Proceeding contribution from Barry Gardiner (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 February 2012. It occurred during Adjournment debate on London Olympics.
London Olympics
The sponsorship was tendered under a tier 3 arrangement by LOCOG, and it was the body that awarded that sponsorship contract to Dow Chemical. Was LOCOG aware that Dow is a party to a public interest litigation suit in India concerning clean up and environmental rehabilitation of UCC's factory site? If LOCOG was aware of those issues, how were they considered in the decision-making process on Dow's suitability as a partner for London 2012 on ethical, social and environmental grounds? Did LOCOG seek any further legal or other advice in relation to the issues mentioned, other than that given by Dow and its representatives? Last month, the procurement process and the Dow sponsorship deal suffered its biggest blow to date. Meredith Alexander, one of the 12 sustainability commissioners, resigned in protest over what she believes was the airbrushing of Dow out of Bhopal and into the Olympics. She has made her case as follows:"““In 2010, the International Olympic Committee appointed Dow as an international sponsor for the Games. This decision was taken in Geneva, and the commission had no ability to take a stand. Then last year, LOCOG, the London Games organiser, invited companies to tender for a major contract to provide a wrap for the main Olympic stadium. Dow won this bidding process.””" That is the point the Minister failed to appreciate. Meredith Alexander goes on:"““Many groups and individuals raised questions and finally the commission was asked to investigate. I was shocked to see that the result of our investigation was a public statement from the commission that essentially portrays Dow as a responsible company. I had been providing information about Bhopal to commission members and I was stunned that it publicly repeated Dow's line that it bears no responsibility for Bhopal. I did everything I could to get the statement corrected or retracted. When it became apparent that this would not happen, I realised that the only way to ensure that my name was not used to justify Dow's position was to resign.””"
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 540 c255WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Contracts for services Environment protection Procurement Sports London 2012 Organising Committee Olympic Delivery Authority Olympic Games 2012 Union Carbide Dow
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 22:14:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810928
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810928
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810928