Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
2 JULY 2003
FIONA MACTAGGART
MP, MS MARGARET
ALDRED, MR
RICHARD TIPPETT
AND MR
TONY EDWARDS
Q20 Mr Barker: It is rather like
somebody saying, "I didn't know these goods were stolen,
I just bought them off a dodgy fence."
Ms Aldred: I think that is not
quite the case.
Q21 Mr Barker: But you should know
where the timber is coming from, should you not, if you are being
a responsible purchaser? It is not good enough to say, "I
didn't know," if you do not ask the questions.
Fiona Mactaggart: We do know where
the timber has come from. The Indonesian timber is about a third
of the timber which has been purchased by the company for its
own use. Of the rest of the timber which has been purchased in
this way nearly half comes from France. The 1% that I have been
talking about comes from Finland and there is some which comes
from Brazil as well, which has potentially the same problems that
you have asked about. The company was moving in its purchasing—having,
like most companies in this field, simply bought on the open market—because
of its experience, because they recognised our eagerness in the
contract to ensure sustainability and traceability of sources
they were trying to improve that. That was one of the reasons
why the Finnish experiment was developed. They were recognising
this. The timber that we are anxious about is not the majority
of the purchasing that they had already done, although it is serious
and we have now put in place a mechanism for us to monitor that
as well, which we had not previously done.
Q22 Chairman: Is this now standard
throughout all your purchasing across all your contracts in all
your new developments throughout the country that you include
the contracts for part of the construction which is not within
your eventual ownership?
Fiona Mactaggart: That is the
issue which has come out of our investigation. If you recall,
as soon as this matter was brought to our attention at the beginning
of June my predecessor as Green Minister asked for an investigation
into how this happened and this lack of clarity about at what
stage the Government's timber purchasing requirements should bite
in a contract was the thing which became very clear. It is a matter
that I have corresponded with DEFRA on and following that correspondence
it will from now on be included within contracts in the way which
has been highlighted by this discussion. It will not have been
in contracts which existed before. If we had known about this
problem we would not have had a contract which put us into the
problem which we are now discussing with the Committee.
Q23 Joan Walley: Welcome to our Committee,
Minister. Could I just check, at the very outset you gave the
apologies of the Home Secretary. Were they apologies for him not
being here in person or apologies and regret for the incident
that has happened?
Fiona Mactaggart: They were his
apologies for not being here in person.
Q24 Joan Walley: Do I take it that
the department does regret what has happened?
Fiona Mactaggart: I think you
can see it from our actions. In a way I do not regret it, let
me be honest, because it seems to me quite clear that as a result
of what has happened and as a result of our concern about this
we will be in a position where in future Home Office contracts
conform not just to what we thought was best practice but what
we now recognise that unless one ensures that the contract covers
materials which are used in fulfilling a contract which do not
end up in the ownership of the department then one can not be
using our purchasing powers as effectively as we could to ensure
sustainable use of the world's forests. I regret that we got it
wrong but actually, let us be quite honest, I think sometimes
making a mistake can help to make Government see the gaps between
the intentions of policy and its delivery more clearly than otherwise
they would. Our intentions were good. Our delivery was not as
effective as it should be and as a result of the correspondence
I have just had with DEFRA I am sure that throughout Government
we will have a better delivery on this policy.
Q25 Joan Walley: I accept that but
I just wonder how many times this same mistake has to be made
because it was a mistake which was made within the Cabinet Office.
Surely that should have been the wake up call? Surely that should
have led, through the Green Ministers' mechanism, the Home Office
to make sure that that mistake was not going to be repeated?
Fiona Mactaggart: I think you
are right to say that you should not necessarily get repeat opportunities
to make mistakes and I do not think that we should require them
but I am not certain that it was clear to most departments, following
what happened in the Cabinet Office, that the purchasing issue
was a purchasing issue about materials which were not in the ownership
of the department and that was where we fell down.
Q26 Joan Walley: I accept what you
said earlier on to Mr Ainsworth's questions, that the contracts
had being drawn up at an earlier stage and that time has moved
on and you have tighter procedures in place now, but in a response
to a parliamentary question from me in December[2]
last year on Marsham Street your predecessor stated that contract
management arrangements will provide information to ensure that
timber is sourced from suppliers in a legal and sustainable way.
I just wonder if you could clarify for me what that actually means?
Fiona Mactaggart: That refers
to the timber that we are confident will meet our ambitions rather
than this section which I have been discussing with your colleagues
where we have not had procedures. It means that all the timber
which is being used inside the building will have to be purchased
in conformity with our environmental policy, which states quite
clearly that we should be able to trace the provenance. In addition,
that is being monitored by a monitoring process in the building.
In addition, we are requiring that in this building we seek to
get an excellent rating under the BREEAM, the Building Research
Establishment criteria, which requires that inside the building
inappropriately logged timber is not used. So that I know there
has already been discussion about the wood which is going to be
used in veneers and so on, such as American oak, or where chipboard
is being used it could be wholly recycled and so on, in order
to ensure that all the wood which is used in the building is absolutely
in conformity with our Green Purchasing Policy.[3]
Q27 Joan Walley: Given what you have
just said, could I just ask how you reconcile what subsequently
has happened with a further reply that I got on 3 April[4],
when I was informed that Home Office policy does not require reporting
on timber used during construction?
Ms Aldred: I think that is exactly
the point, if I may. The answer that you were given on 16 December
referred to contract management arrangements in good faith. They
were our arrangements for managing the contract which had the
model clause in it, which was extant at the time the contract
was signed and which referred to the timber which would be used
in the building which we will occupy. The answer that you were
given on 3 April I think demonstrated that we did not believe
that the policy covered timber used by the developer in construction
and which they would retain their own ownership of; and indeed
we still do not know how long they have been in ownership of some
of the timber which has been used in the construction. So I do
not think there is any inconsistency between the replies. What
they demonstrate is that we had an understanding of the policy
which we have clarified as a result of the recent incident and
we are now very clear, and DEFRA is very clear and has advised
us and other Government departments, that it should have been
applied to construction and in future it will be applied to construction.
Q28 Joan Walley: If I could just
move on. You mentioned the monitoring which takes place earlier
on. What evidence did you rely on to ensure yourselves that the
timber in use on the Marsham Street project was from legally sustainable
sources? I am not sure what monitoring processes you actually
had. Obviously I appreciate that we are talking about some considerable
time ago. Are you confident that those monitoring processes are
in place?
Mr Edwards: Distinguishing again
between timber in construction and timber that is going in the
building, so far the developers have actually purchased no timber
that will end up in the new building. They are beginning to acquire
sources of that now and we are talking to them through our various
contract management arrangements about that. They will be explaining
to us exactly where the wood is coming from and we will be making
sure that we are happy that that is legally and sustainably sourced.
Q29 Joan Walley: Would you agree
that it would be much more preferable to use locally sustained
domestically sourced timber for the kind of temporary construction
work we are talking about rather than to use scarce, expensive
and unsustainable tropical timber?
Fiona Mactaggart: That is in effect
what we have put into place. The reason, I suspect, why it is
being used is because in practice in the market the timber is
not expensive and that is part of the problem. We actually need
to try to ensure that we have robust mechanisms to ensure that
where the market provides timber which ought to be expensive very
cheaply the option of getting sustainable timber is enforced because
one of the reasons why unsustainably logged timber is used for
these temporary purposes is that because it is produced in the
way that some of it is it can be very competitive in the market.
So it is not actually expensive in terms of price. It is expensive,
as you point out, in terms of the environment however, which is
why we need mechanisms in place to ensure that we can prevent
it being used in Government buildings. Now we have put them in
place in a way which will be monitored so that not only is it
not used in Government buildings but it is not used by people
who are working on Government buildings.
Ms Aldred: If I could just add,
the Government procurement policy and EU procurement policy does
mean that we cannot stipulate domestic sources.
Joan Walley: Thank you.
Q30 Chairman: Could I just clarify
what you said a moment ago, Ms Aldred. Are you saying that it
is Government policy and has been Government policy that wood
procured, even though it remains in the ownership of the construction
company, should be purchased from sustainable sources but the
Home Office is not aware of this?
Ms Aldred: That is exactly the
point I was making.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Q31 Sue Doughty: Just to clarify
my understanding of the events, when I asked a question in the
House and also in conversation subsequently with the Home Secretary
it was implied to me that it was not actually AGP but the sub-contractors
who had obtained this wood. Who obtained it and where do we stand
now with sub-contractors on that project?
Mr Edwards: The principal sub-contractor
which procures the wood for this project is a company called Bouygues.
It is a large international construction company. We talk to them
on a daily basis because there is a very close relationship between
the company and AGP, the firm we are actually in contract with.
In effect Bouygues is a shareholder of AGP, so in a way they are
the same organisation from a global point of view. So we have
very close contact with them as sub-contractors.
Ms Aldred: If I could clarify,
Bouygues were the firm that created the special purpose company
which is developing the site for Anne's Gate Property and they
are a part-owner of Anne's Gate Property. So in a sense what is
happening is that the special purpose company is sub-contracting
with one of its parent companies for this.
