Crown Dependencies

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and his Committee on the publication of this report. It is important to ensure full recognition and understanding of the Crown dependencies and how what we in Parliament do affects them. I know that they will be delighted that the Committee has highlighted some important points in its report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the word “dependency” no longer reflects what the Crown dependencies are? They are not dependent in the sense that Britain subsidises or props them up in any way; on the contrary, the financial centres, especially Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man, provide benefits to the United Kingdom in many ways, particularly via the City of London. Is “dependency” the correct word for the Crown dependencies, or should we think of a name that is more appropriate to modern circumstances and their contribution to the overall British family?

[Sir Alan Beith]

That is an interesting point, which the Committee did not consider. The hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the affairs of the Crown dependencies. The term “Crown dependency” is an important way of distinguishing the territories I have described and the United Kingdom’s overseas territories, with which they should not be confused. The constitutional relationship is different and in every case they have a high level of compliance with international, financial and other regulations, which they are keen to emphasise. The Crown dependency territories are a distinct group with a special relationship to the Crown. Any regular traveller to any dependency will know that loyalty and that link to the Crown runs strongly in all of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I would need notice before giving a definitive legal answer, on which I would probably have to take expensive legal advice from people such as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). However, because the dependencies engage in significant trade with the European Union, they may sometimes come up against issues that have been subject to litigation in the European Court of Justice. To facilitate relations with the EU generally, the dependencies have been opening offices in Brussels, which by general consent has helped. If the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) needs to know more about the potential of the European Court of Justice to be involved in their affairs, I would have to look further.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the UK is properly looking after the interests of the Crown dependencies internationally, bearing in mind that no one in this House has been elected to represent them? There is no formal Committee, apart from the Select Committee, that deals with them. Internationally, they are not part of the European Union—some would say that they are fortunate to be outside the EU—and they are not part of the Commonwealth. They probably have more long-standing connections with Britain than anywhere in the Commonwealth, yet they have no status of their own and are not allowed to join the Commonwealth, even as associate members.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that UK Ministers, not only in the Foreign Office but in other Departments, often forget the interests of our Crown dependencies? Indeed, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) became Secretary of State for Justice and I spoke in the House about the Crown dependencies, he had no idea they came under his Department at that time. It came as a surprise to him that they had been included in his Department’s remit. Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that the UK Government fully understand their obligations to those loyal subjects of the Crown dependencies?

[Sir Alan Beith]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made the wise decision to appoint Lord McNally to take responsibility within the Department. Our report and the evidence we have seen are powerful testimony to the fact that that job was done well. We found a higher level of respect for the Ministry than we found in 2010, when we first engaged in this process.

Internationally, in general, two things happen: the UK Government represent the interests of the dependencies, and in many matters enable them to represent themselves by letters of entrustment and other processes. We indicate in our report that when there is real conflict of interest, there could be better ways of ensuring that the islands’ views are properly included.

Significant changes in the constitutional relationship—I suppose the ability to join the Commonwealth might be considered part of that—should be mooted only after careful consultation, and probably at the request of the dependencies themselves. We have an evolving but rather well balanced constitutional relationship. The Committee’s view, which is fairly widespread among people in the dependencies who study these matters, is that we treat that constitutional relationship with care and do our best to make it work effectively, but there is always scope for improvement.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman enables me to make two points about the Isle of Man. First, it has a significant high-technology, space-related engineering industry, which is a significant part of its economy. Secondly, like other Crown dependencies, it has offered assistance both in the Commonwealth and to other dependencies, most recently to the Turks and Caicos Islands. That illustrates the international presence of the dependencies, which is extremely beneficial.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Referring back to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments a moment ago about membership of the Commonwealth, as a point of information, he may be aware that the Crown dependencies submitted to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs their interest in being members of the Commonwealth, under that Committee’s report of the year before last. Perhaps his Committee could look at that at a later date.

Finally, are the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee satisfied that the Crown dependencies are fully included, in the sense that there are ceremonial and British traditions from which they currently seem to be excluded? I give the example of the Remembrance Sunday parade and service in Whitehall. The Crown dependencies are still, to this day, denied the right to lay a wreath alongside other members of the Commonwealth. Not only that, but there is the importance of ensuring that the flags of the Crown dependencies are flown for state occasions such as trooping the colour and other special events. Does he agree that it is important that the Crown dependencies are always considered in all such important occasions, and particularly state occasions?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I gave the hon. Gentleman a guarded answer earlier, because both of the points he mentioned are not matters that the Committee considered. Speaking personally, however, I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said, not least in relation to remembering what happened in the second world war. All the dependencies, but especially the Channel Islands, have every reason to remember—they remember with gratitude, of course, their eventual liberation—and we in the United Kingdom have every reason to be reminded, as we have been by a lot of television coverage in the past year, of the dreadful experiences that the islanders went through at the time. It is something that we should not forget.