| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chaytor: The amendment is sensible, as I said earlier, but does it not undermine the right hon. Gentleman's argument when we realise that the pressure for more recycling in the United Kingdom and for the introduction of a system to even out the gluts and famines in the supply of recycled newspaper has been most forcefully applied by the industry to which he refers? The Paper Federation of Great Britain has argued powerfully for such a system for years.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to rubbish the idea of targets, but the voluntary agreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the newspaper publishers establishes targets that are entirely in line with the targets included in the Bill. Does that not mean that the hon. Gentleman's attempt to create the impression that the industry opposes the policies contained in the Bill is erroneous?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I suggest to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that he should try to train himself to make short interventions rather than mini-speeches.
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was helpful, as it made clear why the Bill is unnecessary. I welcome the successful voluntary arrangements that are in place, but do they not render the Bill otiose? In addition, such arrangements are flexible, but spurious and arbitrary figures in Bills are notoriously inflexible. Targets in legislation lock in a process that could be damaging--either because they cannot be achieved, or because they cannot be changed quickly to accommodate changes in circumstances.
Mr. Dismore: Does the amendment deal with the fact that many suppliers and publishers are multinational, cross-border companies? Their approach may suit their home countries, but not the United Kingdom.
1 pm
Mr. Forth: In the context of the European home or village--whatever enthusiasts choose to call it these days--that may not be such a bad thing. I will come back to that in a moment, if I may. However, I have not yet finished with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).
I find it encouraging that the industry has wanted to take these sort of measures for some time. I would expect the people in it to do these things because of self-interest, because of being responsible members of the business and
wider community and in order to present a good image to their customers. For all those reasons, therefore, I do not see the point of having statutes--certainly not statutes of this kind--if there is such a willingness on the part of the industry. That is why I believe that what the hon. Gentleman said undermines the need for the Bill rather than the opposite.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): The industry is keen to move as rapidly as is possible and sensible to having a greater recycled content, but it is worried about the targets. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the International Institute for Environment and Development has expressed its worries about increasing the recycled content? A principal worry is that some of the countries from which the newsprint will come--Sweden, Norway, other Scandinavian countries and Canada--have very little recycled content because of their low population density. Therefore, newspaper suppliers here would be incapable of getting a huge amount of recycled material from those principal supply countries.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend makes a practical point, which ties in with the point of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). On reflection, perhaps my amendment is not as comprehensive as it should have been in that it rather misses out the international dimension. However, my wording does not preclude the consultation with--crucially--newsprint suppliers, for example. It does not mention them explicitly, but it does not preclude them. Therefore, I should have thought that a reasonable interpretation of the wording of amendment No. 25 might cover the point that my right hon. Friend made.
Mr. Dismore: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the response of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to my earlier intervention, let me say that many of those countries are not in the European Union. While the European Union may have some control, as Norway and Canada are not members, the relationship may be a little less tight.
Mr. Forth: I can only say that they are very fortunate in still being free, sovereign countries. Canada is usually given as an example of good practice, even though it does not have the claimed benefits of membership of the European Union. Perhaps that tells its own story. Norway would probably come into the same category. The hon. Gentleman and I could have a private discussion about whether being in or out of the European Union is of more benefit, but I will not embarrass him or myself by doing it too publicly.
We have already identified the fact that newsprint suppliers, as referred to in the amendment, will play a crucial role, and that that should have an international dimension. The same applies to newspaper publishers, which, by their very nature, are increasingly international organisations. Therefore, one would expect them to have a view of these matters going beyond the narrow confines of the United Kingdom, the European Union and even the European continent. I hope that, with regard to my amendment, we can look with some confidence to the Bill including a much more international outlook to the process of consultation and decision making than would have been the case hitherto.
The focus changes for retailers and consumer organisations, because they will have a different view. The comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North are relevant here. We are looking down two ends of a telescope: the large, powerful interests of newsprint and publishing organisations are at one end, but at the other end--the more difficult end, as far as this is concerned--are the retailers and the final consumer. I concede that there are considerable difficulties--which have been confronted in different ways, whether in Canada, Germany or other countries--in finding the best way, without undue compulsion or bureaucratic intervention, of encouraging the final consumer, aided perhaps by the retailers at a local community level, to reclaim or recapture the material after its final use, and then to do with it whatever is deemed to be appropriate.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to retailers and consumer organisations. I noted his criticism that the existing provision was woolly. Is he satisfied that his use of the words "retailers and consumer organisations" in the amendment pins down the matter sufficiently? Surely that would include retailers and consumer organisations that do not deal with newsprint, and might have another agenda on wider recycling.
Mr. Forth: I accept what the hon. Lady says--it may or may not be a bad thing. If we narrow the point too closely, we are in danger of missing some vital elements. For example, it is striking that, recently, large supermarkets have begun to make significant sales of newspapers. A few years ago, one would not have expected to find a newspaper or magazine on sale in a large supermarket, but that is now becoming normal. I pass no judgment on the matter; I merely remark that it is happening. Because of changes in the marketplace, those organisations have a relevance in the process that they would not have had a few years ago.
That neatly illustrates the more general point that we should not try to be too detailed and focused in such cases. There is a danger that, because of the rapid way in which change occurs--in the consumer market, the retail market, in products and so on--the Bill's well meaning but rather useless attempt could soon be out of date and worthless. In many ways, the measure is too detailed.
Maria Eagle: I am interested in the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about supermarkets--of course, that is true. Does he accept that perhaps supermarkets would have more to fear from enforced legislative recycling in other aspects of their business--of which newspapers are just a small part? When consulted, they might be incentivised not to be as positive as they would be if the arrangement were voluntary.
Mr. Forth: Yes, that risk is inevitable. Throughout the process, we must be mindful that, if one is too heavy handed and intrusive about such matters--albeit in a well meaning way--one could be counter-productive. My instinct is that an organisation such as a large supermarket would be more likely to participate in the recycling and reclamation process, generally defined, than would a small, traditional, corner-shop newsagent. We do not want to provide either the large or the small operators with disincentives to participate in the process.
For that reason, my use of the word "retailers" seeks to encompass the largest and the smallest. It would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State as to how that was done. It would not be difficult. Many well known and well established organisations speak legitimately for the varying interests of the large to the small retailer. One could probably deal individually with Tesco, Sainsbury and so on, but one would have to deal with associations that represented newsagents and tobacconists.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |