COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not thank the hon. Member more for his intervention. I think he has been reading my notes, because I was going to make exactly that point. The Prime Minister himself has said:

“It is the biggest economies in the world that are causing the problem, while the smallest suffer the worst consequences.”

Yet he has not grasped the implications of his own statement. As the hon. Member has just said, climate justice means the biggest economies doing far more and being far more ambitious than net zero in 30 years’ time. Climate justice means cutting emissions at home, without overreliance on international offsets or costly and uncertain negative emissions technologies. Climate justice also means recognising the obscenity of continuing with business as usual knowing that young people, especially those in climate-vulnerable countries, are paying for it literally with their futures.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent speech. Following that point, at COP26 do we need to get proper funding for technology transfer to the poorest countries in the world, which need such technology to protect their environments? Unfortunately, the signs following covid, where there has not been a proper sharing of vaccines or vaccine knowledge, are not good. We have to internationalise our knowledge freely across the whole world in order to protect the environment on which we all rely.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I particularly agree that if we look at the covid pandemic as an example of international co-operation, it does not augur well. If we cannot properly share technology and vaccines even when our own wellbeing depends so directly on that, it does not augur well for the climate crisis. We absolutely need the kind of technology transfer to which he refers.

Let me say a few words about the Government’s own track record, because we are not on track to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, let alone the sixth carbon budget, which is the first to be based on net zero by 2050, rather than the older 80% reduction. Just last month, Green Alliance calculated that the Government policies announced since 2020 will cut emissions by just 24% by 2032, and that the policies out for consultation, even if enacted, would still fall far short of the fifth carbon budget. This week’s publications of the net zero strategy and the heat and building strategy lack ambition. They lack urgency and—crucially—they lack the serious funding we need. As a result they still do not do enough to get us back on track. Time is running out in the race for our future, and the Government are barely over the starting line.

Not only are the Government not doing enough of the right things, but they are actively doing too many wrong things. Consider some of the most egregious examples on the charge sheet: a £27 billion road building scheme; the expansion of airports; scrapping the green homes grant just six months after it was introduced; stripping climate change clauses out of trade deals; and an obligation still in statute to maximise the economic recovery of UK petroleum. Perhaps most egregious of all, we are pressing ahead with Cambo, a new oilfield off Shetland. No wonder the Climate Change Committee has concluded that the Government continue to

“blunder into high carbon choices”.

Leading by example on climate and nature matters, not just here at home, but because globally the first rule of diplomacy is to walk your talk. Perhaps it is not surprising that, despite what I am sure have been the best efforts of the COP26 President-designate, the Government have so far failed to persuade many other countries to come forward with climate targets aligned to 1.5°C. Indeed, Gambia is currently the only country whose climate pledge is compatible with 1.5°C. Based on the UN’s assessment of the nationally determined contributions submitted so far, the world is on track for warming of around 2.7°C. That cannot be allowed to happen. Shamefully, almost 90 countries responsible for more than 40% of global emissions, including China and India, failed to meet the UN deadline at the end of July to submit new pledges ahead of the Glasgow meeting. What more will the Government do to galvanise more ambitious action to keep 1.5°C alive? What is the President’s plan post-COP26 if the world’s collective pledges are not compatible with 1.5°C?

The Government’s second goal for COP26 is to adapt to protect communities and natural habitats. Globally, Ministers need to lead efforts for a new post-2025 public finance goal, specifically for adaptation, and ensure that other countries and the multilateral development banks follow the UK’s commitment to ringfence 50% of climate finance for adaptation. We need a scaling up of locally led adaptation and support that is accessible and responsive to the needs of marginalised groups. We also need ambitious and rigorous ecosystem protection and restoration incorporated into the enhanced nationally determined contributions and adaptation plans of all countries. Nature, with its vast ability to store carbon and cushion us from shocks such as flooding, is our biggest ally in the fight against climate breakdown. It is therefore shocking that just weeks before the start of COP26, more than 100 fires have been reported on England’s peatlands. They are a vital carbon store, and it is environmental vandalism to set fire to them right now. The climate and nature emergencies are two sides of the same coin, and they need to be addressed together with far greater co-ordination.

Let me move to the third goal of mobilising finance. The COP26 President has stated that delivering the 10-year finance pledge is a matter of trust. Yes it is, but when that pledge has not been delivered anything like in full, trust is at breaking point. Any leverage that the UK might have had in persuading others to step up has been carelessly thrown away by its becoming the only G7 country to cut overseas aid in the midst of a pandemic. That unforgiveable decision means that climate programmes are being slashed, leaving some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries bearing the brunt. For example, aid to Bangladesh has been cut by more than £100 million. It is not too late to change direction, restore the official development assistance budget, ensure that climate finance is genuinely new and additional, and increase our commitment so that we are providing our fair share.

We must also act on loss and damage—a subject far too long consigned to the margins of negotiations. I welcome the UK presidency’s more constructive approach to that issue, including making progress on operationalising the so-called Santiago Network, but we need to do more. We must facilitate a process to scale up dedicated finance specifically for loss and damage, and we must acknowledge that as the third pillar of climate action, on a par with mitigation and adaptation. We must ensure that it has its own dedicated space on every COP agenda, and take forward calls for a specific loss and damage champion. It is long past time for the more wealthy countries to put aside their concerns about liability and compensation, and instead to come from a place of solidarity and human rights, in order to make meaningful progress on loss and damage and delivering new finance. As the young Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate has said:

“Our leaders are lost and our planet is damaged…You cannot adapt to lost cultures, you cannot adapt to lost traditions, you cannot adapt to lost history, you cannot adapt to starvation. You cannot adapt to extinction.”

The climate crisis is pushing many communities beyond their ability to adapt.

The fourth goal of the COP26 presidency is to work together to deliver. No one would argue with that, but I go back to the context in which these talks are being held. The summit is taking place while the pandemic continues to rage in many of the poorest countries, as a direct result of vaccine apartheid. Only around 2% of the populations of low-income countries have received even one dose of the vaccine, and of the 554 million doses promised by the richest nations, just 16% have so far reached their destination. That failure is morally obscene, as well as running entirely counter to our own self-interest. If COP26 is to succeed, the concerns and justified anger of countries in the global south urgently need to be addressed. That means providing enough finance and vaccines to match the need, waiving intellectual property rights, and transferring technical capacity and expertise.

Glasgow is not only crucial for delivering climate ambition and finance in line with the Paris agreement; it is also a litmus test for safer, fairer, more inclusive forms of economic restructuring and global governance. It is a chance urgently to shift to an economic system that values the long-term wellbeing of people and planet above the endless growth that, in the words of the OECD, has generated “significant harms” over recent decades. When the climate crisis is caused by our extractive, exploitative economic model, we cannot expect to win the chance for a better future by re-running a race that we see we will ultimately lose, and that everyone else will lose as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) not only on securing it but on all the work she has done over many years to bring environmental issues to the fore in this House.

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for drawing attention to the fact that, on May Day 2019, this House became the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate emergency, which I am pleased to say many local authorities across Britain, as well as other countries around the world, have also taken up.

We have to start at a local level because, in a sense, all politics is local. If we are to win the climate debate, it is not necessarily about convincing each other in this Chamber; it is about convincing a very large number of people that their living standards and livelihoods are not under threat by greening our environment, but that a green industrial revolution is a chance and an opportunity to create a high-skilled, high-paid workforce and to create the green energy jobs of the future. That will not be done if we rely on market forces; it will only be done through substantial public investment to achieve that transition to a green economy.

I was at an excellent meeting on Monday morning organised by Islington Council to launch its brilliant green agenda. It will mean better insulation in homes; transport initiatives; using waste heat from an underground station as part of a district heating scheme; using waste heat from a stepped down transformer owned by the national grid to heat a school and neighbouring properties; and installing a heat pump in a community centre to meet the passive house standard. I was struck that local authorities do not have enough planning powers to properly insulate places and properly demand of developers that we have solar panels and greened roof spaces and that we build buildings to last much longer than the planned obsolescence after 60 years before we knock them down again, with all the environmental costs of doing so.

It is also about waste disposal. In my borough we manage a 30% recycling rate, which is better than it was but is nowhere near good enough. The rate should be much higher. Reduce, reuse and recycle is important, but achieving it also requires the Government to support local authorities, and not planning greater levels of incineration all over the country, with the pollution that results.

Let us look at COP26 as a great opportunity for the sharing of technology and wealth across the world, for investment in biodiversity across the world and, above all, for the transfer of knowledge held by the richest countries to all on this planet. If we do not do that, global warming and extreme weather patterns will continue and, ultimately, everyone will suffer. There will be no hiding place, however rich we might be.

Environment and Climate Change

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House declares an environment and climate emergency following the finding of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that to avoid a more than 1.5°C rise in global warming, global emissions would need to fall by around 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050; recognises the devastating impact that volatile and extreme weather will have on UK food production, water availability, public health and through flooding and wildfire damage; notes that the UK is currently missing almost all of its biodiversity targets, with an alarming trend in species decline, and that cuts of 50 per cent to the funding of Natural England are counterproductive to tackling those problems; calls on the Government to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate change targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve net zero emissions before 2050, to increase support for and set ambitious, short-term targets for the roll-out of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, and to move swiftly to capture economic opportunities and green jobs in the low carbon economy while managing risks for workers and communities currently reliant on carbon intensive sectors; and further calls on the Government to lay before the House within the next six months urgent proposals to restore the UK’s natural environment and to deliver a circular, zero waste economy.

Today the House must declare an environment and climate emergency. We have no time to waste. We are living in a climate crisis that will spiral dangerously out of control unless we take rapid and dramatic action now. This is no longer about a distant future; we are talking about nothing less than the irreversible destruction of the environment within the lifetimes of Members.

Young people know this. They have the most to lose. A few weeks ago, like many other Members on both sides of the House, I was deeply moved to see the streets outside Parliament filled with colour and the noise of children chanting “Our planet, our future”. For someone of my generation, it was inspiring but also humbling that children felt that they had to leave school to teach us adults a lesson. The truth is that they are ahead of the politicians on this, the most important issue of our time. We are witnessing an unprecedented upsurge of climate activism, with groups such as Extinction Rebellion forcing the politicians in this building to listen. For all the dismissive and offensive column inches that the protesters have provoked, they are a massive and, I believe, very necessary wake-up call. Today we have the opportunity to say, “We hear you.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, I congratulate him on, many years ago, giving up his vehicle and on using mainly his bicycle for years as an MP. [Interruption.]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I fear that my hon. Friend has unwittingly provoked lots of strange thought processes among Conservative Members.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

At the opposite extreme to my right hon. Friend’s bicycle, the largest source of carbon emissions in the country is of course Heathrow airport. Given that, is it not folly to be going ahead with a third runway at Heathrow? Would not it be a clear indication from the Secretary of State today if he said the Government were not pursuing that course?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Obviously, aircraft emissions are one of the major problems we face in this country and all around the world. Like him and other colleagues, I was opposed to the expansion of Heathrow because I want to promote more surface transport in a more sustainable way, which is mainly on railways.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Change UK)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and fellow cyclist for giving way. Does he agree with the young people who are outside this building that it would be easier and better to tackle climate change if we remained full members of the European Union?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who represents an absolutely wonderful town where environment is at the core of the lives of many people. We are not here to debate the EU or Brexit, about which everyone will be very pleased, but I would say that, under any proposal from my party, we would import into the UK all the environmental regulations the EU has adopted, most of which are very good and progressive, although often they do not go far enough, and there would be a dynamic—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to face the House so we can all hear him.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Mr Speaker, you are absolutely the last person I would want to be offensive to, so I apologise. We would ensure that there is a dynamic relationship with those regulations, so I am trying to please both sides at the present time—[Interruption.] Such is the joy of politics when we want to protect our environment.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

How the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding with his Brexit policy is interesting and will be noted outside this place. Does he agree that to beat climate change in this country and around the world we have to green our pension funds, banks and stock exchanges, decarbonise capitalism and drive trillions of dollars into the green clean energy investments that we need?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In a former life, I was a trade union organiser and negotiator. Even then we were discussing with the pension fund trustees how they would have environmentally sustainable investments and we would use that as a way of promoting green energy and such issues. I urge people, many millions of whom have shares in pension funds, to do exactly that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome that Labour is now following the Green party lead in calling for a climate emergency, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fossil fuel subsidies make a mockery of a climate emergency? We are one of the worst countries in Europe for giving subsidies to fossil fuel industry. Does he agree that it is not compatible with a climate-constrained economy to go on with these subsidies to fossil fuel companies?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed, what we need is a sustainable energy policy and I will come on to that. I obviously pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done on this. Often, she and I have been on exactly the same side on these issues of environmental sustainability.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will give way a couple more times but then I ought to get on with my speech, or else the Speaker will tell me off because others want to speak.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

On that point about fossil fuels, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise what natural gas has done to decarbonise this country, reducing our levels to levels not seen since 1888? Does he also recognise that 280,000 jobs are supported by the oil and gas industry? Is he concerned about those 280,000 jobs?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We want a sustainable energy policy in this country. I did not hear all of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as others were talking, but if he is talking about issues of fracking he knows perfectly well that this party is opposed to it because we want to see a more sustainable world and a sustainable environment.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the lack of urgency in the Government’s own targets, which they acknowledge they need to meet? For example, by the time we meet the reducing plastic waste target, I will be 66. Why should it take a quarter of a century to achieve that change?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The whole point of today’s debate is to declare an emergency to focus the attention of all of us on the sheer urgency of the issue because it is not going to go away; it is going to get considerably worse unless we act and set an example to other nations to also act.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I give way to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on declaring an environment and climate emergency. Did he see the report the Committee produced last week stating that, if we leave the EU, the watchdog the Government are currently proposing is toothless because it does not have the power to fine Government for breaches of air pollution, water quality and waste standards? Does he agree that that is a very big barrier for the Government to overcome?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, the work her Committee does and the report it produced. The watchdog has to have all the teeth necessary to make sure the actions are taken. As I pointed out in response to an earlier intervention, there has to be a dynamic relationship with European regulations in order to achieve that. I thank her for her work.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am going to make some progress before giving way to some more colleagues.

I have been a Member of this House for 36 years. In that time I have observed something about this place that is glaringly obvious but seldom acknowledged: Parliament rarely leads change; it usually drags its feet— it is normally the last place to pick up on the major reforms that society is demanding. Think about the huge transformations in our society—workers’ rights, women’s rights and gay rights. The impetus has always come from outside—from social movements and communities—while Westminster is often the last place to understand that.

Let us not repeat that pattern. Let us respond to what a young generation is saying to us in raising the alarm. By becoming the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate emergency, we could, and I hope we do, set off a wave of actions from Parliaments and Governments all around the world. Surely if we lead by example and others follow, that would be the best possible answer to the all too common excuse we all hear on doorsteps: “Why should we act when others won’t?”

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

This side of the Chamber was absolutely packed when my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) introduced the Bill to hardwire net zero into our economy. Where were the Opposition then?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not entirely sure what point the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I am pleased she is here today and I look forward to hearing her contribution.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Public sentiment and Labour’s position is clear: we must declare a climate emergency and legislate for net zero emissions. But the Government are procrastinating. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the political will to tackle climate change is there in the public and on these Opposition Benches but it is absolutely lacking on the Government Benches?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Let us show today that the political will is here, in this Parliament, to declare the climate emergency, which we believe is necessary.

Let us work more closely with countries that are serious about ending the climate catastrophe, especially those at the sharp end of it, such as the small country of the Maldives, so vulnerable to rising sea levels. It told the UN climate talks last year:

“We are not prepared to die”

and implored countries to unite. Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister recently warned of the “existential threat” posed by climate breakdown to the 160 million people of his country and urged others to adhere to their commitments under the Paris climate change agreement.

I attended the Paris conference in 2015 with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I thank him for his passion at that conference, for his commitment to environmental sustainability and for the great work he did on forestry during the last Labour Government. It is a pleasure to work with him. He and the whole of the Labour party strongly support the UK’s bid to host the UN climate change conference in 2020, and I really hope that that will happen. When it does, Members from across the House will have a chance to interact with those attending the conference.

Let us also make it clear to President Trump that he must re-engage with international climate agreements. We must also be absolutely clear-eyed about the Paris agreement: it is a huge and significant breakthrough, but it is not enough. If every country in the whole world meets its current pledges as per the Paris agreement, temperatures will still rise by 3° in this century. At that point, southern Europe, the horn of Africa, central America and the Caribbean will be in permanent drought. Major cities such as Miami and Rio de Janeiro would be lost to rising sea levels. At 4°, which is where we are all heading with the current rate of emissions, agricultural systems would be collapsing.

This is not just a climate change issue; it is a climate emergency. We are already experiencing the effects all around us. Here at home, our weather is becoming more extreme. The chief executive of the Environment Agency recently warned that we were looking into what he called the “jaws of death” and that we could run short of water within 25 years. At the same time, flash flooding is becoming more frequent. Anyone who has visited the scene of a flooded town or village knows the devastation that it brings to families. That was vividly brought home to me when I visited Cockermouth after the 2015 floods, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), who is doing such a brilliant job as shadow Environment Secretary. She first challenged the Government to declare a climate emergency a month ago.

Around the world, we are seeing ice caps melting, coral reefs dissolving, droughts in Africa, hurricanes in the Americas and wildfires in Australia. Cyclone Idai killed more than 900 people in south-east Africa, mainly in Mozambique, and affected 3 million more, only to be immediately followed by the current horrors of Cyclone Kenneth. The heating up of our climate is contributing to a terrifying loss of animal and plant species, but sadly, that is something that we are only just recognising. I remember joining and working with the World Wide Fund for Nature when I was at school. According to the WWF, humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970—a year that many of us in this House can remember.

Earlier this year, the first global scientific review of its kind found that insects could become extinct within a century unless action was taken. Insects pollinate plants and keep the soil healthy. Without pollination and healthy soil there is no food, and without food there is no life. Meanwhile, there is far too much intensive farming. We are pumping far too many fertilisers into the earth, which is taking its toll on our soil. Soil degradation is a major issue, as anyone who reads the farming journals will be picking up on all the time. We are seeing the weakening of soil structures, and there is a need to strengthen them. More sustainable farming systems will lead in the longer run to better yields and less cost for pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers. The Environment Secretary himself has warned that we have only 30 to 40 years left before our fertile soil is eradicated, so I hope he will support the motion today.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said about President Trump. It is time that he re-engaged with the Paris agenda, and dare I say that that would be a good subject for after-dinner conversation? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned leading by example, and he is right that this country must do that even though we play only a small part in the overall global emissions. Should he become Prime Minister, where does he think coal should sit in the balanced energy policy of the future?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We need to see a growth in renewable sources and green energy, and I am coming on to that in my speech. We also need to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I recognise that he has allowed a lot of interventions. We can all agree that there is an environmental and climate change emergency, and he is setting out some of the reasons that many of us—most of us, all of us—would agree with the motion, but is it not time for the House to stop scoring cheap political points and to start trying to find consensus? I ask him in all genuineness: if he is willing to sit down with others to try to find consensus on Brexit, is he willing to sit down with others to try to find consensus on something that is arguably far more profound—climate change?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Last week, the leaders of the parties in Parliament, with the exception of the Prime Minister, attended a roundtable with a group of young people led by Greta Thunberg to discuss that very issue. Yes, I am very happy to sit down with anybody to discuss the issues of our environment and sustainability, and I invite the right hon. Lady to do exactly the same.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

On the subject of coal, does the right hon. Gentleman now regret the comments he made while he was seeking to become leader of his party in 2015, when he stated that he was in favour of reopening coalmines, and does he therefore deplore the recent decision to open a new coalmine in Cumbria?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I do not regret any of the statements I made in the 2015 leadership campaign. I was talking then about the way in which the coalmining communities in south Wales had been so disgracefully treated by the Government that the right hon. Gentleman supports. On the question of the Cumbrian mine, yes there is an issue there, and there is also an issue about the supply of coal that will always be necessary for fuelling the blast furnaces in the steel industry. This is why I am talking about taking a balanced approach to energy that recognises the need for sustainable industry and for reducing emissions. None of this is easy, but we have to move in the right direction by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and creating a cleaner, more sustainable environment.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on the ecological crisis that we are facing. I am hosting Chris Packham here in Parliament today, where he will meet parliamentarians. Will my right hon. Friend join him and members of the Environmental Audit Committee in calling for a conservation audit to look at what is really going on out there with species biodiversity?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her work. An audit like that would be an appropriate response to the debate we are having today. She is right to suggest that unless we examine biodiversity loss, particularly in areas of monocultural agriculture around the country, as well as in urban areas, we will not know just how serious the situation is, so I do support her proposal.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most disturbing aspects of this climate emergency is that some of the poorest people in the world live on the land that is closest to the rising sea levels? Anyone who is concerned about mass migration today should be truly worried about this crisis, because millions of those people are going to be travelling many miles to try to find a safe place with clean drinking water where they can make a home for themselves.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I shall come on to it in a moment. At the heart of the environment and climate emergency is the issue of justice, and it is those here and around the world who are least to blame for it who bear the burden and pay the highest cost. A 2015 study found that children living in our British inner-city areas can have their lung capacity reduced by up to 10% by air pollution on major roads. Of course, the situation is even more extreme for children growing up in densely populated urban areas in China and India. The pollution levels in many cities around the world are damaging children before they reach the age of five. Children should not have to pay with their health for our failure to clean up our toxic air.

Working-class communities suffer the worst effects of air pollution. Those who are least able to rebuild their lives after flooding will be hit hardest by rising food prices, while the better off, who are sometimes more responsible for emissions, can pay their way out of the trouble. Internationally, in a cruel twist of fate, it is the global south that faces the greatest devastation at the hands of drought and extreme weather, which fuel poverty and war and create refugees as people are forced to flee their homes. Some of the 65 million refugees in this world—not all, but some—are in reality climate refugees. They are paying the price of emissions that come not from the global south, but overwhelmingly from the global north and rapidly industrialising societies.

Sir David Attenborough recently said on his brilliant television programme:

“We now stand at a unique point in our planet’s history. One where we must all share responsibility both for our present wellbeing and for the future of life on Earth.”

That is the magnitude of what we are talking about. It is too late for tokenistic policies or gimmicks. We have to do more. Banning plastic is good and important, but individual action is not enough. We need a collective response that empowers people, instead of shaming them if they do not buy expensive recycled toilet paper or drive the newest Toyota Prius. If we are to declare an emergency, it follows that radical and urgent action must be taken. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to avert the disastrous effects of warming greater than 1.5° C, global emissions must fall by about 45% by 2030 to reach net zero by 2050 at the absolute latest. It is a massive demand and it is a massive ask, and it will not happen by itself.

We are going to have to free ourselves from some of the harmful beliefs that have characterised our thinking for too long. The hidden hand of the market will not save us, and technological solutions will not magically appear out of nowhere. An emergency of this magnitude requires large-scale Government intervention to kick-start industries, to direct investment and to boost research and development in the green technologies of the future, and that is not a burden.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on leading on this debate. Does he agree that the last Labour Government created a consensus on this issue under the Climate Change Act 2008, which was so ably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and that that consensus included the need to work together not just in this country, but with our international partners? Will he join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on declaring a climate emergency earlier this week?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to the work done by the previous Labour Government, which did so much to try and bring about awareness of the climate emergency. We have the chance to bring new manufacturing and engineering jobs to places that have never recovered from the destruction of our industries in the early 1980s. We need a green industrial revolution with huge investments in new technologies and green industries.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to declare a climate emergency and a broader environment emergency. He talks about radical action, and one action that we need to take is to protect the world’s forests. After transport, deforestation is the second biggest source of emissions. We are destroying around 20 million acres—a mind-boggling amount—every single year, and billions of people depend directly on forests for their livelihoods. So, from the point of view of biodiversity, humanitarianism and climate change, protecting the forests must surely be a No. 1 priority for any Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is right that that must be a high priority. I will be coming on to it towards the end of my speech, but he is correct that forests not only sustain a high level of biodiversity, but are a huge source of carbon capture, locking it up within the trees themselves.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the need to address climate change. Does he agree that if the Government were really committed to tackling climate change, they would not be investing in fracking? Instead, they would be investing in renewable energy sources, such as tidal energy and solar, that would help areas such as mine in the north-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed. My hon. Friend knows my views on that. I attended a public meeting in a village in Derbyshire to discuss fracking, and I was impressed by the fact that all the people there were determined to improve their environment and wanted a form of energy generation that is more sustainable than fracking. They were worried about the dangers of pollution levels in groundwater and other issues, so I thank her for that intervention.

Historically, the industry that changed Britain was coal. Coal powered the first industrial revolution in Britain, but that was done on the backs of the working class at the expense of our environment. The green industrial revolution will unwind those injustices, harness manufacturing to avert climate breakdown, and provide well-paid, good-skilled and secure jobs. Imagine former coalfield areas becoming the new centres of development of battery and energy storage. Towns such as Swindon, which proudly made locomotives, could become hubs for building a next generation of high-speed trains. Shipbuilding areas that were once the heart of an industry that is now diversified around the world could gain a new impetus in developing offshore wind turbines and all the technology that goes with them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for her great work on the green industrial revolution and Labour’s plan, which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in renewable energy. The solution to the crisis is to reprogram our economy so it that works in the interests of people and the planet. That means publicly owned energy and water companies with a mandate to protect the environment instead of just seeking profit. It means redesigning public agricultural funding to benefit local business and sustainable farming that supports biodiversity, plant life and wildlife. It also means not unnecessarily flying basic products across the globe when they could be transported in a more sustainable way.

The solution means funding home insulation schemes, particularly where there are poor-quality homes—especially in the private rented sector—and I pay tribute to the work done on retrofitting homes. When I visited the University of Salford with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South, I saw the work being done on the efficient conversion of back-to-back terraced houses into sustainable homes with energy efficiency. That means investing in bus routes, cycle routes and infrastructure, and reopening railway lines and improving railways in public ownership, so that people can travel quickly and cheaply, and not necessarily by car.

The solution also means big investments, such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and not prioritising fracking, which rides roughshod over local communities and damages our climate. It means planting trees to improve air quality and prevent flooding. It means expanding our beautiful forests, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide habitats for wildlife. Sadly, the United Kingdom has some of the lowest levels of forest cover in Europe. It has expanded somewhat, but it needs to grow a lot faster. We must support tree planting initiatives, such as those in Leicester and Milton Keynes, and the brilliant initiative of the national forest in Leicestershire. It is exciting to think about all the opportunities we will have, if we take them. However, if Natural England’s funding is slashed in half, we will see how austerity and cutting of funds reduce our ability to act.

Internationally, we must ensure that our defence and diplomatic capacity are capable of responding quickly and effectively to climate disasters around the world. We must take serious steps on debt relief and cancellation to deal with the injustice of countries trying to recover from climate crises they did not create while, at the same time, struggling to pay massive international debts. The debt burden makes it even harder for them to deal with the crisis they are facing. In our aid policy, we need to end support for fossil fuel projects in the global south.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the importance of justice. On Monday, I went to meet year 4 at the Milford Academy in my constituency because they had written on their concerns about deforestation in the Amazon rain forest. Is it not vital that we listen to the views of young people? They are the ones who will be hardest hit if we fail to act, and are they not right to call on us here today to commit to action to protect their future?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message is that we need to do far more in this country, but we also need to carry that message elsewhere. I cannot be the only person in this House who is very disappointed by the statements made by President Bolsonaro of Brazil concerning the future of the Amazon rain forest. It is a precious asset for the people of Brazil, as well as something necessary for the whole world. We will be in danger of forcing into extinction species that we have never even discovered, and that is exactly what is happening at the present time. It means that a creative thought process is needed in our international relations.

The last Labour Government brought in some of the most ambitious legislation in the world with the Climate Change Act 2008, and I pay a special thank you and tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others who brought it in. They did incredible work to ensure it happened, and I remember my right hon. Friend’s work at the Copenhagen conference in 2009 when the UK was given a prime seat in the negotiations because we had genuine respect on this issue due to the Climate Change Act he had piloted through Parliament.

Since then, I am sorry to say, we have fallen behind. Conservative Members will boast that the UK is reducing carbon emissions, but I have to tell them it is too slow. At the current rate, we will not reach zero emissions until the end of the century, more than 50 years too late. By that time, our grandchildren will be fighting for survival on a dying planet.

The point that Greta Thunberg made to me and others when we met her last week is that we should listen to the science, which is an impressive thing for her to say on behalf of all the young people she works with and speaks for. The IPCC has said:

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.

The IPCC has also said that such action is urgent.

The science says this is an emergency, but an emergency does not have to be a catastrophe. We could use it as an opportunity to rebuild our economy so that it works for the many, not the few. This is not a time to allow despair to take over, but a time for action. We can do this. The Government can improve the lives of our people while defending our natural world. What we do in this country can have an impact around the globe.

Let us embrace hope. The children in schools get it. They get it right away. They grasp the threat to their own future and, in fact, they want to be taught more about it as part of the curriculum and their normal school day. Are we to be content to hand down a broken planet to our children? That is the question we must ask ourselves today. We have a chance to act before it is too late, and it is a chance that will not be available to succeeding generations. It is our historic duty to take it.

I urge Members to support the motion before the House today.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for what she has said.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tonight this House has once again definitely ruled out no deal. The Prime Minister said that the choice was between her deal and no deal. In the past 24 hours, Parliament has decisively rejected both her deal and no deal. While an extension of article 50 is now inevitable, responsibility for that extension lies solely and squarely at the Prime Minister’s door. However, extending article 50 without a clear objective is not a solution. Parliament must now take back control of the situation.

In the days that follow, myself, the shadow Brexit Secretary and others will have meetings with Members across the House to find a compromise solution that can command support in the House. That means doing what the Prime Minister failed to do two years ago: searching for a consensus on the way forward. Labour has set out a credible alternative plan. Members across the House are coming forward with proposals. Whether that is a permanent customs union, a public vote, Norway-plus or other ideas, let us as a House of Commons work to find a solution to deal with the crisis facing this country and the deep concerns that many people have for their livelihoods, their lives, their future, their jobs, their communities and their factories. It is up to us as the House of Commons to look for and find a solution to their concerns. That is what we were elected to do.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let us be in no doubt that we are in a constitutional crisis of the making of the Prime Minister, who has run down the Brexit clock. What we see from the Prime Minister is a denial of the facts. She has faced two enormous defeats on her meaningful vote. Her deal is dead, and I am delighted that we have tonight given a very clear expression that under no circumstances and no time limit does this House want no deal.

The Prime Minister should have come to the Dispatch Box this evening with a degree of humility, accepting that she has failed and immediately putting in place the legislation to withdraw from legislation the threat of us leaving the European Union on 29 March. Why has she not done that? What this House needs to do tomorrow is take control of the process. We do not need a time-limited extension to article 50; it must be open-ended. I for one welcome elections to the European Parliament, if they are to take place.

We now must move on and have a meaningful debate about a people’s vote. If necessary, we have to look at the revocation of article 50. I say once again to the Prime Minister that Scotland will not be dragged out of the European Union against its will. Everything that has gone on in this House is a determination that the best interests of the people of Scotland will be met as an independent European nation.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

Absolutely—I agree entirely. We heard earlier that some puppies are separated when as young as four weeks. Puppies need a chance to grow and develop into the characters they will be in later life, and to learn all they can from their mother and interact with their siblings. It is totally unacceptable that they should be separated at that young age.

As well as the points made by Pup Aid and the requirement to see the mother, we should make sure that local authorities continue to be extremely thorough in their checks on breeding establishments. They should not grant licences where breeding establishments even remotely resemble a puppy farm.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard an earlier intervention about the problems of local authority funding. Does he agree that there must be sufficient public officials to examine how these breeding establishments operate, because without that, this travesty of justice for the animals will continue?

[Simon Kirby]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. There are a number of issues involved. I hope that today we are sending a message to the public to be wise and careful and to think before they shop, and sending a message to the Government to ask, “Can we look again at the legislation? It’s not good enough for it to lie on the statute book—it has to be used to stop the trade that we see today.” Local authorities have their responsibilities as well, and they have to make difficult decisions, but I would argue that this is an important thing for them to check and keep a grip on.

I would like us, as a House, to send these clear messages: first, we cannot support the sale of puppies and kittens in circumstances where it is not possible for the mother to be with the rest of her litter; secondly, we are aware of the serious and life-threatening animal welfare, public health and financial problems associated with pet shops and retail outlets; thirdly, we confirm that local authorities are already empowered to amend licensing conditions or to ban outright the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops if they choose to do so; and, fourthly, we encourage local authorities to tackle this issue using their existing powers. Those messages would help animal charities and welfare organisations to put their weight behind a public awareness campaign aimed at better educating owners.

It is clear that all our constituents want the Government to act. Let us speak up for the puppies and kittens who have no voice. Let us stop this cruel and unnecessary practice and improve animal welfare. Let us educate people to think before they buy puppies and kittens, and let us all ask, “Where’s mum?”

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.