| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dismore: I am slightly concerned about the right hon. Gentleman's use of the word "organisations" in his amendment. In the context of the amendment, it is not clear whether the word is conjunctive or disjunctive. Is he referring only to consumer organisations, or is he referring to organisations in other contexts--for example, newspaper supplier organisations, newspaper publisher organisations and so on? Individual newsprint suppliers might hold different views, while a collective view might be more easily obtainable through an organisational approach. Does his use of the word "organisation" refer only to consumers, or can it be translated for the other groups as well?
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I think that the most useful interpretation would be the latter. I do not want in any way to preclude consultation between the Secretary of State and newsprint supplier organisations or newspaper publishing organisations as well as individuals. They must all have a role to play. The hon. Gentleman is right. Organisations will, of necessity, take a different view, and there is nothing wrong with that.
I believe that the Bill points in the wrong direction and is naive and impractical. However, if it were to reach the statute book, we would want it to work in a proper and practical manner. My amendment would make a contribution to that.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the term "consumer organisations" appears to be badly placed in the amendment? The amendment is not clear about whether it refers to consumers in general, consumers of newsprint, consumers of the recycled content of newsprint or to something else entirely. Does he not accept that that presents a problem in terms of having realistic consultation with those organisations?
Mr. Forth: I do not think so. One of the possible side effects of the mandatory recycling that the Bill seeks to achieve is a considerable increase in the price of products. Nothing in this world comes free, and recycling certainly does not. It is perfectly possible--I would say probable--that, if we followed the inflexible provisions in, and the statutory approach of, the Bill, one of results would be an increase in the final price of products. Someone would have to pay and, in the end, it is always either the consumer or the taxpayer; it cannot be anyone else. For that reason, the wider the scope of the consultation, the better. That would give the Secretary of State a complete view of what people think. He could say to them that,
given their concern about environmental matters, recycling may--I say "may" very deliberately--be a good thing.
Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Forth: Yes, but I would like to conclude.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the very point that recycling may be a good thing, I am sure that, in his studies for the debate, he has read the Greenpeace report "PVC Plastic: A Looming Waste Crisis", which was published on 2 April 1999. Greenpeace says:
- For safe and useful materials, recycling is a beneficial activity . . . However, in the case of toxic materials, it simply perpetuates the toxic production of environmental poisons. Promotion of PVC recycling is a prime example.
Mr. Forth: I do not do Greenpeace. However, in the light of my right hon. Friend's comments, I should perhaps read one of its publications. They are not my usual bedtime reading, I must admit.
My right hon. Friend may wish to expand on that point, but I certainly do not want to get involved in Greenpeace's views. I say that because I want to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Although I generally support his amendment--if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a few words about it--he has failed to include environmental organisations in his list. They may have a legitimate and valid role. I am sure that he would not wish to omit organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is correct, but he will notice that amendment No. 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon refers to "environmental groups". I did not want to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder; I know how ably he will speak to the amendment. He will answer my right hon. Friend's point.
That is an appropriate point at which to conclude my brief remarks on my limited amendment. I hope to have a subsequent opportunity to range more widely over the Bill and its deficiencies. However, I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 25.
1.15 pm
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): I shall make a few brief remarks about all the amendments in this group, beginning with amendment No. 26. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, however, let me say that hon. Members with an interest in the matter are unlikely to disagree with the idea that recycling is generally a good thing. Like motherhood and apple pie, we all think that it is good.
Before we legislate on the matter, however, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that the Bills that we enact and which affect our fellow citizens achieve the desired effect. It would be entirely inappropriate for
any of us, no matter how much we support recycling, to vote for the Bill at any stage on the basis that it sounds like a good thing. One of the purposes of legislative scrutiny is to ensure that we achieve the desired aims. I notice that the Bill did not have a substantial Second Reading debate--Second Reading only lasted about three seconds on the Floor of the House. It also had a short Committee stage, to which I shall refer later.Amendment No. 26 was tabled by the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and in his absence was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Had it not been tabled by the Bill's promoter, I would have thought that it was a wrecking amendment, as it would delete from clause 1(1) the words
- shall within one year of the passing of this Act
A closer look at subsection (1) shows that that is a significant concession, as it would change a requirement made of the Secretary of State, and the time limit within which he is supposed to comply with it. The amendment would throw that out of the window, replacing the requirement with a mere discretionary power with no time limit whatsoever. That is an extraordinary change for the promoter to make in the most important clause of his Bill, which aims to force a public good--general recycling of newsprint--on an industry which one assumes is considered tardy in achieving targets for the desirable public goals that we all support.
We need a little more explanation. I am not trying to get at my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who has obviously stepped into the breach at the last minute in the unavoidable absence of the Bill's promoter, but although I am not too experienced in such matters, there is the slight whiff of a backstairs agreement. One suspects that the Bill's promoter may have had discussions with the Government, the newspaper industry or someone else. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), may be able to tell us whether there have been any such discussions when he responds to the amendments.
It is extraordinary that the Bill's promoter would table an amendment which, if it did not wreck his Bill, would substantially undermine its legislative intent. It is no small matter to change an absolute requirement with a time limit to a discretionary power with no time limit.
Dr. Whitehead: Has my hon. Friend taken account of what we hear about the voluntary agreement between the Government and the newspaper industry on the percentages of recycled newsprint that it will be required to use? If what we hear is true, one could certainly read clause 1 as a method of backing up the voluntary agreement if the newspapers failed to keep it.
Maria Eagle: Later I shall quote remarks made in Committee about the voluntary agreement. I do not often find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I have often heard complaining about legislation going through the House on the nod and without proper scrutiny. It is extraordinary that we as legislators should be invited to send a Bill on its way to the statute book as a backstop
for a voluntary agreement that seems to be working. I find that an extraordinary use of legislation, and I am not sure that it is a correct use.
Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with voluntary agreements is that they can be entered into and broken willy-nilly, because there is no intention of creating a contractual relationship between the parties? A voluntary agreement is simply a piece of paper, which may end up being recycled without making any impact on the problem.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |