| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): The hon. Gentleman is treating an important point in a slightly frivolous way, as there is a serious issue underlying it. He will be aware that there are limits to the amount of recycled material that can used in the manufacture of various types of paper. Recycled paper generally cannot be used in the production of the higher-quality paper that is usually used in magazines. Additionally, is he seriously suggesting that anyone would decide to read a newspaper rather than a magazine on the basis of recycled content, bearing in mind that it is inherently more likely that a higher proportion of recycled paper will be used in the graphic-quality paper used in newspapers than in the glossy paper used in magazines?
Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not suggesting that people will change their reading habits by choosing to read newspapers rather than magazines, but saying that--as it is already perfectly possible to produce 100 per cent. recycled newsprint--consumers have the right to know newspaper publishers' policy on recycled content and commitment to reducing waste. Magazine readers have the same right. As a far greater number of magazines than newspapers is on the market, consumers might decide to exercise their choice quite forcefully in that sector. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes the important point that publications are constrained in the amount of recycled content that they can use.
I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendments.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I preface my remarks on my amendment No. 25 by saying that I have long been sceptical about the concept of recycling. Far too many people reach for it as an easy answer to problems real or imagined. I say that because, many years ago, in one of my previous ministerial manifestations, I had a glancing responsibility for it. That experience persuaded me that, very often, the effort, energy, fuel and pollution involved in the recycling exercise far exceeds any gains that may be achieved from it. I would do better to expand on those remarks on Third Reading, but outline them now only to set in context my subsequent remarks.
12.45 pm
Amendment No. 25 is finely targeted. We are discussing the possibility of the Secretary of State making regulations, which will be the cutting edge of this measure. I hope that the Bill does not reach the statute book, but my objective is to make it as practicable as possible if it does.
The regulations will contain the Secretary of State's provisions
- regarding the calculation of average minimum proportions for the purposes of subsection (3) . . . and monitoring and enforcement of the requirements, including the setting of any penalties that may be imposed for non-compliance.
I have grave doubts about the mandatory and compulsory way in which the Bill is drafted. I understand and welcome the background, which is that the
Government and industry have sought to reach voluntary arrangements. I applaud that. Because of my scepticism about recycling as a concept, I am even more dubious about putting in statute arbitrary figures and limits in an area where inevitably changes will occur over time.Anyone with a connection with recycling--not least in terms of newsprint--will be well aware that, over the years, the availability of newsprint has moved from glut to famine, often in extreme forms. The viability of measures involving recycling and reclamation will vary in their practicability from time to time.
Mr. Chaytor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is the purpose of the other provision in the Bill? The Bill is concerned not only with the recycled content--which would depend on the capacity of the industry to manufacture sufficient newsprint with that level of recycled content--but with targets for recycled collection. Does he agree that, once the mechanism for collection is in place, it will deal with the question of glut and famine in terms of the availability of material?
Mr. Forth: No, I do not think that that will deal with it, although it may be a contributory factor. The mere act of systematic collection will not in itself deal comprehensively with the problem. We are talking about a complex relationship between different levels of production of different items, geographical distribution, patterns of consumption and availability. Of necessity, this is a complicated series of relationships.
Unless we are prepared to go much further than we have hitherto in terms of mandatory requirements, bureaucracy and inspection at the point of consumption, use and availability for recycling, we cannot say that the materials for recycling will be readily available, even if collection is much better.
Hon. Members often point to other countries and say that they do things better in Canada, Germany or Scandinavia, for example. I am always slightly reluctant readily to accept that if something happens in another country and in a different context, it is appropriate for this country.
Mr. Chaytor: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely what is deficient about the British in that respect? How is it that the Canadians, Scandinavians and Germans, whose reading habits, social structures and economies are similar to ours, can establish effective recycling schemes, but we cannot?
Mr. Forth: I can give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. I have the pleasure of having working with me in my office a charming mature student from Canada. I took her the other day to see my constituency of Bromley as I fulfilled a constituency engagement. As well as remarking on the extraordinary attractiveness of Bromley and the sophistication of its inhabitants--not to mention the suitability of its Member of Parliament to its electorate--she said, as we passed from Bromley to Westminster, that the amount of litter that she observed on the streets of London was a shock to her. That must be a familiar comment to many right hon. and hon. Members.
It is a matter of great regret to me that we as a nation are much more prone to litter our streets and parks than most other countries in western Europe and north
America. We can speculate about the reasons for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I suspect that you would take a dim view of that. However, as I said to the young lady who made that telling observation, I suspect that a large part of the answer is that, in the upbringing of our children, by parents or in the educational process, we lay almost no emphasis on the litter phenomenon, whereas they do in north America.It happens that my dear wife is an American and--very proudly--a British citizen. She was brought up in the United States and has spent time on the continent, and she has often told me that she is surprised by the lack of attention that we as a nation pay to the whole concept of litter. That is one reason why I have doubts about whether the kind of self-discipline, at individual, family and community levels, that we see in other countries and cultures can be expected here. Perhaps we can develop that in the future--indeed, the implication of what I am saying is that we should do so--but simply to assume that we can readily graft on to our environment and circumstances provisions such as those contained in the Bill and expect the same results, is not a compelling argument.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the problem of the end product--the waste--but the other side of the coin is the creation of the paper that becomes waste. Perhaps I can help him with some information about Scandinavian forestry practices, including, for example, the creation of man-made forests, which completely change the ecosystem. Clear-cutting is a destructive technique that can demolish entire habitats, and huge tracts of peat land and forested wetlands are drained to create land on which to grow those forests. That is the mirror image of the waste problem that he has identified. The problem could also be addressed in this country by much better recycling facilities, as promoted by the Bill.
Mr. Forth: That may be so. I do not wish to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, because his research is, as ever, impeccable and all-embracing. However, my point is that the process of recycling is itself often a polluting one and is certainly a high user of energy. Too little attention is paid to that point, because it is all too readily assumed by the proponents of recycling that it must be good, partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. My reservations are that insufficient attention is paid to the real difficulties caused by the collection and distribution process, which will contribute to traffic congestion, atmospheric pollution and the consumption of fossil fuels, which are all inimical to the environment. Those factors have to be added to the equation, and that is why I am not a fan of recycling. I remain to be convinced of its benefits.
My amendment would interpose a further element into the bland provision in the Bill, which simply states:
- Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations.
- including newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.
-
I want to ensure that part of the process that the Bill initiates will be guaranteed to include the people who know most about the industry and the distribution and collection process. They should be brought into the process at an early stage, so that we can be as satisfied as possible that the measure will work effectively. It is no good theorising about the matter, and producing fancy targets in the belief that recycling works. They may make us feel better, but what happens if they are nonsense and cannot be met?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |