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.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of pollinators and pesticides.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. Despite the fact that there are so many conflicting events going on outside the House, we have a healthy number of MPs here who wish to participate. I am grateful to everybody for attending.

The debate today is especially appropriate given that this year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of “Silent Spring”, Rachel Carson’s seminal work on the environmental cost of pesticides such as DDT. It is right that we should revisit the important issue of ecology and the relationship of plants and animals to their environment and to one another.

The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry on pollinators and pesticides from November 2012 to March 2013. We extended it because there were so many new developments as we carried on with our inquiry. We received 40 written submissions and we held seven oral evidence sessions. I thank all the witnesses to the inquiry. It was a unanimous report and I thank members of the Committee, some of whom are able to be present today and some of whom have sent their apologies. I also thank the Committee staff, who did a phenomenal amount of work helping us to compile our report, and put on record my thanks to Chris Miles of cdimagesanddesigns for his generosity in allowing us to use his photograph, “Pit stop” to grace the cover of the report. We are often told how accessible or otherwise House of Commons reports are, and we feel that thanks to him, the cover on our report is fitting. Bees like to go to bright, colourful flowers and we thought we would have the same for our report.

The EAC report was published on 5 April. In normal circumstances we would have been content to wait for the Government response to our report, but given that the European Commission took significant regulatory action in this area on 29 April, shortly after its publication, we felt that a debate was urgent and timely, and on behalf of the Committee I sought the opportunity to hold the debate today.

Let me put on record the favourable response that we have had from many who care about nature and wildlife. I thank Buglife, which affirmed that our report provides robust recommendations for the future of pollinators and the agricultural industry, and Friends of the Earth, whose recent reception in the House was attended by well over 100 MPs, although I was not able to be there myself. That testified how much support there is in our constituencies all around the UK for its bee action plan. The all-party group on agro-ecology welcomed our support. It, too, welcomes the recent decision by the EU to ban three types of neonicotinoid pesticides. The all-party group believes that to be the right decision, and calls for decisions on our food supply and environment to be based on science and not on extreme lobbying and scare-mongering by those who have an immense vested interest.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend for the report and her work on this issue. While I welcome the decision on particular pesticides, does she recognise that there is a wider question of eco-diversity that we have to address? If we do not, that will be something else that kills off the bee population in future. We must have a different approach to our natural environment in relation to agriculture.

[Joan Walley]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. Our report clearly states that there is no one solution and that we need, as he rightly says, a whole new systemic approach. The core of our report is that we need to get the balance right between scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, but there are very many issues that relate to all this.

We have had further support from many members of the general public and concerned interest groups, not least Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association, which said:

“Your work has been an inspirational example of democratic scrutiny in action…we hope that you will be able to hold government to account and influence policy making both at national and EU level.”

This is exactly what we are doing today and intend to continue doing. This debate is by no means our only follow-up to the report. We are raising the issue today to see how the many things that need to be done can get done, with the direction of the Government.

The Committee decided to conduct our inquiry because the available evidence indicated that insect pollinators have experienced serious population declines in the UK in recent years. For example, we heard—this is quite shocking—that two thirds to three quarters of insect pollinator species are declining in the UK. Indeed, the 2013 report “State of Nature” assessed 178 bee species in the UK and found that half were in decline. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that insect pollinators include not only honey bees and wild bees but other insects such as hoverflies, moths and butterflies. At the moment, the honey bee is the sentinel species for all insect pollinators, which means that most scientific studies involve bees, but given the biological differences between the various insect pollinators, it is vital that the Government monitor a wider range of species. I hope that this is an uncontroversial point on which the Government will agree with my Committee.

National Policy Statement (Waste Water)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I accept that there would be an impact, but the use of the word “effluent” in relation to the 39 million cubic metres gives the public and many Members of this House a somewhat misleading impression of the sheer urgency of the need to undertake the project at this time.

It has been asserted that the river has been getting better and will continue to do so, and there is no doubt about that, but a feature of debates on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill last week and less recently was the number of hon. Members who suggested that the Thames had been getting worse, and will continue to get worse without the tunnel. The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made that statement in part. That claim is not supported by the facts, as regards the immediate future; it is also probably not entirely true as regards the past and present.

I note that the Environment Agency’s website no longer hosts a press release that it issued only 17 months ago, but at that time, it went so far as to describe the Thames as

“the beauty queen of the planet’s waterways.”

That perhaps goes a little too far, even for those who have no desire whatever for a Thames tunnel-type project, but what prompted the comment was real enough: the sustained and continuing improvement of the Thames, which saw it win the international Theiss river prize for outstanding achievement in river management and restoration.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned my contribution last week. Surely there is irrefutable evidence that in the past few years, there have been significant discharges into the Thames, which have damaged the water quality. There is no getting away from that. I welcome all the improvements, including upstream, but the solution has to be a combination of rainwater harvesting, better treatment and, eventually, a Thames tunnel. It will not make the river perfect, but if we do not do all those things, the river quality will continue to deteriorate. That is not what he, I, or anyone in London wants.

[Mark Field]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is the issue of the sheer cost of the proposal, and whether we need to go for what is seen as being the only game in town, and take up the Thames Water proposal that we spend £4.1 billion—already a significant increase on the figure originally presented for this project.

It is worth saying that population growth and climate change will not reverse the improvements that have already taken place. Given that a 60% reduction in discharges is on the way, it would take something much more significant to reverse the trend. The NPS identifies two potential factors—population growth and climate change—but neither seems of any great magnitude in relation to this issue. New housing developments are already being built with SUDS and mitigation designed in, and retrofitting will slowly improve the existing housing stock. Moreover, the NPS says that more than 1 billion litres per day of sewage need in England can be saved through water efficiency, but then bizarrely ignores how that can help offset the projected changes in London’s population.

Climate change is cited as producing more “extreme rainfall events” like those of August 2004; that may have an impact, as was discussed in the exchange with the hon. Member for Islington North. That discharge of eight years ago caused the death of many thousands of fish, yet on page 18, the NPS admits that the fish deaths were caused by the Mogden sewage treatment works, which of course have nothing to do with the tunnel, and are already being upgraded. Thames Water was quoted last week as claiming that climate change will produce less rainfall and more droughts, and will require more reservoirs to be constructed, which implies less in the way of combined sewage overflow overall.

Fish kills are already being addressed. Mogden, which is well upstream of the Hammersmith pumping station, is thought to be responsible for both major fish kills mentioned in the policy statement. The other occurred last summer, near Kew. It is reasonable to suppose that the number of fish kills will be significantly lower in future without the Thames tunnel, and before possible alternatives to the tunnel are considered. Thames Water claims that the Lee tunnel will not benefit the higher reaches of the river, but Mogden demonstrates that the whole of the tidal Thames is set to get cleaner.

The tunnel will not significantly alter the appearance of the river. The natural turbidity of the Thames means that the water will never be clear. In fact, an Economics for the Environment Consultancy review of the tideway project options concluded that

“little aesthetic change in the water is to be expected”

from a tunnel. This was endorsed by the Health Protection Agency’s study in 2007, which reported:

“Shortly after discharge, floating matter disseminates relatively quickly, so the plug of sewage effluent moves unnoticed with the ebb and flood of the tide.”

No one is suggesting that sewage discharge does not matter, but it is a fact that for most people it passes unobserved. The findings of the study for the Thames tunnel make one particular and unsourced claim in the NPS seem somewhat dubious when it refers to

“large quantities of offensive solid material being…deposited on the foreshore”,

whereas the published evidence does not.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith made rather unfair sport of the views of Professor Chris Binnie in the exchange that we had last Wednesday. I shall discuss those views in a moment. Professor Binnie is an expert on water and designed the original Thames tunnel scheme, so his conclusion that only 10% of litter is sewage-derived should be heeded. It follows that if the tunnel can reduce litter deposits by some 10%, 90% of the visible rubbish that swills about the river will remain, whatever happens to the combined sewer overflows. The idea that the appearance of our improving river is causing an international

“reputational risk to the UK”

seems a little far-fetched, and I suspect that a 10% reduction along the lines that I have set out would do little to help.

