Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I thank all the passionate people who have assisted us with our inquiry, including Alistair Gammell, Heather Bradner, Josh Kaile, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Tim Austin, Croy McCoy, Stuart Mailer, Wayne Panton, Fred Burton, Patricia Bradley, Ian Orr, Jay Esterman and Nick Beech. We are also indebted to many other people.

I would have liked to mention a number of matters —transparency, resources, biodiversity conservation, sustainability and many others—but time will prevent me from doing so. This afternoon, therefore, I will focus on one area, which is good governance, or rather the lack of it.

Many issues covered in the report are not simply to do with environmental policies, but involve standards of governance on the part of the UK Government and Governments in the overseas territories. The remit of the Committee in the report is to hold the UK Government to account for their overall responsibility for the good environmental practices of the overseas territories. When, for example, there is evidence that planning systems in many territories are not open, and that procedures for carrying out objective environmental impact assessments are either ignored or subverted, there is a role for the UK Government, through governors and ministerial engagement with the overseas territories, to encourage and provide support to improve standards of governance.

The result of failure to take early action and to address matters adequately was seen most recently in 2009 in the Turks and Caicos Islands, when the Government had to introduce direct rule. Given that action, it is a great pity that in the initial paragraph of the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, the Government make it clear that they do not regard the report, nor the wealth of evidence presented to them, as in any way worth addressing.

The Government talk of powers being devolved to the Governments of the UK overseas territories, whether the territory has locally elected politicians or Government-appointed officials, including governors and administrators. Through the UK Parliament, certain policy areas have been designated the responsibility of devolved administrations, such as locally elected governments and assemblies. Devolution means that the UK Government no longer have the legal authority to determine policy on some matters in the devolved administrations, except through subsequent parliamentary votes at Westminster. We can see this most notably in local government in the UK. The devolved administrations, which are the councils, are provided with financial resources to carry out work in the devolved areas. There is, however, no such parliamentary devolution to the overseas territories, whether of legal authority or budgetary resources.

The crucial concept for the UK overseas territories is not devolution. Indeed, that term does not appear in the index to Hendry and Dickson’s authoritative “British Overseas Territories Law” of 2011. The key constitutional concept is that of reserved powers, which are, uniformly, defence, foreign affairs and public order. As the same index reveals, however, a key non-parliamentary constitutional concept is that of the Government’s reserved general power to legislate by Order in Council.

Even if the constitutions of individual overseas territories have been modernised in certain respects during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, they still rely on colonial legal structures developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and on the ability to govern by exercising the royal prerogative through Orders in Council. Constitutionally, the good governance of the territories is the responsibility of the UK Government.

The Government decide how to secure such good governance through departmental, ministerial and bureaucratic decisions. Generally, for territories with locally elected Governments, it is desirable for that to be achieved through local legislation, which takes account of local conditions, but respects standards that are often formulated to be observed in all territories over which the UK exercises effective sovereignty. Where Ministers deem it necessary, however, Orders in Council, without parliamentary debate in either the territory or the Westminster legislatures, can be used to impose new laws, including the suspension of a territory’s constitution.

Let me be clear: I am in no way opposed to proper delegation to the UK overseas territories, but as I said a few minutes ago, the Government’s arrangements do not achieve that, and they certainly do not justify the Government’s repeated attempts to claim that they have no responsibility for environmental issues in the overseas territories.

The Government assert in their response that it would be inappropriate to take greater ownership of environmental issues, as that approach would be in stark contrast to the objective, set out in the 2012 White Paper, of working in partnership with the territories to help them meet their environmental obligations. The idea of working in partnership, however, was set out in the 2001 environment charters, in which both sides made commitments that reflected their differentiated responsibilities for environmental good governance. The Government’s comment is in conflict with the Environmental Audit Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee reports of 2008, as well as our present report.

It needs to be clearly stated that there is no suggestion that the Government should take over managing environmental issues in the overseas territories, but the Government should introduce support for proper management. It is all very well for them to assert that they encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements, but the Government undermine their own assertion by making the erroneous comment that

“we have no intention of imposing on the Territories obligations that they are ill-equipped to fulfil.”

That is an attempt to set up an informal fallacy. The role of the UK, as recognised in the standard environment charters, is not to impose obligations, but to

“Facilitate the extension of the UK’s ratification of Multilateral Environmental Agreements of benefit to [the territory] and which [the territory] has the capacity to implement”,

and to

“Keep [the territory] informed regarding new developments in relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements and invite [the territory] to participate where appropriate in the UK’s delegation to international environmental negotiations and conferences.”

The Government response to the Committee’s report also ignores international responsibility to help equip parts of sovereign UK territory to fulfil such commitments. Imposing treaties on unwilling UK overseas territories is not something that the Government have shied away from—we need only consider the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands in 2009, and the fiscal and financial framework in the Cayman Islands a couple of years ago. There is, however, a middle course between imposition and a purely reactive response to requests from UK overseas territories, as the Government have developed mechanisms to seek the changes needed in overseas territories—that is, to encourage and to assist.

In general, treaties that the UK ratifies reflect values and priorities that apply to all sovereign UK territory. If that is not the case, will the Minister provide examples of environmental treaties that it would be wrong in principle to extend to all or some UK overseas territories, although they are appropriate to the UK mainland? The core obligations under the convention on biological diversity are not onerous. Having legislation to create protected areas is fundamental, but effective implementation is also important.

In all countries and territories where the convention on biological diversity has been ratified, or to which a mainland country’s ratification has been extended, a great deal has been left to be put in place after that ratification or extension. Judged by some standards—when it comes, for example, to the creation of marine protected areas—the UK has not been a leader in meeting its CBD commitments. It therefore seems perverse to demand higher standards before extension to many of our overseas territories when they are specifically excluded from policy discussions and treaty negotiations. It would not have impressed the other states with whom the CBD was being negotiated had the UK announced, on ratification in 1992, that it was likely that 22 years later it would still be unable to extend the CBD’s principles to most of the UK overseas territories, including those with no residents.

The Government state that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints affecting their ability to consider or implement treaties. Although I can accept that view, will the Minister explain why the UK Government have not provided more resources to address those constraints—for example, staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, assistance in an environmental drafting capacity, or any other form of help? If the Minister believes that multilateral environmental agreements have no value when applied to areas of high biodiversity, will he argue his case in public for not extending such treaties to those areas, and for devoting large sums of UK taxpayers’ money to biodiversity on the UK mainland?

As a consequence of the inquiry, some overseas territories have introduced conservation measures and legislation; that is an achievement of the Committee, but I must ask why the UK Government are prepared to exercise hard and soft power in the UK overseas territories on financial matters, but not protect biodiversity and promote environmental sustainability.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UK overseas territories. Sustainable development in the territories is contingent on their Governments’ implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans.

I urge the Government to consider investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the overseas territories, as it would make a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s international commitments under the CBD. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi biodiversity target 11 by declaring new marine protected areas around the Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government have missed a significant opportunity in their response to the Committee’s report, but there is still time to take the action we have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There is, and I will come back to that point, because I want to talk about some of the international aspects.

The second issue that I want to touch on is that of staff, because several hon. Members have suggested that DEFRA has no one dedicated to this subject. In fact, there are four DEFRA staff working on overseas territories issues, and they include the head of our international biodiversity policy unit. The report suggested that there should be more visits by DEFRA staff to the overseas territories. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers to undertake those visits to see the wonderful specimens of wildlife that we have there, but I question the value of spending money on air fares when we could be spending money on projects that will deliver and will enhance the biodiversity of these areas. Also, not carrying out physical visits to these areas does not mean that they are not in regular contact with their counterparts in the territories. They certainly are. For instance, earlier this week we were speaking to officials from Tristan da Cunha about the islands’ biosecurity needs and the exciting news that a new bird species may have been identified on one of the islands. I am told that it is a prion and similar to a kiwi. We await peer review of that new discovery.

We also organise workshops and training for the territories. For example, in March, officials organised a practical workshop on how to implement the convention on international trade in endangered species. It brought territory officials together with representatives from DEFRA, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the JNCC, Kew gardens, Border Force and the Government Legal Service. We also offer access to expertise and a range of services, including a plant pest identification service provided through the Food and Environment Research Agency which helps to protect both biodiversity and agriculture in the territories. That service has helped the territories to put in place measures to combat invasive invertebrate pests, and has to date identified 16 species new to science.

There is also, of course, regular discussion at ministerial level. We have the Joint Ministerial Council, which brings together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives and is organised collaboratively. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that we should prioritise greater involvement of the territories in setting the agenda for those meetings, but I assure hon. Members that we already do that. We already have regular meetings with the UK-based representatives of the territory Governments in the run-up to Joint Ministerial Council meetings and, following discussions with them, we held Minister-led plenary sessions on the environment in 2012 and on renewable energy in 2013. Responding to specific territory requests, we also held in 2013 a technical discussion in which territory representatives were able to speak to UK experts on a range of environmental issues.

International agreements were mentioned by a number of speakers. As the Select Committee rightly pointed out, protection of the environments of the territories is relevant to the goals and targets set out in the convention on biological diversity’s strategic plan, which 193 countries around the world, including the UK, have already committed to implementing. As the Committee also pointed out, the convention has so far been extended only to four of the UK’s 14 overseas territories.

The Government recognise that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face capacity constraints, which may affect their ability to consider or implement treaties. In such circumstances, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the territories, the UK or the wider environment to impose on the territories obligations that they are ill equipped to fulfil. We do, however, encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements. That includes working with them to ensure that they have the necessary measures in place to fulfil their obligations, providing technical advice and building capacity before extension of ratification takes place. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made clear, the Select Committee recommended that the CBD be extended to other overseas territories. Although we believe that that is a matter for the territories themselves, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members today that my officials are currently working with a further three territories on just such an extension of the CBD.

Funding is important. The Committee’s own report acknowledged that DEFRA spending on the UK overseas territories has increased since 2007-08, and increased sixfold between 2010-11 and 2012-13. We do that mainly through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus. That cross-Government grant scheme, co-funded by DEFRA, the FCO and the Department for International Development, funds environmental projects in many of the territories. In the past two years, Darwin Plus has committed nearly £3.7 million to 29 projects in the territories. Returning to the issue of international agreements, it is important to note that in many cases the grants that are offered help to deliver and advance the objectives that were set out by the territories in the environmental charters, when those were put together and agreed on in 2001.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at such short notice. In the Cayman Islands, there is a conservation fund, which comes from a tax levied on people when they leave the islands. That has allowed a pot of money—£40 million—to accumulate, but the authorities are not able to spend it, because there are not governance arrangements in effect. Does the Minister think it wise to be spending UK taxpayers’ money overseas when they already have their own resources but they do not have the governance measures to allow them to spend it?

[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—