I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is interesting. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), who has done sterling work on the topic. Indeed, the Bill is a carbon copy of the Bill that he promoted.

Every year the world cuts down enough trees to cover an area the size of Portugal. In 25 countries, forests have effectively disappeared. In a further 29, less than a tenth of their forest cover remains. Such deforestation exacts a terrible toll on the natural environment and accounts for around 18 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions globally—more than trains, cars and planes combined. Illegal logging costs timber-producing economies worldwide $10 billion a year. It causes untold environmental damage, promotes corruption, undermines the rule of law, funds armed conflict, harms sustainable development and threatens wildlife. All this happens in some of the world’s poorest countries.

The UK is the world’s fourth largest net importer of wood products. Central Government Departments are estimated to purchase some 20 per cent. of all timber bought in the UK. This figure rises to 40 per cent. when local authorities and other Government bodies are included. We can raise the standards of public sector procurement, and by doing so play a significant role in raising standards generally. I am pleased that the Government have decided that from 1 April 2009, only timber from independently verified legal and sustainable sources or from a licensed forest law enforcement, governance and trade—FLEGT—partner will be used on the Government estate, but we must do more.

In October last year the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council laying down obligations on operators who place timber and timber products on the market. There are significant problems with the proposal. It focuses on the first time that timber and timber products are made available on the Community market, regardless of their origin, by determining the obligations of those operators who place timber and timber products on the Community market.

The proposal is based on the due diligence principle and requires the operators covered by it to apply a system, due diligence, to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products on the Community market. The proposed measures aim to contribute to global efforts to fight illegal logging by deterring operators from placing on the Community market timber and timber products without a reasonable assurance of their legality. They also provide consumers with the certainty that by buying timber and timber products they do not contribute to the problem of illegal logging and associated trade. Legality is defined on the basis of the legislation of the country of harvest, applicable to forest management, timber harvesting and timber trade. Timber and timber projects covered by a FLEGT licence or a convention on international trade in endangered species permit are considered to have been legally harvested.

Chatham House produced an impact assessment of three scenarios based on proposals of the EU Commission. The first scenario was on the basis of an operator’s self-declaration, which seems to be where it is going, without third-party audit. That is obviously the least robust scenario. The second scenario is an elevated version of the systems used by trade associations that have responsible purchasing policies, combined with the mode of operation of the UK central point of expertise on timber. The third scenario is the strongest one. It includes third-party auditing, and verified third-party legal material is the minimum requirement, whether domestically grown or not. That is the most robust scenario when it comes to due diligence.

Is due diligence enough? My Bill will go further than that by introducing new criminal offences. I believe that I am in line with the wider view, particularly expressed by non-governmental organisations, in this respect.

EU timber traders will have to set up a due diligence system to minimise the risk of illegally harvested timber being placed on the European market under the proposals, but those fall short of making it a criminal offence to market illegal timber, and green groups have criticised the draft EU proposals as too weak to stop the material sold on the European market. The proposals published by the Commission do not ban illegally sourced timber from entering the EU market. Instead, the proposed regulation intends to minimise the risk of illegally harvested timber being sold in Europe.

About 27 million cu m of illegal timber enter the EU each year, according to the WWF. The Commission puts the figure at 16 million cu m, but both agree with estimates that just under a fifth of timber imported into the EU is harvested illegally. The EU says that almost half of logging is in vulnerable regions—the Amazon basin, central Africa, south-east Asia, the Russian Federation, and some of the Baltic states. That causes enormous environmental damage and loss of biodiversity, and distorts the market.

We have also seen a very slow pace in the FLEGT licensing system, where licensed countries can attest that timber exports have been harvested according to national rules. Up to October 2008, just five countries—Malaysia, Indonesia, Cameroon, Congo and Ghana—had begun negotiating such an agreement with the EU. Ghana was the only one licensed under the scheme in September 2008. The pace of negotiations were such that the Council, the European Parliament and the then French presidency repeatedly asked the Commission to put forward further proposals without delay.

The proposals are disappointing and the green groups have been lobbying for a proposal that would effectively close the EU market to illegally harvested timber.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the use of the FLEGT arrangements, but does he agree that while it is frustrating that only three countries have joined up, the process whereby 10 or 11 additional countries are engaged in coming on board with FLEGT, tortuous and difficult though it is, means that we are starting to get something of a cultural change? Secondly, it is not only a matter of achieving the legality of timber sources through FLEGT, we then need to create genuine sustainability within those communities, for the good of their indigenous peoples.

I would not disagree with any of my hon. Friend’s comments, but it is a matter not of either/or, but both. There is nothing wrong with the due diligence process based on FLEGT or otherwise, but we need to go further. It has been suggested that it would be impossible to make criminal sanctions work, yet a prohibition on trade in illegally logged wood products was passed in the United States in May 2009 in an amendment to the Lacey Act.

My hon. Friend is coming on to the Lacey Act and the way of stopping the circumvention. The essential point is that FLEGT is a good bilateral licensing scheme to ensure that any timber coming from a FLEGT voluntary partnership agreement country will be accepted as legal within the EU, but that does not stop circumvention—leakage—to other countries. They can then turn that timber into tables, and it enters the EU in another manner. We need a Lacey-style Act, as my hon. Friend said, precisely to stop that circumvention.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.

In October last year, United States officials outlined how their new scheme was to be implemented, and since April there has been a requirement to declare the origin of species for plants, timber and solid wood products, such as tables, to coincide with a web-based declaration system. Regulations governing furniture and paper will be phased in over a two-year period. The Environmental Investigation Agency, a non-governmental organisation, described the move as

“a historic breakthrough for international efforts to control deforestation”.

Wearing my human rights hat, I should say that there is an important human rights dimension to the issue, too. I shall not go into it in detail, but the Committee that I chair, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, is conducting an inquiry into business and human rights. We have looked at issues, for example, relating to the operation of the extractive industries in the developing world, and forestry is one example of how such industries can have a significant impact on the developing world and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, on indigenous people in particular. Human rights must be protected, and one means of doing so is by overcoming the problem of illegal logging.

Illegal logging is a criminal activity that undermines Government systems worldwide, destroys ecosystems, contributes to carbon emissions, harms poor and rural economies and forces UK businesses and workers to compete with inappropriately low-cost forest products made from illegally sourced timber. It directly costs the UK economy millions of pounds per year in depressed prices and unfair competition in the timber industry. By introducing simple yet effective legislation, the Government would be taking a major step towards fulfilling their long-standing commitment to tackle illegal logging; and, by supporting the Bill, they would send to world markets a strong signal that wood products harvested illegally will no longer be acceptable in Britain.

My Bill is straightforward: it simply makes it a criminal offence if anyone

“sells, or offers for sale, any wood that has been harvested, sold, taken or possessed illegally in the country from which the wood was originally harvested, or…attempts to commit”

such an act.

I do not propose to go through the Bill in detail, because we are short of time and other Members wish to contribute to the debate. Clearly, we also want to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend to reply, so that, if necessary, there will be time to vote before 2.30 pm.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on successfully introducing this private Member’s Bill, which I understand originated with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) as a ten-minute Bill last year. We are all aware of the difficulties in introducing such legislation, and all successful attempts are to be commended. However, I note that, according to today’s Order Paper, the hon. Member for Hendon has been successful four times in introducing private Member’s Bills. Perhaps he will let me know how he manages it.

Although this is a new area of interest to me, the hon. Member for Brent, North has long taken an interest in it, and he has an impressive back catalogue of achievements: he was the Prime Minister’s special envoy for forestry; he previously had responsibility at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for biodiversity, landscape and rural affairs; and, as I have said, he last year introduced a ten-minute Bill, which Opposition Members supported and sponsored. The Bill aimed to make it an offence for any importer or distributor to sell or distribute in the United Kingdom any wood harvested, manufactured or otherwise dealt with illegally in the country from which the wood originated.

Introducing the Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a number of important points that are worth recalling. He said that 18 per cent. of all the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change come from deforestation; that figure was recently repeated by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Only if we put together all the power stations in the world—coal fired, nuclear and those using all the other electricity-producing technologies—would we have a sector that contributed more to global warming than does the loss of trees.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the World Bank estimates that the trade in illegal timber amounts to $15 billion each year. The UK is the fourth largest consumer market of imported tropical timber, yet only a fraction of the timber that we import can be said with any certainty to have been legally sourced and harvested in its country of origin. Illegal logging not only destroys forest ecosystems and contributes to carbon emissions, but directly harms some of the poorest people on the planet—those in the indigenous forest-dwelling communities whose very livelihoods depend on the forest.

In this country, we declare our support for the millennium development goals, yet in the UK it is not an offence to trade for commercial gain timber that we know to have been harvested illegally in its country of origin. If we were dealing with private property, such as stolen antiques or works of art, there would be no question but that those importing or selling such artefacts would be regarded as criminals and dealt with according to the full force of the law. However, in the UK, companies that habitually trade in stolen timber have committed no crime and broken no law.

It is worth mentioning that not only was there cross-party support for the hon. Gentleman’s ten-minute Bill; it was also supported by the Timber Trade Federation, the Environmental Investigation Agency, James Latham Ltd, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Global Witness and the Born Free Foundation. That shows why today’s private Member’s Bill is so important.

The European Commission recently decided not to make it illegal to import illegally harvested timber into Europe. That distinguishes the EU from the USA, which recently passed amendments to the Lacey Act making it illegal for a person or company to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase timber or timber products illegally taken, harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported.

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good contribution to this welcome debate. The Lacey Act takes a principled approach of complete prohibition. However, what is important is not only the symbolic value of what is put on the statute book in the UK, the European Union or elsewhere; provisions also have to be workable and enforceable, and they have to be able to be monitored and delivered. Far be it from me as a legislator to say that we should ever introduce legislation that could not satisfy those requirements, regardless of any symbolic value. We must watch what happens with the Lacey Act and see whether it delivers on a big promise.

The Minister makes a telling point; it is important that legislation should be workable and enforceable.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that last year a representative of the US customs appeared before Chatham House. He said that the amendments to the Lacey Act, introduced at the beginning of that year, were already working effectively and that prosecutions under it had already been secured.

That helps to answer the Minister’s point. From the information that I have received, it seems that the Lacey Act is workable and enforceable. I shall say a bit more about that in a few moments.

Instead of prohibition, the EU has introduced a proposed regulation under which operators have to exercise

“due diligence to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products on the market.”

That has been rightly and widely attacked as lacking teeth. The EU has given two reasons why it believes that prohibiting the placement of illegal timber on the market is not feasible, and both are pertinent to proving illegality in a third country. The first is:

“The enforcement authorities in Member States would need to establish the offence on the basis of foreign laws through investigations beyond their jurisdiction and European courts would be compelled to rule on the legality of timber products harvested elsewhere. Europe is generally reluctant to act beyond its jurisdiction or to pass judgement on other countries’ legal frameworks unless there is an immediate threat to the well-being of its population, such as in the case of food safety or terrorism.”

The second is:

“Obtaining the necessary proof that a specific batch of timber was harvested at a certain time and place in contravention of applicable legislation in the country of harvest is deemed to be a difficult if not, in many cases, impossible task. It is not always possible for traders to know how to avoid being implicated in illegal activities and this would create uncertainty and would not bring meaningful changes in the timber sector. Practical difficulties and political implications would limit its application to very few high profile cases, thereby undermining its effectiveness in meeting its objectives.”

This is a very good debate. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right to have a system that does the job, can be shown to be workable and does not place undue or disproportionate burdens on sectors of industry in the UK and elsewhere, but that can be enforced and sends the right signal? What are his thoughts on the EU approach and where the right balance lies?

If the Minister will be patient, I shall come to that. I certainly agree that the system should do the job but not place unworkable burdens on the sector.

Assessing whether a timber trader has exercised due diligence is inherently subjective and requires a burden of proof. According to Global Witness:

“Unless being caught in possession of illegal timber is treated as de facto proof of a failure to comply, this legislation is very unlikely to provide a deterrent to the determined illegal operator”.

Moreover, if the USA is capable of establishing an offence, there seems no reason why member states should not be able to do so.

The Government’s response to the EU proposal was contained in a recent written statement. They said:

“The Agriculture Commissioner introduced a proposed regulation requiring those placing timber on the market to ensure that the timber has been legally logged. The UK welcomed the regulation but said that effective enforcement was very important. In particular, the UK and the Netherlands urged quick progress to be made in negotiating the proposal before the European Parliament was dissolved.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 65WS.]

In March this year, the Secretary of State called for tougher European laws to tackle illegal logging. He would like to make it an offence to import illegally produced timber into the EU, and he stated:

“Illegal logging causes untold environmental damage, it harms communities and it threatens wildlife. If we import timber without ensuring that it is legally sourced, then we are contributing to these problems.

We in the UK have a responsibility to act. Government departments are estimated to account for one fifth of all timber bought in the UK—and this rises to two fifths if you include local authorities and other government bodies.

So from 1 April we’re changing the way we buy timber. It is a message to the rest of Europe that we are ready to lead on this issue—and we want to do more.

We want to strengthen the welcome steps that the EU is taking to exclude illegal timber from our markets. Making it an offence to import it would send a clear message to the market that such activity was no longer acceptable.

