European Scrutiny Committee
Oral evidence: The UK’s EU representation: what has changed and how is it working?, HC 123
Wednesday 19 October 2022
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 19 October 2022.
Members present: Sir William Cash (Chair); Richard Drax; Margaret Ferrier; Mr David Jones; Greg Smith.
Questions 27 - 47
Witnesses
I: Hon. Alfred Cannan MHK, Chief Minister, Isle of Man Government; Deputy Philip Ozouf, Minister for External Relations, States of Jersey; Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq, Minister for External Affairs, States of Guernsey.
II: Ms Dorothea Hodge, Representative, Anguilla Government; Hon. Teslyn Barkman, MLA for Camp, Falkland Islands.
Witnesses: Hon. Alfred Cannan, Deputy Philip Ozouf and Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq.
Q27 Chair: On behalf of the Committee, I would like to welcome you all and thank you for appearing virtually to give evidence this afternoon. This is to do with the UK’s EU representation, what has changed and how it is working. This is the second session of our inquiry into the UK’s EU representation, and during today’s first panel we are going to cover the relationship between the Crown dependencies and the UK Government since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the main issues you face since the UK’s EU exit, how you work to represent your interests to the EU and its institutions, and your relationship with the UK mission to the EU.
Before we start, and for those watching at home, would you briefly introduce yourselves?
Jonathan Le Tocq: My name is Jonathan Le Tocq. I am the Minister for External Relations for the Government of Guernsey.
Philip Ozouf: I am Deputy Philip Ozouf, Minister for External Relations in Jersey.
Alfred Cannan: I am Alfred Cannan. I am the Chief Minister on the Isle of Man.
Q28 Chair: I am asking all of you the first question. You all have a very unique and special relationship with the UK. For those watching at home, could you give us a brief synopsis, touching on your historical, legal, political, and economic ties with the UK?
Jonathan Le Tocq: The Bailiwick of Guernsey is perhaps a little bit different from the other Crown dependencies, in that it consists of three separate jurisdictions: Guernsey, Alderney and Sark. Each of these has its own Assembly and local domestic laws, in the main. There are a number of other islands that come under the jurisdiction of Guernsey and our Assembly, but all of these islands are located in the Gulf of Saint-Malo, just off the north-west coast of France. The islands form part of the British Isles geographically but are not, and never have been, part of the United Kingdom.
We have a long history, going back hundreds of years, of being self‑governing and self-funding. Guernsey has been independent for more than 800 years, since 1204 in fact. The islands are not sovereign states, but are dependencies of the British Crown, as successors to the Dukes of Normandy. Guernsey is the principal island in the Bailiwick of Guernsey. It has never been a colony, a British dependent territory or an overseas territory. It has its own Government, legal system and independent courts of law. We have never been represented in the UK Parliament. Our Assembly is directly elected—it is called the States of Deliberation—and it has its own administrative, fiscal and legal systems.
Guernsey and the rest of the Bailiwick makes its own criminal and civil laws. Some are based on the traditional Norman laws and customs, some on UK legislation, particularly from England and Wales, and some on EU legislation, or indeed whatever is deemed the most appropriate model for us as a small set of jurisdictions. Guernsey has its own right, which has been defended for centuries, to raise its own taxes. That is a settled constitutional principle, as I alluded to. Guernsey raises its own taxes and pays for its own public services without any funding from any other jurisdiction, including the UK.
Effectively, Guernsey’s constitutional relationship is with the Crown and, as such, is with the Crown in terms of our relationship with the UK, but it is not enshrined in a formal document. It is a relationship that, as I said, goes back centuries, but is based on the constitutional convention that the UK Parliament does not legislate for these islands on domestic matters without our consent. I am sure you and your members are aware that the current UK Government Department that deals with relations with the Crown dependencies is the Ministry of Justice. Other UK Departments liaise directly with the Crown dependencies on policy matters of mutual interest as they occur. I could add more to that but that covers the basic situation.
Q29 Chair: That is a very fair summary of the position. I am now going to ask Mr Ozouf if you would be good enough to do the same.
Philip Ozouf: I will not give another summary, which my opposite number in Guernsey did very well, save to say that our most important relationship today, and for centuries, has been that of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. The most important and deep social, cultural, economic, constitutional ties between us have been maintained over hundreds of years.
Those years started, of course, with the relationship with the English Crown and the Norman invasion. With a name like Ozouf, I would owe my history to probably being more Norman. William the Conqueror sat as both King of England and Duke of Normandy, which, of course, Jersey was part of. Fast forward to 1204, when King John lost continental Normandy, the people of Jersey and our brothers and sisters in Guernsey made that momentous decision to remain loyal to the English Crown.
In return for that demonstration of unswerving loyalty, King John granted Jersey numerous rights and privileges, which have been subsequently confirmed over centuries in numerous royal charters. These reflect that level of autonomy that we enjoy today, which has stood the test of time. It has not only been written charters, in that sense. They have adapted over time in the way that you can have an unwritten constitution that can be evolved.
Jersey is therefore not part of the United Kingdom. We are not represented by you in Westminster. By charter and convention, the UK Parliament cannot legislate for Jersey without the island’s consent. The UK Government, on behalf of the Crown, retain their formal responsibilities, of course, for the island’s defence and to an extent its foreign affairs. This constitutionally settled practice is that the UK consults Jersey and gains its consent before binding the island in any sense. This relationship has been greatly improved in recent years. We have a good relationship with the Ministry of Justice latterly, and we have good relationships across the departmental Government, with broad-ranging engagements, whether that is on health services, economic issues or Treasury matters.
It should be noted that I am the third postholder as the External Relations Minister in Jersey. We have grown some acceptance, some validity and some right to conduct our own external relations in recent years. We framed an agreement, which was signed in 2007, that Jersey has, in a sense, an international identity, which is in some ways different from the UK, but that the UK has a responsibility to support our own constitutional evolution as being British Jersey but with its own distinct identity. That is why I hold this office, which I hold very recently after the general election in Jersey, proudly as a British person with a French link.
We have signed, in that domain, a number of international agreements in our own right. We have a memorandum of understanding directly with foreign countries, and in line with our general growing international British identity, we have adapted our constitutional arrangements for the creation of the office I hold.
In summary, it should be said that we have incredibly strong links with the UK and the City of London. We are an international trade in services jurisdiction. Although we were known for the exports of our Jersey Royals and our cow around the world, notably in the UK and across the Commonwealth, we are today a centre of excellence in terms of trade in services. It is that trade in services that is supporting the British economy. Recent independent analysis showed that we add about £14 billion in value to the UK economy. We support about 250,000 British jobs. Our banks have over £80 billion of funding from markets that are outside the sterling zone and provide about 1.5% of funding for the whole UK banking sector. We are proud of our trade in services business. We are proud of the fact that it is cited internationally as being more advanced than a lot of other countries in terms of its regulation.
We run a trade deficit of about £500 million a year with the UK in terms of goods. We are a good importer of British goods, thank you. The majority of our communication links are, of course, within the United Kingdom. The UK is our major export market for the goods, to the extent that we have goods today, but, most importantly, services and trade in services.
The Jersey pound is the same as the British pound. It is valued at one-to-one. We are not a formal currency in the sense that you have a Jersey pound note in your wallet. We have monetary policy happily set by the Bank of England. The Jersey pound is a transactional currency tied to the pound, wholly backed by sterling reserves, I should also add. I hope that is helpful by way of introduction.
Alfred Cannan: I will keep this fairly brief because we share similar-ish historical relationships to those of our friends in the Channel Islands. From an Isle of Man perspective, we have a long-standing relationship with the Crown rather than Parliament, dating back hundreds of years. All of our primary laws are subject to Royal Assent, and the UK retains responsibility for defence and international relations.
We also share very strong economic ties with the United Kingdom. Most of our goods are imported to the island through the UK. Most of our exports go through the UK. The differential, probably, from our perspective is that we have a long-standing customs and excise agreement with the UK. We have been in a customs union for hundreds of years. More recently this has been reflected in our VAT sharing of revenues with the United Kingdom. That is broadly our position.
Q30 Richard Drax: Good afternoon to you all. Can you explain how you engage with the European Union and its institutions? Do you have a diplomatic mission or office in Brussels and, if so, what does it seek to achieve?
Alfred Cannan: First of all, it is important to state that we were never included within the UK membership of the EU, but Protocol 3, which was attached to the UK's Treaty of Accession, allowed for the island to be included in the EU customs union. There was free movement of goods and SPS rules on animal and plant health apply to goods in trade. We have for some years, prior to the UK exit and after, engaged directly with the EU on issues that fell outside the scope of Protocol 3. To that extent, we currently have a representative acting on our behalf in the EU in Brussels at the moment. We are based in Scotland House. Our office is very closely linked to the Channel Islands office just across the corridor, and we often work closely together where there are relevant interests.
You asked about the Brussels office. The key elements are around intelligence, so just generally understanding which direction Brussels is heading politically on certain issues. Clearly, issues around taxation are a key area for us, but also around movement of goods.
We still wish to maintain a relationship with other EU institutions in Brussels, such as the OECD, and generally ensure that we have a mechanism to continue to promote our interests.
Philip Ozouf: The islands in 2011 established a Channel Islands Brussels Office and a representative office for the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey to the EU. From this time, as a third country, Jersey established relationships with the European Union institutions, including the permanent representatives of the EU member states, as well as third-country missions, based on areas of mutual interest. We sought to promote and protect the island's interest vis-à-vis issues in Europe. This includes engagement in London with the Brussels European Union representative in the UK.
These established relationships have remained unchanged in the post‑Brexit world. The island continues to engage with the EU and its institutions at political officer level. Although there has been an obvious hiatus in face-to-face engagement during Covid, this has resumed and our Brussels work continues and has continued in recent months, and we look forward to developing further our relationships with the EU and its institutions.
The exception to Jersey's direct engagement with the EU is where engagement relates to the TCA. This engagement is conducted either via, or in parallel following agreement with, the UK as the party to the TCA. Perhaps it is just worth saying that it is a joint Channel Islands office representative in Brussels, and we support very much the continued use of that. As the arrangements with the EU and the UK change, we will change and adapt within that context.
Richard Drax: Just to tell you all, I will be coming to the TCA just a little bit later.
Jonathan Le Tocq: As Deputy Ozouf said, this is a joint Channel Islands office, so I will not take up any more time. All of the above applies to Guernsey too.
Q31 Mr Jones: I have a three-part question for all of you. Could you explain how you work with the UK’s mission to the EU? What is the division of responsibilities between your own EU engagement efforts and the work of UKMis, and how often do your officials and those in UKMis meet? What does your structured collaboration and work look like?
Alfred Cannan: First of all, it is important to state, having been in Brussels last week and met with the ambassador and his various officials, but also from having spoken to the team here, we find UKMis to be very accessible and open. Engagement is through regular meetings that are held with the wider British family or, if we need to, one-to-one meetings. We keep UKMis updated on any direct engagement that we have with the EU. I can confirm we are currently working with them to resolve some longer-standing issues flowing from the UK’s exit from the EU.
Before the exit, UKRep would assume responsibility for our formal relations with the EU. They would pick up anything that fell within Protocol 3. Those areas that fell outside Protocol 3 or outside of the legal relationship, we would be able to cover for ourselves. Again, the divisions of responsibilities are quite similar. In the formal structure set up under the TCA, the UK Government, and often individual Departments, are working along with UKMis, and will take the lead. We have regular contact with the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office via our fortnightly contact group meetings. We are able to discuss and contribute to those meetings as needed.
The most engagement, with most relevance, has been in the Specialised Committee on Fisheries, but my colleagues in the Channel Islands will be better placed to comment on how those meetings have been conducted.
In general, we have a regular contact. Our Brussels office meets with UKMis generally twice a month to take stock of developments. There are ad hoc meetings as necessary, and we share relevant intelligence between ourselves, as well as engagements that have happened with EU officials. I hope that is helpful.
Jonathan Le Tocq: The Channel Islands Brussels Office is similar to the Isle of Man office. It holds regular monthly meetings with an officer from UKMis to ensure that there is a regular flow of information and developments between our office and UKMis. In addition, CIBO—we have three or four offices there—has an established working relationship with UKMis offices on particular policy areas of mutual interest.
Fisheries has been a major point in recent years, but also economic affairs. Our officers are often invited to attend events by UKMis. We have sometimes arranged meetings and roundtable events with the outbound visitor representatives from Guernsey to connect with officers in relevant policy areas, which has been very helpful for us.
Ministers meet regularly with the UK ambassador to the EU, or his deputy, during visits to Brussels. I have done that on virtually every occasion on which I have visited, which is always helpful. There are always issues at the time to discuss, and to do that at a level that is not at official level is very important to us as well.
