Select committee inquiry
Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“This inquiry considers the progress which has been made by the Ministry of Justice to implement the recommendations of the Justice Committee’s Report of 2009-10 on the Crown Dependencies.”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 16 June 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government welcomes the Committee's report and shares its view that the existing constitutional relationship with the Crown Dependencies works well, while identifying limits to increased autonomy and to the UK's ability to represent the Islands' views internationally.
- On understanding of the relationship, it agrees that efforts should continue and states that Lord Faulks "will write to Ministers in other departments"; the Ministry of Justice "will explore ways" of using the Policy Profession agenda.
- On treaty extension, it "agrees that there is scope to streamline the extension process" and describes work on a model compliance matrix, but states it does not "consider that it would be practical to presume" assent if a lead department does not respond within four weeks.
- On autonomy, it states there are "limits to what the Crown Dependencies can expect" while the existing relationship remains in place, and that any change "cannot be picked apart in a piecemeal fashion".
- On international representation, it favours "a pragmatic, case-by-case approach" and says its commitments "should not be mistaken for guarantees" that the UK can always represent the Islands' differing views.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 20 March 2013 to 16 June 2014.
- Oral evidence 5 Nov 2013
- Report 16 Jan 2014
- Government response 16 Jun 2014
What it recommended 4 recommendations · 12 conclusions
1We welcome the general improvement in the relationship between the UK and the Crown Dependencies...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the general improvement in the relationship between the UK and the Crown Dependencies as attested to in this follow-up inquiry. We are pleased that the conclusions and recommendations of the previous Committee’s Report provided the basis for this shift, and we pay tribute to the way in which they have been implemented by the Ministry of Justice, with particular credit due to Lord McNally and Cathryn Hannah. The Ministry team dedicated to dealing with the Crown Dependencies is operating with fewer resources than in the past. However, in our estimation it is using them more effectively, in line with the Committee’s recommendation that the Ministry limit its activities to key constitutional duties, and the Department’s reduced budget has not caused tangible difficulties.
2We welcome the fact that, as a general rule, the Ministry of Justice is no...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the fact that, as a general rule, the Ministry of Justice is no longer providing substantive answers to Parliamentary Questions on issues pertaining to the Crown Dependencies for which their own governments are responsible, in line with the Committee’s recommendation. This more accurately reflects the constitutional relationship.
3The Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Crown Dependencies, has taken a number of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Crown Dependencies, has taken a number of initiatives aimed at improving mutual understanding amongst officials in UK Government Departments and the Crown Dependencies about their respective roles and responsibilities, the impact of which we explore further in the following chapters. Although there have continued to be occasions where the Crown Dependencies have felt poorly treated by the UK, often with some justification, we are content that the Ministry of Justice has mechanisms in place to fix the relationship.
4Owing to the general rate of turnover in the civil service, the Ministry of Justice...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Owing to the general rate of turnover in the civil service, the Ministry of Justice must ensure that efforts to raise awareness of the Crown Dependencies across Government are ongoing, and we would like to be kept updated on this point. In our view, Lord McNally’s communication with Ministers across Government after the last election to remind them of their obligations in relation to the Crown Dependencies, as sanctioned by the Prime Minister, has proved particularly helpful and we hope that this process will be replicated by future Governments.
5We note the pressure from some groups in the Crown Dependencies towards re- defining the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We note the pressure from some groups in the Crown Dependencies towards re- defining the constitutional relationship in a way that allows the Islands even greater independence from the UK. While the relationship has evolved over time and will rightly continue to do so, its very nature imposes certain responsibilities on the UK which it cannot ignore. We are therefore not convinced that any attempt to achieve a Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 37 fundamental re-balancing would be fruitful. We welcome the Ministry of Justice’s response to our recommendation that it produce a simple account of the constitutional position of the three Crown Dependencies by publishing such an account in the Ministerial foreword to the Government’s response to the 2010 report. The Ministry’s exposition generally reflects our understanding of the position both in theory and in practice, although we consider that the final paragraph on international representation should place a stronger onus on the Government to consult the Crown Dependencies, as we discuss in chapter five.
6Frequent long delays in recommending legislation made in the Crown Dependencies for Royal Assent were...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Frequent long delays in recommending legislation made in the Crown Dependencies for Royal Assent were a particular concern highlighted in the 2010 Report. In our view, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Dependencies have carried out our recommendations by implementing a more appropriate and proportionate system for scrutinising insular legislation, with significant success. It is for Guernsey and Jersey to decide for themselves whether to adopt the system used in the Isle of Man, whereby Royal Assent is largely delegated to the Island’s Lieutenant-Governor, but we agree that it could help to avoid the remaining delays that can occur during periods when the Privy Council does not sit.
