Crown Dependencies

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Beith

Thursday 16th January 2014 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.

--- 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.

Justice Committee Report: Youth Justice

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Beith

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Scottish system of children’s reporters and children’s panels has been proven over many years. We still have some lessons to learn from it in England and Wales.

Looking more widely at sentencing, we recommend a threshold to enshrine in legislation the principle that only the most serious and prolific young offenders should be placed in custody. We recommend that the custody budget should be devolved to a more local level, so that a local decision can be made about investing in effective alternatives to custody. We want to build confidence in community sentences by giving magistrates and judges more feedback on the outcomes of their sentencing decisions. We also want to take more action to reduce the number of people who breach the terms of their community sentences and address the problem that there is a large number of young black men in custody, far beyond their proportion in the population.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What was the Committee’s view on the fact that if we send only prolific offenders to prison, they will clearly have done a lot of crime before they get there? What consideration was given to the short, sharp shock treatment as a way of dealing with people right at the beginning?

[Sir Alan Beith]

The idea that we can sort out the problems of a young person who is committing serial, prolific crimes through a process that does not take much time is just a mistake. It takes time to address these problems. We have looked, for example, at the Willow unit at Hindley and a whole series of ways of trying to turn round the lives of young people. I am afraid that the short, sharp shock is an illusion. There is no proven way to deal with prolific young offenders other than by giving them a lot of attention over a significant period.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Beith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that clauses 2 and 3 are closely linked, but we are shifting quickly into clause 3. The sooner we finish with the clause 2 stand part debate, the sooner we will get to clause 3.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I do not want to be drawn into clause 3. We are considering whether the effect of clause 2 might be undermined by clause 3, and that has much to do with clause 2, but I suspect—I do not intend to say this again when we debate clause 3, so I will say it now —that it is something we will have to live with in order to produce a sensible outcome. The Bill as it stands provides a reasonable outcome to the problems I have described, but there is no escaping the fact that some problems will remain.