Memorandum submitted by Ministry of Justice
When colleagues and I gave evidence to the Committee
on Tuesday 2 February I undertook to look into two questions raised
by Members of the Committee upon which I was unable to provide
a complete answer at the time. I am now able to provide the further
information which was requested in respect of Ministry of Justice
involvement in the termination of the reciprocal health agreement
between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, and about responsibility
for the sea-bed around the Crown Dependencies. The question numbers
referred to below are those in the uncorrected transcript.
Q71 Whether Ministry of Justice officials
were involved in any process prior to the decision being taken
to end the UK's reciprocal health agreement with the Isle of Man;
whether representatives of the Isle of Man Government were told
at a meeting, and without prior notice, that the agreement was
to be ended; whether our processes engaged there, or whether the
Department of Health simply bypassed the Ministry of Justice.
There is well-established liaison between Ministry
of Justice officials and our counterparts at the Department of
Health about the operation of the reciprocal health agreements
with the Crown Dependencies. Consequently, we were already aware
prior to the Isle of Man Government being formally notified of
the ending of the agreement that it was Department of Health policy
to keep the UK's reciprocal health agreements under review to
ensure that they remained appropriate and represented value for
money for the UK taxpayer. We were also aware—as were officials
in the Isle of Man Government, for some weeks at least—that
notice had already been given to the governments of the Channel
Islands that their own reciprocal health agreement with the UK
was to be ended.
As a result of its review, the Department of
Health then decided that the agreement with the Isle of Man—under
which the UK provided an allocation of approximately £2.8
million per year—did not offer value for money to the taxpayer,
and that it was out of place given the wider availability of travel
insurance. In that light, Department of Health Ministers decided
to give notice to terminate the agreement.
The meeting to which you referred in your question
took place on 1 July 2008, when Department of Health officials
met Isle of Man officials to discuss the UK's proposals to withdraw
from the agreement. The official dealing with this issue in the
Crown Dependencies team was notified of the meeting in advance
but was prevented from attending by other business. At the meeting
the Department of Health gave a presentation on the rationale
for the decision and explained that a notice period and final
allocation were still to be agreed. It was made clear that this
was a decision made by the UK Government as a whole and there
had been close liaison with the Ministry of Justice. There was
no question of the Department of Health having simply bypassed
the Ministry of Justice, and we have remained in close contact
with officials of both the Isle of Man Government and the Department
of Health as plans for the termination of the agreement have progressed.
Q78 Who is responsible for the sea-bed around
the Crown Dependencies.
Dr Whitehead asked who is responsible for the
seabed around the Crown Dependencies and about the licensing arrangements
which exist in relation to the sea and seabed around the Crown
Dependencies.
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), the sovereignty of a coastal State extends beyond its
land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea,
described as the territorial sea. This extends to its seabed and
subsoil. The United Kingdom's rights and obligations under UNCLOS
extend to the territorial sea adjacent to the Crown Dependencies,
including in respect of the seabed.
There are then a range of licensing regimes
which apply in relation to the sea and seabed around the Crown
Dependencies.
In respect to general marine licensing, the
established general regime under the Food and Environment Protection
Act 1985 ("FEPA") extends to Jersey and Guernsey. In
general, a licence under that Act is required for the deposit
of substances in the sea or under the seabed. The FEPA licensing
regime was previously extended to the Isle of Man but was subsequently
superseded by provisions made in Part 2 of the Water Pollution
Act 1993 (an Act of Tynwald).
Parliament has recently passed the Marine and
Coastal Access Act 2009 ("the 2009 Act"). Part 4 of
that Act contains reforms to the marine licensing regime. When
fully in force, it will establish a new regime controlling a wide
range of activities taking place at sea, or on or under the seabed.
These include activities such as deposits, construction of works,
use of vessels etc to remove substances or objects from the seabed
and dredging. The licensing authority for these activities differs
for inshore regions (0-12 nm—broadly, the territorial sea)
and offshore regions (12 up to 200 nm) in respect to different
parts of the UK. For example, under current rules, the Secretary
of State is the licensing authority for the English inshore and
offshore regions. The Crown Estate is not the statutory licensing
authority in relation to any region.
The 2009 Act as a whole does not extend to the
Crown Dependencies. In particular, while Part 4 will replace the
FEPA and other regimes, the 2009 Act expressly provides that the
amendments and repeals made to the FEPA do not extend to any of
the Channel Islands. There is however a power to extend Part 4
of the Act to Jersey by Order in Council. This power has not yet
been exercised. The Crown Dependencies were consulted before the
2009 Act was passed and were content with the arrangements in
respect of Part 4.
In respect to fisheries licensing, the Crown
Dependencies licence commercial sea fishing in their territorial
waters. Those waters extend to 12 nautical miles ("nm")
from baselines, subject to the median line, for Jersey and the
Isle of Man and to 3nm from baselines for Guernsey. The Crown
Dependencies have their own legislation dealing with such licensing.
There are other licensing regimes that may be
relevant to the seabed around the Crown Dependencies, for example,
licensing in relation to shellfish fisheries.
I hope that this provides the Committee with
the further information it requires. There is however one further
point in my evidence upon which I should like to offer some clarification.
In response to Question 52, I said that the Secretary of
State's view in relation to the Sark Reform Law was that "in
his judgement, [it] did not satisfy our obligations under the
European Convention on Human Rights" and that in those circumstances
he refused to recommend the law for Royal Assent. I should say
that although there were concerns about the ECHR compatibility
of aspects of the law, the Secretary of State's decision to remit
the law to Sark was based on the wider ground of the Crown's responsibility
for the good governance of the island, including appropriate arrangements
for a 21st century democracy.
February 2010
| 