Guernsey holds both bilateral and direct relationships with European member states, which have developed over many years. For example, as well as our presence in Brussels, Jersey and Guernsey are represented in Normandy by a joint national office for France, the Bureau des Îles Anglo‑Normandes. The officials who are based there also support our European office and those who have engagement in London as well, with EU embassies and in-country European engagement.
In line with the framework agreement that Deputy Ozouf mentioned earlier, Guernsey, as part of that, conducts its engagement with London embassies, regional engagement in Normandy and engagement with permanent reps and third-country missions, as well as EU institutions, directly based for identified priority interests, and has done so for many years. Just for matters concerning the TCA, Guernsey does not deal directly with the EU institutions, but we will do that alongside the UK in conjunction and consultation.
Philip Ozouf: I do not really have much more to add to what Jonathan Le Tocq has already stated. The relationship has been well explained, and the way that works with regular meetings has worked well. I was not in government over the last four years, but I understand that has been a very effective way, and my predecessor worked effectively with that.
On the three very good questions that you raised, I am just seeing whether there is anything I can add. We have dealt with the work of the missions and the division of responsibilities. We have our own office in London as well and we have some people supporting our EU engagement strategies there. We have an engagement strategy with EU ambassadors, and generally ambassadors in the course of exchanges. We find that London presence quite helpful, certainly in our case, and the work of our Normandy office in Caen is important.
We are both speaking to you from the British Embassy in Paris, where we are engaged on a three-day visit to France. That is the kind of work that has been long in the planning. Raising awareness of the importance of the relationship that the Channel Islands has with France is an example of the direct impact the offices we have in Caen, London and Brussels have, where we are raising issues of concern and we have had some very interesting conversations in the time that we have been here.
Q32 Mr Jones: Are your interests represented in the wider UK-EU discussions, whether through the office or more specifically through UKMis?
Philip Ozouf: In 2021, a memorandum of understanding was agreed between the UK Government and the Government of Jersey. That set out the principles and mechanisms for working together on the relevant matters of trade and economic issues under the TCA. It also set out dispute resolution arrangements. The UK and Jersey have committed to regular, informal and working-level-group engagement, on the principle that talking is always good; communication is important with each other. Sometimes those conversations are in confidence because we are on the same side. We agree to alert each other as to an early warning system of where problems are likely to or could develop.
Jersey works with the UK Government on the TCA implementation in specific areas: first, transparency about trade and other economic matters that are relevant to the TCA, enabling Jersey to identify where its particular interests are engaged; secondly, notification of issues that are relevant for the compliance of the TCA and regular trade; and other relevant economic policy reviews.
The UK Government committed to involving the Government of Jersey in discussions that were relevant to Jersey's trade arrangements with the EU-UK. The UK, at the end of the day, is responsible for representing the interests of Jersey at the Partnership Council and the relevant specialised committees and working groups. The UK will consult the Government of Jersey, I am pleased to say, in advance where there is a clear interest and meetings are discussing issues of importance. Where appropriate, Jersey Ministers, or indeed officials, may be invited to contribute as part of the UK delegation. It works well. These arrangements are perhaps now becoming more operationalised in more specialised committee work in the programmes that are done.
At officer level, there has been an increased level of engagement, as one might expect, where Jersey can identify areas of interest that continue to grow. We can come back to discuss that a bit later. The UK Government have made a commitment to seek Jersey’s consent where a proposal is to create or amend an obligation. In fact, that obligation is a legal requirement. The Assembly of Jersey—the Parliament of Jersey, if you like—has to agree to any agreement that the UK would enter into on its behalf. The UK Government consistently recognise this and have recognised that any amendment to the TCA would, to the extent that it applies to Jersey, create a new international obligation that could extend to Jersey. It is agreed that only an extension or amendment to the TCA would be in accordance with the established constitutional arrangements, that we would be consulted, and an agreement provided before anything would be signed. I hope that is helpful.
Jonathan Le Tocq: I will not add very much to this. I have had this ministerial mandate for 10 years, so I have seen some changes over that time. I would just like to quickly reflect on that.
Just to say again, although the UK Government have responsibility to represent the interests of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the other Crown dependencies in the international sphere, when those interests differ, there have been tensions between us and, it tends to be, UK Government Departments in fully understanding resourcing and dealing with the mechanisms in which we might achieve the same objectives; because we are very small, we might do that in a different way.
It is partly because of that that we set up the Channel Islands Brussels Office a number of years ago when the UK was still a member of the EU. Those tensions have not often been at ministerial level. They have been at the official level, where it is perhaps difficult to understand, when you are outside of a small community, why we would do things using a different mechanism or a different manner or system.
One of the good things that has happened, certainly since the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU, has been, in my experience, that our relationships with the UK Government and at departmental level have improved. I would say, candidly, that they are the best that they have been from my perspective. We are consulted more regularly, there are opportunities to talk and to understand fully why our interests would differ, and to seek to represent them more effectively.
Alfred Cannan: I do not have a huge amount to add, other than to make the point that, where we are engaging outside of the TCA, or in areas that that are not directly concerned with our relationship under the TCA, we will keep UKMis informed. They are always happy to engage with us.
In terms of our general relationship, I have to say, as I have said right from the start, historically there may have been some frustrations, but, during the Brexit process and post Brexit, we have found the UK bodies, whether it is UKMis or departmentally, to have been extremely understanding.
Chair: Good. This is all very informative.
Q33 Greg Smith: I want to move, if we can, to the actual application of EU law when the UK was a member of the European Union and since. Just to set the scene, can each of you, as briefly as you can possibly muster—I appreciate it is a wide question—explain how and in what areas EU law applied to your jurisdictions during the UK’s membership of the European Union?
Alfred Cannan: I will be as concise as possible. During the process of joining the EU, the UK did ask whether the Isle of Man wished to be included in the membership. At the time, the island said no, but we did want to retain the ability to trade with the UK, primarily in agricultural goods, which was our main trading sector at the time. We also wanted to retain our customs relationship with the UK, so the UK negotiated Protocol 3 to its of accession for us.
Essentially, that protocol meant that we were covered by customs provisions and agricultural products traded with the EU, and of course with the UK, and had to conform to EU rules on animal and plant health. There are also some consequential areas. Our people, for example, who are British citizens could only benefit from provisions relating to settlement and establishment if they could demonstrate a close enough link to the UK, and in practice that meant a UK parent or grandparent, or having lived in the UK for five years or more.
Another consequential area was that EU state aid rules applied in the areas covered by Protocol 3. Also, in our dealings with EU citizens, we had to treat them all equally, which meant no favourable treatment for UK nationals.
Jonathan Le Tocq: As Alfred mentioned, Protocol 3 was the one that applied to us. Similarly, we were obliged during that time to implement directives that related to the specific areas, customs measures, trade and agricultural goods. As the EU competency grew and EU treaties evolved, it became far more complicated, however.
For relevant subjects, the Bailiwick would often legislate itself, voluntarily, to align to EU directives or to regulations to help facilitate trade, and the three islands of the Bailiwick of Guernsey legislated often, and increasingly more so, to align to EU law and standards, where they best served the island’s interests to meet international standards or norms. There were a number of areas where we did not need to do so because those industries or that particular activity did not occur on the island, but that became the norm, certainly in the recent history.
During the UK’s membership of the EU, the Courts of Justice of the EU only had jurisdiction in respect to the EU law that applied under Protocol 3. There were no cases directly linked to the Bailiwick of Guernsey during that time.
Philip Ozouf: I do not have much to add. I will just make a remark in relation to the third-country position that Jersey had. It is important to mention our very close trading relationships with the UK and our geographic proximity to France; I can, from my house in Jersey, see the coast of Normandy. If there is any doubt about where the mainland is, it is France in our case, even though we are British.
We have had to engage a good neighbour policy willingly in the areas where we are now actively economically engaged. These include compliance, as a good neighbour, with international standards in relation to taxation, financial services, anti-money laundering and data protection, brought into sharp focus, of course, with the whole issue of the war in Ukraine and all the sanctions issues. These are issues that we will absolutely want to be in step on with the United Kingdom, but having a very close regard for the decision making in Europe, as the UK is doing as well on that issue.
Q34 Greg Smith: That is very helpful, thank you. Could we perhaps fast-forward to the point at which the United Kingdom left the European Union and the point at which the Trade and Co-operation Agreement was agreed? Can you explain how the UK-EU TCA applies to each of your respective jurisdictions and, in particular, given some of the comments you made about the time during membership, whether it applies in full or it is limited to specific areas?
Philip Ozouf: The Trade and Co-operation Agreement is applicable in Jersey and other Crown dependencies to a more limited extent than it is in the UK. The TCA is applicable to Jersey only in relation to its trading goods, including custom procedures. That would be slightly different from the Isle of Man, but as far as Jersey and Guernsey are concerned it is the implementation of recognition of regulatory standards in relation to agriculture and manufactured goods.
Fisheries access to Jersey’s territorial waters and adjacent waters of the European Union, i.e. France, is the issue that we have been seized upon and most affected by, from an outsider’s point of view. TCA provisions in relation to services are not applicable to Jersey, and therefore Jersey’s existing relationships with the EU, which I mentioned earlier, in relation to financial services and other matters are not directly affected by the TCA. Jersey’s relationships with the EU on those matters continue to be based on that third-country adequacy and equivalent arrangements that permit Jersey businesses and our trading services—a big sector of our economy—to access the EU services market, subject to always demonstrating equivalence.
The Government of Jersey work closely with the UK to protect our collective interest in ensuring that customs procedures and checks on goods are conducted in a way that protects the UK and the Crown dependency markets. We also have to be proportionate, because we are a micro-island and a micro-state, if you like, in that sense. Although we may often align our legislation with the UK in these areas, it would sometimes be disproportionate to adopt things that are suitable for a big country and the entirety of all of that. We need to have a regulatory environment set within the spirit of the UK Government but which is applicable as appropriate to the issues that we have in Jersey that concern us.
It is important that all UK Government Departments try to understand and accept the general principle that we will deliver TCA compliance in our own way, being proportionate, risk-focused and using the mechanisms that we will choose so as to be respectful but implementable for Jersey. Jersey’s approach to achieving compliance in particular provisions of the TCA may differ from the UK from time to time, but the outcome will always be the same. A general acceptance of this principle would allow Jersey to implement certain, perhaps more detailed, elements of the TCA in a provision that fits our own unique characteristics as a small island.
Jonathan Le Tocq: I will not add a lot to that, because most of the situation and the answer to this question apply to Guernsey as well. There are just a couple of things to underline in this regard. First, although we were acting together on, first of all, the question of whether we wanted to join the TCA, but then also in the subsequent negotiations, any decision had to pass all three Parliaments or Assemblies of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Those sorts of things can be more complicated.
It is also important to say in any ongoing outworking of our involvement in the TCA, we believe, perhaps particularly as the smallest of the Crown dependencies and as three separate Parliaments within that, that our engagement should continue to be underpinned by principles of relevance, proportionality, and practicality. It is very important to us that the UK Government continue to recognise that there may be, as I alluded to before, different ways of achieving the same outcomes, while respecting the constitutional relationship and the nuances of small island communities. That is important for us. It was important before, when the UK was a member of the EU. It is important now under the new TCA agreement.
Alfred Cannan: There is not much that I can add. Broadly, the TCA applies to the Isle of Man in respect of goods and fisheries. It is operating on pretty much the same basis as Jersey or Guernsey, with a couple of nuances. Essentially, goods and fisheries are currently accessible to us under the TCA.
Q35 Richard Drax: Just to take this a little further—you may have answered this in part already—are there parts of the TCA that you are not covered by where you would like a closer relationship with the EU?
Alfred Cannan: Initially, we suggested that we would sign up to the whole TCA, but the EU predominantly rejected that on the basis that it did not want to see additional benefits to anybody from Brexit. Honestly, we think there would be only marginal gains for us as it currently stands. The reality of the situation is that it would require significant effort politically, on behalf of the UK and the EU, to negotiate much further. Our view is the resultant marginal gains really do not make that an active consideration for us. We are relatively content with the position that we are in.
Jonathan Le Tocq: All I will add is that, quite simply, we were a third country before, so for all other issues that were not included under the TCA, the status quo continues. From our point of view, that is not a problem. It has served us fairly well over the last decades. From that point of view, we are not keen to see any change.
Philip Ozouf: It may be because I have a view directly over to the Normandy peninsula, the mainland, from Jersey, but the issue of the UK’s withdrawal has affected Jersey, and indeed the other islands, as the Ministers have said, in different ways.
One of the issues is mobility. We are so intertwined with our history and so culturally linked. I am speaking to you in English, but I could address our Parliament in French if I wished. The national language is French. Although we are absolutely British and Anglophile, we also have strong French links. We enjoy, or we enjoyed, the babble of and the speaking of French schoolchildren and French visitors to a great extent, which was a beneficial economic boost for Jersey in the modern and changing tourism world.
Our French neighbours in Normandy and Brittany valued hugely the pound in the pocket for people who were visiting France. The issue of the requirement of passports from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has become quite a big issue for us. Prior to the change we would have accepted identity cards. We are part of the common travel area. We respect UK borders. We are very effective in relation to border control.
However, the practical issue is that we have seen a cliff edge in French visitors coming to Jersey and vice versa. This is an issue that we have raised with French interlocutors, and we are wanting to continue to have a dialogue on this issue because it has had a big impact for us. It does not serve both the communities of our regional counterparts or ourselves to see a continuation of what is quite a difficult situation, frankly.
This has arisen because of passports. Not every French person has a passport. Not everybody who visits Brittany and Normandy and wants to hop on a boat to come across to their friendly Channel Islands, or Îles de la Manche, can do so, because they have not got a passport. Identity cards would help solve that, and we are in discussions about that.
Q36 Chair: My next question is very simple because we have already covered it, pretty much. You do not need to go into great detail on this. Do you find, with regard to what has happened since Brexit, that you receive more or less support from UKMis? You seem to be pretty satisfied with the relationship. We do not need to go into great detail there, because you have answered that question already.
Alfred Cannan: I do not have much to add on that. Matters have yet to be tested, possibly, to any great extent. As this is really around goods and fisheries, as it currently stands my view is that, because of the political status both of the TCA and other political matters that are perhaps drawing other attention, we have not really had to go into bat against the EU in any sort of way.
As I said, we fundamentally have ties and other relationships outside of the TCA. We would probably be looking to UKMis for some guidance and some help were we to reach a friction point. It is probably too early to make further judgments at this point. We are very content with the open relationship and the way business is being conducted, but we will have to see if we reach friction points in the future. Hopefully we will not.
Chair: Let us hope we do not.
Philip Ozouf: I understand that engagement has been very good. It is about looking forward and at where we are going to need support with the UK to finding some of the challenges of the future. Those are the things that I would emphasise. This is not an end of a relationship. It is a continuing need to have an active engagement with UKMis and in Brussels, because we do matter, and we value this relationship, both in terms of financial trade in services but also as a physical relationship. Sometimes we are regarded as almost the poster child of the relationship between the UK and France, and we want to be portrayed as a good child to both parties.
Chair: I come from a hamlet in Shropshire, which was originally French, if I can put it that way, after the battle of Hastings. We are very conscious of our heritage. I have to say that we are very glad that we are now British, but, be that as it may, I understand exactly where you are coming from in relation to your good neighbourliness with France.
Q37 Mr Jones: Mr Ozouf, is your Government satisfied with the TCA’s provisions as to fishing? Last year you had a highly publicised spat with the French when St Helier port was blockaded. At that time, did you speak to UKMis, and were they of any assistance in that dispute?
Philip Ozouf: I am a postholder who has recently been re‑elected, and I was not part of the last Jersey Government. I must say that the issue of that blockade, further strengthened by the arrival of a warship from the UK, certainly has been ingrained in memories, both on the French side of the channel and the other. I was interviewed on French TV yesterday. I was asked whether I am generally happy with the relationship between the UK and France.
We need to say that, of course, Brexit ended what had been a longstanding agreement since I was first elected in 1999. That was the Bay of Granville agreement, which basically governed the access to these waters. French, Norman, or Breton, and Jersey fishermen, and Guernsey friends as well, have fished in these shared waters for centuries. There was an agreement that there would be joint management of these waters, and that fell away in relation to the arrival of the TCA.
We have tried to approach this in a very transparent way. The totemic issue is that Jersey, under the guidance of the United Kingdom and Defra, issues its own licences for access in our waters to French fishermen. French fishermen were not content with the licensing arrangements. This has been a challenging issue. We are optimistic. The new Government is optimistic. We are engaging with our French counterparts, we are engaging with our regional cousins in France, and we are incredibly helped by the UK and Defra in finding solutions. We have just been having meetings in France today. It is about communication and understanding, which is really important. We cannot change the past but we can change the future, and we can certainly look forward to arrangements that are settled and more certain.
There are issues about replacement of boats. Fishing families and fishing individuals, both on Jersey and Guernsey, have been affected by Covid. They need to think about how we decarbonise our fishing boats and whether there are areas where we can operate in the future. We need to get through this short-term issue of licensing, and long-term issuing of licences to French fishermen. We are grateful for the assistance that we are given from Defra with that.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. That concludes our questions. It has been an extremely informative session. Thank you very much for the clarity with which you have answered these questions. I was beginning to wonder whether we were going to run out of time. Thank you very much indeed to all three of you. It has been a great pleasure to have you with us.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Ms Dorothea Hodge and the Hon. Teslyn Barkman.
Q38 Chair: Thank you very much for coming to see us, Dorothea Hodge, from Anguilla, and the Honourable Teslyn Barkman, from the Falkland Islands. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to welcome you and thank you for appearing virtually to give evidence this afternoon. I do not think we have ever taken evidence from witnesses from either the South Atlantic or the Caribbean before, so it is a first and a very welcome one. This is the second session of our inquiry into the UK-EU representation. We have just had Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man.
In this second panel we are dealing with Anguilla and the Falkland Islands. We will cover, first of all, your unique relationships with the UK and your interactions with the EU. We will then cover the main issues you face since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, how you work to represent your interests to the EU and its institutions, and your relationship with the UK mission to the EU. Before we start, for those watching at home, would you briefly introduce yourselves?
Would you also be kind enough to answer the question that I am about to put? This will be to both of you, so you will both have the same question. As with our previous witnesses, you have very unique and special relationships with the UK. For those watching at home, would you be kind enough to give us a brief synopsis touching on your legal, political and economic ties with the UK?
Dorothea Hodge: My name is Dorothea Hodge. I am the UK representative for Anguilla. To provide a quick synopsis of the legal, political, and economic ties to the UK, Anguilla has a population of approximately 15,000 people, and is possibly most well known recently for the devastation that impacted it following Hurricane Irma a few years back. It is an overseas territory of the UK, based in the Leeward Islands within the Caribbean.
First colonised by the English in 1650, it is the oldest British territory in the Caribbean. In terms of its governance, it is a self-governing territory and has its own constitution. The UK and Anguilla share a unique constitutional relationship, built on a shared history, common values and a spirit of collaboration and partnership. The UK and Anguilla share common bonds, reflected in its adoption of the Westminster style of government and the use of English common law. The fundamental structure of the constitutional relationship is that powers are devolved to the local elected Government of Anguilla in the territory to a maximum extent.
The UK retains powers to discharge its sovereign responsibilities. The head of Government is the Crown, and a Governor represents the Crown with responsibility for defence, financial services, external and internal affairs. An Attorney General, appointed by the Governor, is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases and law reform. The FCDO is ultimately responsible for managing the UK’s international obligations and its relationship with other international Governments. The White Paper of 2012 perhaps set out the nature of that UK relationship, but that paper was pre-Brexit. I hope that sets the scene for Anguilla’s UK relationship.
Q39 Chair: Honourable Teslyn Barkman, would you be kind enough to give your take on this, so a brief synopsis of your relationship and the legal, political and economic ties with the UK?
Teslyn Barkman: We have heard already from the Crown dependencies. As Dorothea has outlined, the overseas territories each have a bespoke relationship with the UK Government. In the Falkland Islands’ case, we are internally self-governing. Eight democratically elected politicians form the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands. I am one of those eight members. I am one of the three who have been elected to represent the Camp constituency, and five are elected to represent the city of Stanley.
It is worth saying that in 2013 the Falkland Islands people voted in a referendum to maintain their relationship with the UK Government and the UK, with an overwhelming result to remain a UK overseas territory. We have a Standard and Poor’s rating of A-plus, so we are internationally evidenced to be well governed and very fiscally responsible, which is important as this pertains to our very healthy economy, certainly one that we were enjoying post EU exit.
Our Government expenditure is raised through local taxation and other Government revenue streams, such as fisheries licensing. Due to the erroneous claims of Argentina, however, our country has a need for international defence and foreign affairs, and support for this is provided by the UK Government. This is essentially so we can continue to live freely.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank our veterans who have protected us then and ever since. This is our 40th year of liberation from Argentine occupation. I would like to thank His Majesty’s Government for their continued support in helping keep the people of the Falkland Islands free.
Q40 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Apart from Gibraltar, the overseas territories were not part of the EU when the UK was a member state. Can you tell us—this is really the point of the question—how the UK’s EU membership impacted on you?
Dorothea Hodge: The overseas territories were first mentioned in the formative Treaty of Rome of the European Union. The relationship between the overseas territories was guided most recently by the 2013 overseas association decision, which was founded on three key pillars: enhancing competitiveness, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability, and promoting co-operation and integration between the overseas countries and territories of the European Union and other partners and neighbouring regions, developing the overseas territories as centres of excellence in their regions.
It was also based on mutual interest, complementarity and shared priorities, and these included the economic diversification of the overseas territories, including their integration in world and regional economies, the promotion of green growth, the sustainable management of our natural resources, including conservation and biodiversity, the adaptation and mitigation of the impact of climate change, the promotion of disaster risk reduction, the promotion of research, innovation and scientific co-operation, and the promotion of social, cultural and economic exchanges between the overseas territories and their neighbours and partners.
If we highlight just one area of this co-operation and partnership between the overseas territories and the European Union, simply in the area of environmental management, the co-operation and partnership covered—I will list these issues for note: climate change, disaster risk reduction, conservation of biodiversity, management of ecosystems, integrated coastal zone management, maritime support, sustainable forest management, sustainable management of fish stocks, sustainable energy, sustainable water management, maritime transport, air transport and waste management, in addition to co-operation on research and information and communication technology.
As you can see, it was a fairly extensive co-operation and engagement between ourselves and the EU, and this trickled down into very open and comprehensive political dialogue between the European Union, the overseas territories and our member state, the United Kingdom. The dialogue was in respect of our individual institutional, legal and financial engagement, but it also enabled the overseas territories to be a part of the process of their own self-guided development.
What did this mean in reality? It meant that, for a territory such as Anguilla, we had access to technical expertise from the European Union. We had access to loans from the European Investment Bank, which enabled the territory to improve its road network. We had access to support through the EDF. Anguilla was one of five territories allocated €45 million under the European green new deal in 2010, in addition to receiving emergency support following Hurricane Irma.
We had access to trade. I will defer to my colleague from the Falkland Islands on this matter, but there was also free access for goods under the 2013 Council decision, which enabled us to trade effectively with our nearest island, which is half Dutch—Sint Maarten—and half French, Saint Martin. Not only were we eligible to participate in regional co-operation and development in partnership with our other overseas territories, but we also had free access for goods and services into the European market.
I will now defer to my colleague to discuss the areas around trade, but what I would say is that, in light of Brexit, that has meant that the overseas territories have now lost access to a €500 million fund of support, which was available for long-term development of the overseas territories.
Q41 Chair: Would you be kind enough to answer the same question, Ms Barkman? I will repeat the question: how does the UK’s EU membership impact you?
Teslyn Barkman: Our economy is almost completely export-based. We enjoy a free trade arrangement with the UK now, but, before, that was administered through access to the EU single market when the UK was a member. It is probably worth noting that the Falkland Islands’ inner and outer conservation zones—our maritime area—is managed by the Falkland Islands Government and not by the UK, so access to our fisheries was never an issue in this debate. Access to the fisheries is managed by the Falkland Islands people’s representatives.
The UK’s membership of the EU provided two key benefits. One was access to funding, and a lot of that benefit was through environmental funding, such as BEST and LIFE. The primary benefit—thanks to my colleague, Dorothea, for acknowledging this—was through tariff and quota-free access to the EU. More than 90% of our fisheries exports went to the EU, and about one third of our meat exports. To try to put that into some real context, fisheries in the Falklands make up over 60% of GDP, so that market is incredibly important and could not be replicated elsewhere in the world, which I am sure, as we get through the rest of the questions in this session, will become quite apparent. As a side note, the Falkland Islands people suffer from illegal economic sanctions being imposed upon them, and the UK’s relationship gave us a political relationship with a major power that was not open to opportunistic trade lobbying from Argentina.
Q42 Chair: I am just going to slightly reorganise my questions, because I have another question coming down the line, which relates to what Mr Hyslop has said. If I could, while I have you, Ms Barkman, ask this question as well, as you have just raised the issue of the fisheries, and perhaps you would be kind enough to answer this one too. Mr Hyslop, the Falkland Islands Government representative to the UK and Europe, has previously raised concerns about tariffs on fish exports to the EU. Could you explain the impact that these tariffs are having on the industry and your economy, as a supplement to what you have just said?
We also heard in June from the UK ambassador to the EU, Mr Appleby, that his team is in contact with you regarding this question. How often have you managed to speak to his officials and how are matters progressing on all that? It really follows from what you have just said. It is a convenient moment to pick up on that now.
Teslyn Barkman: I will apologise now for some background noise. I am just hearing one of our inter-island taxis fly over my head, so you might hear some buzzing at some point.
Chair: As long as it is not an Argentinian plane.
Teslyn Barkman: No, definitely not. Thank you for that very important question. The tariffs that we are now faced with are between 6% and 18%—18% for our fin fisheries and 6% for our squid fisheries, which is our dominant industry here in the Falklands and also has a vast market presence in the EU. For instance, there is probably a one-in-three chance that, when you are eating premium calamari in Spain, it has come from the Falkland Islands.
This is one of those really important market ownership points that was not well known, certainly throughout the world and possibly throughout the UK Government, until my colleague Richard, who is an excellent point of contact for communicating on these issues, had worked really hard to raise this awareness throughout UK Government and within the EU too.
I know that, throughout that process, when the UK was negotiating its exit from the European Union, the impact on the Falklands was well understood. Unfortunately, we have been left outside of the trade and co-operation agreement, and now that impact has crystallised. Last year, for example, £14.7 million was paid to the EU in terms of tariffs to export our products to that market.
I have just had some latest information from the industry and, to date, over £6 million has been paid this year to the European Union, and it is very likely that, by the end of the year, it will be in excess of that £14.7 million that was paid last year. It has been a good fishing season here in the Falklands, but, unfortunately, that money will not be retained within the economy to benefit the Falkland Islands and Falkland Islanders. I hope that addresses your question.
Q43 Chair: Yes, thank you very much. I do not want to hog this session but, while I have you, I would also just like to touch on the question of oil and gas. Is there any issue there that you would like to enlarge on? I am old enough to remember many things that go back to the 1970s and 1980s, and I just wondered if you were able to throw any light on that, because oil and gas exploration is an issue in relation to the Falklands. Have you any thoughts on that that you would like to express?
Teslyn Barkman: This is an incredibly pertinent question, given those illegal economic sanctions that I mentioned before. Some of those sanctions are imposed on any businesses that wish to do trade in the Falklands, and that includes hydrocarbons businesses. Argentina created a set of domestic laws and policies to arrest anyone who is involved in hydrocarbons in the Falklands and has, essentially, tried to find every way to impose itself on that industry to discourage people from being involved in it.
This is one of those matters that we continuously need support from UKG to try to get a handle on, and certainly it is not right that the Falkland Islands people cannot currently take full advantage of their economy in the way that they should be able to.
Q44 Margaret Ferrier: The overseas territories are not, of course, covered by the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. To date, what has the impact of this been for your respective economies?
Teslyn Barkman: The impact of not being included within the trade and co-operation agreement has had a financial impact on our economy. As I have just noted, that £14.7 million paid out last year should have been money that was being invested back into the Falkland Islands fisheries and modernising the fleet.
The Falkland Islands Government and industry work collaboratively to mitigate bycatch, and this is something that we are incredibly proud of. It is certainly very important when you live in a place as exceptional as the Falkland Islands. There are a lot of marine mammals. That environment needs to be respected, so we invest a lot of money, time and research in doing this. Again, this is where that money should be centred.
As well as the Falkland Islands people, who would regain some of that in the form of corporation tax, two-thirds of corporation tax receipts in 2017 came from the Falkland Islands fishing sector, which is a significant amount of income for Falkland Islands people, especially as we are going into a period of very high cost of living impacts here too.
We also cannot access really important EU environmental funding. I have certainly been in conversations with NGOs here in the Falklands for whom, even though Darwin Plus was upgraded in a particular way, the loss of access to multiple pots to be able to apply for research and funding, being in competition with other overseas territories for that funding, and not being able to fund long-term projects that require a significant amount of capital over a long period of time are still things that we are continuing to discuss with the UK to see if we can replicate that kind of funding. It is just a tangible loss, and certainly has been over the past few years.
The Falklands Islands Meat Company exports meat to the UK and to the EU, and having access to the EU market gave a certain amount of profitability to help diversify market prices. While that is a small amount of income for the Falkland Islands, it is an important diversification opportunity for farmers here. The Falklands is still a huge agricultural base, and our second primary export is wool. Although that was not affected by tariffs, and still is not as a primary good being sold into the EU, not being able to get the most for their meat product is significant when the wool price falls through the floor, which it has been known to do.
For us, it is about having this stable relationship with a major power. It gave certainty but also gave a great opportunity for mutual benefit to the EU as well as us. They enjoy our marvellous calamari and our excellent fin fish, and we continue to have a very prosperous fisheries that, for some reason, have extra barriers in the way.
Dorothea Hodge: In terms of Anguilla’s economy, it is based, really, upon tourism and our fisheries. The loss of access to the European Union has been significant. In terms of access to EU markets, unlike the Falklands, which is doing direct imports into the European Union, our nearest neighbour is Sint Maarten, French and Dutch. Our fisheries have been restricted from being able to sell directly to their nearest neighbour. This is significant.
The Dutch and French fishermen fish in Anguilla’s waters and are able to sell within their market. The fishermen from Anguilla fishing in the same water are told that their fish does not meet European Union standards. This is very significant in terms of the fisheries on a local basis.
Q45 Chair: They are the same fish.
Dorothea Hodge: They are the same fish. We are also challenged by managing that border. In the same way that there is the query over our Northern Ireland border, the border goes, technically, through the water. These trade issues were not resolved for us locally during Brexit. On the issue of free movement, there is a local arrangement in place that enables free movement between the two territories. However, in terms of trade, that was never clarified, and the border support to manage that as well. That is access to the EU market for Anguilla.
In terms of EU co-operation, as we noted earlier, this is significant. Overall, the territories have lost out on a pot of potentially €500 million set aside for all of the overseas territories from the period 2021 to 2027, which was focused very much on shared priorities of the green new deal, digital and sustainable growth and jobs, and the priorities as defined by the overseas territories, so very much country-led priorities, with a very clear agreement in place for a seven-year period in which there is political dialogue and transparency over the nature of that funding, which is designed to support the territories for sustainable green growth.
That has been lost. In a small territory with a small population, Anguilla has been subject to external shocks that have not been caused by Anguilla. Possibly the most well-known shock was the most recent hurricane, Hurricane Irma, which came to prominence within the UK, but other external shocks have had an equally devastating impact on the territory. The 2008 financial crash was, again, an external shock not of Anguilla’s making, but sent deep shocks through Anguilla’s economy. Hurricane Irma, Covid and Brexit were all external to Anguilla. With a small population on the front line of climate change, you can see, very quickly, with an economy based on tourism, the fragility of the territory. The funding available from the EU to support Anguilla’s development has been critical.
Let me provide another example. From 2007 to 2013, €76 million was allocated to the UK overseas territories through the European Development Fund. For Anguilla, that meant €11.7 million from 2007 to 2013 to strengthen macroeconomic stability. It also meant €14 million in direct budgetary support to support education initiatives, alongside a shared fund of approximately €45 million to support environmental sustainability across the overseas territories in that region. As you can see, those are significant funds that enabled the territory to develop over the long term.
As a further example, most recently the Caribbean overseas territories have been collaborating in terms of resilience, sustainable energy and marine biodiversity. One such programme was a €10 million fund to fast- track and fund a Covid-19 resilience response initiative in Anguilla.
It has been a significant loss over the period of time to a very small territory with a very small, fragile economy, and we are yet to have a clear understanding from the UK about the manner in which the territories would have an ongoing support mechanism that is transparent and open to political dialogue in a similar manner that the programming existed from the EU. I hope that is helpful.
Chair: It is helpful, and it is a good reason why we would need to take that up as well. That is something that comes out of this session. Both your responses are noted and we will follow that up later.
Q46 Richard Drax: Good afternoon to you both. Ms Barkman, thank you very much for your kind comments about the Falklands. I was serving at the time. Many of my friends went down south to do the job that they did and I know that they, as well as all those we lost and those who were wounded, would be very grateful for your touching comments today. Thank you very much indeed.
Ms Hodge, you have given a list of things that you have lost, so maybe this question is quite relevant in that sense. What support have you received from the UK Government to manage the transition from pre- to new, post-Brexit UK-EU trading agreements?
Dorothea Hodge: In terms of the support from the UK, we would say, in terms of dealing with very specific issues and challenges, I will raise the external shock of Covid. The UK has been exceptional in its response in terms of that shock in a post-Brexit world. The UK’s response has been exceptional in terms of the overseas territories and Covid.
In terms of the transition post Brexit, I would argue that there has not been a comprehensive approach in a way in which one would expect a Government may approach such a significant constitutional change in the status of its overseas territories in a new global world. For example, the UK’s position post Brexit was very much set out in its strategic plan, Global Britain. There is very limited mention of the position and status of the overseas territories in that regard.
On an individual basis, the UK has provided support when necessary, and my premier would like us to acknowledge the support that the Minister has recently provided in terms of economic resilience to the Government of Anguilla, following all of these external shocks over the last 10 years. However, in terms of a comprehensive long-term programme for the overseas territories that enable them to traverse the UK’s departure from the European Union and its impact on the overseas territories, I would argue that that has been lacking.
One would suggest that, in circumstances such as these, perhaps a standard practice in terms of an impact assessment would have been done in terms of the status of the overseas territories in a new post-Brexit world. That has not been done and we have yet to see something comprehensive from the UK Government in terms of the status of the UK overseas territories post Brexit.
The overseas territories have the need for a new White Paper. The last White Paper was in 2012 and, at this juncture, a new White Paper setting out the joint position of the partnership between the overseas territories and the UK post Brexit would, speaking on behalf of my premier, be welcome.
Teslyn Barkman: In terms of support from His Majesty’s Government to manage the transition, there has been an offer, at both official and political level, for support to raise awareness, essentially, and to gather information particularly on the effects that this has had in terms of our economy. As has been acknowledged, there has been official-level support, which is focused on trying to understand how the Falkland Islands can help to mitigate these tariffs. In the same position that Dorothea has highlighted very well, there is no long-term solution presently available. Although there is a solid understanding of the financial burden that this has caused the Falkland Islands, that is something that we are presently absorbing as a country. Arguably, there may be a conversation to be had, but we are certainly focusing on the future and maintaining that strong market presence in the EU.
Although we did manage to lobby within the EU at an industry level to secure an autonomous tariff quota access—a short-term amount for just our calamari squid for up to 75,000 metric tonnes—this is not the great solution that we thought it was going to be, as the processing requirement does not acknowledge glazing, which is how our product is processed when it lands in the EU, so we have made a very limited opportunity of that ATQ.
I can say that there has been possibly a closer relationship with Defra in particular, as we have certainly been engaging in those conversations about how to improve environmental funding opportunities for OTs. I am sure that you are all aware that 94% of all of the UK’s biodiversity is in the UK overseas territories, so making sure that we get that right for the future is not only important for the individual OTs or for the UK, but is globally significant. That is still an area that requires more conversation, but, hopefully, is moving in the right direction.
In terms of trade, we are trying to find the right way through and assistance when needed, also recognising that the UK has less influence, as it is now outside of the EU. It certainly has more than we do, so trying to find the best way through that is something that we continue to dedicate Government time to.
Q47 Greg Smith: Thank you for joining us. We have heard a lot about the pressures that you are facing on tariffs and getting goods to the European Union. I have certainly learned something about Falklands calamari this afternoon. It would be really helpful if you could answer two questions for me off the back of that.
What level of engagement have you had with the UK mission to the European Union on negotiating a better tariff deal, or whatever it may be with other factors, for your territories? Within the wider picture, with the United Kingdom forging new free trade deals around the globe, with Australia and New Zealand being two prime examples at the moment, do you expect to be able to gain advantages from new free trade deals that the UK is conducting?
Chair: Could you keep it fairly short? We have a Division going on and, if one of our members goes, we are inquorate, so please give us a fairly quick answer to both of those questions.
Dorothea Hodge: I will be very quick and defer to my colleague on this point, but just to say that the UK has been incredibly supportive of keeping us abreast of new trade deals as they are developed and discussed.
Teslyn Barkman: We have engaged with the UK mission and, again, that goes to what I described before about just staying aware of what our possible options could be. In terms of other trade agreements around the world, we have engaged in and have benefited from close conversations with the Department for International Trade. It has a dedicated official, as I understand it, to the OTs to help manage that. Unfortunately for us, the market demand for our squid is still in the European Union, so while we may be able to derive small benefits from trade agreements elsewhere in the world, the volumes of squid that we sell can only truly be absorbed by the EU market.
Chair: That is really helpful, and thank you very much indeed for coming. We were just about to become inquorate, and it is just possible that the member who is here can get to the Lobby to vote, so I will say thank you very much for your consideration and for your extremely helpful and interesting contributions. It has been a great pleasure and, by the way, we will take up the points that you have raised with the appropriate Government Departments. Thank you very much.