue. There is a problem particularly in teenage girls, who actually smoke not just within the Falklands but throughout the world. They are the one group whose smoking is actually increasing. And, I think we have to try and find out what the cause is and see what can be done about it. I think the Dare programme is extremely good. And, I understand from Dave Roberts – and I spoke with him this morning – that it is being extended. Hopefully, that will have some response. In the end, you’ve got to persuade people not to smoke, whether you use a big stick or a carrot or whatever. I think it’s a combination of both. We’ve got to try and find a way of encouraging people not to smoke.
MS: I guess the nicotine patches issue only applies to those people who are already addicted and want to give up. They will not affect the habits of young teenagers one way or the other.
RC: That’s right. We need a strong message at this stage saying we don’t condone it. I don’t know what the option is. If we don’t tax them, do we give them out for free? Is that it? They are cheap without that payment. It’s a Catch 22, isn’t it?
NE: Prices are comparable with UK, aren’t they?
RC: It’s getting that way. But it doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.
MS: They are way cheaper than they are in the UK. – Miles cheaper.
NE: They weren’t when I was smoking them. And, that’s only a few years ago.
Q5-P2: When the Argentine Aircraft turned up last week one of the pilots had forgotten his passport. Instead if sending him straight out, the weather was bad and he had to wait until it got better before he went. Instead of detaining him, he was put in a hotel. Is this a proper way to handle the situation?
RE: Under immigration law, we are not allowed to discriminate for race, creed, or colour. So, everyone must be treated the same. If someone turns up on a LanChile flight – Lewis is laughing his head in the back, there – with no passport, he is put back on that flight and he goes away. If someone turns up on a Yacht, where he can be accommodated without a passport, he’s either told to sail away or remain on the yacht.
The problem occurs in light aircraft that are coming in where the pilot himself, is the Captain of the aircraft. And, if they do not have a passport, we tell them they cannot enter the Falklands. He then turns around to you and says he would endanger his plane and himself if he flew back with the present weather conditions. He is the Captain of that aircraft but you cannot make him get on it at the point of a gun. So, the guy has got to enter the Falklands without a passport.
There is an option that we can detain him in jail. But to put him in jail, we are advised that that man must be a threat to the public before you can detain him in jail. We could, and we have done in the past, put him in a hotel, confined him to that hotel but that takes up a lot of police time and so on confining him to that hotel. Or, we just have to bite the bullet and put him in the hotel on the understanding that he will leave at the very first opportunity.
That is exactly happened to the Argentine that came in last week. He failed to bring his passport. I understand that his aircraft had broken down and when he transferred to another aeroplane, in Ushuaia, he left his passport behind.
They did try and fly him back but the head-winds were 60kts over on the coast and, in a light aircraft, he would not have made it. So, they flew him back to Stanley after 2.5 hours. The passport did arrive on the LanChile flight and was stamped on the Saturday afternoon and they all flew out when the weather conditions were better on the Sunday Morning. He left early and flew back to the coast.
This is one of the items that is going to be discussed in GPC this week. I don’t know what the outcome will be. I, for one, will be putting forward to fellow Councillors that we should perhaps put a porta-cabin or something or other down at the airstrip so that they cannot land in the Falklands. And, they will be detained on the airport until such time as the weather conditions are such that they can go. This might require calling in FIDF to guard them or something else. It would not be comfortable. They would be detained and not allowed to enter the Falkland Islands.
Any of you who watched "Airport "on the television will have seen that’s exactly what happens to illegal immigrants coming in by air at Heathrow. They are detained until they can be sent back.
The alternative is we say no to everybody who wants to come in on light aircraft. All private flights would be banned because out of 5, I think it’s 2 that turn up without passports. I think that detaining them would be a sensible thing to do. I think a blanket no would upset quite a lot of people.
NE: It wouldn’t upset me.
RE: Me, neither.
Comment: Stanley Airport seems to be the best option for all people who come in without passports. You wouldn’t need a porta-cabin. Just keep them there until they can go back.
RE: If we left them there, we would have to guard them in some way. What damage would they do in the tower? Someone would have to be there with them all the time.
JC: If they are likely to damage the tower, then they are a threat and perhaps they could be detained.
MS: About 4 or 5 years ago, there was a Belgian who turned up with his ID card, who thought he could get in the Falklands on an ID card. Would you advocate that he was put in prison or locked up in a porta-cabin?
JC: He was sent straight back.
MS: What if he couldn’t have been? How would you treat a wicked Belgain?
RE: The difficult point is they do not recognise our immigration laws as they stand. The problem we have is that we cannot differentiate people by race, creed, or colour. It is always an emotive problem and we have had various nationalities turn up on LanChile Flights that are supposed to join contractors at MPA, or indeed join fishing boats, who have turned up without correct documentation and they simply have been put back on the plane to Punta Arenas. The problem occurs when they come in under their own steam, in a light aircraft and there isn’t accommodation, then, we have a problem. I think we have to offer them accommodation but not necessarily in the Falklands.
Comment: This is going to be a continuous problem.
RE: If they continue to do that, that’s correct.
NE: They are informed that they have to have the proper documentation
RE: That is why I say have a porta-cabin down at the airport. They are detained air-side, they have not entered the Falkland Islands. If they enter without documentation and they have to remain here, I think we will be obliged to provide that accommodation.
Comment: They are told it’s an internal flight.
I think we must actually make a point of saying that they have been informed very clearly. The DCA sends out the same documentation to everyone and they are clearly informed of what they require when they enter the Falklands.
Comment: We have an agreement with Argentina that if they have their passport they can enter the Falklands and if they don'’ have a passport, they cannot enter the Falklands. They have to stay on the aeroplane. If they are uncomfortable, well, so what?
SL: You have the problem, of course, that the Argentines are screwing around telling their people not to have the proper documentation. You should have a passport to leave a country, just as you need it to enter one.
RE: They treat all flights across here as internal flights. That was made quite clearly by the Australian who came in on the Cessna Caravan a couple of years ago and they say there, in the morning when they call and ask for clearance, they say it’s not necessary because it is an internal flight. They were met here by customs officers and the like who deported them. When they came back, they were told they had been to Puerto Argentino and they did not need clearance to get back.
We cannot just allow them to carry on flying into the Falklands without passports. We are not allowed to lock them up. We can keep them air-side where it is not as comfortable. This is to be discussed. It is not policy at the moment.
MS: (Q6-P2) There is another 3rd supplementary that’s not been covered. She asked how much action taken following statutory laws and how much is left to the discretion of the Immigration Department?
RE: Sadly, the Customs and Immigration Department – we have not given them detailed instructions as to how to deal in each and every case. In most cases, it is referred back to the Principle Immigration Officer. Failing that, it goes back to Government House. It’s normally Russ that has to deal with it in the absence of the Immigration Officer. I think we have not given them detailed information on how to work in any particular case. We must draw up that guidance.
JB: Except, that they do know..
RE: They know what to do but we have not given them specific detailed instructions on each and every case of non passport holders who are entering the country.
JB: How to deal with Argentines.
RE: It is the same for all.
(100X Transcription Service)
Former Councillor Lewis Clifton had asked a detailed question that was not printed in the last transcript. Following is the wording of that question.
"EXCO PAPER –Eligibility to own/hold long-term marine farming and fishing rights:
"The above paper has been circulated to members of the Working Group of the Fisheries Advisory Committee. It’s issuance, I believe, follows on from matters raised but not concluded during the January meeting of EXCO. This paper, insofar as I know, has had limited public circulation, but none-the-less it deals with crucially important national issues, and the long-term development of the Falkland Islands, which deserves enhanced public awareness.
I would like Honourable Members to speak to this paper at tonight’s public meeting, given its imminent consideration by EXCO, so the public may know some of the background. And for Honourable Members to publicly state their views on whether Falkland Islands Status Holders should have the same rights as Permanent Resident Permit Holders. Indeed, the freeing up of access for PRPs was done only for the benefit of circumventing certain barriers imposed on individuals who wished to secure a mortgage. It can not be said that PRPs should be interpreted as having the same values, norms, and principles as those who qualify for FI status entitlement.
In developing countries, non-status holders enjoy lesser rights than status holders, in respect of Caribbean overseas territories, non-status residents are positively discriminated against. In my view, and I suspect those of a great many others, resident permit holders cannot and must not enjoy rights or hold equivalent equity as status holders. I have no doubt that this is or will become a very contentious issue and it is therefore prudent that Honourable Members express their views on this very important national issue as quickly as possible.
