| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dismore: I shall speak to all three amendments in this group. First, however, I should like to say that I thought that the attack made at the start of her speech by
my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)--I am sorry that she has just left the Chamber--on my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was a little unjustified. We all know that, often, when an hon. Member promotes a private Member's Bill, compromises are necessary and discussions are held. Knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle as I do, it would be much out of character for him to be party to a backstairs deal.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Gordon--compromise?
Mr. Dismore: I understand that remark entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle is a capable parliamentary campaigner. I certainly do not believe that, in promoting his Bill, he would make any compromise that was not absolutely necessary.
Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about amendment No. 26, particularly in relation to the meaning of the words "shall" and "may". I see that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is in the Chamber. Undoubtedly, he will recall that, in his previous life as a Home Office Minister, we had a rather interesting year in the law courts on the precise definition of "may" and "shall". I am pleased to say that I emerged as the victor on that occasion. The basic point is that, in some circumstances, the two words can be interchangeable, but such use can create some uncertainty, which is regrettable in legislation.
The amendment proposes leaving out the words
- shall within one year of the passing of this Act
Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Minister were to accept use of the word "may"--thereby making all the targets meaningless--the Bill would at least be consistent with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, in which the Minister made exactly the same change, to make that Bill absolutely meaningless? Would not the change promote consistency?
Mr. Dismore: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I suspect that the occupant of the Chair might question whether I should pursue it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said, the issue comes down to whether, in legislating, it is the House's job to become involved in trying to police voluntary agreements. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made the valid point that, if we take that route, the Minister should make it clear that the Government will legislate if the voluntary agreement does not succeed.
Dr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend saying that the House should never make such provision in passing legislation, or that we should not make it in the specific case of this Bill? If he is opposed to making it on principle, may I remind him of how we have dealt with
other Bills, including the recent Access to Justice Act 1999--in which he favoured including a section urging the Law Society to change the activities of the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, including the possibility of legislation if change were not made?
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify my views, which are based very much on the idea of horses for courses. The background to the Bill involves negotiation, discussion and a voluntary agreement, which we all hope will work. The background to the Access to Justice Act was rather different, as we were trying to drag the Law Society kicking and screaming into the 20th century--never mind the 21st century--in how it deals with complaints. As my hon. Friend will know, although I am a solicitor myself, I took a rather strong view on the Law Society's opinions on the matter. I think that, in such circumstances, it is justifiable to use permissive powers in legislation as a stick with which to beat people, to make them do what needs to be done.
The Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill presents the opposite scenario, as it has been used as a carrot to encourage people to conclude a voluntary agreement. In this case, do we need a stick, because we have already achieved the objective? It is horses for courses and, in the nature of this private Member's Bill, it is the wrong way to go. In those circumstances, I would have grave doubts about whether we need the Bill as it stands. If the voluntary agreement does not succeed, I hope the Minister will give a commitment to the House--perhaps with a Government Bill--to make it clear to the industry that it is expected to meet its obligations.
The industry has recognised that there is a risk in relation to the voluntary agreement, and is concerned about the capacity of mills. It argues that, unless that capacity is expanded, the voluntary target will result in the import of recycled newsprint which will simply end up in landfill. The newsprint manufacturing industry is therefore seeking financial support from the Government for expanding mill capacity. My hon. Friend the Minister might wish to comment on that.
Another risk of the voluntary basis is that having a recycled newspaper content, as set out in the voluntary agreement, may lead to further imports of recycled paper, rather than to an increase in recycling in the UK. This has been recognised by the newspaper industry, which repeatedly argues that a recycled content target alone will fail. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies--in defence of the voluntary agreement and, presumably, the amendment--he can deal with those concerns.
Maria Eagle: Given that we all want a strong agreement that will work, does my hon. Friend accept that the amendment has weakened the purpose of the Bill significantly, almost to the degree that it is not worth supporting?
Mr. Dismore: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. Without a timetable within clause 1--which the amendment would delete--and without a clear indication from the Government at least of a timetable to which they will work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, there is not
much of a stick or a carrot in clause 1. There is no indication of a timetable for reviewing or renegotiating the voluntary agreement, or for monitoring progress towards its implementation. To denude clause 1 of the existing wording to a large degree pulls rather too many of the Bill's milk teeth. I would not say canine teeth, because I do not think the Bill had any to start with.
Mr. Brake: Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the Minister were to outline today what that timetable was?
Mr. Dismore: That would be a useful response from the Minister, were he prepared to do that. If we are to agree to the removal of those words from the Bill, it is important that we get a clear understanding on the record of how the Government see the voluntary agreement developing in terms of the targets set out in it, the implementation of the targets, the timetable for review and possible renegotiation and the monitoring of progress. Without those--as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston said--the Bill will be less effective and possibly not even worthwhile.
Mr. Green: I am slightly puzzled by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who seem to be saying that it is fair enough to take out the timetable and the compulsion from the Bill as long as the Minister gives us an assurance about what the timetable will be. Hon. Members--particularly the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)--are firmly facing both ways at once. Either we want a timetable or we do not, and there is one in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says he is prepared to take it out, but wants the Minister to put it back by way of an assurance to the House. I fail to follow the logic of the argument.
Mr. Dismore: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, which is the one with which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and I have been grappling. I would like the Bill to remain as it presently stands, because we would all know then how the process would develop.
Maria Eagle: I assure my hon. Friend that that is not a problem for me, because I oppose amendment No. 26.
Mr. Dismore: I also oppose it, so I agree with my hon. Friend. In the event that our views do not prevail, and the view of the promoter of the Bill prevails, second best would be for the Minister and the promoter to put on the record how they see the voluntary agreement developing.
2 pm
Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even if his arguments about amendment No. 26 are correct, it does not affect the whole of the Bill? The voluntary agreement addresses only the content of newsprint, not the labelling of recycled newsprint in newspapers and magazines, although that is the subject of later amendments.
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The word "shall" still appears in clause 2, and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and I argue that it should remain in clause 1.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |