| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Whitehead: Can my hon. Friend shed any light on her alternative to this proposal? Does she suggest that environmental groups should be named one by one in the Bill? If so, does she accept that that may result in an even greater squabble than she envisages? Groups would vie with each other to be included in the Bill, and if they were not, they would seek judicial review to establish that they should be.
Maria Eagle: As an ex-lawyer, I would not want to create too much work for lawyers. I know how expensive it can be if people have to go to law. I am not suggesting that it would be preferable to include a list of environmental groups in the Bill. However, a
schedule and a regulation-making power would have been a possible mechanism. It would be sensible to define such groups more closely, perhaps in a definition clause or an interpretation clause, which could provide that an environmental group means a group that spends 80 per cent. of its time dealing with environmental issues. I have not thought of a better amendment.If we are to give the Bill a fair wind, we should tighten it up as much as possible. What concerns me about the term "environmental groups" is that many voluntary groups and charities have other aims. Before I came into the House, I was concerned with housing. Many organisations deal with housing, which involves the environmental concerns of a local area. Is a housing pressure group considered to be an environmental group? Will the phrase be restricted to groups that deal specifically with issues such as recycling or the impact on our environment more generally of not recycling?
Friends of the Earth has had something to do with the Bill and has a long track record of promoting Bills that have an environmental impact. For instance, it is concerned about the use of landfill instead of recycling newspaper. It is clearly an environmental group.
Mr. Maclean: Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the Bill deals purely with recycling? In the context of total life-cycle assessment of newsprint, there may be better options. Recycling is not necessarily the most environmentally friendly way in which to deal with newspapers.
Maria Eagle: I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman as well as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. My reputation will be destroyed. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) makes an important point, which I think he made in an earlier intervention. Ultimately, it may well benefit the environment to have better forestry--I cannot think of the right word, but it may be a good idea for us to look after our forests in a more sensible manner.
Maria Eagle: "Stewardship" will do. It may be a better idea for us to improve our forestry stewardship than to have enforced levels of recycled content. The short and long titles of the Bill use the word "recycled", and we are all in favour of that: it must be better than burying the material in landfill sites. However, we have not had an opportunity to consider the overall implications of enacting and enforcing the legislation.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Let me offer the hon. Lady the chance of a hat trick in terms of agreeing with Opposition Members.
I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Lady said about environmental groups. Surely, if these obnoxious regulations are introduced, it is only reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult not only the industry, but environmental groups of all kinds. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Lady is not objecting to consultation with environmental groups, but considers the wording to be too loose?
Maria Eagle: My goodness! I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman as well. Yes, the wording is a
little woolly: that is a gentle way of putting it. I have no objection to consultation in general, although it always involves both a cost and a delay. Usually, the wider the consultation the greater the cost and the delay.The Bill is relatively draconian. If we pass it, we will be requiring by law people engaged in normal commercial activities to ensure that a certain percentage of their newsprint is recycled, and that a certain percentage of pulp comes from recycled paper. A later group of amendments deals with the percentages. By any standards, that is a fairly draconian requirement, especially given that some elements necessary to achieve the targets are outside the control of those who are expected to achieve them.
There must be an argument for consulting as widely as possible. If the Government did not consult, they could easily be accused of engaging in excessively unpleasant activity, and no Government who regard recycling as a desirable aim and a public good would want to be in such a position. I suspect that that may be why the Government oppose the Bill, although the Minister will doubtless have something to say.
Mr. Green: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way again. She spoke of the unfortunate "woolliness" of the definition as it stands. Has she considered an even worse possibility? She said that the use of recycled content would often be more expensive. Might not financially stronger groups set up their own puppet environmental organisations, which could then lobby hard for increased targets, and stringent application of those targets, in the hope of driving weaker competitors out of business? That would be a particularly serious problem in the newspaper industry, in which diversity is hugely important not just to the industry but to the future of democracy.
1.45 pm
Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Where legislation places requirements on commercial organisations to do certain things, there can be unintended consequences in the cynical world of the market, with commercial organisations trying to do each other down. That is why, overall, I would probably prefer voluntary agreements with reviews. Only if there is no progress at all should the Government consider legislation. However, if the Bill were enacted, there would be an absolute legislative requirement, which is as inflexible an instrument as one could imagine--unless it is too low, in which case what is the point of having it?
Within that context, and given that I probably do not support the Bill's passage overall, my aim is to see how the amendments can improve the Bill and make it a little more flexible. That is the basis on which I agree with extending the consultation as widely as possible in clause 1(5), and why I find it extraordinary that the promoter has tabled amendment No. 26.
Given that I intended to speak only briefly, I have probably said enough. Therefore, I shall simply say that I oppose amendment No. 26, but approve of amendments Nos. 11 and 25.
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I hope to save the bacon of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) by giving her something with which she can disagree.
I shall speak briefly in favour of amendment No. 26. I am comfortable with allowing voluntary agreements time to work. If they work, all well and good, but often, as we know, they do not. Consider what is happening in relation to recycling by local authorities. Many local authorities are failing to hit their target. Therefore, I echo a couple of the questions that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked.
First, will the Minister put on record his commitment to legislate if the voluntary agreement is seen to fail? Secondly, will he consider giving local authorities extra assistance to help them to develop their recycling strategies?
Luckily, my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, has the best recycling record in London. I understand that, perhaps even today or next week, the local authority leader will tell the Minister for the Environment how that has been achieved.
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman mentions the borough of Sutton. I understand that it is the only London borough that collects waste once every two weeks, rather than once every week, and that that is the subject of much bitter opposition from local residents, who condemn their Liberal Democrat council for doing that.
Mr. Brake: I am happy to respond to that point. Labour Members may not know that the principal activist behind the wheelie bin campaign is a person called Lady Olga Maitland, who they will agree is not the most unbiased of parties. They may also be interested to know that other local authorities--both Labour and Tory--operate a fortnightly wheelie bin scheme.
Mr. Brake: None in London, apparently. I am not sure what difference the location of the local authorities makes to collection.
Mr. Gray: I want to clarify exactly what the hon. Gentleman is telling us. Is it that the Conservative candidate who will stand against him at the next general election--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough on that riveting diversion. We must come back to newsprint and recycling.
Mr. Brake: I am happy to return to the subject of newsprint. In fact, I had nearly finished.
I have two requests: first, will the Minister put on record his commitment; and, secondly, will he provide assistance to local authorities, so that those that are not meeting their recycling targets can meet them in future, and so that they do not simply fall back on incineration to get rid of waste? That is my great concern.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |