Environmental Audit Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 332-i

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE THE

Environmental Audit Committee

Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories

Tuesday 9 July 2013

Mark Simmonds MP, Dr Peter Hayes, Richard Benyon MP, Jeremy Eppel and Ian McKendry

Evidence heard in Public Questions 93 - 168

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee

on Tuesday 9 July 2013

Members present:

Joan Walley (Chair)

Peter Aldous

Neil Carmichael

Martin Caton

Caroline Lucas

Dr Matthew Offord

Dr Alan Whitehead

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Mark Simmonds MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Peter Hayes, Director, Overseas Territories, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Jeremy Eppel, Deputy Director, International Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Evidence, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Ian McKendry, Deputy Director for the Overseas Territories and the Caribbean, Department for International Development, gave evidence.

Q93 Chair: I would like to begin this joint session, which I am very pleased we have, involving Defra, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID as well, by apologising for the cramped conditions in this particular committee room. Certainly, it was not our intention for us all to be so cramped up, but we will do our level best to get through what I hope will be an interesting and informative session relating to our current inquiry in respect of Overseas Territories. A very warm welcome to Ministers and officials for joining us on this occasion this afternoon. We felt in terms of our inquiry, which is the second inquiry that the Environmental Audit Select Committee has done on Overseas Territories, that we really want to try to look in respect of the current White Paper how we can flag up the whole issue of the environment in terms of Government policy relating to Overseas Territories. I just wondered if between each of you-and perhaps you will decide who goes in which turn-you could set out for us the United Kingdom’s environmental responsibilities in respect of the Overseas Territories just as a starting point.

Mark Simmonds: Shall I go first?

Chair: Please do, Mr Simmonds.

Mark Simmonds: Thank you. I know that both Richard Benyon and myself are very pleased that you are looking again at the Overseas Territories and their importance to the relationship to the United Kingdom. It is something that we are both very heavily engaged with and the importance of the environment and environmental issues to the Overseas Territories. They are among the world’s greatest environmental assets and I think I am right in saying that of the total biodiversity that exists within the UK and the Overseas Territories 90% of it is to be found within the Overseas Territories, a very significant part.

Chair: Indeed.

Mark Simmonds: We, alongside Defra and also DFID, work very closely together as part of the new partnership that was set out in the White Paper that was released in June last year. We have a significant commitment to the Overseas Territories to support them in their work as it relates to the environment. I just need to say upfront, if I may, Madam Chairman, that territory governments are constitutionally responsible for the environment, for environmental protection and for conservation of their natural environments. While each constitution is different, in all cases in all inhabited Overseas Territories they are responsible. As it relates to uninhabited Overseas Territories, then we are responsible, but we do work in partnership providing technical advice and support as they need to make the importance of the environment a priority.

We have done this through a series of mechanisms, whether it be Darwin Plus or environmental mainstreaming, providing technical advice and support. We also listen. I have travelled extensively in the inhabited Overseas Territories and listen very carefully to the challenges that they face in terms of capacity. Certainly, we should not underestimate that, particularly bearing in mind some of the other challenges that many of the Overseas Territories are facing at the moment, but it is part of our role in this partnership to assist them with prioritising the environment.

Q94 Chair: Okay. I will bring in Mr Benyon and DFID in just a moment, but in response to what you have said there, Minister, can I just ask why does the United Kingdom report to the Convention on Biological Diversity on behalf of the Overseas Territories then?

Mark Simmonds: We are responsible for their foreign affairs, but not for their domestic and environmental.

Q95 Chair: So does that or does it not include the Convention on Biological Diversity? Perhaps your official could clarify.

Dr Hayes: Yes. We are the signatory to the CBD. The territory governments would have to ask to have that extended to them as they would in other areas of multilateral agreements. In other areas where we are signatory to it, they ask for it to be extended to them or not and that is part of the process of partnership the Minister referred to, is to try to encourage and persuade them, where they have the capacity to implement it, to have it extended to them.

Q96 Chair: I will in a moment look at the constitutional commitments or arrangements that there are. When the UK signed the Biological Convention, did it do so on behalf of the Overseas Territories or not?

Richard Benyon: I might be able to help here.

Chair: I just wanted to clarify the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s position first of all, if I may, and then I will bring you in, I do promise.

Dr Hayes: The CBD is only open for signature by sovereign states and so the Overseas Territories cannot sign it in their own right. They can only do it by extension of our legislation.

Q97 Chair: So did the UK sign it on behalf of the Overseas Territories?

Richard Benyon: I led the delegation to Hyderabad, where we had a representative of the Overseas Territories in our delegation. The CBD is extended to four Overseas Territories: the British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, St Helena and the Cayman Islands.

Chair: I know that Dr Offord is very much a distinguished authority on these matters so I will bring him in.

Q98 Dr Offord: I will try to bring some light to the issue. I draw particularly the FCO’s attention to Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson’s law book, British Overseas Territories Law, which clearly states, "The United Kingdom is responsible for compliance by the Overseas Territories with obligations arising under international law, whether deriving from customary, international law or from applicable treaties. In practice, this responsibility arises far more often in respect of obligations under treaties and other international agreements that have been applied to the territories by the UK Government. The territories themselves have no international legal personality and no international legal treaty-making capacity separate from that of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is therefore, as a matter of international law, responsible for the external relations of the territories, which includes responsibilities for concluding treaties and for compliance with the international obligations under them."

Chair: Who wants to respond to that?

Richard Benyon: As I say, it has been extended to four Overseas Territories, but the external relations of the Overseas Territories is the responsibility of the UK Government. As I said, at the CBD in Hyderabad we did take along a representative of the UK Overseas Territories and very much wanted them to be considered as part of the decision-making process.

Q99 Chair: But just listening to the response that we have had so far, could I be forgiven for thinking that maybe some of the Overseas Territories were in a little bit of a no-man’s land in terms of where that responsibility for the environment was?

Richard Benyon: I might bring in Jeremy Eppel.

Chair: Please do. Mr Eppel?

Jeremy Eppel: Yes. The reality is that the UK does not insist or impose any particular multilateral environmental agreement, whether it is CBD or anything else, on the Overseas Territories, but if they wish to become a party to it through the UK’s ratification of it, we are very happy to help extend it to them through any technical or legal assistance they need to do that. As the Minister said, only four of them are currently in that position: BVI, Gibraltar, St Helena and the Cayman Islands. There is work going on with some others, five other Overseas Territories, on the possible extension of not only the CBD but five other multilateral environmental agreements to them, so the possibility exists that they do that. I think the key point is that it is up to them to become part of the CBD or any other multilateral process if they wish and we will help them do that, but it is not something that we insist they do.

Q100 Chair: Can I just ask how that is consistent with Article 4 of the Convention on Biodiversity?

Jeremy Eppel: I do not have it in front of me. Could you just remind us what it says?

Chair: Article 4 of the Convention imposes accountability on each signatory for processes and activities, "Carried out under its jurisdiction or control within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction". Is that interpretation that you have just given me consistent or not with that?

Jeremy Eppel: I think it is, because if the Overseas Territories concerned do not wish to have the particular convention extended to them at any given point it is not something that I think the UK Government has chosen or wishes to impose. External relations are obviously overall the responsibility of our FCO colleagues, but I think that is the reason why that interpretation is consistent with it.

Chair: I think we will be coming on to this in a little bit more detail in a moment.

Q101 Dr Offord: Before we go on, I just want to bottom some of this out, and I will be brief. Within the UK Government, Defra is responsible for providing support to the UK Overseas Territories, particularly on biodiversity issues, and as such Defra is ultimately responsible for CBD.

Jeremy Eppel: That is correct. We lead on CBD and the Minister led the UK delegation at Hyderabad at the last COP, yes.

Dr Offord: Okay, that is helpful, thank you. Particularly I would like to ask Defra one-

Q102 Chair: Sorry, just before we move on, if I may, I just wanted to go back to the starting point for our current inquiry, which is the Overseas Territories White Paper of 2012. Can I just ask why it does not mention that the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for compliance with the CBD, the Convention on Migratory Species and also the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in the Overseas Territories? Mr Benyon.

Richard Benyon: I have just written to every governor and government of our Overseas Territories making sure that they are compliant with CITES and offering any assistance they might need in order to achieve that and giving them a longstop date, I think in September, for when we want to see that in place.1 That is one example of where we are working with them following the COP in Bangkok, the CITES one, to make sure that we are compliant not just in the United Kingdom but across our Overseas Territories.

Q103 Chair: If I may, just coming back to the White Paper itself, given that the UK does have the responsibilities over those international agreements, it does seem slightly odd that that is not flagged up in the White Paper itself. Would you not agree? Presumably, it is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that is responsible for taking forward the White Paper.

Richard Benyon: Can I just clarify? Have you identified areas where Overseas Territories are not compliant with-

Q104 Chair: We will come on to that in a moment, but I think we just wanted to try to get what the starting point is. Given that there is a White Paper and hopefully that will follow on with more proactive regulation action or policy in some way or another, given that our concern-like the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Minister said-is about the 90% biodiversity of the UK, we wanted to make sure that it is absolutely embedded in the White Paper that is going forward. We just really wanted to get a handle on who recognises what responsibility they have and how we get this cross-cutting agenda going forward.

Mark Simmonds: The White Paper was never intended to contain every single aspect or every single detail of the relationship between UK Government Departments and the Overseas Territories, but I think it very clearly puts the environment at the forefront of the importance in the relationship. Certainly, there was a significant amount done prior to the White Paper emanating from the previous White Paper that relates to the environment, but also since June 2012 I think significant progress has been made.

Q105 Chair: As Dr Offord says, we will come to that later. You see, if I look at the first inquiry that the Environmental Audit Select Committee did on Overseas Territories, it related to a previous White Paper where environmental responsibilities were very much part and parcel of it. We do not quite see the same reference to that in the current White Paper, so I am sure that you will understand our wanting to get the foundations of this inquiry and see whether or not there has been any reduction of commitment to environmental issues in terms of how the Government is taking policy going forward.

Richard Benyon: I would put to you that the reverse has happened, that we have a very clear and determined commitment. It is one of the most important and fulfilling-

Chair: In the White Paper itself?

Richard Benyon: -parts of my job, to implement what we said in the White Paper and make sure not only that we are continuing to put considerable resources, and the commitment we gave then we have fulfilled-

Q106 Chair: Sure, but can I just interrupt? I am so sorry, Mr Benyon, but just in respect of the treaty responsibilities, that does not seem to me to be flagged up in the White Paper. I am just trying to understand where those-

Richard Benyon: I don’t think your Committee should read into that any omission of determination by ourselves to do what is right.

Q107 Chair: Okay. So you would not expect to put a major responsibility into a White Paper?

Richard Benyon: I would not expect to do it treaty by treaty, but perhaps I am straying on to Mark’s brief.

Mark Simmonds: The other thing I would just say, out of the White Paper came the first Joint Ministerial Council that was held in November. Out of the Joint Ministerial Council came the communiqué, and out of the communiqué, which was agreed with all Overseas Territories, was this point that you are making about the importance of implementing the multilateral environmental agreements.

Chair: Right, okay. I think I must move on.

Q108 Dr Offord: We keep going off on a tangent. Let me jump in and say the JNCC is an independent scientific adviser to Government, which raises a question to me about governance if you think it is really an appropriate body to make policy and direct departmental spending.

Richard Benyon: JNCC?

Dr Offord: Yes, the JNCC, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Richard Benyon: They are our key adviser.

Dr Offord: Indeed.

Richard Benyon: On Overseas Territories.

Q109 Dr Offord: You feel it is appropriate for them to make policy and to implement spending decisions?

Richard Benyon: Can you give me an example of where you think they have made policy?

Dr Offord: I might have to come back to you on that one myself.

Richard Benyon: No, this is a serious point.

Dr Offord: No, it very much is. It very much is.

Richard Benyon: Because they are a key element of our delivery-I hate this word; I am talking like a management consultant-landscape. There, I said it. We are trying to make sure that what we are doing is evidence-based and therefore using a range of different sources across Government. JNCC are the ones that co-ordinate that. I have never thought of them in terms of developing policy. They are implementing it.

Q110 Dr Offord: That is really useful, that discussion between us, because it shows how difficult it is; we have been trying to bottom this all out. Can I move on to my question? You can see the problems that we have experienced in trying to work out where responsibilities lay. To come back on your previous point, I want to ask you particularly, Mr Benyon, in regard to Defra what assessment of environmental sustainability has the Department made of the Overseas Territories?

Richard Benyon: A variety. We work with them in terms of the way we spend the £2 million a year on our Overseas Territories, whether it is through Darwin or through other funding streams. We cannot spend public money without making sure that it is properly evidence-based. To take that one example of the Darwin Plus initiative, which I think is a great benefit, where we have amalgamated different funding streams, the Overseas Territories or stakeholders representing interests on those will come to us with a project. That is rigorously examined by the committee and if funding is allocated, we can be certain it is for a very good purpose. I think that is one of the best examples of collaboration between an overseas territory government, very often NGO interests and the UK.

