| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the breadth of the environmental issues that the Bill addresses. I want to point out to him an issue that has so far been omitted from our debate: protection of the marine environment. We have looked at forestry and land-based problems, but the marine environment is also significantly under threat. Does he have some observations about that?
Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend tempts me down yet another route on a matter that he and I have debated at great length in the past. He is absolutely right; one need only consider the pollution of our seas and waterways. In using the word "our" I do not mean to suggest that the situation is confined to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that the Environment Agency has done over the past few years to improve the watercourses in this country.
It is absolutely critical that companies take into account the water supply of the areas in which they operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth described how Coca-Cola's location of its operation in India used up the local people's water supply. One would think that those people must have felt great joy that a major multinational company was locating in their area as they thought of the prosperity and employment opportunities that it would bring with it. That is true, and it is welcome that such inward investment goes into developing countries. However, unless those companies operate within clear parameters that protect the local community and the very essentials of its life, they are not welcome, because they are not acting in partnership with that community, but behaving in the same manner as the Danes in this country 1,000 years ago by pillaging its resources.
Gregory Barker: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman's comments about procurement from the third world. I want to draw his attention to the report on Government procurement that was undertaken last year by the Environmental Audit Committee, which highlighted the scandal surrounding the procurement of wood for the
Cabinet Office. Similar things have happened in other Departments. Does he agree that before hon. Members start lecturing business, the Government should clean up their act?
Mr. Gardiner: If the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of parliamentary questions, he will know that I have tabled more than 120 on the timber sources used by the Government and by each Department—a subject that is very close to my heart. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that we in Parliament should get our act together—indeed, it is an absolute priority. It is difficult to stand up and preach to industry and the rest of the world about what should be done unless we are following those procedures ourselves. I am delighted to say that all the Departments to which I put my questions about the procurement of timber were able exactly to describe the parameters of those processes and to say that they specify that hardwood should come from sustainable sources.
As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, he will recognise that it is very difficult to track back the certification process. I mentioned the Forest Stewardship Council and the tremendous work that it does on enabling that to happen, but it is one organisation and we are talking about a global trade. When a supplier presents somebody with a certificate saying, "This has come from sustainable sources," there are very few ways in which they can be 100 per cent. sure that that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did with the Government of Indonesia when he was in the more junior ministerial position in that Department. He worked with them to ensure that the entire process of governance within that country, including the timber industry, enabled proper certification to take place.
There are an infinite number of links in the chain following the moment at which a piece of timber is cut down in the forest until it takes the form of sawn timber and arrives at a building to be turned into a door, a door frame or whatever. Unless every link in the chain can be certified, it is difficult for us to say, "We rely on the fact that we have a policy. We rely also on the fact that we have a formula that states that the material has come from sustainable sources." It is not enough for us to adopt the right policy. There must be an onus at every stage in the commercial chain, which goes right back to the forest, to ensure that we can properly identify the product that we eventually use.
I rose to talk about the reform of company law and the Bill, and I fear—
Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has made an excellent speech, as he always does in the Chamber, on a Friday and at other times.
We are talking about a global situation. That reinforces why the Government need to ensure that we have high-performance companies and high-performance workplaces. All the issues that my hon. Friend has raised are global and there needs to be a global solution. Is he proud of the fact that the Government, since 1997, have supported a global approach in every instance?
Mr. Gardiner: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. He draws me back to my theme and to one of the major points, and that is that the Government have sought to be what all Labour Members would welcome, which is an internationalist Government. We must recognise that there is no such thing as getting something right in one's own backyard because it is intimately connected with the rest of the world. For things to be right in our backyard, it is necessary to ensure that everybody else is operating to the same standard that we wish to see domestically. I know that that is what the Minister believes, and it is what I believe. Many Labour Members would say that it is simply the Socialist International working properly. It is what the Government are trying to do, and I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee. I can confirm that the Committee has looked into these matters in detail and has expressed considerable concerns. There has been a lot of upset about the way in which the Government handled the procurement of some of the timber for the new Home Office building. Will the hon. Gentleman accept, without my wishing to make a particularly partisan point, that the Government need to try harder to put their own house in order? All members of the Committee have been pressing that point.
Mr. Gardiner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have been extremely upfront in my own acceptance that this is a matter that we, as a Government, have to get right. I am provoked to say that at least we have the right policies in place. At least we are setting the right standards and trying to abide by them. The hon. Gentleman must accept that for 18 years in this place that was not the case. We did not have those standards. Had I asked 100-odd written questions under a Conservative Administration 10 years ago, I would not have received the same answers from the Department concerned, setting out the good practice policy that we as a Government have implemented. I accept that it is not enough to have the right policies. We must ensure that we get things right, that we abide by our policies and that our suppliers abide by them. It is easy to say, "Well, it was in the contract. We did not realise that the suppliers were not doing what we wanted." Of course the Government must monitor their contracts properly. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), sometimes, unless certification processes are in place, it is difficult to monitor effectively. That is why it is vital that the responsibility be placed on industry and carried down the chain; in large part, that is what the Bill will deliver in just one of its aspects.
Mr. Sutcliffe: On Government procurement, the Government's investment in the public services will give my hon. Friend more examples of how large amounts of money going into the public services will make things better, as opposed to the Conservative party's policy of reducing investment.
Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is right. Awarding contracts and commissioning from companies and
industry allows the Government to determine the terms of contracts and set the standards. The Government have spent billions on 14 new hospitals already built and 78—or is it 178?—in various stages of construction, as well as on new schools. It is open to the Government, quite properly, to specify the standards that they want and to ensure that corporate social responsibility and environmental standards are met. We have to follow that up by delivering the proper monitoring processes to ensure that that happens.The Select Committee on Trade and Industry published the "Modernising Company Law" White Paper in May 2003, which, again, broadly welcomed the Government's proposals. What does the Bill propose on the OFR? The Bill reproduces the draft clauses on the OFR that were included in that White Paper, but with a few significant changes. Broadly, the Bill would require all major companies to publish an OFR, the objective of which was to permit the members—the shareholders—of a company to make an informed assessment of the company's operations, financial position, future strategies and prospects and impacts on the environment and on any communities in which the company operates.
Major companies are defined essentially as companies that will fill at least two of the following three conditions and are not subsidiaries of another European economic area-registered company. The first condition is that their turnover should be at least £50 million; the second is that the balance sheet total should be at least £25 million; the third is that they should employ at least 500 employees.
Opposition Members should not use that example to jump up and down to talk about red tape. From the remarks of the two Conservative Members who have spoken, I would not expect them to do so; they have indicated that they are broadly in favour of the Bill. I have no doubt, however, that should the Bill pass into law, it will be added to their list of red tape initiatives introduced by the Government. But this is red tape that the Opposition support and which we support; this is red tape that tries to improve the way in which companies operate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |