Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP, MR
BOB ANDREW,
MR ANDREW
SOPER AND
MR JOHN
HUDSON
8 NOVEMBER 2005
Q280 Chairman: I just want to take
you back to what you said about Ghana. I know that the UK is leading
on the talks with Ghana about the voluntary agreement. Could you
give us any feedback on the talks that you have had, where the
whole arrangement has got to, concerns they might have, things
that still need to be ironed out in respect of that voluntary
agreement?
Mr Morley: I cannot give you great
details. When you talk to the officials, perhaps they can give
you more detail on that. What I can say to you though is that
I have met Ghanaian ministers and I know that they are very committed
to this process, and very enthusiastic about it.
Q281 Chairman: Given the time we
have, I just wonder whether the officials might like to come in
at this stage to answer that.
Mr Hudson: Can I say something
about Ghana? We have had discussions for several months now. We
have been supporting consultations within Ghana between the Government,
industry and NGOs. We have been party to their preparation of
a plan of action. Members of Parliament have been here, the Minister
has been here, they have expressed their interest. They had concerns
initially that this FLEGT licensing scheme might be a trade barrier
in disguise. I think we reassured them about that.
Q282 Chairman: How have you reassured
them about that? They are afraid, are they not, about having to
pay extra premium payments, which come at a cost? Where is that
cost going to come from?
Mr Hudson: Earlier this year representatives
from the UK and European industry went to Ghana facilitated by
the UK Government to meet their counterparts to explain how the
market was changing in the UK and Europe as a whole, and that
this was a genuine response to the market in which the Government
was involved and it was not something that was being driven solely
by Government. I think they were persuaded by that. Ghana does
have systems in place, and has had in the past, to monitor legality,
to make sure that things are done properly, but they do not work
completely, and we have worked with them already, initially to
identify the kinds of changes in their enforcement and management
systems within Ghana that would be needed to satisfy a licensing
scheme.
Q283 Mr Hurd: We have taken evidence
over the last few weeks from a wide range of interests in this
debate, and it has been striking the degree to which we have received
a consistent message in favour of a ban on the trade of illegal
timber. You have said yourself today that the system of voluntary
partnership is not perfect. Would it not be strengthened by underlying
legislation to ban entry of illegal timber into the EU?
Mr Morley: Yes, that must be the
objective. That is where we must get to so that we are in a position
to completely ban the entry of illegal timber into the UK. There
are measures that we can take already in terms of dealing with
illegal entry but of course, because we are in a single market,
as we all know, we must have measures that mean that, even if
we have unilateral, national measures, they could not be circumvented
by simply going into Rotterdam and coming over in relation to
direct imports internally which are not subject to any checks.
So we have to have controls at all EU ports of entry.
Q284 Mr Hurd: Do you welcome the
initiative apparently taken in Germany in terms of draft law to
ban illegal timber?
Mr Morley: Yes, I am very interested
in this German draft law and I have been following it with some
interest. As you say, it is draft; it is not agreed; it has not
been discussed, and, as I understand it, it is very akin to what
the Americans have, which is the Lacey Act. I actually think the
Lacey Act is a very powerful tool and I would really like something
along those lines here in the UK that we could apply, and the
German system is very akin to it really. It is something which
I am looking at with interest. Chatham House is doing some work
for us on looking at potential measures, and I know this is one
of the potential measures that they are examining in detail, and
I have some enthusiasm for it.
Q285 Chairman: Can I just press you
on what Chatham House are doing? Have you actually asked them
to come forward with how you could legislate to have a ban?
Mr Morley: Yes, we have asked
them to look at a range of options for us, and one of them is
how we can take stronger action in relation to illegal timber,
and this may be one of the ways in which we can address it. It
has some particular attractions. One is that it is legislation
that deals with possession, so therefore it is actually not an
import measure, which can get you tangled up into WTO rules. So
it has attractions on that basis, which certainly appeals to me.
I am also very interested in applying some of our national legislation,
in particular the Proceeds of Crime Act. We believe that if we
have the evidence—you need the evidence, as you will appreciate—of
illegal shipments, we could apply that legislation and seize the
proceeds.
Q286 Mr Hurd: Just to be clear, is
this an idea that is being actively promoted within Government
or is this Minister musing in the bath?
Mr Morley: This is the Proceeds
of Crime Act. I do think in the bath, actually, but not all my
thoughts are particularly welcome in various aspects of government,
but this is one where I can assure you it has been seriously considered,
and in fact, there was a shipment not very long ago where we looked
specifically as to whether we could apply it.
Q287 Mr Hurd: Finally, what prospects
would you see for EU legislation to ban entry of illegal timber
into the EU?
Mr Morley: I think ultimately
that is where we should get to. Again, I have to be quite honest
with the Committee, that on the face of it—and it applies
to myself—you think having a ban on illegal timber is logical
and simple. Who could possibly object to that? However, when you
look at the international law, it is a lot more complex than you
might think, basically. Having said that, it is the logical conclusion,
the logical end result of this process.
Q288 Mr Hurd: Is there an active
process to discuss those complexities?
Mr Morley: The discussion has
been in terms of national discussions. There have been discussions
in the FLEGT process, where there were countries who were interested
in the FLEGT process leading to an outright ban on illegal timber,
but it is fraught with difficulties in relation to WTO, for example,
because to have a ban on illegal timber, you would basically need
a compulsory certification scheme. Otherwise, how would you know
what was legal and what was not? You would therefore be insisting
that all timber coming into the market was certified. That means
that you would be applying that to countries where illegal timber
is not a problem and where they do not have certification for
everything. You would be leaving yourself open to a challenge
at the WTO. That is not a reason for not looking at implementing
this, and I think a ban on illegal timber is entirely justified
and defensible even within the WTO context. But there are considerable
legal difficulties and I think that the way forward is probably
a step-by step process, and what we are seeing with the EU FLEGT
is the beginning of that process, not the end of the process.
Q289 Chairman: We talked just now
about Greenpeace and the work that they have done to expose the
need for legislation and voluntary agreements and all kinds of
action on this issue. Surely, when Greenpeace say to us that it
is quite easy to ban the import of counterfeit goods or something
of this kind, which have nowhere near the impact of the import
of illegally sustained timber, the Government should be doing
more. You said that you would like to see a ban. Are we just hiding
behind WTO rules? There must be some way that you can cut through
the obstacles. We would like to know what those obstacles are.
For example, what obstacles has the European Union thrown up in
one form or another?
Mr Morley: The main obstacle,
as I say, is that you have to insist on all timber entering the
EU being certified. I actually think that is no bad thing. I make
that absolutely clear to you. But there are considerable problems
legally with that and it is likely you would find yourself in
all sorts of legal arguments. As I say, it is not a reason for
not doing that, but nevertheless, I just wanted to impress upon
the Committee that it is not a simple argument.
Q290 Chairman: Presumably, the officials
have discussed this in respect of negotiations that have been
going on inside the EU.
Mr Morley: Of course.
Q291 Chairman: We would really like
to know which are the European countries objecting to this and
where the criticism or where the objections are coming from. We
need to know what the scale of them is really.
Mr Morley: The objections are
more from countries not within the EU but which are exporters
to the EU really. That is where the potential challenge would
come from.
Q292 Chairman: Which countries?
Mr Morley: No-one has brought
a challenge so it is a bit hard for me to point a finger and say,
"They are the culprits. They are the guilty ones," although
I think if you look at those countries who do bring challenges
at the WTO and why, I think it might give you some clues.
Q293 Chairman: But presumably there
are ways of dealing with this not just through the WTO. Does this
not depend on whether or not we are dealing with trade legislation
or environmental legislation?
Mr Morley: Yes, it does. This
is the legal base, but it does not get you out of this problem
in relation to FLEGT.
Q294 Chairman: Surely, where there
is a will, there is a way. The forests are disappearing at a fast
rate.
Mr Morley: They are, and I absolutely
agree with you, but the priority that we have given to this issue
in the UK—and I would honestly say that the UK has influenced
all these areas more than any other country internationally—is
not shared by all countries.
Q295 Chairman: Therefore you should
wish that you could do more.
Mr Morley: I do wish we could
do more, and we will do more. I have no doubt about that, and
I find the pace of change frustrating, but you have to push on,
and we are pushing on, and we are making progress.
Q296 Chairman: I think we need to
know where those obstacles are in order that maybe this Committee
could even give added support to the Government to make even more
progress more quickly.
Mr Morley: The WTO is one of the
obstacles. I will be quite clear about that.
Q297 Chairman: Which bit of the WTO?
Mr Morley: In relation to the
trade base, because there is if you had a system whereby only
certified timber could come into the UK, which, as I say, seems
perfectly reasonable to me, but on that basis there would be the
potential for a challenge that you are discriminating against
countries that have well-managed timber industries, that do not
have illegal logging, that do not have certification and therefore
are being discriminated against.
Q298 Chairman: Let us move on to
the Central Point of Expertise for Timber. That has been set up
and I think everybody recognises that it is doing a good job,
but one of the criticisms is that it is very much providing desk-based
studies of what is happening. Would you accept that? What sort
of verification is there other than desk-based studies of the
work that CPET is doing?
Mr Morley: It is desk-based; that
is true, but it would be very difficult to approach it in any
other way. I have a great deal of confidence in CPET. There is
nothing like it in any other country as far as I am aware, and
it is an attempt to have an independent analysis of certification
schemes, provide a point of contact in relation to advice and
also, ultimately, I would like to see it provide skill training
and support in relation to helping public bodies distinguish between
the various schemes and understand the levels of certification
which are available. CPET also, I think, has a role to play in
this verification that Mr Ainsworth mentioned in relation to making
sure that, for example, in the contracts we have, the contract
stipulation is being met. I think they have a role to play in
that, for example.
Q299 Chairman: So you do not think
there is any danger that you could be endorsing schemes that do
not meet the required criteria?
Mr Morley: I think there is always
a risk that schemes claim to meet the criteria and they do not,
but I think CPET does have the capacity to examine that in detail
to make sure that they do.
| 