Q111 Dr Offord: Let me expand on that slightly, because you mentioned a figure of £3 million-

Richard Benyon: Two.

Dr Offord: £2 million-sorry, you did, but it is £3 million. A number of reports have suggested that to meet our biodiversity agreements we need to be spending a lot more than that. The question I wanted to ask you is Defra’s business plan does not mention the UK Overseas Territories at all. Given that the White Paper says that Defra is responsible for the maintenance of biodiversity, do you think that is an error?

Richard Benyon: No. Our business plan is an over-arching strategic document, which looks at a whole range of activities that Defra does. It does not set out in precise example that level of function. That is not the purpose of departmental spending plans.

Q112 Dr Offord: Where could we find out the objectives of the Department for the UK Overseas Territories? This comes back to where there is a lot of confusion.

Richard Benyon: We have a clear view about how we see our responsibilities for biodiversity. This was developed through Defra policy and the Natural Environment White Paper, the National Ecosystems Assessment, and the Overseas Territories are a function of the biodiversity within Defra. You cannot really talk about the Overseas Territories as a collective because they are so different. Some of them are uninhabited. Some of them are very small. Some of them are very large, highly-functioning economies in their own right. The only way to do that is cross-government, through the Joint Ministerial Council that I attended and other Ministers from other departments attended, being part of the approach that is led by the FCO and making sure that our commitments under international agreements are fed through to some of these very valuable habitats-the marine policy, for example-many of these things led by the governments of these territories asking for our assistance and we follow it through.

Q113 Dr Offord: Just to expand on that again, if it was recognised that one of the Overseas Territories was behaving in a way or something was happening-for example, as you know, water pollution I am very interested in-what would you do as a Department if you realised that was occurring?

Richard Benyon: If it was brought to our attention in a way that was directly impacting on biodiversity, we could be having a conversation with the government of that territory about how we could assist them in mitigating that effect. I would say that the cause of it, the cause of that pollution, was more a function of the relationship between FCO and the Department; trying to improve the environment would be with us.

Q114 Dr Offord: That is helpful because it answered my question. In our evidence from the RSPB-they are obviously an NGO-they note that in the Overseas Territories many feel disconnected from Defra and find it very difficult to access support and advice. I have met the Cayman Premier and others in the Cayman Islands, and they said they could not get any support from Defra particularly around issues such as waste management, which were leading in turn to water pollution.

Richard Benyon: It is, first of all, their responsibility to sort out. They are governments of these territories. They have responsibility for such matters. If they want specific advice from us, some issues are being raised not just at the JMC, but also directly. If you can give me specific examples of where the Cayman Islands or any other government felt that they were getting a "computer says no" response at the other end, that is not my experience. I have had really strong words of support and thanks for the services that we have provided across a range of different things. Jeremy might be able to give us some more.

Jeremy Eppel: Perhaps I could just add a little to what the Minister said. In terms of the range of priorities for Defra and the Government as a whole, but Defra in particular, on Overseas Territories the over-arching framework is clearly the White Paper, the environment chapter of the White Paper, the Joint Ministerial Council communiqué, which sets out a range of priorities, which is shared between the UK Government and the Overseas Territories themselves, which was only last December, but also in the kind of material we put out on particular areas where there are opportunities for the Overseas Territories to access funding. I am thinking in particular of Darwin Plus, as we call it. The proper title is the Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund. Now, the terms of reference for that clearly gives an opportunity for Overseas Territories to come in with projects that are priorities for them, but will also meet our broader priorities that have been set out.

On the issue of waste management, one of the ideas of creating this tri-departmental fund, which was launched in Hyderabad, indeed, at the CBD last October by the Minister, was the idea that it could go beyond just biodiversity, because although biodiversity is extremely important in Overseas Territories, the interaction with other environmental issues is clearly important too. For instance, if territories want to apply for a project that is waste-related, it is for them to put that forward within the terms of the Darwin Plus funding. That is not to say it is going to solve the whole problem, but the opportunity certainly exists. I was at a meeting of the Overseas Territories governments-not one that Ministers were at-a few months ago where we had a range of dialogues around things, including issues such as waste management, so I think the dialogue does take place.

Dr Offord: Okay, that is very helpful. Thank you.

Mark Simmonds: Can I make one more point, if I may? I think the implication of the line of questioning here is that there seems to be reluctance within the territories to engage with this important agenda. I just want to make sure that the Committee understand that that is not the case. Certainly, the territory governments that I have ongoing dialogue with are very engaged about the importance of environmental sustainability and are very grateful for the support that the UK Government, particularly Defra, has provided. That of course does not mean that everything can be solved in the shortest possible timescale and there are ongoing issues that perhaps we could get into, if there is time, where I think there is additional support that is required.

Chair: We are going to come on in a little bit more detail about the actual support and what it constitutes in each of the Departments represented here, but do carry on.

Mark Simmonds: I just wanted to say that I think that there is a real appetite and awareness of the importance of environmental sustainability, not just because it is important in itself, but because it is important for their economic viability as well, for the tourism industry and to remain there. Even when there are discussions taking place about, for example, improving the infrastructure, it is absolutely essential and they do thorough environmental impact assessments to build that into the projects that they are considering.

Q115 Chair: The Overseas Territories do full environmental impact assessments?

Mark Simmonds: That is part of the framework agreement that we put in place with all of the territories. I am very concerned about what you have said about Cayman, because that is certainly not the discussions I have had with people.

Q116 Dr Offord: Chairman, if I could jump in, because I wanted to turn to the Foreign Office now and to ask Mr Simmonds, how does your Department ensure that the UK Overseas Territories implement effective environmental legislation?

Mark Simmonds: I presume you are referring to the RSPB?

Dr Offord: I am not.

Mark Simmonds: If you have not seen this, you should. They came up with a very good report, which detailed in all the Overseas Territories where the legislative structures are at. We provide support in the sense of assisting, where it is required or where it is requested, building capacity inside territories to deliver these environments. One of the things that we put into the fiscal frameworks that we have now agreed with the territories is that any procurement over and above I think it is a lifetime of £8 million in terms of value, so it is quite de minimis in that sense, there has to be an environmental economic assessment that takes place. It is becoming an integral part of their developmental processes. This is the point of mainstreaming, which is why the White Paper moved on from the charters that were enshrined in the previous White Paper to trying to mainstream, so in everything that the respective Overseas Territories’ governments do, the environment is at the heart of their decision-making.

Q117 Dr Offord: It is very interesting that you bring up the framework for fiscal responsibilities. Perhaps you could speak about that a bit more and give us your reasoning behind why the UK Government felt that it was important, for example, that the Cayman Islands decided to introduce that.

Mark Simmonds: It comes out of the spirit of partnership in the White Paper. It was felt that it is important that a fiscal and financial framework in each overseas territory was put in place to make sure there is responsible and prudent financial management; there is a fair balance between revenues coming into the Exchequer and expenditure going out. If I can give you one example where that did not happen, it was back in Turks and Caicos Islands back in 2007-08 where obviously the Government had to be suspended and an interim Administration had to be put in place, effectively run by the Governor. Subsequently, there have been elections and the TCI now have a relatively new Government who are running TCI. It is important that those responsible financial frameworks are put in place. We also wanted as part of that to make sure that particularly government procurement was done transparently and properly.

Q118 Dr Offord: Are you talking specifically about the Cayman Islands?

Mark Simmonds: No, this applies to all territories, but there is a very good example in the Cayman Islands where the procurement of the port was not being done in a way that met international transparency and international procurement standards. Now the financial and fiscal framework is in place, it will not be possible for a future Government of Cayman to go down that route.

Q119 Chair: Can you elaborate a little bit? Are you talking about the port that would have extended capacity to take in the cruise liners?

Mark Simmonds: Yes.

Q120 Dr Offord: If I can refer back to my original question, how do you oversee environmental legislation? Because you have taken a particular interest in financial issues and the economy of the islands, how do you look at environmental across the Overseas Territories?

Mark Simmonds: Mr Benyon has answered some of that. In terms of the specific environmental legislation, that is a matter for individual territories to implement themselves.

Q121 Dr Offord: Can I stop you, because I don’t believe you are correct. Indeed, in your own White Paper you say, "The UK Government has a responsibility for the overall good governance of the territories and take a close interest in how the territories’ governments discharge the functions devolved to them. Those territories which choose to remain British should abide by the same basic standards of good government as in the UK." During our investigations into areas, including the Cayman Islands and others, we found certainly bad practice in governance and I am sure that you know that the former Premier, McKeeva Bush, appeared in court for the second time last Friday on charges again. Now, a lot of this was known by the Governor, who in our meetings with him had said he had referred it to your predecessor and the British Government was aware of irregularities with the former Premier, which he has now been removed. We are certainly aware of the environmental conditions where roads were removed, possibilities for constructing hotels on lands of natural habitat, of species involved in CITES and others were all occurring with the knowledge of the Governor. He was very concerned about this and said to us he had referred it to the British Government and it is the direct responsibility of the FCO to ensure good governance in the Overseas Territories. I don’t believe that happened.

Mark Simmonds: There are legal constitutional arrangements between each individual inhabited overseas territory and the FCO. Clearly, we have to abide by those constitutional arrangements. We stick by the rule of law. We don’t run the Overseas Territories from Whitehall.

Q122 Dr Offord: Excuse me, Minister, let me interrupt you. The constitutional law of the Cayman Islands says that Her Majesty’s Government has ultimate responsibility for good governance of the Overseas Territories, and we know that did not occur.

Mark Simmonds: I cannot get into and I am not going to get into the detail of the previous Premier. That is an ongoing court case. Clearly, the matters are set out in the individual constitutions. There are legal procedures that need to take place. There are police procedures that need to take place where relevant. Where you are correct and where in the FCO we feel there has been very significant evidence of poor and bad governance, we will- as we did in 2008-09 in TCI-suspend local governance and impose governance from outside, but that is not the same as a potential environmental impact. It is not the same as very severe and significant maladministration, and indeed corruption, as was evidenced by some of the reporting that was done around what happened in TCI.

Q123 Dr Offord: I have one more question. That was why the UK Government insisted on the fiscal financial framework being introduced. McKeeva Bush was described as having his arm pushed up his back to sign it. He did not do it voluntarily.

Mark Simmonds: The financial and fiscal framework from the Foreign Office perspective is a positive development in the Cayman and elsewhere because it creates an architecture and rigour for prudent financial and fiscal management.

Q124 Dr Offord: Okay. I will be very brief with my final question. If we are talking about better governance, which I believe the FCO has a responsibility to introduce, I believe that would be able to identify organic sources of funding within the UK Overseas Territories. Again, I go back to the Cayman Islands because I have some experience of it. They impose an environmental tax on people visiting the island. It is currently standing at something like £40 million. Do you not agree with me that if there was better governance arrangements, people like myself, as a UK taxpayer, would not be as aggrieved that we are spending money on things like the Darwin Plus initiative when they have a bank account full of £40 million that they could be using for their own environmental initiatives?

Mark Simmonds: We want to see the Overseas Territories have as much responsibility as they can for their own legislative and regulatory structures. That applies to the environment economics as well. I do not detect any appetite in the Overseas Territories to move to the French model, where effectively all their Overseas Territories are part of mainland France, because of all the implications that would go with that.

In theory, we could impose from the outside environmental legislation on the Overseas Territories but we do not think that that would be constructive. It is certainly not in the spirit of partnership and I detect whether it be in the Caymans, particularly with the new Government, or elsewhere that there is a real appetite to put the environment right at the forefront of their policy development with the support of the UK Government. I think that there is nothing wrong with the UK Government providing support, whether it be on a financial basis to assist with research and development and the other aspects through Darwin Plus, or through building capacity to enable them to become even more responsible for their own livelihoods and their own political and economic development than they are already.

Q125 Dr Offord: I am happy to leave that there, but just by saying that certainly the framework on fiscal responsibility was not introduced through a measure of co-operation with the Government and I see no difference between some of the environmental initiatives-

Mark Simmonds: I am not sure I agree with that, I am afraid. It has to be passed through the Cayman Islands legislature.

Chair: I think we are going to have to move on to precisely that area of expertise and capacity and support that might be available from the UK Government to the Overseas Territories.

Q126 Peter Aldous: Dr Offord has taken quite a lot of my line of thinking and he has done that very effectively. Just looking in the two Departments, I would be interested to know how many permanent fulltime staff are employed on the Overseas Territories in each Department.

Richard Benyon: We have an international biodiversity team, which acts as a focal point for overseas territory-related issues. There are four members of the team, whose roles specifically include working on overseas territory issues, including a newly appointed head of the international biodiversity team. They are supported by a legal adviser, who provides advice on issues such as the extension of treaties to Overseas Territories and by Defra’s international biodiversity evidence team, who deal with research projects related to the Overseas Territories. In addition to the staff at Defra, JNCC has two members of staff working fulltime on overseas territory-related issues supported by other staff members. At present, one JNCC staff member, a St Helena national, is on a two-year secondment to St Helena as the director of the new environmental management department. In her absence, a marine expert from Bermuda has been seconded to JNCC for nine months.

Q127 Chair: Can I bring in Mr McKendry in terms of DFID?

Ian McKendry: Our staffing is around 30. It varies a little, but around 30 working on the Overseas Territories overall, yes.

Q128 Chair: Specifically designated as such?

Ian McKendry: Yes, on our various aid programmes to the Overseas Territories.

Richard Benyon: Sorry, can I just come back? The ones I listed are not designated purely for Overseas Territories.

Chair: I think our question related specifically to designated on Overseas Territories.

Peter Aldous: Yes, fulltime employed on the-

Richard Benyon: They work on a range of different biodiversity issues and some of that time is dedicated to Overseas Territories.

Q129 Chair: How many are just designated on overseas?

Richard Benyon: We don’t have any specific-

Chair: You do not have any?

Richard Benyon: I would think it wrong, frankly, if we did, because what Defra provides to the Overseas Territories is a huge range of expertise and I want to be able to draw from that kind of expertise right across Defra’s skills.

Q130 Peter Aldous: You mentioned that Defra do have an expertise on that, which the Overseas Territories draw on. In this inquiry, we have heard a criticism that some departments in the environment in the Overseas Territories do find it difficult to communicate with Defra. Is that a criticism you have heard or not?

Richard Benyon: Going back to what we were talking about earlier, the JMC, the message I got from First Ministers-who are not shrinking violets, neither are Governors; they are quite happy to criticise when they want to-they have said there is a very good relationship. One of them used the phrase "a breath of fresh air" at the first JMC meeting I went to. There was a real belief that the UK Government was taking them seriously and it was considered to be quite long overdue that that took place.

I really would not want my Department to be focusing people just on narrow areas of activity. We are trying to get away from this sort of little empires dotted in little offices doing one particular area of work. What we do for the Overseas Territories we also do for the United Kingdom in vast measure and it would be totally wrong to take really good, well-qualified officials either from core Defra or from the wider organisations and just focus them on the Overseas Territories. If there are specific communications issues with specific territories, I want to know about it, but I do think that we offer a better service by being much more broad.

Q131 Peter Aldous: Do they ever visit the Overseas Territories to see the situation on the ground and liaise with the Governments?

Richard Benyon: The first point is we have had a recent hiatus of churn, as there is with everybody across the civil service. Those posts are now filled and there may be an opportunity for some of them to visit some of the Overseas Territories, but I have no detailed knowledge of visits.

Q132 Chair: There have not been any visits?

Richard Benyon: There may have been, but I don’t know of them.

Q133 Peter Aldous: The Foreign Office?

Mark Simmonds: We have 70: 35 in the UK, 35 in territory.

Q134 Chair: Is that only environment?

Mark Simmonds: No, that is in the Overseas Territories directorate.

Q135 Peter Aldous: I think Mr Benyon was saying he did not want people working in silos, but if we just look at joined-up government, when was the most recent cross-departmental meeting on the Overseas Territories, and which Departments attended that?

Richard Benyon: Jeremy can talk about it at official level, but at the JMC in December, I was there alongside Mark Simmonds, who was chairing it. I think DECC were represented, DFID.

Mark Simmonds: Eleven other Government Departments.

Richard Benyon: I have been there with Transport Ministers. There really is a good cross-working on these issues.

Mark Simmonds: There is quite a comprehensive follow-up between the respective Departments and a flow of information.

Richard Benyon: Absolutely.

Mark Simmonds: Certainly, there are all sorts of discussions that are taking place, both officially and unofficially, at ministerial and at official level to make sure that the agenda is being driven forward.

Jeremy Eppel: If I may just add on this, there really is a lot of cross-departmental working and it does not always have to take place, or indeed is not always most effective because you have to wait for a set piece meeting to take place in the context of that Overseas Territories biodiversity group. The next meeting of that is happening on 23 July. I will be chairing that. The last one I did not chair but my team leader, who was there at the time, chaired it and it took place, I think, about last December, shortly before he left. The communication is continuous, as and when necessary.

If I might just very briefly on the point about dedicated staff as against numbers of staff, and you have heard the numbers, as it were, somewhat more operational, some of them in the other two Departments. My own team covers international biodiversity, ecosystems and also evidence. If we had a single person just dedicated to Overseas Territories, we probably would not be able to have a particularly senior person doing that and they would need to pick up a lot of information and knowledge from a lot of other people. We think it is more efficient that part of my time, part of a number of senior team leaders’ time, is available to do that and that we are able to access everybody. My total team is about 35 as well, but it covers the whole range of biodiversity, ecosystems and evidence. The evidence team, the scientists, the economists, the person who looks after the Darwin work, if they were working only on Overseas Territories there would be times when they were twiddling their thumbs. I think it is much better the way it works, that a number of people know that they need to contribute to our total effort on Overseas Territories as and when the need arises.

Q136 Peter Aldous: Do the two members or two staff on secondment from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee work exclusively on Overseas Territories or not?

Jeremy Eppel: Yes, they are in Overseas Territories and although I am not personally in touch with them day-to-day, members of my team and the scientific side are in contact with them whenever there is useful contact to be made.

Q137 Peter Aldous: Just taking on the issue that Dr Offord raised, they are not directing policy as such, is that correct?

Jeremy Eppel: No, I think their role is to support particular requests and needs of the Overseas Territories in which they are embedded where a push is being made, let us say, to enhance their capacity and to improve their management of the environment, including biodiversity. JNCC people have the expertise to do that. Defra individuals would not have the expertise to do that, so it is right that that expert body is able to provide those. We also fund a JNCC person to help do that, so that is how it works.

Q138 Peter Aldous: Those two are specifically in two Overseas Territories?

Jeremy Eppel: Yes.

Peter Aldous: Which ones?

Richard Benyon: One is St Helena and the other-2

Jeremy Eppel: Bermuda and St Helena.

Chair: I think Mr McKendry wanted to come in.

Ian McKendry: Yes, just to clarify on the dedicated environment support, ours is one fulltime equivalent on environment, albeit the other staff, the number I quoted of around 30, is for the totality of our aid programme management.

Q139 Chair: Okay. Can I just go back to the point that Mr Eppel was making about if you had a high-ranking officer it would not provide the service that you wished to provide? Are you satisfied that if anybody in an overseas territory wished to make contact with Defra for the purposes of getting advice or building capacity that there would be a point of contact where they would know who to contact and how to get into the Defra system?

Jeremy Eppel: I am satisfied that there is such a person. Whether every individual in the Overseas Territories necessarily knows their email address I cannot guarantee, but certainly there is that person, who is my new team leader on this, who is the person to contact.

Q140 Chair: If I was either a Minister for the Environment in the individual state of the overseas territory or a chief environmental officer wanting to make contact on something like waste management to try to get that expertise, how would I go about making contact?

Richard Benyon: I think the governments tend to deal first point of contact with the FCO and they may well refer them to my Department if it is something where we have particular skills or an organisation we are responsible for has particular skills.

Q141 Chair: So the first point of contact is with the FCO on environmental issues?

Richard Benyon: Not exclusively.

Mark Simmonds: Not exclusively, but there is a constant flow of information that is coming from our governors on the Overseas Territories from discussions that they have had with Ministers.

Q142 Chair: Sorry, from our Government to the Overseas Territories?

Mark Simmonds: Both ways, but particularly from the Overseas Territories back to the UK. I am very keen outside this room to pick up the comments that you obviously found in the Caymans, because that is certainly not my experience of dealing with either Cayman or other Overseas Territories. There are clearly challenges in trying to ensure that Overseas Territories’ governments, both Ministers and officials, have the capacity and the expertise to deal with quite a lot of these important issues.

Q143 Chair: Just a hypothetical question: say somebody in one of the Overseas Territories wished to consider, say, a world heritage site, their first port of call would be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Mark Simmonds: The governor’s office and then the governor would probably contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on something like that, or the governor would advise who should be contacted inside Defra if Defra was the appropriate Department to contact.

Q144 Chair: Would the governor be trained on all matters to do with environmental issues such as world heritage sites?

Mark Simmonds: Pass. I am not sure about the specific on the world heritage site, but certainly incoming governors do receive briefings-

Chair: On environmental issues?

Mark Simmonds: Not just from inside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but from appropriate NGOs that might be relevant to that individual territory.

Q145 Chair: I am just thinking in terms of fulfilling the Government’s environmental treaty responsibilities and commitments.

Richard Benyon: Could I give an example perhaps on marine conservation? We have developed some quite good working on marine conservation both at home, which is work in progress, as you are aware, and in certain Overseas Territories, including British Indian Overseas Territories. The skills that were involved in that designation reside in large measure in places like the JNCC. We can refer them, as we have, to other Overseas Territories where they are developing similar marine protection and that is a service that we can provide.

Mark Simmonds: Can I just add to that just for the record?

Chair: By all means.

Mark Simmonds: World heritage is DCMS rather than Defra and we as the Foreign Office are facilitators, putting relevant Overseas Territories’ government ministers or officials in contact with the relevant people here in Government Departments.

Q146 Dr Offord: I don’t think the issue is which Department it is, it is what the mechanism is if a country comes forward, how they are directed.

Mark Simmonds: But I did not want the record to demonstrate that it was Defra responsible for it.

Chair: I must bring in Mr Carmichael.

Q147 Neil Carmichael: Yes, I just think it is important to clarify this point, because obviously it makes sense to have one Department that is the lead Department. From what you have said, it does appear to be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is quite obviously the right approach, but in order to satisfy people’s concerns about the role of Defra, presumably there are perfectly good linkages between the FCO and Defra, and indeed DCMS, which we have just heard about.

Mark Simmonds: Absolutely right. The other aspect that we are very keen to encourage is Overseas Territories talking to each other and helping each other and learning from the excellent things that are taking place in some territories but not yet in others. That is something that has not always happened.

Richard Benyon: Chairman, in the three years I have been in this job it has never been reported to me or I have never had an overseas territory complain that they have not been able to get through to anyone in my Department. If you have evidence to the contrary, again I would like to hear about it.

Chair: That is very helpful.

Q148 Neil Carmichael: Obviously, to extend this point, it is not just questions of contact between Overseas Territories and one or two Departments, but it is a question of policy formulation as well. Presumably, there again the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes the lead and you would clearly want to formulate policies in conjunction with the other Departments as the needs arise.

Mark Simmonds: Yes, but there is a balance to strike between not wanting to necessarily impose policy from the outside where we do not have responsibility, but also at the same time wanting to enable them to develop their capacity to develop the policies that are relevant to them as individual Overseas Territories. To that end, last year we had something called the Jubilee programme, which was a UK-funded programme that enabled there to be exchange of senior officials in the Government so they could come to the UK, see how capacity was built and assist them with their own developmental process both in terms of policy, but also in terms of running Government Departments.

Q149 Neil Carmichael: Because this discussion could get a bit complicated if we then started imposing comprehensive absolute rules on the Overseas Territories, and that is not what we want to do. Instead, it is really facilitating localism to some extent as well.

Mark Simmonds: Yes.

Chair: I think we must move on. I am going to move on now to Martin Caton, if I may.

Q150 Martin Caton: Mr Simmonds, you mentioned earlier about improvements in transparency with regard to procurement. Can we focus on transparency and scrutiny in a little bit wider sense? Of course, in the White Paper that has already been referred to, the UK Government made clear that it is keen to see enhanced transparency in the Overseas Territories. I would be interested to hear how you intend to set about pursuing that, and in particular, I would be grateful if you could say what work the UK Government is doing or considering doing to encourage the Overseas Territories to implement basic freedom of information legislation.

Mark Simmonds: Yes, of course we are keen to see enhanced transparency. Obviously we believe it is in the essence of good government in this country and certainly we feel that anything that is applicable to us in this country we should be encouraging the Overseas Territories to implement as well. As you will have seen on the G8 agenda with the tax and transparency agenda, those Overseas Territories that have financial services sectors responded very positively as part of that transparency agenda. Yes, we will encourage them, but again we encourage them to develop their important transparency agenda not just in terms-although it is very important-of procurement, making sure that procurement is done to internationally-recognised standards to remove any possibility of inappropriate behaviour taking place, but also to make sure that people in those respective territories get the best value for money that they can through proper procurement procedures. Yes, we would encourage them, but not impose from the outside the issues like freedom of information and some of the other UN conventions that go alongside that.

Q151 Martin Caton: I can understand encouraging freedom of information. Do you have any examples of practical support that you have offered to any of the Overseas Territories to enable them to basically introduce freedom of information legislation or at least freedom of information practice?

Mark Simmonds: I think the straightforward answer to that is no, but that does not mean that it is not an issue that is important. Certainly, we should not underestimate the lack of capacity that exists in some of these Overseas Territories’ government structures and certainly the essence of the support that we are trying to provide is aligned with their priorities, helping them build capacity where it is relevant. Now, the point I am making is that while an overseas territory may be desirous of implementing a type of freedom of information structure, they may feel that there are other priorities with their limited government capacity that should take precedence.

Dr Hayes: If I could just refer to the White Paper, chapter 4 talked about the legislative framework and the priorities as we saw it for the territories. In that, you will see there is a very broad sweep of areas where we would like to see legislative development in the territories: many of the core human rights legislation, the UN Conventions on Civil and Political Rights and so forth, so supporting the territory governments, safeguarding children, restorative justice. There is a broad work programme ahead of us. Freedom of information very much I am not suggesting it is not important, but there is a very broad engagement we have through our own Attorney General, Dominic Grieve. We have a meeting of law officers that tries to help the territories deal with their capacity constraints on implementing all of these various bits of legislation. We would be very happy to suggest to Dominic Grieve that he might mention freedom of information specifically at the next meeting as something that has been raised by this Committee, but I just wanted to flag there is a lot of work to do across a lot of very important areas.

Q152 Martin Caton: I appreciate that, Mr Hayes, and clearly your remit is far wider than this Committee’s, but ours is a focus on the environment and sustainability. It seems to have come across in our inquiry freedom of information is one of the things that if it was improved, it could move things forward. I think this question is for you, Mr Benyon, and perhaps Mr Eppel. Do you think that political scrutiny of environmental policy-making by governments in the Overseas Territories is fit for purpose?

Richard Benyon: These are in many cases elected governments where they have responsibility for environmental policy. It is not for me to try to second-guess that level of political accountability. In other areas, in the uninhabited islands and islands where there are very few people, where there is more capacity required from the UK Government, then that is one of the reasons I am sitting here being held accountable to Parliament.

Q153 Martin Caton: I am thinking of the populated Overseas Territories and of political accountability to the populations of those Overseas Territories. Is there no way we can help enhance that?

Richard Benyon: These are elected legislatures and if we believe in that kind of governance, then they should be the primary place where political accountability lies. As Mr Simmonds said, if we were to go down what I think would be a very unpopular route to the similar situation they have in France, you would have a different arrangement.

Q154 Martin Caton: These are not foreign countries. These are part of the UK and they all have a governor from this country who does, as far as we understand, influence policy.

Chair: Would the Foreign and Commonwealth Office like to respond?

Mark Simmonds: There is a distinction that needs to be made to that last point, Mr Caton, you have made. They are not part of the United Kingdom, they are part of the realm. There is a distinct difference and that difference is set out in each individual constitutional arrangement that exists.

Chair: Mr McKendry, did you want to come in on that? Okay.

Q155 Martin Caton: One suggestion that has come up in this inquiry is: should there be an environmental ombudsman appointed for the Overseas Territories who would report back to the UK Parliament? Is that a way that Parliament could help move things forward?

Mark Simmonds: I would say that the Overseas Territories are engaged with the UK Parliament both through the very active all-party parliamentary group that exists and also through the Overseas Territories’ representatives who are here in London. That does not mean there is not perhaps more that could be done, but I think that-

Q156 Chair: Sorry, can I just clarify which overseas representatives in London you are referring to?

Mark Simmonds: The overseas representatives of the Overseas Territories. There are representatives here in London of the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and so on, who are based here in London.

Q157 Martin Caton: Yes, we have taken evidence from them, thank you. Have you considered extending the UK’s ratification of the Aarhus Convention to encompass the Overseas Territories?

Mark Simmonds: They need to ask to have it extended to them.

Jeremy Eppel: The Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information and justice? Yes. It is a UNECE treaty, the Economic Commission for Europe, so I think-I may be corrected by my legal adviser-it is only available to territories or geographical spaces that are within the ECE region. I am not sure the Overseas Territories would qualify in that situation. I may be wrong.

Q158 Martin Caton: Can I ask you to check that?

Jeremy Eppel: We can certainly check.

Martin Caton: We have had different information and perhaps you could write to the Committee to clarify.

Jeremy Eppel: We could certainly do that, yes.

Q159 Martin Caton: Mr Simmonds, I do see the sensitivities of dealing with the governments of the UK Overseas Territories so I am not diminishing the size of the problem. It just seems sometimes perhaps the UK Government-and I do not think it would be taken wrongly by the governments of the UK Overseas Territories-could sometimes be a bit more proactive, like discuss with them what Aarhus means and the value of it. If, as Mr Eppel says, it is not open to them, something similar where that right of that sort of information is available.

Richard Benyon: We will certainly write to the Committee on this and maybe it is something that we could discuss at the next JMC, but could I just say that talk of ombudsmen and greater accountability, I am not in any way complacent and nothing is ever perfect in this world, but as I go round in my mind or with officials the Overseas Territories, there is fantastic success happening in environmental management. There are extraordinary projects being done in South Georgia, in St Helena, on Gough Island, on Henderson Island, right around the world. I would hate your Committee to be concerned that there is an environmental vacuum happening in these territories, because totally the opposite is my estimation.

Chair: I am sure we will come to some independent judgment on that.

Q160 Martin Caton: I am sure there are lots of good examples, but one of you commended the RSPB report, which is really an eye-opener. If what they are saying about the quality of environmental protection in many, many of the Overseas Territories is right, then we have something to worry about, or at least the world has something to worry about, considering 90% of UK biodiversity is in the Overseas Territories.

Richard Benyon: I have also had very warm words by the RSPB on our support of eradication of pest projects on a number of different Overseas Territories and the funding that we have made available in extremely difficult circumstances. I am sure, as I said, nothing is ever perfect. I am certainly not complacent, but I am also proud of what we are achieving in partnership with NGOs, but most of all in partnership with Overseas Territories governments.

Chair: I think it is fair for me to point out that any Committee inquiry would probably wish to concentrate on where the gaps are, by its very nature.

Richard Benyon: Obviously. Yes, I completely understand.

Chair: Just in response to your response to Mr Caton, I think it might just be helpful to perhaps have a note from either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Defra or possibly even DFID in respect of the Aarhus Convention because I am aware that some of that applies to France, but it may be that they have different constitutional arrangements with their equivalent of Overseas Territories. It would just be very helpful to have some clarification on the Aarhus Convention, if we could.

