---

Maria Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that voluntary agreements do not always work. I agree that when the House is pursuing a public good, it may be appropriate for us to consider legislation as back-up for a failed voluntary agreement. However, I find it astonishing that we should consider putting legislation on the statute book before any breakdown of the voluntary agreement.

To back up my arguments, I shall quote from the Official Report the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. It is extraordinary that we should preclude the outcome of the voluntary agreement and the review that is to take place, and put legislation on the statute book in advance, just in case at some time in the future the agreement breaks down. We must assume, as I do, that the parties to the agreement are all acting in good faith.

If we legislated in that way more generally, our statute book would be even more crowded than it currently is, and we would have no summer recess--and no Christmas, Easter or any other recess, either. The House would be sitting 24 hours a day.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She argues that the amendment creates a prospective backstop for the voluntary agreement. Does she agree that it does not necessarily even do that, because the Secretary of State only may--or indeed may not--take a particular action? If the aim is to reinforce the voluntary agreement, the amendment should insert the words "shall, in the event of the breakdown of the voluntary agreement".

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I had not groped my way towards it, and I thank him for it. He is right. The present wording--"shall"--imposes an obligation. It is a requirement; there is no discretion. However, the promoter's amendment No. 26 will remove "shall" and replace it with "may". It will also remove any kind of time scale.

Mr. Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Maria Eagle: If I may finish the point, I shall of course give way.

It is easy to imagine a future Secretary of State who was not committed to recycling. The Bill would be on the statute book, but the Secretary of State would not have to make regulations--he may or may not do so. What would be the point of that, especially if it had some negative impact on the ability of the parties to the voluntary agreement to get on and implement it?

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who may have the answer.

Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I can help her by quoting extracts

9 Jun 2000 : Column 593

from the latest version of the agreement. It might have been helpful if I had done that in my opening remarks. I cannot speak entirely on behalf of the promoter, although I understand some of what he is trying to achieve through amendment No. 26.

It is important to put on record that the latest version of the agreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the newspaper publishers, dated 18 April 2000, established three targets for recycled content. They are: 60 per cent. by the end of 2001, 65 per cent. by the end of 2003, and 70 per cent. by the end of 2006. If hon. Members consider clause 1--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) advice on what constitutes an intervention, as distinct from a speech. If he hopes to catch my eye, as is his right as the hon. Member who moved the amendment, and wind up at the end of the debate, he must reserve his fire. I cannot have mini-speeches in the middle of the debate.

Maria Eagle: Doubtless there will be an opportunity to discuss percentages later. However, it is interesting that my hon. Friend has a copy of the voluntary agreement; I do not have a copy. If we, as legislators, are to judge the importance and usefulness of the Bill, it might have been helpful to have a copy of the voluntary agreement. I do not criticise any particular person; I do not know whether the voluntary agreement has been published. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten us.

Amendment No. 26 is an extraordinary amendment for the promoter to table, and I shall refer briefly to some of the comments made in Standing Committee C, which considered the Bill. We must bear in mind the fact that the Bill did not have a substantive Second Reading. We are considering a difficult issue; all hon. Members agree that recycling should be a matter for public policy, and it clearly interests us. However, the Committee stage has been the only opportunity so far in this Session for hon. Members to consider the merits of the legislative approach.

The Committee met on Wednesday 19 April, and the Minister said that the Government were

far from convinced that a legislative approach is right.

He explained that scepticism about such an approach was based on the existence of some issues

outside the control of the newspaper and magazine publishers,

with whom the voluntary agreement has been reached. The first issue is mill capacity. The Minister explained that it was widely accepted that that could have a significant impact on the industry's ability to achieve targets that it agrees voluntarily. The second issue is the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The Minister will be able to tell us whether it remains the Government's position that they are far from convinced of the merits of a legislative approach.

The Minister also stated:

We have been working with the Newspaper Publishers Association to develop an agreement. Those negotiations are now successfully concluded.

It seems that they were successfully concluded the day before the Bill was considered in Committee. Perhaps it is therefore not fair to suggest that the Bill has served no

9 Jun 2000 : Column 594

purpose; it may have acted as a spur to achieving that agreement. The Minister also set out some of the percentages that form part of it, but we may have an opportunity to discuss them later.

The Minister said that there would be a review of the effectiveness of the agreement at the end of 2003. It will ascertain whether the agreement has been implemented in accordance with the views of the parties to it--the industry and the Government--and whether the targets have been achieved. He said that the reviews would take four factors into account:

First, they will take account of the availability of additional reprocessing capacity.

That deals with some issues that are outside the industry's control, but nevertheless have an impact on whether it can achieve the targets to which it has voluntarily agreed. The Minister continued:

Secondly . . . the growth in consumption of newsprint, which is apparently about 2.5 per cent.--

I suspect that that means 2.5 per cent. per annum. Again, that factor is outside the control of the industry alone. He continued:

Thirdly, the quality of recycled newsprint . . .--[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 19 April 2000; c. 6-7.]

That refers to the fact that newsprint has to contain a certain amount of fibre to be recycled for that purpose. He said that the reviews would consider whether there was any uncompetitive pricing of recycled newsprint by suppliers.

1.30 pm

Clearly, there is wide agreement between the Government and the industry. They have even worked out how to review whether the voluntary agreement that they have concluded is useful in achieving the targets that have been set. That review will take place at the end of 2003; the Bill could be on the statute book this year, but it might never be needed or referred to again. It might sit idly on the statute book and be no use to anyone. I for one wonder, as a legislator, whether it is correct to use the time of the House and its Members to put Bills on to the statute book purely and simply as a backstop in case agreements break down two or three years hence.

I shall consider the two other amendments in the group: amendment No. 11, which was tabled, I think, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst--[Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for that mistake. At the end of clause 1(5), amendment No. 11 would insert the words

and such environmental groups as he considers appropriate.

Hon. Members will recall that clause 1(5) deals with whom the Secretary of State should consult before implementing the targets set out in the Bill.

Amendment No. 25, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and about which he has made some remarks, would include

newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.

I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman again--twice in a day, which is a unique experience for me. I shall have to find a point of disagreement before the House rises, and I shall think about that when I sit down.

9 Jun 2000 : Column 595

Those amendments are complementary, and I approve of both. If we agree to amendment No. 26, tabled by the promoter, and if the Bill gains the approbation of the House, is sent to the other place and ends up on the statute book, we may as well make it as good as we can. Although it is entirely helpful that clause 1(5) should be expanded, as we have heard, one or two other hon. Members and I are concerned about whether the amendments are sufficiently clear and widely drawn to make them as good as they could be. However, they are compatible in that they could be included in subsection (5) without causing problems, and they would probably improve the Bill.

We could include in subsection (5) lots of newspaper suppliers, publishers organisations, retailers, consumers organisations and consumers of whatever sort--whether consumers of newsprint or even those who simply sell it--as well as every type of environmental group and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. However, I am concerned that the Secretary of State would still be obliged to consult only

such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations.

If a future Secretary of State is of the opinion that not many people will be affected by the regulations, his absolute obligation to consult all these groups can be put to one side. Judicial review through the courts to test the meanings in the Bill would be the only recourse for organisations that would expect to be consulted.

Although we may congratulate ourselves on including in the Bill all the organisations that clearly should be consulted, and will perhaps expand the list later, we are still dependent on a future Secretary of State's opinion. I am not convinced that the amendments will achieve as much as the hon. Members who have tabled them hope. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon may be able to reassure me about that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend has tabled an amendment about environmental groups. By using the phrase "as he considers appropriate", he has fallen into the pattern already in the clause. If a Secretary of State did not consider it appropriate, he might not bother to consult any environmental groups. The present Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult as widely as possible, but what does my hon. Friend mean by environmental groups? Various voluntary groups have an environmental aspect to their remit. Does he just mean Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace--the organisations whose publications the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would never read?

---