7We recognise the frustration that exists in the Crown Dependencies about the length of time...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recognise the frustration that exists in the Crown Dependencies about the length of time it can take to extend treaties to them, and support the Ministry of Justice’s efforts to establish exactly what is required of them by Government Departments, in order to speed up the process. We understand the Ministry’s caution about a “presumption of consent”, given the UK’s international obligations, but we recommend that the Ministry of Justice explore the potential to streamline the process for granting treaty extension so that it is more risk-based and proportionate, perhaps via the matrix of compliance prepared by Dependency law officers, who are Crown officials, as suggested to us by Jersey.
8Clearly there will be occasions when a policy change in the UK has adverse consequences...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Clearly there will be occasions when a policy change in the UK has adverse consequences for one or more of the Crown Dependencies: what is important is that the Dependencies are not “bounced” by such decisions without having had the opportunity to present their case, to ask for further consideration, or to suggest modifications which might meet their concerns. The Ministry of Justice has taken steps to implement the Committee’s recommendation on consultation, which has led to significant improvement, but failures to undertake early consultation do still arise and will no doubt continue to do so, as happens within the UK Government itself.
9We note the Government’s continued opposition to the Committee’s recommendation that it find a means...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We note the Government’s continued opposition to the Committee’s recommendation that it find a means by which the Crown Dependencies’ position can be represented separately from that of the UK, where their positions differ, in 38 Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 international negotiations. We agree with Ministers that it is preferable for agreement to be reached on a common position through consultation, and we recognise that the primary duty of the UK Government is to negotiate in the UK’s interest, but it remains our view that, where the Crown Dependencies have a distinct view on a matter which is significant to them, the UK Government has a duty to ensure that their case is heard in the negotiations. We welcome the fact that the Crown Dependencies have been given more opportunities to have input into certain international negotiations, such as the G8.
10We are pleased that the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Dependencies have been exploring...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are pleased that the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Dependencies have been exploring greater use of Letters of Entrustment, by which the Crown Dependencies may be authorised to conclude their own international agreements, in accordance with the Committee’s recommendation. We urge the Ministry of Justice to work with the Crown Dependencies to develop expeditious arrangements to deal with Dependency access to Bilateral Investment Treaties, now that the UK has ceded competence for these to the EU.
11The Government agreed with the Committee’s interpretation of the circumstances in which the UK Government...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government agreed with the Committee’s interpretation of the circumstances in which the UK Government could intervene in a Crown Dependency on the grounds of “good government”, and we have heard nothing in this follow-up inquiry to convince us that this requires review. We acknowledge that a number of individuals in the Crown Dependencies have genuine concerns about governance, and that conflicts of interest are more of a risk in small jurisdictions. However, we are satisfied by what we have been told publicly and privately that there is no complacency on the part of the UK authorities and that complaints are properly considered. We are also satisfied that mechanisms are in place in the Crown Dependencies to test and rectify such concerns. In particular, we commend the habit of bringing in outside expertise where there may be the possibility or the risk of a perception that the smallness of the political or legal community might prevent a matter being dealt with fairly and impartially.
12Lord McNally and his officials at the MoJ have diligently implemented the Committee’s recommendation to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Lord McNally and his officials at the MoJ have diligently implemented the Committee’s recommendation to keep a “watching brief” on good government in Sark. In this they have received welcome assistance from other Crown Dependencies, for example. Sark’s progress on the path to democracy and more efficient administration has been slow, but we commend the conseillers in the Chief Pleas who have worked hard to strengthen governance on the Island, without administrative support, and we hope that the appointment of the new Senior Administrator will make their job easier in future.
13We deeply regret the apparently intractable discord on Sark, as witnessed on our visit and...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We deeply regret the apparently intractable discord on Sark, as witnessed on our visit and in the written evidence we have received. We reiterate our conclusion that, just as the establishment of democratic government in Sark was a matter of good government, any threat to the ability of that system to operate fairly and robustly has Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010 39 the potential to raise good government issues which might require UK Government intervention. Disputes between different interest groups on the Island should not be allowed to get in the way of the responsibility of the authorities on Sark to continue to implement democratic processes and plan a sustainable future for the Island, and the UK Government should continue to encourage and support them in achieving this.
14We are very pleased to conclude that the Ministry of Justice has taken positive and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are very pleased to conclude that the Ministry of Justice has taken positive and effective action to give effect to all of the Committee’s recommendations (with the one exception of the recommendation on international representation with which the Government disagreed) and that the recommendations have worked well in practice. The Crown Dependencies have played a constructive role in this process and we are glad that they are reaping the benefits of a more functional relationship with the UK. Lord McNally described our work in this area as a good model for interaction between select committees and the departments they scrutinise.
15There are two outstanding areas on which we would like the Ministry of Justice to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
There are two outstanding areas on which we would like the Ministry of Justice to focus improvements: speeding up the process for extending treaties to the Crown Dependencies at their request; and international representation.
16We also recognise that procedures which have been put in place to ensure effective consultation...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We also recognise that procedures which have been put in place to ensure effective consultation and co-operation need to be effectively maintained in the future, and we recommend that this Committee reviews the progress of the relationship during the next Parliament.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 5 Nov 2013No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