I think we are going to have to move on and this time I will move on to Peter Aldous.

Q161 Peter Aldous: One of the things that Mr Simmonds did mention was the importance of doing environmental impact assessments for development. A particular development I wanted to look at was the development of the airport on St Helena on Prosperous Bay Plain. I think this, Mr McKendry, is a DFID responsibility. In St Helena, you do not have to do environmental impact assessments for development, but as this was a very sensitive area it was deemed appropriate to carry out a landscape and ecological mitigation programme. The development has been taking place for 18 months now. Has that programme been put in place?

Ian McKendry: First of all, could I pick up your point about environmental impact assessment more generally? I think you said there wasn’t one done.

Q162 Peter Aldous: As I understand it, in St Helena, in their planning legislation, there is not a need to carry out an environmental impact assessment as there is in Britain, but as this is a very sensitive area, it was accepted that mitigation measures had to be put in place. I am just really looking to see how those measures are working or are not working.

Ian McKendry: First of all, if I can pick up the point about environmental impact assessment, you are referring to the airport in particular, aren’t you?

Peter Aldous: Yes.

Ian McKendry: The point I would make there is that there was indeed an environmental impact assessment carried out in the period 2005-07 and that has then been updated more recently in 2011 to reflect possible design changes because there were some design changes to the airport. So there was indeed an environmental impact assessment done. That produced a six-volume environmental statement and one of those six volumes was an environmental management plan. I think overall there has been a very thorough and fully responsible approach to the environment and the impact assessments.

Richard Benyon: Can I just come in? It may well be worth, if you are concerned about this particular project, to get a detailed analysis from the St Helena representative in London, because she would give you great detail of the mitigation that has happened around the airport project. An enormous amount of mitigation has taken place, particularly around the St Helena wirebird, which is a very rare endemic species.

Q163 Peter Aldous: I will let Dr Offord come in in a minute, but it is our understanding that 18 months after that construction programme started, which is a £250 million construction programme, that mitigation plan has only just been implemented and it should have been implemented right from the start.

Richard Benyon: DFID may have more information on this.

Ian McKendry: Yes. I think you are referring in particular to what is called the landscape and ecology mitigation plan. I think that is the one.

Peter Aldous: Yes, that is correct.

Ian McKendry: It is true that that has been subject to a number of delays. I can explain the main reasons for those and these are all to do with the procurement processes and making sure that we achieve value for money, both the St Helena Government and the UK Government. In summary, there have been delays due first of all to the requirements of the lengthy EU procurement processes, which we are obliged to follow for projects of this size. It is a very large-

Q164 Chair: So EU procurement processes apply there?

Ian McKendry: Yes, we are bound by EU procurement processes. There was a single tender that came out of this and there were then difficulties and protracted negotiations with the single preferred bidder to provide the comprehensive services that we wanted. When the negotiations did not work out in a satisfactory conclusion, we then had to subsequently design and gain approval for an alternative management approach. We are now at the point of recruiting a landscape and ecology mitigation plan manager, who I believe is to start by the end of August, we hope. At that point, we will then be able to put in place the LEMP, as it is referred to. But you are right, regrettably, due to an unfortunate series of events-and we were bound by these processes to follow them-it has taken longer than we would have hoped.

Q165 Peter Aldous: I think construction has been going on for 18 months. Do you feel that there has been a negative impact on diversity and the ecology as a result of not having this in place in those 18 months?

Ian McKendry: The particular plan we are discussing at the moment is the landscape and ecology mitigation plan, and that is mainly about the visual impacts of the airport and also about increasing biodiversity, ecological value and habitat interest. In answer to your question, I think we still have the environmental impact assessment and the environmental management plan, so I would say it is not all about this. It is unfortunate that those delays took place, but we do have the environmental impact assessment.

Q166 Peter Aldous: Leading on from this episode, does it give you confidence that the St Helena Government has the capacity to run this project in a way that implements the necessary environmental mitigation measures?

Ian McKendry: Very much so. I think we have great confidence.

Peter Aldous: You are completely confident?

Ian McKendry: Yes. If the Committee would like, I can run through the various management levels and layers and responsibilities or I could write to the Committee, whichever you prefer.

Q167 Peter Aldous: DFID have their own measures in place to oversee the project to ensure that works out satisfactorily?

Ian McKendry: Absolutely. That is right. There is a project board that has the UK Government and St Helena Government and other representation on it. They have oversight, but then within St Helena there is a project management unit that has an environmental responsibility as well and an individual working on these issues. As I say, there are a number of ways in which the environment is very much covered. I am very confident that any issues that arise, we have ways and means of dealing with them.

Q168 Dr Offord: I certainly share Mr McKendry’s view of his confidence about this project on St Helena. The reason I feel very confident is because, one, it is being built by the British Government through DFID, and secondly, because of the strong environmental and development control on the island of St Helena. Where I am concerned, and we come back to the point about good governance, is that when you look at some of the other Overseas Territories, including St George and the South Sandwich Islands, it has absence of development control. Tristan da Cunha has absence of development control; Turks and Caicos is very weak; Anguilla is absent; Ascension is absent; Bermuda is moderate. The British Antarctic Territories is very strong. That is quite a surprise. Again, the British Indian Ocean is absent, but we can understand why that is. The British Virgin Islands has moderate development control; the Cayman Islands it is weak; Cyprus it is weak, for obvious reasons; the Falklands is weak; Gibraltar is strong; Montserrat is moderate and the Pitcairn Islands is also weak. I go back to my point about good governance and I have seen examples of a lack of development control where developers have been able to buy up vast tracts of land to sell them to UK taxpayers in the full knowledge that they will never be able to realise that asset and they are just using it as a land bank. That is where my concern comes in and I refer that back to the FCO.

Mark Simmonds: I don’t share necessarily that analysis as being fair. I am not quite sure what you are quoting there. The final thing to say is that is one of the reasons why environmental mainstreaming is so important, which is the engaging with senior politicians and civil servants about the value of ecosystems, supporting economies, the need to take account of these value and economic and physical planning-

Chair: On that point, I think I need to bring our proceedings to a close because of a vote in the Commons, but just before I do, we did have a couple of further questions that we did wish to raise. We may perhaps do that by correspondence, if that is in order. I am conscious it has been a lively session, an interesting session, all in the interests of joined-up government. Thank you all very much indeed and particularly our Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for a long session.