Crown Dependencies

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We begin today with a statement from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice on the publication of the Committee’s report “Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010”. We will be making parliamentary history today, as this is the first Select Committee statement in Westminster Hall, so it might be helpful if I explain briefly the procedure agreed by the House in December. Essentially, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement: Sir Alan will make his statement, during which no interventions may be taken; at the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members who rise to put questions to Sir Alan on the subject of his statement, and call Sir Alan to respond to them in turn. These interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front-Bench Members may take part in the questioning.

The Liaison Committee has the power to impose a time limit on a statement and the exchanges that follow, but has chosen not to do so. However, I anticipate that the statement and questions will last no longer than 20 minutes. I call the Chairman of the Justice Committee, who is also the Chair of the Liaison Committee, to make this first Select Committee statement in Westminster Hall.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD) (Select Committee Statement)]

Thank you, Mr Bone. It is a pleasure to have you presiding over these proceedings, which as you say are a parliamentary first. It is one of three reasons why I am particularly pleased to be presenting the Justice Committee’s report “Crown Dependencies: Developments Since 2010”. I am also pleased to be doing it because the nature of the historically fruitful and evolving relationship between the UK and the Crown dependencies is not always understood, even in some Departments, and we can shed light on it. The Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, including Alderney and Sark, have a unique status, which we describe. Thirdly, it is a good thing for Select Committees not merely to publish reports but to look back on and evaluate their results. In this case, we think that we can report a success story on the implementation of our 2010 report.

In order to review our 2010 report, during the course of this year Committee members visited the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, including Sark. Although fog stopped us from landing in Alderney, we had a telephone conference with representatives there. We took oral evidence from the then Minister, the noble Lord McNally, and received written evidence. We are indebted to our then second Clerk, who has just moved on to become Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee, for her excellent work throughout the inquiry, and to all the Committee staff.

The report we are publishing today goes point by point through all the recommendations we made in 2010 and shows how in almost every case, they have been successfully implemented by the Minister, Lord McNally, and the very small team of civil servants led by Cathryn Hannah. Much credit is due to them for what they have done, and that view was expressed to us in all the dependencies.

To give the House a few examples, we argued that if the Ministry of Justice concentrated on those things for which it had constitutional or international responsibilities and relied more widely on the preparatory work done by the Crown law offices in each of the dependencies, delays could be avoided and island legislation could achieve Royal Assent more quickly. That has been done successfully. Secondly, we argued that the Ministry of Justice should encourage closer co-operation, better understanding and timely consultation between Whitehall Departments and their counterparts in the dependencies. There have been significant improvements as a result of the Ministry of Justice’s efforts to implement that recommendation, although there are still some examples of where policy changes with a significant impact on the islands could have been the subject of more timely consultation.

The only area where the Government disagreed with us was in respect of our view that when the UK takes part in international negotiations, such as those following the Icelandic banking crisis, and there are differences between the UK’s view and the dependencies’, there should be a clearer mechanism for ensuring that the dependencies’ case can be put in the negotiations. We still think that ways can be found to do that without undermining the UK’s position or the constitutional relationship.

We also argued that the UK should exercise its power to intervene on grounds of a breakdown in good government only in the most serious circumstances. The dependencies are mature democratic societies with the rule of law and free media. Problems, whether real or perceived, can arise from the relatively small size of the jurisdictions, but they can be dealt with by bringing in, for example, judges, lawyers or police officers from outside the jurisdiction to demonstrate independence. We are satisfied that both the island authorities and the UK Government have adequate means of assessing whether that may be required in particular instances.

We received submissions from some dependency residents who felt that their grievances had not been satisfactorily dealt with and that that constituted grounds for UK Government intervention on grounds of good government. Our view was that the legal and other processes of the dependencies were the appropriate mechanism for seeking resolution, and that the UK Government had adequate means of assessing whether any of those grievances raised good government issues.

The situation in Sark is one that we said in 2010 required a watching brief on the part of the UK Government. That responsibility has been carefully exercised by the Minister, with help being given to the island’s Chief Pleas, which is both its Parliament and its Government, to strengthen the administration and consider how best to secure the economic future of the community. Tension and hostility between the Barclay brothers, those who manage their investments on the island and the community’s elected representatives, is a problem and a distraction. We wish the newly appointed administrator well in her role.

We saw no reason and heard little support for any fundamental change in the constitutional relationship between the UK and the Crown dependencies. We can see areas for improvement, such as a more rapid process for extending trade treaties, which the dependencies need, but I emphasise most the need to maintain and build on the work that Lord McNally and his officials did in response to our report. He has now stepped down from his ministerial post and there will be changes in the civil service team. We hope that Lord McNally’s successor in the role, Lord Faulks, will carry on the work in the same spirit and with the same commitment. I commend the report to the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

We will now take questions on the statement.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that two points came across clearly in most of our meetings in the Channel Islands? First, the lines of communication must always be kept completely open between their legislatures and this place in order to streamline legislation. Secondly—I am sure that he is pleased—the Ministry of Justice is now exploring the greater use of letters of entrustment enabling the Crown dependencies to conclude some international agreements themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I apologise for not saying earlier that we have an advantage in Westminster Hall in that if any hon. Member wants a second go, they may do so.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for the chance to remind the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that, although he gave a good answer to the first part of my question, it was so detailed that he forgot the answer to the second part about the relationship between the Crown dependencies and the European Court of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

That sounds like an ominous warning from a new member of my Committee. However, should the Committee in a future Parliament return to the matter to monitor progress, as we recommend they should, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to visit the islands and to question officials of the islands and others in the financial services industry there. He will be able to satisfy himself fully on how the islands seek to manage and regulate the very considerable financial services that are administered from them.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Right hon. and hon. Members have set a very good example with the first Select Committee statement in Westminster Hall. We now move on to a debate on two reports from the Justice Committee—“Women Offenders: after the Corston Report” and “Older Prisoners”. It will be a single, combined debate on the two reports. That has been done before, but it is also somewhat unusual.