The brothers' advocate responds on defeudalisation, the Sark Newsletter and Lord McNally
In a written response to the Guardian's queries about Sark, Gordon Dawes, the advocate for the Barclay brothers and Kevin Delaney made the following points:
1. The Barclay family would agree entirely that the Island should not be dominated by any single interest. The historic problem with Sark is that it has been dominated by a single interest for most of its recent history, that of the present Seigneur and his family before him. It is that interest which continues to dominate Sark and which the UK government should be addressing.
The Barclay family will continue to seek the de-feudalisation of Sark and it is, quite frankly, incredible that the UK government continues to support the Sark feudal establishment. It cannot be right in the 21st century to continue to give one person, unelected and unaccountable, the powers which the Seigneur has, and for no better reason than that he is the descendant of a person who foreclosed on a mortgage in the mid-19th century.
There is no question of the Barclay family seeking to dominate Sark; if they had wished to buy more property on Sark then they could have done, but have not done so. It is only because of the Barclay family that Sark has democracy to the extent that it has. It was in fact the Barclay family which caused the link between land ownership and political power to be abolished at all.
It is, in their view, essential that Sark is de-feudalised to complete the process and create a genuine democracy. Note that the Barclay family offered to purchase the Seigneur's rights and give them to Chief Pleas, but the Seigneur rejected all such offers;
2. The Newsletter is entitled to express an opinion and to express it forcefully. No one is compelled to read it. It has been proved consistently right in the criticisms it makes and the opinions it expresses, the Crowe report and Lord McNally's endorsement of the Crowe report being the latest instances.
Again, it needs to be remembered that Chief Pleas has the same powers as a national assembly. This is serious politics dealing with the legislation governing all aspects of the daily lives of Sark's inhabitants.
The degree of obstruction and opposition to the kind of reforms which took place centuries ago in the UK is such that a strong tone is justified. Nothing would have happened in Sark if the feudal establishment had not been taken to task. Male primogeniture would still exist, likewise private feudal taxation of property sales at 7.69%, domination of the parliament by unelected landowners and a combined speaker and judge appointed for life by the Seigneur.
The tone of the Newsletter is proportionate to the importance of the reforms and the intransigence of the feudal establishment. Those engaging in public life must expect to have to deal with challenge and scrutiny. They occupy the equivalent position of an MP. Membership of Chief Pleas is emphatically not the equivalent of parish politics;
3. If the reference to abuse of economic power is addressed to the Barclay family then this is rejected entirely. There is no abuse of economic power by the Barclay family. Lord McNally's concern should be the abuse made by the feudal establishment of the extraordinary and anti-democratic powers which it still retains and the abuse of democracy by the existing political establishment to use the legislature as a weapon against Barclay interests, recent examples being the targeting of the vineyards planted by the Barclay family and the use they can make of their cargo vessel.
As a general comment my clients would say that Lord McNally is poorly informed and has consistently and blindly sided with the feudal establishment without, apparently, ever asking himself what sort of political system he is supporting and whether such a system should continue to exist in any British Island. My clients are sure that Lord McNally would not personally support such a system and it is, quite frankly, bizarre that the UK government should spend so much time and money, particularly in the present economic client, defending the indefensible.
Meanwhile Sir David and Sir Frederick wholeheartedly endorse the Crowe report and the implementation of its recommendations as soon as possible. It is absolutely typical of the existing feudal political establishment that the report is not even mentioned in the agenda for the next meeting of the assembly on July 4th.
There is no excuse for this whatsoever and it is symptomatic of the bitter opposition to change on Sark. They have treated both Ms Crowe and Lord McNally with disdain and the Newsletter is again entitled to take them to task for their refusal even to debate at the earliest opportunity the contents of a report they themselves commissioned but appear not to accept the conclusions of. The agenda is, of course, drawn up by the Seigneur's lifetime appointee, the Seneschal.
My clients also ask you to note the following:
1. At a meeting with Lord McNally at his request some 18 months ago, Sir David Barclay persistently asked him about bringing an end to the feudal system on Sark. Lord McNally made it abundantly clear to Sir David that there were limits as to how far he could go. However, there was no mention whatsoever during this meeting that the Ministry of Justice could not allow the Island to be dominated by a single interest.
2. The Minister should be more concerned about the lack of laws against bullying, harassment, intimidation and abuse of power; laws for which the Sark Newsletter has campaigned for several years now. If Lord McNally were to ensure that such laws existed, he would have a better chance of reducing hostility on the Island and he would put an end to the Sark Newsletter's campaign for laws to protect the victims of such abuse.
3. Lord McNally did not mention to you that he has received correspondence from various people evidencing the intimidation and fear used by the feudal Establishment.
4. If the Minister feels that the best way for Sark to satisfy itself that there is no abuse of economic power is to put in place the framework recommended by Ms Crowe, why doesn't he go ahead and implement it? The truth is, and by his own admission, he cannot. It requires reform on the part of the feudal establishment, which has repeatedly demonstrated its reluctance to reform in the past.
My client Mr Kevin Delaney's response is that there have been many attempts to close down the Sark Newsletter, not least by the feudal lord and his loyal establishment seeking the support of the media in the UK and in Europe in what amounts to a proxy campaign. The feudal establishment and their supporters, many of whom are paid Island officials, would be emboldened by the Guardian, of all papers, appearing to give tacit support to their claim that they are the victims of, and intimidated by, the campaign for democracy on Sark by the Sark Newsletter.