The health benefits are real, but limited. Again, there must be a balance, given the cost of the project. Recreational users of the Thames would undoubtedly benefit from the tunnel, if not quite as much as is sometimes thought. For example, although gastric infection in rowers runs at 13 cases per thousand rowers per year, that is far lower than the rate in the general population, which is 190 cases per thousand. Likewise, the actor David Walliams’s swim is much touted, but he fell ill long before reaching the tidal stretches of the River Thames.

The Environment Agency has too little regard for the cost. The NPS highlights the curious role that has been given to the Environment Agency, whose sole concern is the environmental impact of the tunnel, with no attempt to weigh that impact against the rising cost. Apparently, the Government

“considers that the need…will have been demonstrated if the Environment Agency has concluded that the project is necessary for environmental reasons”.

That is almost a blank cheque for what constitutes environmental necessity. The agency is understandably fond of large-scale projects. Despite the claim to a purely environmental rationale, however, when pressed on the justification for a £4 billion tunnel in a climate of austerity, when discharges will more than halve anyway, both the Environment Agency and Thames Water hide behind legal arguments about the European directive.

The directive overrides many of the environmental assessments. The NPS admits that

“the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive is the initial driver for the Thames Tunnel.”

In practice, compliance rather than the environment is both the root cause and the benchmark, as this stifles concerns about value. Terms such as “unacceptable” and “necessary” are used ambiguously in both the NPS and Thames Water’s literature. They appear to make an environmental judgment but, under challenge, a legal interpretation is always offered, with dark mutterings about infraction proceedings.

No one has asked the EU. The apparent failure of any of the three parties behind this scheme to approach the Commission is staggering, particularly on the part of the Environment Agency and DEFRA. Without reference to the Commission, DEFRA has disregarded the urban waste water treatment directive’s principle of using the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive cost, and stipulated that only a collection device for combined sewer overflows meets the requirement

“to limit pollution from sewer overflows”.

It seems that the Environment Agency applies its zeal to say no discharges are acceptable, irrespective of cost. That is fine if we factor that into our thinking about that body, but the worry is that DEFRA takes that on board and then applies gold-plating by saying that no discharges are permissible under the directive, and Thames Water applies for a project to which the answer can no longer be no. The huge cost is relevant, not just for all of us who are Thames Water users, but for legal reasons. It was the legal position that prompted Professor Binnie’s reassessment of the need for the tunnel that he had initially recommended, given the work that is already under way and the lessons that have been learned from in-river bubbler systems in the seven years since he chaired the Thames tideway strategic study. His examination of the directive has led him to believe that a tunnel is unnecessary.

What Professor Binnie revealed at the meeting chaired by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), which I think was misreported in the exchanges we heard last week, was the detail of his discussions with DEFRA’s lawyers. His view was that the increased cost of the tunnel has made it disproportionate in the sense of the directive, as exemplified by the Whitburn infraction proceedings. However, the senior DEFRA lawyer stuck relentlessly to the Department’s interpretation. I was not at the meeting, but I understand that Professor Binnie said that on legal matters he felt that ultimately he had to defer to those who ought to know. His understandable reluctance to challenge civil servants is not always shared by the rest of us, and nor should it be.

In my view, the cost-benefit analysis is deeply flawed, and there is no better example of flawed DEFRA analysis than the series of cost-benefit analyses that have accompanied the Thames tunnel project. When the cost was initially touted as £1.7 billion, the benefits were judged to be worth around £1.7 billion. Now that the cost has risen to £4.1 billion, with the Lee tunnel and sewage treatment works upgrades already under way, hey presto, the benefits have been judged to have risen to around £4.1 billion. It is either a near miracle of fortuitous recalculation or, as those of us inclined to be more sceptical might think, a somewhat cynical sleight of hand. I think that Professor Binnie is in no doubt about this non-legal point. Using Treasury green book rules and standard, quality-adjusted life year metrics, he calculated the health benefits of the tunnel to be about £2 billion. The NPS means that no independent examination of DEFRA’s figures will take place.

There are no net economic benefits. The economic case for the tunnel on the basis of job creation is starting to be talked up, and I understand that a report on that by Thames Water is imminent. The Minister described the estimated 4,200 jobs only last Wednesday as

“a big win for London”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 330.]

Unlike other infrastructure projects, however, the tunnel will do relatively little for the economy once it is complete. Even the boring machines are being bought from Germany —as we speak, the same applies to Crossrail. Although the temporary creation of construction jobs will have some benefit, it would be considerably cheaper to pay 4,000 people an MP’s salary for the duration of the project, and considerably better value to build something else, whether in London or not. I am afraid that the lasting economic impact of the tunnel will be the £80 a year reduction in the disposable income of each and every Thames Water customer for decades to come.

I fear that the poorest will be hardest hit, and this is the debate we will be having in this House in four or five years’ time. We will be talking about those bills, and Thames Water customers will be in the position South West Water customers were in last week when we debated the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill. Sewerage bills are regressive. We have only just debated the pernicious effect of such bills in the south-west, and the rising cost of energy is a cause of great concern across the House. It is not good enough for Thames Water to defend this simply by saying that water bills will rise only towards the average. Together, London and the wider Thames Water sewerage area already have the highest living costs in the country and the pinch will be felt.

There are alternatives, depending on the question. Bubblers are dismissed by the NPS as they are

“not considered to be a sustainable or complete solution in the long-term.”

Of course, the tunnel is not a complete solution, as there would still be discharges—no one disputes that for one minute. The notion of sustainability in the NPS leans heavily on the assumptions about population growth and climate change to which I have already referred. The Cardiff harbour system shows that new options have emerged since the tunnel was first mooted almost a decade ago, including the real-time monitoring of dissolved oxygen levels. I accept that an in-river system is not perfect and would not go as far as the Thames tunnel, but it would cost a fraction of the £4.1 billion price tag now in place. Were it not for the momentum already behind the building of the tunnel and the closed institutional ranks to which I have referred, I think that such a system would be considered, and perhaps it still should be.

The NPS states, somewhat grandly:

“It is inappropriate to ‘do nothing”’

about sewage discharges, but we are not “doing nothing”; we are more than halving the problem. The phrase is redolent of the so-called politician’s fallacy: “We must do something; this is something; therefore, let’s get on and do it.” When civil servants insist once again that the gold-plated option is the only way to meet our obligations under a European directive, we are entitled—obliged, in my view—to be sceptical. When the result could allow a single utility company to profit while the rest of us are hit in the pocket, we can contemplate stronger emotions. The project cries out for proper independent scrutiny, yet the NPS prevents, I fear, any assessment through the planning process of the case for the tunnel.

I have no doubt that there is a problem with sewage discharge in the Thames. More than £1 billion is already being spent to reduce it dramatically, but the Thames tunnel will cost in excess of £4 billion, and the question is whether it represents good value for money.

I am sure that we in this House will return to this issue, but I fear that we will do so on the back of huge increases in water bills for all our constituents, and we will only wish that we had alerted ourselves to the issues now, rather than doing so, as I suspect we will, in many years to come.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will, I hope, be a little briefer than the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I just want to make a few remarks arising from his comments and amendments.

I am absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman on the general principle that in going ahead with the Bill, which I believe has all-party support—I am not sure about him but he is not pressing his amendment—we must protect both public money and the money of the public. By public money, I mean, first, any underwriting of major capital schemes, such as the Thames tunnel. Secondly, this is a large private multinational company—I appreciate his research into its holdings and complex structure—and we must ensure that it pays taxes in the UK.

At the same time, however, we must also look after the money of the public and ensure that not a penny more is paid in increased water charges, particularly given that water charges are already rising above the rate of inflation for all water users across the UK, including Thames Water customers. I was somewhat reassured on Second Reading when the Minister said that the Government shared those concerns and that he was sceptical about the project—at least about whether its financing was what Thames Water said it was. There would be broad agreement on that.

I also agree with many of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark about Thames Water, particularly under the ownership of RWE. During my first two or three years in the House, Thames Water was my bête noir, partly because of how it dealt with leaks—digging up roads all around London in a completely ad hoc, unconcerned way and leaving workings for months at a time—while still not getting to grips with the problem. Furthermore, the problem of sewer flooding, particularly in west London, has been a blight on people’s lives. Year on year, thousands of basement and ground-floor properties in my constituency are flooded by sewers, yet little attention is paid to it. And, indeed, there are Thames Water’s financial arrangements, which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about.

It is only right to balance that, however, by mentioning that Thames Water’s performance has improved markedly in the past few years in many of those areas, although we should continue to be concerned about its financial structures. A lot has been written in the papers in the past few days about the current drought and impending hosepipe ban and other possible measures, and the water companies are rightly under scrutiny. I note that in total—this is not just Thames Water—water companies are likely to report annual profits of £1.5 billion and that they are currently leaking about one quarter of the water they provide. They provide about 14.6 billion litres daily, and about one quarter of that is being leaked. It has been pointed out quite correctly that the hosepipe ban will save only 20% of the water being leaked daily.

The water companies, then, have a long way to go. Many of their problems were caused by the botched privatisation under the then Conservative Government and the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been an incentive for companies to beef up their profits to make themselves ripe for takeover, to sell on at a profit and not to worry during those years about their consumers and the cash cow that comes from having an effective local water monopoly.

Everyone will be grateful for the research that the right hon. Gentleman has done into the financing structures. I am less sure, however, that his amendments would deal with that. I will not spend long on this because I suspect that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will explain, not as eloquently as me but forensically and analytically, how the Labour amendments would provide the necessary safeguards in a less prescriptive and detailed but more effective way to ensure that if any projects come forward for financial assistance, they are tested in the House first to ensure that the assistance is necessary.

I depart from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the effect that his amendment might have on the clause. In the end, we need a project in London that will resolve the daily, sometimes weekly, regular flow of huge quantities of sewage into the Thames. On this, I am not sure where he is coming from. When we debated this matter last September in Westminster Hall, he said:

“I also put in a short response to the private commission that was set up by some interested local authorities and chaired by Lord Selborne.”—

in fact, it was set up by Hammersmith and Fulham council—

“The commission has argued that we must have a totally different direction. I am not persuaded by that. The Thames tunnel is the best direction. The previous Government came to that view and the present Government have held to it.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 316WH.]

That was in September. In February, he said:

“I am now clear that, since the end of the first round of consultations in 2011, the arguments for a review of the full tunnel proposal and possible alternatives have substantially increased.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2012; Vol. 541, c. 391.]

I am not sure what happened between September and February. This is important because we must find an effective solution. There is no point putting forward half measures.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I have met Thames Water and looked at the situation. Pollution of the Thames is totally unacceptable—as are the levels of sewage going into the Thames. There has to be a better drainage system to ensure that that does not continue. However, does my hon. Friend agree that after this process we need much tougher regulations to deal with the paving over of large areas of London and the Thames basin, which leads to excessive water run-off from rainfall, which then joins the sewage, becoming a sewage surge in the Thames? That water should be replenishing ground water, not being flushed away with the sewage and thus causing pollution in our river.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that clarification. I have never signed up to the concept of the tunnel uncritically or without reservations—or, indeed, at all—because I have always held open the option that there might be a better solution, and if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, then we are on all fours with each other. That is why I have looked in some detail at proposals such as the “Binnie Bubbler”, SUDS and the idea of separate rainwater and sewerage networks, which would also create the problem of huge disruption and much additional cost. Some of those projects, including water conservation, can be done and should be effective, both environmentally and from a cost perspective; the difficult thing is to find an alternative that does what the Thames tunnel would do.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend represents a riverside constituency, and therefore must have studied the issue in detail. I understand that the tunnel will not last for all time and will become overloaded within the next three or four decades. Therefore, we need to examine how we use water and how drainage systems operate, rather than hitting another crisis in three or four decades’ time.

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree, and something that is effectively a large sewer pipe stuck under the River Thames can sometimes look like old technology in some ways. There has to be a more organic and continuing process of developing solutions to avoid tunnelling, but it remains the case, first, that this solution has been preferred in many other capital cities around the world and, secondly, that at the end of the day, it is the simplest, clearest and most effective solution. Therefore, as well as considering other, additional measures, all our attention should be focused on how the Thames tunnel can be contained as a project, particularly financially, but also in terms of the disruption that it would cause.

However, I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely, and conclude by going back to basics and why we need this project. When I spoke on Second Reading last week, I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South to join me last Saturday on the foreshore of the Thames by the CSOs—combined sewer overflows—in Hammersmith for the Thames21 clear-up. I was very disappointed to see that he obviously had pressing constituency business, because he would otherwise have joined me and about 100 of my constituents—although they might have been from Bermondsey and Old Southwark or Cities of London and Westminster. However, they were all hard-working people—they worked longer than I did. Together, they cleared up several skips of industrial, commercial and consumer waste—if I can put it that way.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I rise to intervene on my hon. Friend for the last time and to thank him, because I visited the Hammersmith shoreline on Saturday evening, and it was absolutely brilliantly clean. I looked over that pristine area of mud and sand, and thought, “This is amazing! This is how the Thames can be. I wonder which guardian angel has been here and cleaned it up”—and now I know.

[Mr Slaughter]

Modesty forbids; all I would say, without going into too much graphic detail, is that when I left, I washed everything that I was wearing, yet it was still Monday morning before I got the smell out of my nostrils. Unfortunately, I did not go and wash everything I was wearing immediately, because I had to go canvassing for Mr Livingstone in between. I cannot think how many votes I must have lost in the condition I was in, following my outing on the foreshore.

It is a lot cleaner on the foreshore, and I appreciate absolutely what the Thames tunnel coalition, Thames21, has done, and all the fantastic consumer groups involved, in organising the clear-up. I pay tribute to them, although I wish that they did not have to do that work in those appalling conditions.

One of the people who was working hard there on that morning was a young man called Conor Newman-Walley, aged 15. He and his dad were there, working away. He goes to the same school in Hammersmith that I went to many years ago, and he is in the rowing team. It is a very good rowing team, as it was then. He is a founder member of Rowers Against Thames Sewage—RATS—and this is what he has said to the Thames tunnel organisation:

“In Victorian times, the people of London solved the first sewage crisis by implementing one of the most influential engineering projects of its time. As young people we learn and marvel about these feats in history at school. The challenge of sewage in the Thames today is too big for our generation. We look to those above us to put the projects in place that will solve this problem for generations to come. Our call to you is to build something amazing that our children will learn about in school.”

That attitude is one that we should adopt as we contemplate the Bill.

It is our duty to scrutinise the Bill and, more importantly, when it is passed, to scrutinise the project and any public money that might be committed to it and possibly put at risk. I hope that the amendments are not designed to stand in the way of ensuring that the clean-up of the Thames takes place. For Conor, a regular user of the Thames, this is not a lifestyle question, or a matter of the river looking pretty or smelling nice; it is a question of health, and of whether he can feel pride in his community when he goes to the river to take part in his sport. He needs to be able to take part in that sport without feeling personally inconvenienced or put at risk.

The Thames brings huge benefits to people, particularly my constituents who live alongside it and use it regularly. We have a duty to the public purse, as well as to ensuring that London has a river that is fit to look at, to use and to enjoy. I appreciate the attention paid by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark’s to the financial detail, but I hope that he has not strayed so far from the path that he cannot also commit to those aims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I missed the first 45 minutes of the speech by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I have discussed this matter with him before and I am aware of his concerns. He is quite right to raise the financial issues surrounding the Thames tunnel, because they are serious matters.

Bazalgette and his colleagues who did such fantastic work in the 19th century to create the London sewerage system created a world-class achievement. However, they could never have predicted the way in which London’s population would change, or the great increase in the use of appliances such as washing machines, which use much more water. Those changes have led to an increase in waste, the overflowing of the sewerage system and the pollution of the Thames. Having improved the condition of the river from being foul and putrid to very clean, we are now heading quickly back in the wrong direction. Not so long ago, we were all very proud of the water quality in the Thames; we are not any longer. We see what happens every year when storm drains overflow into the river. We need to think carefully whether the proposed measures are the solution, and whether they are the solution for all time.

[Mark Field]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that this is also a reflection of much higher expectations. We rightly have higher expectations in relation to water quality. It would be wrong to suggest that we have gone in totally the wrong direction, although there are problems with water quality. I accept that problems of sewage and effluent in other parts of London, which do not affect my constituency, are a good reason for implementing some improvement, but it does not need to be the all-embracing scheme that is being proposed at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There is a serious danger of many Members agreeing with each other here, which will not do the House’s reputation any good at all. [Interruption.] It will not do the reputation of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) or mine any good at all, either. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that quality of the water in the Thames is heading back to what it was in the 19th century. It is not, but it is deteriorating because of the amount of effluent being pushed into it and because the sewerage system cannot cope. Ergo, something clearly has to be done.

I have discussed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). As I see it, the Thames tunnel is a solution and it is necessary. My concern is with the cost and the impact; I am also concerned about whether the solution will last. That is why I hope that the Minister will inform us, when he comes to reply, that his Department is seriously looking at other issues, such as permeable surfaces, reducing the use of water, using other forms of drainage that do not pump everything down towards the Thames, and perhaps other forms of sewage disposal that will not lead another generation to have to spend an equally large amount of money on the next new solution to this problem.

I recognise that we have a problem; I recognise that London has to wake up to it. I believe that the Thames tunnel is probably the only solution on offer to deal with it. We have to look ahead as well, just as Parliament was forced to face up to the pollution in the river in the 19th century when it stank Members out of the building. We are not at that stage yet, but Londoners deserve a decent and clean river of which they can be proud. We look forward to the days when the salmon and dolphins are back in the Thames, as they could, should and ought to be.

[Mr Offord]

I shall comment on the proposals of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some of his comments were interesting and opened me up to some of his concerns, which are shared by some Conservative Members. I shall investigate some further issues afterwards, but I wish to put some comments on the record now.

I am a supporter of the Thames tunnel. I do not think I am considered a spendthrift politician. I am often described as a right-wing Conservative—a moniker with which I am very comfortable. On this occasion, however, I am supporting Thames Water in its endeavours to clean up the river.

I am most concerned about amendment 4, proposed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, according to which financial assistance should be given for “the financing the infrastructure” only if

“secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.”

I was not initially aware of what the equator principles were, so I went away to conduct a little research.

The equator principles were established to guide investment for major works and projects in developing countries, particularly those countries that have a limited environmental regulatory framework. Although they are now described as applying to all major projects across the country, the relevant environmental directives here in the UK set much higher standards than anything that appears in the equator principles.

Applications for projects on the scale of the Thames tunnel will be considered by an independent body—in this case, the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I understand that back in September 2010, Thames Water referred the matter back to the IPC. Beyond that, I understand that after investigation, the Secretary of State will be required to look at the project to establish whether it is acceptable; that will be followed by acceptance or rejection by Parliament.

The scale and the nature of the Thames tunnel project has triggered the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the EU EIA directive and the EIA regulations. The EIA process will seek to identify the likely significant effects of the project, which we hope will inform part of the design process and facilitate design improvements, ultimately identifying suitable mitigation measures for any residual environmental and social effects on our constituents. The output of the EIA process—the environmental statement—will convey to decision makers, such as ourselves, the environmental effects of the project, including on local communities.

Other studies have been undertaken that will inform the independent decision makers during the IPC process, including an equalities impact assessment, a health impact assessment and a sustainability assessment. In addition, as we all know, local authorities will be able to make their case directly to the IPC, and they will be able to produce their own local impact statements. Finally, the extensive consultations undertaken by Thames Water comply fully with the Planning Act 2008 and are in line with the Aarhus convention.

It is certainly my view—and I believe it is the view of Thames Water, which is proposing the scheme—that the directives and guidelines are being complied with to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the equator principles, and I am particularly uncomfortable with that. I am disappointed that the amendment will not be pressed to the vote. I feel that when amendments have been tabled, we should test the view of the Committee on them. I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark tabled this amendment. I would have thought that he had done enough work to be able to speak eloquently about his other concerns. I do not think that he really believes in this measure, which rather muddies the water generally.

The second part of my speech is about the Chris Binnie meeting, which I attended. I was quite surprised to hear that the person who promoted the original plan had decided, after seven or so years, that he felt an alternative was more viable. The viability of the scheme, he said, lay in the fact that it would cost only £60 million as compared with the £4.1 billion he originally envisaged. What he did not address in the meeting, however, was the fact that the £60 million scheme would not fundamentally address the problem of sewage and other contaminants in the river. All it would do is scrape some of the 39 million tonnes of effluent off the top of the Thames and aerate some of the river, affecting fish and livestock living in it. It does not address some of the issues in the EU environmental legislation that we need to address fundamentally as part of the super-sewer scheme.

I was rather concerned to hear that someone who had proposed a scheme only seven years ago had suddenly changed his mind. I felt that some of these aspects should have been considered seven years ago. He said that circumstances, including the financial situation in which the country and Government find themselves, had changed. That reminded me of an old African proverb—that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the second best time is now. I ask myself why he did not push this scheme forward at the time. We have had to wait seven years and he now claims that it is unaffordable. I am very suspicious of people who come forward with a professional opinion and then, when circumstances change, decide that better alternatives could have been proposed. In hindsight, it would have been better if he had advocated these proposals originally.

I do not believe that the amendment will be pressed to a vote. If it were, for the reasons I have outlined, I would certainly be against it. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer—certainly not for as long as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark did. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the points that have been raised.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend is saying is fascinating and excellent. Does he recall that the Forestry Commission was established because of the loss of so much forest cover in this country, designed to recreate the environment that had been destroyed by previous generations and their greed?

[Tristram Hunt]

Absolutely. I do not accept the idea that the state intervening in the control of forests is somehow an evil. I regard it, in many situations, as a virtue.

Let me move on briefly to the situation facing Cannock Chase, which is the woodland that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent Central like to enjoy. We have heard Ministers provide special securities for the heritage forests, but Cannock Chase does not fall into that particular category. However, it contains precisely the kind of forest that the Woodland Trust is most concerned about—that mixture of ancient habitat, conifer and recreation. Over the past few years the Forestry Commission has opened up access to it, with more and more enjoying it. The idea that local community groups will be able to compete at market value for the same amount of land is simply not credible. There is a lot of talk about community groups having special provision, but history simply does not show that. When we look back at previous Conservative-led Governments, we see that hundreds of thousands of acres were sold off.

The debate points to the core of the Government’s notion of the big society, and there is a hole in the middle of it as large as that in which King Charles II hid from the forces of republicanism. It will take investment—a belief in social capital and in capacity—if those community groups are to be built up to manage our woodlands. Nothing in the consultation or the Public Bodies Bill suggests that that is anywhere near the mind of this Government.