We need to bring an end to this pernicious trade. Illegal timber should be just that—illegal.”

That is very welcome, but it is important to note that the Secretary of State is calling for EU action rather than domestic UK action.

In an answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the current Minister indicated that creating a new offence would not be possible under UK law. He stated:

“The UK Government cannot institute legal proceedings in the UK relating to a breach or breaches of sovereign laws in another country”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 858W.]

However, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the shadow Minister for agriculture and rural affairs, has sought legal advice, which states:

“There is certainly no reason I can see why it should not be possible to create an offence of selling or distributing imported wood illegally harvested in its country of origin (or, indeed, of importing such wood into the UK).”

Crucially, and contrary to the Minister’s previous statement, it may therefore be possible to create a new offence under UK law. We should examine that possibility.

If we wished to do so, we could certainly produce legislation imposing legal requirements on UK businesses in relation to the way in which they deal with processing and importing timber. However, I return to my earlier comment about what would be workable and proportionate. Should we expect UK producers, suppliers and processors to accept a burden that is not commensurate with the burden placed on those in other European Union countries?

I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the UK could produce that legislation, because I had not heard of such an agreement before, but I repeat that the Secretary of State said:

“We need to bring an end to this pernicious trade. Illegal timber should be just that—illegal.”

We have the opportunity to do that, under UK law. I understand what the Minister says about burdens on business, but action to deal with illegal logging is very important to the future of not just this country but the whole world.

The burden on UK businesses will not be increased at all. The primary burden that they already bear is compliance with the law in the timber-harvesting country. If they comply with that law—as they will say that they do—there will be no additional burden vis-à-vis other European suppliers.

That is an interesting point. I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s enormous knowledge of these matters. Personally, I am not sure that there would be a massive increase in the regulations with which companies in this country would have to comply.

Tackling illegal logging would go a long way towards saving lost revenue and preventing the widespread environmental damage, loss of biodiversity and increases in carbon emissions to which illegal logging contributes. In 2007 we published a paper called “Forests for Life”, which outlined a number of potential directions worthy of consideration. It followed wide consultation on a range of measures aimed at reducing deforestation and the trade in illegal timber, including making the possession of illegal timber an offence.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing the Bill. I shall speak only briefly, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Before I tackle a few central issues, let me set out the context. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon rightly referred to the FLEGT agreements. FLEGT is the process of bilateral licensing between the European Union and partner countries under which timber licensed from those countries can be imported into the EU and accepted as legal.

It would be wonderful to have a global FLEGT system, which would largely put an end to illegal logging in international trade, although not necessarily internal trade within countries. However, we do not have such a universal system, and until we do, leakage will always be possible. Leakage simply means that timber that does not come into the EU can be sold to other countries—I will not name them, although many people will know the key candidates—which produce artefacts and goods, such as tables and chairs, that then come into the European Union apparently legally and from a legal source. It is precisely because the current licensing, even if expanded, would still allow that leakage—that circumvention—that it is important that the EU and, I would add, the UK should act to block it.

A number of years ago, the European Commission came up with a series of proposals, which it consulted on, for additional options to the FLEGT arrangements. For years Ministers had said, “We’ve got to wait and see what happens in Europe.” We also had non-governmental organisations saying, “Won’t it be better if we can get a Europe-wide scheme? If 27 countries can act together, we can really get to grips with the problem and stop illegal logs from coming into the European Community.” That was a counsel of perfection that nobody disputed; however, I never believed that that would happen. Indeed, in May last year the European Commission abandoned its additional options proposals. On 17 October last year, it then came up with a system of due diligence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and others have outlined.

It is by looking to that system that the Government can say that no UK legislation is required, so let me be clear why it is inadequate. Under the EU proposal, an importer who has never imported illegal timber and does not attempt to do so can be prosecuted for failing to follow the due diligence system. However, an importer who deliberately imports illegal timber cannot be prosecuted as long as they can show that they have followed the due diligence system. The EU’s proposals are procedural. They are not substantive and they do not go to the heart of the issue, which is this: is illegal timber coming into the EU and into this country? The answer is yes. That is what we need to stop.

The EU proposals are for a tick-box process, which means that as long as someone can show that they have asked a supplier whether something was legally sourced and they say yes, that person gets off scot-free. It does not matter whether they believed the supplier or even whether they knew that he was lying through his teeth; as long as that person can tick the box, the EU’s process would allow them to import illegal timber and yet evade prosecution. That is why the EU process is fundamentally flawed. It is a process; it is not a way of tackling the substantive problem.

The reason why the amended Lacey Act, as introduced by the Americans, is a good method and why it precisely counters the Minister’s earlier remarks about ensuring that the system is workable and does not impose undue burdens is that it is a very elegant piece of legislation. It shifts the balance of risk, by providing a clear incentive for companies to drive the burden of due diligence back down their supply chains. The Lacey Act ensures that the trappings of legality, such as the certificates of legality that can be bought for $5 in Douala market, do not hold weight. It is better that the importers and distributors should be put on notice that they can be opened up to challenge at any point and that they will face substantial penalties if they are found guilty.

Importers can continue to import timber into this country through their supply chain as long as they have confidence in their procedures. They will not be stopped at the border. There will be no requirement to show certificates or anything of that nature. If they are challenged, however, and if the timber is shown to be illegal, they will have committed an offence. The burden will have been shifted on to them to ensure that their supply chain is right. They will not be able simply to say, “I did this, I did that and I did the next thing, therefore I’m all right.” They will actually have to get it right. Many of them say that they are already doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will know that I am thoroughly in favour of the new regulations on Government procurement that came in earlier this year. Indeed, I was the Minister in the Department who proposed them at the time. Government procurement accounts for 40 per cent. of procurement in this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, so most of the suppliers will now have to comply with those much more onerous regulations.

It is important that the UK should give a lead on this matter, because Europe has shown that it is incapable of doing so. There are no penalties in the proposals from the European Commission. The penalties regime is left to each of the 27 member states. My hon. Friend the Minister knows well that perhaps 21 or 22 of those countries will do nothing whatever on this issue. It is only by our giving a strong lead through independent regulation in the UK that we will bring the European Commission to the point of introducing strong European legislation that can achieve the goal of universally tackling the problem.

I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He is scoring well this afternoon, and we want him to score well on this Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) for the work that he has done, and for his continuing interest. I join the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) in saying to the Government that I hope they will be very positive about this Bill.

We support the Bill, and I shall briefly summarise our reasons for doing so. First, as the hon. Member for Brent, North has just said, the UK has to lead if we are to deal with global warming and deforestation and take our international responsibilities seriously. The Prime Minister has made an announcement today about the responsibility of the UK in taking the lead, so that the developing world is not asked to take an unreasonable share of the contribution in dealing with climate change. This is an example of how we can lead.

Secondly, we have a particular responsibility because of the failure of the Europe-wide process. Thirdly, this is a live, practical issue on the doorstep and among the traders, be they in Ogmore, in south London or in Berwick-upon-Tweed. This is about ensuring that everyone understands their international and global responsibility. People who are in the import and export business, the timber trade and the construction industry will need to be on notice that they have a responsibility to ensure that the products that they deal with are properly and legally acquired, and that they do not contribute to problems in other parts of the world, further up the supply chain. This is about giving them that responsibility. Sometimes we need to have sticks as well as carrots, and sometimes we have to say, “This is a criminal offence, guys, if you don’t get it right.” I hope that the Minister will be positive about the Bill, and that we have allowed enough time for him to say yes, to allow the Bill to go into Committee.

I am pleased to respond to this very good debate. It has been noted that it is also a very live debate, as we are in the midst of European negotiations on this subject. We are engaging in live time, not only with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who has introduced the Bill, but with a wide range of stakeholders, including various non-governmental organisations, the Timber Trade Federation, and small and large businesses, all of which are trying to push in the right direction. The question is how we achieve what we are all signed up to and stop illegally sourced timber from entering not just the UK but anywhere in the EU. How can we do that in a way that delivers what we all want to achieve? That is the nub of our debate. I welcome this genuine debate on the issue, on whether the Bill provides the right way forward and on whether there are alternative ways of achieving what we want. The Bill is set against the background of real-time discussions and negotiations in Europe.

Will the Minister address this point? Why is it sensible for the European Union to construct a new and different regime for tackling the problem when, for once, the US has been in the lead on an environmental issue and has put in place an effective regulatory regime that is already dealing with the problem? The EU could simply go with that regime.

My hon. Friend raises an important question, which I will come to. The Lacey Act is often referred to as a gold standard, in putting forward a complete ban or prohibition. It sends a very strong signal and works all the way down the supply chain. I cannot remember the exact date but the Act was introduced in the early 1900s, originally to deal with fishing and related issues. It has subsequently been used to bring forward legal sanctions. It was amended in 2008, but it has not yet been used to bring prosecutions for timber violations. We are hopeful that such prosecutions will go ahead, but to the best of my knowledge there are none as yet; there may be some pending. We are hopeful and watch with interest.

I recollect from the American man who was representing the American customs agency at Chatham House last year that a prosecution has already been pursued against an illegal importer of timber. I am going on what he said at that Chatham House meeting.

Perhaps we can clarify that further after this debate. As I said, we are hopeful that there will be some prosecutions, but to the best of our knowledge, they have not yet been brought. The Lacey Act has been used to bring successful prosecutions in other areas, but not in respect of timber. We watch with interest because if, as my hon. Friend says, the Act can be shown to work and deliver, we should not discount it out of hand. Let me go on to deal with other points.

I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that of my predecessor in my current role, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). He brought forward an earlier Bill, with the WWF and others, which was also well supported. In his former role as special representative on forestry, appointed by the Prime Minister, and in his current role as co-chair of GLOBE International, my hon. Friend has never resiled from his commitment to this issue at any level.

As others have said, this issue goes to the heart of where we are on climate change, criminality, corruption, the rule of law, good governance in countries, economic development, impacts on indigenous communities and forest ecosystems, and so forth. If we get this right, the impact will be significant. It is how we get it right that lies at the core of the debate. We genuinely support the motivation behind the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon to deliver legislation to tackle what has become a quite pernicious trade in illegal timber. It is a global problem not just a UK problem or an EU problem, and it has far-reaching environmental and development impacts.

We in the UK, as my hon. Friends will recognise, have long called for legislation at EU level on a multilateral basis—with all the frustrations that that involves. Various Committees of this House have said that they recognise the frustrations of a multilateral approach, but they have said at the same time that that has to be the way to deliver on this issue, because taking action on a unilateral basis will not deliver the sort of effects that my hon. Friends are looking for.

Would my hon. Friend like to give an estimate of the number of square miles of illegally logged timber that have been cut down since the EU discussions started?

I cannot give that estimate off the top of my head, but I acknowledge that, as we speak here today, acres and acres of illegally logged timber is being cut down around the world.

I rise simply to make the point that these things must not be placed against one another; it is not about this Bill or a European Bill. We have proposed this Bill precisely because we believe that it is necessary for one country or another to put spine and backbone into the European Commission in order to get decent legislation Europe-wide.

Yes, I appreciate what my hon. Friend says.

Let me turn to the nub of the Bill and deal with a few issues that address the points that have been raised. We are currently right in the middle of European negotiations on a due diligence regulation, which was released by the Commission in October 2008. The regulation aims to tackle this very problem with the timber trade; there are discussions over which is the best way to do it, but that is what we are trying to do. The UK Government are working with EU and other stakeholders, some of whom want to push harder and go faster. Our position has been that action to address the problem with the timber trade must be taken at the EU level, otherwise we risk simply diverting the trade elsewhere within the EU. Strengthening our measures would send a strong unilateral signal, but if we do not tackle this problem at the EU level as well, leakage will take place elsewhere.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are the fourth largest timber importer in the world. If we take the decision to make this illegal and a criminal offence, about 40 per cent. of the timber will not be coming in illegally.

Let me go straight to the heart of why we think the EU approach is right, and why to do this on a UK basis would not only be difficult, but might be the wrong approach to take.

The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) raised the issue of my previous statements and whether we can bring forward UK legislation. I have just tried to clarify that we cannot set up a separate UK legislative process that is different from our EU commitments, because if we were to do so, we might well open ourselves up to infraction procedures. We must be aware of that.

Let me now turn to the issue of administrative costs. It has been said that they might not exist or they might be minimal, but administrative costs would be incurred in proving that timber has come from good sources. That would not only involve the B&Qs of this world; every single supplier down the line would need to prove that they had taken their responsibilities seriously and had proved the source of the timber.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that the UK should provide leadership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is advocating the idea of putting a prohibition on the import of illegal timber—not a prohibition right down the chain, but a prohibition at the point of source, so that the company or individual who imports illegally into the UK will be subject to the prohibition and it is against them that action will be taken. That would be a strong signal. It is stronger than many of our European members want us to give, but we are pushing very hard indeed for it.

I am committed to agreeing strong regulation for ourselves and the European Union. Some of the proposals in the regulation have led us to reflect carefully on possible impacts on the timber industry, not least on small forest owners in the UK. I understand that the Commission discounted a prohibition in its earlier deliberations after difficult internal discussions on the right way forward, but we have been talking to Commission lawyers about how we might best reflect our—