Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Joe Benton Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Benton. I understand that the previous debate was extended because a Division was expected in the House, taking time from this debate.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

I understand that, and I have sought guidance on it. My understanding is that business must conclude at 4.30, which is why I made the announcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I want to commend the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, which carefully drew a line between the United Kingdom’s responsibilities for environmental stewardship and sustainability in relation to its overseas territories and the interests, concerns and devolved rights and responsibilities of the populations of those territories. The Committee carefully drew that distinction in its report, but I am afraid that the Government’s response to the report did not.

In the introduction to the 2012 White Paper, the Prime Minister said:

“We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environment we have inherited.”

The White Paper itself set out principles of maximum devolution, where possible, of decision making to the populations of the UK overseas territories and assumed a continuing reduction in calls upon UK resources in that regard. It also set out the possibility of independence, with the wholehearted support of the populations of those territories if that is what they wished.

The White Paper also made a distinction between inhabited and uninhabited overseas territories. As we have already heard, that distinction is, shall we say, a little blurred, at least in the case of one overseas territory, which appears to be uninhabited, but in fact probably cannot be so regarded in the longer term.

In their response to the Select Committee’s report, however, the Government made a rather different point. They said:

“It would be inappropriate for the Government to take greater ownership of environmental issues”,

while at the same time saying that, while

“we encourage Territories to extend the UK instruments of ratification of MEAs and recognise the benefits they can bring, this should only be done when Territories are certain that they have the capacity and—where necessary—the provisions in place to meet the obligations under those agreements. The Government recognises that most of the Territories are small islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints which affect their ability to consider or implement treaties.”

That, of course, is true, but what about the difference in how those overseas territories themselves are situated in terms of resources and population? There is enormous diversity in our overseas territories, ranging from the Cayman Islands, with a population of 54,000, and Bermuda, with a population of 64,000—both arguably with substantial resources to meet the requirements regarding sustainability and to implement treaties suggested in the Government’s response to the Select Committee—down to islands such as Pitcairn, with a population of 51. It is clear that a number of those overseas territories would never be in a position to accord with the sort of considerations that the Government set out in their response to the Committee.

In terms of marine conversation zones and fully operating marine protected areas, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—I fully support what he said about the ambition for the UK and for those overseas territories to have those zones—it will inevitably turn out that the territories relating to those zones cannot fulfill the sort of obligations that the Government suggest in their response. Therefore, there is no alternative. The UK simply has to face up to the fact that those need to be properly resourced from the UK, with UK intervention and UK oversight of those zones in future. I am particularly—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we have to leave time for the wind-ups. I call Kerry McCarthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to the issue of the Cayman Islands. I am not familiar with the particular point that my hon. Friend has raised, but, consistent with the charters, I am able to say that, with UK Government support, the Cayman Islands’ long-awaited National Conservation Bill was passed on 13 December 2013. The law will, for the first time, give legal protection to Cayman’s unique and diverse land and marine-based natural resources. Although this is a delegated area of responsibility, the UK Government provided political support for the passing of the law, including through visits by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke about marine protected areas. The Government have been enthusiastic supporters of MPAs, having established the largest no-take MPA in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010. We have also established a 1 million sq km sustainable use MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 20,000 sq km of which is a no-take zone. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that in 2009 the UK provided the science that underpinned the declaration of the first Antarctic marine protected area.

I want to mention a couple of other points that were raised. One was about EU funding and LIFE+. I can confirm that the Government worked with NGOs to allow that European fund to be used on these projects, and we continue to work with them on that. An issue relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was raised. On that, one of the obstacles is that, in some of these countries, gambling is illegal. Nevertheless, certain organisations can already claim money.

We are running out of time, but let me say in conclusion that I think we have had a very good debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members about our commitment to these issues, and we will be publishing on Monday—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order.

Wildlife Crime

Joe Benton Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Joan Walley]

That intervention highlights the potential for a constructive debate following the publication of a Select Committee report that looked at the question in detail. The hon. Gentleman has great experience on the Antarctic—and, indeed, following our report on the subject, the Arctic—and he has admirably illustrated that there is real scope for leadership. Events in the Antarctic have demonstrated that what happens there affects all of us; what happens in any part of the planet affects all of us. The issues that we are discussing should not be placed in a box labelled “the environment”; they affect everything from governance and war to money laundering. All these things are interconnected. The sooner environmental questions are placed at the heart of international issues, the better.

I do not apologise for the fact that our report is about the detail of what we found in our investigation. We identified a number of absurdities in the implementation of CITES in UK law. Why, for example, should a vet be present when samples are taken from any animal that is suspected to have been trafficked into the UK? That is a reasonable stipulation in the case of a living animal, but given that we cannot even afford to guarantee funding for the national wildlife crime unit, it is a huge waste of resources to require a vet to be present in cases involving taxidermy. It does not make sense. We even heard that a vet would have to be called out before a sample could be taken from a table made from Brazilian rosewood, which is a CITES-listed species of tree. It is difficult for the Government to provide credible international leadership on tackling wildlife crime if they do not put their house in order.

In their response, the Government said that they would attend to the issues relating to the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, which implement the international agreement on endangered species, but it would be helpful to know from the Minister what the timetable is. How far has the consultation progressed, and, most importantly, when will a statutory instrument be introduced? I hope it will be before the 2014 high-level summit.

Before I move on, I want briefly to mention tigers. We were concerned about the poaching of tigers, and, as with all endangered species, we recognise that attitudes must change if those animals are to survive. We desperately need new ideas to challenge demand for such illegal wildlife products.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister, and his new colleagues in other Departments following the recent reshuffle, can see the impact of wildlife crime. As we have heard in interventions, that impact is huge, and it is growing by the day. The new urgency requires a clear lead from Government as they prepare for the high-level summit that they are organising in London in 2014, which we welcome. If the Government revisit our recommendations—this is the nature of Select Committee scrutiny—they could go into that meeting in a much stronger position. Not least, they could think again about our final recommendation relating to the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. PAW, as it is aptly known, is a multi-agency representative body. Its current membership of 140 organisations includes all significant UK conservation and trade bodies with an interest in combating wildlife crime. It is co-chaired by a DEFRA civil servant and a senior police officer. We called for a DEFRA Minister to take an active interest and give political direction by chairing the body. Our suggestion was dismissed out of hand in the Government response, on the grounds that devolved Administrations were not likely to collaborate in the way that we envisaged—perhaps I am taking a little bit of poetic licence there.

I hope that in this short debate we can set out the need for the Government to be bolder in response to all our recommendations, and not simply the one relating to PAW. WWF UK has expressed concern that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are falling behind, while other Departments—DEFRA, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—are forging ahead. DEFRA is the No. 1 Department, with lead responsibility for ensuring that all Departments protect biodiversity. Only by giving further consideration to our recommendations—we would be happy to arrange to discuss them with the Minister—can the Minister demonstrate clear strategic direction and leadership in his new career at DEFRA. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to hold this debate.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that the debate ends at 3 pm. I do not know how many people want to speak, but I propose commencing the wind-ups at 20 minutes to 3.

Flood Defences (Exeter)

Joe Benton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Shuker]

I am grateful—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but under the rules for half-hour debates, an Opposition spokesperson cannot intervene.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am interested in the scheme in Northumberland that the Minister mentioned. Will he outline—if he does not know, perhaps he will write to me—whether the county council or district council was involved and what the balance of funding was?