Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Liaison Committee for making it possible for this debate to take place in Westminster Hall. The background to it is the Rio+20 conference, all the work being done on climate change and the importance of Her Majesty’s Government embedding sustainability into all policies, right the way across government. It is important that the overseas territories are not excluded.

This is the tenth report by the Environmental Audit Committee in this Session, and I thank the members of the Committee, many of whom are here today, for their tremendous work ethic. I also thank the Officers of our Committee, who work so hard behind the scenes on so many different cross-cutting reports, not least this one on the overseas territories.

Our report was launched in March 2013, following up on an earlier report, “Halting biodiversity loss”, which we published in 2008. The feedback that I have had from so many people in so many ways about the importance of the 2008 report and the difference it made makes me absolutely certain that the follow-up to it is critical. I hope that this report—I will come on to the detail of our recommendations in a moment—can make as much difference as the previous one.

We had four oral evidence sessions, with witnesses including non-governmental organisations, civil servants, those working in the United Kingdom overseas territories, developers with an interest in the overseas territories, a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and civil servants from the Department for International Development. By the time we finally published our report, we had taken extensive evidence.

In a way, the purpose of today’s debate is not only to take the Government to task for their response to our recommendations, but to impress upon Parliament that the work we are doing is part of an ongoing process. I refer to the work that many NGOs have done, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds among them—it has done an audit—the continuing discussion taking place among those from the overseas territories involved in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and the further work going on with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the RSPB. With today’s debate, we want to get up a head of steam, to get some kind of momentum, so that the follow-up to our report will truly make a difference. That is so important. I am pleased that the BBC is taking an interest in this matter, through the World Service. Like many, I look forward to the report due out, I think, on 20 May, on the collaborative work with the BBC. Public awareness of the work of the overseas territories is important for us all.

Why is sustainability in the overseas territories so crucial? There are at least 517 globally threatened species in the overseas territories, compared with 194 in the UK. The overseas territories also contain undisturbed habitats of international significance. Those habitats and species are threatened by development. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and I saw that when we were in the Cayman Islands. I have no doubt that there are many examples, right across the overseas territories, of unconstrained development because of a lack of the kind of baseline environment laws that we take for granted in the United Kingdom. Overall, the overseas territories hold more than 90% of British diversity. The RSPB reliably tells us that DEFRA does not have a single staff member dedicated to working with the charity full time, and that DEFRA spends only 0.3% of its biodiversity conservation budget—something like £1.6 million per annum—in the territories. It is no exaggeration to say that our overseas territories contain some of the richest remaining biodiversity on the planet and that we have a duty of care to safeguard it.

The Environmental Audit Committee is particularly interested in overseas territories because all 14 of them are under UK sovereignty; Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for them as matter of constitutional law and has a responsibility to ensure good governance. The hon. Member for Hendon will expand on some of those issues when he comes to speak. It is important to say that our Select Committee was keen to scrutinise sustainability in the overseas territories, but we are mindful of our moral responsibilities. It is important to note that we cannot impose what should and should not happen on other elected Governments, but at the same time, Parliament does have sovereignty and cannot abdicate its responsibilities towards the overseas territories. A fine balance must be struck that leads to protection of the environment and biodiversity while taking sustainability and how to achieve it on board.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report contained 15 constructive—I would say that—recommendations. I will not give the Government’s response all that many points out of 10, because only three recommendations were wholly and unreservedly taken on board, but three is better than none. I also welcome the greater priority given to sustainability issues at the most recent Joint Nature Conservation Committee meeting, held this year. If nothing else, the report will help to ensure that environmental issues regularly get on to the agenda, which could make an important difference. I am also pleased that the Government agreed with the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation that they should seek, where possible, EU environment funding for overseas territories under the LIFE+ scheme. Will the Minister provide an update on that?

I want to concentrate on some of the recommendations that the Government rejected and to explore why they were rejected. I start with the Government’s comments on paragraphs 22 to 25 of the report about the Aarhus convention, as they are almost indicative of the Government’s response to that and of Parliament’s role in sustainable development. The Aarhus convention is the bottom line. If it is not properly ratified, the work of NGOs and elected Governments in the territories to deal with the weaknesses that the Environmental Audit Committee identified in planning, development and control will be undermined. The Aarhus convention, with the right to information and the opportunity for consultation that it provides, is the starting point for many of the necessary safeguards.

The evidence that the Select Committee received from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office summed up the lack of clarity around how the Government are seeking to ratify and extend the Aarhus convention. The Government response contained inaccuracies and I am pleased that they have now corrected the record and have made it quite clear that they have not sought to extend the Aarhus convention to the overseas territories, which is progress. The Select Committee wants that extension.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her work and that of the Environmental Audit Committee. As I understand it, the Aarhus convention suggests that the local population should be included in discussions about protected areas and environmental protection, but that clearly did not happen in the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory’s marine protected area. Does the Committee have a view on that?

[Joan Walley]

We believe that the Aarhus convention is the starting point and should apply. We hope that our recommendations will help the Government to work with the overseas territories to find a way to do that. We want clarity, which is necessary above all else.

A key strategic recommendation in the Environmental Audit Committee report is about the overseas territories’ relationship with the United Nations. The overseas territories are not sovereign states, so they are not members of the United Nations, but they are represented by the UK. Given the small populations of the overseas territories—those that are inhabited—that is a sensible arrangement. It is also an opportunity for the UK to fulfil its historical and critical responsibility to the overseas territories by facilitating their engagement with UN treaties and projects.

The UN convention on biological diversity is the flagship treaty to protect biodiversity. The UK has not extended the ratification of the treaty to most overseas territories, so the Select Committee recommended that

“the FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place.”

The Government rejected that recommendation, referring to “capacity constraints” and other reasons why overseas territories could not easily do it themselves. They also stated that they have

“no intention of imposing obligations that the UKOTs are ill-equipped to fulfil.”

However, many small independent nations—I could name many—that are not backed by the environmental expertise, support and guidance of the UK have ratified the convention on biological diversity. Is the Minister aware of any overseas territories Government who have stated that they do not want to engage with the convention on biological diversity, which is a flagship UN treaty? If there is no dissent, we should be doing everything possible to get overseas territories included in this biological protection.

The Environmental Audit Committee also recommended in paragraph 19 that

“the FCO immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited UKOTs.”

I am a bit puzzled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office response, which neither accepted nor rejected this recommendation. Will the Minister provide a little more clarity on that? The Government did refer to ongoing projects on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which will

“put the territory in a very strong position to have the CBD extended.”

However, that is not quite the same as stating the Government’s position. Will the Minister explain the barriers to extending the ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited overseas territories?

On biodiversity monitoring, the Environmental Audit Committee heard throughout the evidence sessions that the rich biodiversity of the overseas territories has not been effectively catalogued. Unsurprisingly, we recommended that

“Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs.”

We see that as a precursor to all kinds of other protection. In their response, the Government stated that

“there is no single group responsible for overseeing biodiversity survey, monitoring, research and data management”

and pledged to

“consider whether such a group would add value”.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether cataloguing the biodiversity of the overseas territories would add value, and agrees with us that it is important to do it. Perhaps he will also anticipate in his remarks the launch of a report about the collaboration of the RSPB with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I mentioned how struck we were by lack of resources in the overseas territories, and in the UK Government. Much more could be done with all the expertise already available within Government and in local authorities. Perhaps under twinning or other arrangements existing expertise could be used for the benefit of the overseas territories. We think that would be a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate today. As chair of the all-party group on the Chagos islands, I will address the issues surrounding the British Indian Ocean Territory. Although there are not a massive amount of references to the Chagos islanders in the report, it quite rightly discusses the need to protect all environments in British overseas territories, which I welcome.

As the House will be aware, the Chagos islands were finally depopulated in the early 1970s after a secret agreement between Britain and the US to do so in order to build a US base on Diego Garcia. The way that depopulation took place and the way that the islanders have been treated, frankly, are a source of shame for this country. Ever since, the islanders have been concerned about the environment that they left behind, the environment of Diego Garcia, and their right to return.

I recognise that this debate is not about the politics of the decision that was taken at that time, but we should place that decision in the context of the issues we are debating today. The islands represent a significant chunk of the Indian ocean. The archipelago is some distance from Diego Garcia, yet even though it is nowhere near the US base, it was depopulated apparently for reasons of security. There have been many court cases and actions about the depopulation, and the Foreign Office is at last undertaking a feasibility study on the right of return. Will the Minister clarify exactly when that feasibility study will report to us?

A marine protected area was introduced around the islands on 1 April 2010 in a statement to the House by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. It was introduced without any consultation with either the all-party group on the Chagos islands, any of the Chagos islands organisations or, as far as I can work out, anybody else at all—it was simply announced. As chair of the all-party group, I was extremely annoyed, and tabled an urgent question, which Mr Speaker granted. Many Members expressed similar views. The proposal, which has now been carried out, was that there should be a no-take fishing zone around the archipelago. It is envisaged that there will be no return to the islands at all for the population.

I want to put it clearly on the record that the Chagos islanders were very angry at not being consulted on that proposal. I quote from a letter from Olivier Bancoult, the chair of the Chagos Refugee Group:

“We cited the unilateral declaration of the Chagos Archipelago as a Marine Protected Area as the perfect example of our views and interests being disregarded despite the fact that we voiced out our concerns and opposition loud and clear.”

In the same letter, written in July 2013, he goes on to discuss a meeting

“conducted in an honest manner during which both parties have had the opportunity to freely express their positions”

and asks for more such meetings.

David Snoxell, the former British high commissioner to Mauritius, who is the voluntary co-ordinator of the all-party group on the Chagos islands and chair of the Marine Education Trust, said at the time—he is quoted in the 2013 Library briefing paper on the islands—that

“Everyone would have been happy with the creation of a marine protection area providing it had made provision for the interests of Chagossians and Mauritius, which it could so easily have done”.

That remains the position of the Chagos islanders, including those in Crawley who have opted to take residence in this country and have become British passport holders—well, most of them did—as a result of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

The Chagos islanders support the principle of a marine protected area. That is clear. As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee, it is clear that, in practical terms, a conservation process that we want to work has to be undertaken with the co-operation of the local population. They are most interested and affected and are most likely to look after the place. Instead, there was no consultation whatever with the Chagos islanders, who live as a community in Mauritius, the Seychelles and this country. We now have a rather ineffective naval presence that is supposed to be able to monitor what is going on throughout 630,000 sq km of ocean and protect those waters.

The only people who go to the islands are passing yachtspeople who have the money to spend their lives sailing around the world on expensive yachts, and people fishing illegally, who manage to enter the area because it is insufficiently protected. We should bear in mind that a population returning to inhabit the archipelago sustainably with licensed, limited and sustainable fishing would provide much better protection for an undeniably beautiful and pristine environment that has become an important haven for swordfish, sharks and other large sea mammals that have taken refuge there and whose populations are being protected as a result. Instead, the Foreign Office maintains an obdurate position of non-return of people to the islands—unless the feasibility study brings about a change of heart. I sincerely hope it does.

I also want to raise the issue of pollution of the waters around Diego Garcia. It is the largest island of the Chagos group and, as I explained, is some considerable distance from the archipelago. It became a base from which the United States has launched military operations to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. The US lease on the base runs until 2016. We are told that the base is well run, yet there are reports of considerable and disturbing levels of pollution caused by activities there. I will give an example. On 15 March this year, The Independent said:

“The American military has poured hundreds of tonnes of human sewage and waste water into a protected coral lagoon on the British-owned base of Diego Garcia over three decades in breach of environmental rules…According to scientific advisers, elevated levels of nutrients caused by the waste—which have resulted in nitrogen and phosphate readings up to four times higher than normal—may be damaging the coral.”

On 28 March, The Independent revealed that the scientific adviser to the Foreign Office had criticised the British Government’s failure to protect those pristine waters. Russia Today reported on the issue at some length in an article entitled “US Navy pollutes islands cleared of natives in order to ‘protect environment’”. Even more seriously, there are concerns about radioactive pollution from nuclear-powered submarines that have been using the base there. I believe those reports to be credible, and it is important that the Foreign Office recognises that despite the fact that only the base and not the whole island is leased to the United States, the US has a responsibility to protect the environment there. The commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory also has responsibility, and that responsibility has clearly not been carried out if such pollution has taken place.

The issue, then, is what happens to the islands now. I received a letter from the Foreign Secretary on 14 February this year. The all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands asked that the feasibility study being undertaken in response to the many legal processes that have taken place be concluded as quickly as possible. I have a copy of the original feasibility study on the possibility of return, which was prepared in the early 2000s. It is in three very large volumes in my bookcase at home and was too heavy for me to carry in to show Members, but it concluded that the islands exist and that they sustained a small population through fishing and copra production. One hopes that a population can be supported there again.

The issue is really about the principle of the right of return. There are some well-thought-out positions on how the islands might be repopulated, how many people would go there and the sustainability of what would happen as a result. The principle must surely be that repopulating the islands would involve bringing in people who love the place—people who lived there and were heartbroken at being forcibly removed from the islands. They are the people best able to protect the environment. We have a rather strange situation in which a population was forcibly—and, in my view, illegally—removed to make way for an American base, and now we spend money on security to keep them out and prevent other people from going in and illegally fishing. Why not make a virtuous circle of it and allow those people to return, so that they can protect a pristine and valuable environment?

The issue is not going to go away. Every time the Foreign Office thinks that it is over and done with, it comes back, because the islanders have an amazingly steadfast determination to ensure that their case is heard. The Environmental Audit Committee report calls on the UK and US forces to

“work constructively to minimise the environmental impacts of military presence and to conserve the island”

of Diego Garcia, and refers to the problem of nutrient discharges by US ships there.

I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm in his response that the Government are aware of the pollution occurring in Diego Garcia, that we are on track for the feasibility study to be undertaken on the possibility of return, and that the issue can be concluded within this Parliament—that is, that we will receive the report before the end of this year, so it can be properly debated in the House in January or February next year, before this Parliament is dissolved to make way for the general election in a year’s time. The islanders protected those islands for many years. They should have a right to return and continue that protection.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I indicate that because there was no vote in the main Chamber as anticipated, we must conclude proceedings by 4.30 pm? I therefore propose to start the winding-up speeches at 10 past 4. There are three people who want to speak before then, and I want to fit in the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who led the debate.