Q32 Sue Doughty: I am not going to
labour this point too much but I am worried about it because I
was very concerned about the response I got in the House at Prime
Minister Questions. Why was the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary,
who was advising him, so dismissive about the fact that it was
a sub-contractor and it was only being used for hoarding? In other
words, almost as if this is an arm's length arrangement and why
should we know what is happening in a sub-contract when in fact
Bouygues and AGP—and I understand the point you are making—are
very closely interrelated and that in fact it was within the core
contract essentially given the relationship between these two
organisations. How did we end up with an answer being given in
the House which was rather dismissive of the whole situation?
Fiona Mactaggart: I did not see
it as dismissive and he did, as I understand it, write to you
afterwards. I think the answer the Prime Minister gave reflected
the view which we have been describing, which was that in the
written contract we did not have in place the sustainable purchasing
and monitoring mechanisms that we had had for the rest of the
contract. Therefore, what you term the dismissive approach of
it just being hoardings was a reflection of the fact that we had
recognised the need for robust systems in terms of sourcing the
purchase of timber which was actually going into the building
but at that point, before the investigation which my predecessor
required, we had not recognised that we needed to have equally
robust processes for timber which was for the use of the company
which was undertaking the contract.
Q33 Chairman: Although that was Government
policy?
Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, exactly.
Q34 Sue Doughty: I understand that
point thoroughly. The point I am making is that they were dismissive
about the fact that it was a sub-contractor who had obtained this
timber. What that is leading me to say is have we anything else
lurking around within this contract where there may be other sub-contractors
who are not fully familiar with the policy and may be supplying
timber which is not acceptable? I appreciate that in this case
Bouygues are in fact not as much of a sub-contractor as other
sub-contractors but nevertheless there is this whole situation
where if it is not the first contract what is happening behind
the contract all the way down? How much do we know about it?
Fiona Mactaggart: Looking at what
the Prime Minister said in the House I do not think that he was
dismissive. I have not seen the Prime Minister's letter to you
which followed that up but I think we can be confident that in
this contract there is no such risk. It might be useful for me
to raise, when I go to my first meeting as a Green Minister, the
risk that there might be in other departments' contracts and ensure
that they have within their contractual agreements sufficiently
robust processes to ensure that any sub-contractors were properly
monitored in this respect. I would be perfectly happy to do that
and I think it might be a very useful thing to do.
Q35 Sue Doughty: Thank you. I think
this arose actually from some comments made by the Home Secretary
from the bench but certainly it sufficiently worried my constituents
that I had one on the telephone complaining about the whole event
because it had been trivialised on the Government front bench
and so they wondered why I was asking the question. That was the
impression which was given to people watching on television and
they were wondering why I was asking this question when the front
bench was trivialising it. So I will leave that point on the table
that this was the impression. It does not follow through on the
Hansard but it was sufficient for people to phone me up and say,
"What are you up to? Why is the Government not taking this
seriously? Are you asking a serious question?" So all I am
saying is that that is the impression the Government gave which
was fed back to me.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am sorry your
constituent got that impression. The words that the Prime Minister
used did not convey that. Often, as you know and as we all know,
the television presentation of Prime Minister's question time
is actually misleading in some ways because of how it comes across
and I am sure that the Prime Minister did not mean that. I have
now looked at his letter and I do not think his letter reflects
that either, but I hope that my response to what you have just
said will help to demonstrate to your constituents and to everyone
that this is a matter the Government takes very seriously and
will ensure as effectively as it can across the piece that our
commitment to sustainable purchasing, to making a real improvement
in the impact of what Government does on the environment is inherent
in everything we do. For us it is a real pity that this new building,
which will deliver real environmental improvements, has so far
got a name just in respect of one issue. That is a pity because
if we look at our energy consumption—
Q36 Sue Doughty: I think we are coming
to one or two other aspects on that, Minister. So are we now in
a position where we have any verification about the legality and
sustainability of the remaining timber which was used on that
site for hoardings and shutterings? You said that the Indonesian
timber was a third of the total timber. What about the other two-thirds?
Fiona Mactaggart: On the proportions
of timber, there are two purchases of timber that we do not have
proper certification for sources. I do not know if they are done
in two purchases but two places. This is the 30% which came from
Indonesia and the 23% which came from Brazil. In both cases we
have certification about legal importation but we do not have
satisfactory certification about sustainable logging. The rest
of the timber, 46% of it, is softwood from France, from the Vosges
Mountains, which is an area which is subject to a sustainable
forestry management agreement. There is the 1% I have referred
to from Finland and in addition there is some softwood which I
think is providing the standing that these plywoods stand on and
is holding them up. There are 2,917 pieces of sawn softwood, which
is from Austria and that again is from a forest which is certificated
under the Pan-European Forestry Certificate.
Q37 Sue Doughty: Thank you. When
we are talking about the certification schemes that you are using
the Environment Minister a year ago told us that various schemes
were being evaluated. Are you in a position—perhaps your
officials would like to answer this—to say that you know
which certification schemes you should be using, you know the
evaluation and you are applying the correct certifications schemes
to wood which is being used?
Ms Aldred: If I can start that
and perhaps Tony Edwards can continue. I think this is a very
difficult issue and I think that is one that Mr Meacher recognised
and which this Committee itself in its sixth report recognised.
I understand that DEFRA has sent you a reply to that report very
recently. That is precisely one of the reasons why that reply
accepts that DEFRA should have a central point which can help
and provide advice for this because it is a notoriously difficult
area to ascertain which certificates are covering which aspects.
That is something where we welcome that reply and intend to make
full use of it. But I think that we, like many other purchasers
of timber, do find it quite difficult to say which certification
regimes—we know that some are robust but there is not an
approved list and that is something where we are looking to DEFRA
to develop the policy which we can all use. Do you want to add
anything, Tony?
Mr Edwards: Just that I think
there is already in the public domain a proposal to set up a central
point of expertise on timber for the use of people like ourselves
in procuring buildings and that will be a DEFRA initiative.
Mr Tippett: One of the things
that they are planning to do is to actually issue departments
with guidance on certification schemes and those which will be
approved.
Q38 Sue Doughty: Right. Moving forward,
I appreciate that we are still doing some development work, which
I think is welcome. I would rather that it was done properly and
well and put in place. Minister, you made some comments about
this building actually being in other ways a good building, a
sustainable building, an asset and yet it has already had criticism.
It has been criticised on its environmentally damaging air conditioning
system, it has got this wood which was used for throw-away purposes
and, in November 2002, that the air conditioning has HFCs. Five
other departments in their buildings were looking at sustainable
air conditioning while the Home Office was using air conditioning
systems which are not sustainable. What worries about this is
that on the one hand the Home Office is saying, "Here we
have this building, which is going to be a credit to us, it is
going to be sustainable, it is going to be a landmark in its own
way," and on the other hand there seems to be a string of
bad news about this. Is there any more bad news that we should
know and get out of the way and then can we draw a line?
Fiona Mactaggart: At the point
when the building design was done the HFC air conditioning system
was the most sustainable which people were aware of.
Q39 Sue Doughty: Could you give me
a date for that?
Fiona Mactaggart: But later on
ammonia-based systems were seen to be less environmentally damaging.
The difficulty of changing from the HFC-based design to the ammonia-based
design was enormous because of the way in which in this building
we have made a much denser use of the floor space and the cooling
system depends on a set of infrastructure which could not fit
without ery substantial expense in changing the design or without
probably breaching some of the requirements of Westminster Council
in terms of height of the plant. It was looked at after the design
had been completed. I was not involved in that process because
I was not a Minister at that time but I have looked at the papers
about it. It clearly was a very serious look but it was not possible
to do. There are other things which might be not good news, I
do not know. For example, one of the things about the building
is that we have chosen not to use in this building water-less
urinals, which is one of the ways in which we have helped to reduce
water consumption in the present Home Office building because
we took a decision to have toilets which were more useable by
either sex in order to increase the flexibility of the building
and there was a choice between those two things. So that might
become an issue. I do not expect it to. It was something which
was reflected upon and it was decided to be used in this way so
that we can have a building which can have a good equal opportunity
policy, which is less rigid in terms of how it deploys itself.
So the problem about predicting future issues is that if you could
have predicted them obviously they would not become issues.
Ms Aldred: Could I just answer
the question about when this was decided. The design was prepared
in late 1999/early 2000 and I think it is fair to say that there
was a conscious decision that this would be a building which had
air conditioning for both noise reasons and for security reasons
and because it was a public-private partnership we specified that
we required air conditioning. Both of the bidders who produced
designs offered us designs with HFCs and that is what we selected.
I can say, because I was involved in the process, that we did
look seriously last year at whether we could change that and change
the nature of the system and, as the Minister has explained, the
implications were simply too large for us to do that in terms
of the impact on the number of people who could occupy the building.
That is an issue for us because, as I am sure you are all aware,
the Home Office does have rather a heavy agenda and it has grown
and it needs every one of those spaces and probably more for our
current size. It would have been very expensive to change that
and Westminster had given us an envelope for the building which
they were not prepared to change and therefore it was a straight
choice between the number of people we could accommodate and the
cost and possibly delaying the project and sticking with the design
which we had selected earlier when we had invited best and final
offers for the PFI.
2 See Official Report, 16 December 2002, Vol
396, c 622W. Back
3
The discussions have not yet been concluded. Back
4
See Official Report, 3 April 2003, Vol 402, c 872-3W. Back
| 
