REGULATIONS IMPOSING A DUTY ON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS (Hansard, 9 June 2000)

§ Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 5, leave out— 'shall within one year of the passing of this Act' and insert "may".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
With this we may take the following amendments: No. 11, in page 2, line 3, at end insert— 'and such environmental groups as he considers appropriate.'. No. 25, in page 2, line 3, after "regulations", insert— 'including newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations.'.

§ Mr. Chaytor
In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I am happy to move an amendment that he has promoted diligently during the last few months.
The amendments have important functions. Amendment No. 26 would simply remove the Secretary of State's statutory duty to implement the Bill's requirements, and make it a power. The Bill had its origins in discussions some three years ago, and appeared on the Order Paper last year. Throughout the intervening period, there has been lively discussion between the Government and representatives of the newspaper industry—both newspaper publishers and manufacturers of newsprint—about the potential for increasing the recycled content.
The industry's view has been that it could do more to increase recycled content. Both manufacturers and publishers have been aware of the huge and growing problem arising out of the nation's steady year-on-year consumption of newspapers, the increase in newspaper production, the increase in the size, volume and weight of the average newspaper and the lamentable failure of the previous Government to establish proper recycling schemes. Therefore, as each year goes by, we have been putting more and more newsprint into landfill.
Nevertheless, rather than be subject to legislation, the industry would prefer to have reached voluntary agreement. For a considerable time, negotiations have taken place on that voluntary agreement. I am delighted to say that, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister, such an agreement has been reached. That explains the logic of amendment No. 26, which will take away the statutory duty and introduce an enabling power.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 serve a related purpose. They would widen the consultation that would follow the making of regulations, ensuring that there was consultation not only with the industry—the purpose of amendment No. 25—but with environmental groups, the purpose of amendment No. 11.
In his unavoidable absence, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, who has diligently and tenaciously pursued the Bill throughout the parliamentary 582 Session; to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), who has published a Bill with a related purpose; and to the Minister and his officials in the Department for the determination with which they have advocated the causes supported by the Bill and for the fact that they have finally secured the voluntary agreement with the industry.
The Bill's origins owe much to the work of Friends of the Earth, which has identified the importance of increasing our recycling targets. For the past three years, it has tenaciously supported the Bill in Parliament.
The issue is what happens if, by any chance, the voluntary agreement reached with the industry, which extends to targets for recycled content, but not for collection, does not succeed and is not implemented—there is scope in the agreement for a review at the end of 2001. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that, in the event—we hope that it is unlikely—that the voluntary agreement fails, the Government will be prepared to legislate.
Given that the voluntary agreement extends to recycled content, but does not contain targets for collection and recycling, I hope that the Minister will be able, in the light of the publication of the Government's waste strategy just two weeks ago, to reaffirm their commitment to fund properly the development of local authority recycling schemes.
It is now generally understood that the United Kingdom lags woefully behind other western European countries in terms of the proportion of household waste that is recycled. We know that we are many years behind and that there is much to be done. We know, too, that recycling schemes cannot be established without appropriate initial investment. Local authorities are the only organisations that are well placed to establish such schemes. It would therefore be extremely valuable if the Government could assure us that there will be adequate funding to meet their targets on increased recycling, particularly of newspapers and magazines.
I also hope that the Minister will assure us that, if the voluntary agreement proceeds, newspaper proprietors will label the recycled content of their newspapers. I think that some newspapers provide a general figure on the amount of British newsprint that is recycled, but that information is not terribly helpful. Consumers, and those who are concerned about the growing volume of waste that we are producing in Britain, need to know how much recycled material is used in individual newspapers.
It is perfectly possible to calculate that content in newspapers. Newsprint manufacturers know the precise figure, and newspaper publishers know precisely from whom they buy their newsprint. There is, therefore, no reason whatever why that information cannot be printed on the front page of all British newspapers and magazines. The information would give consumers the power, if they wish to use it, to choose between equivalent newspapers on the basis of recycled newsprint content.
I am not suggesting that those who are concerned about recycling will automatically switch their allegiance to The Daily Telegraph, for example, if it were to start using 100 per cent. recycled content. Nevertheless, hon. Members will appreciate the general point about consumer choice—which, on this issue, can be exercised only if that information is available.

§ Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)
The hon. Gentleman is treating an important point in a slightly frivolous way, as there is a serious issue underlying it. He will be aware that there are limits to the amount of recycled material that can used in the manufacture of various types of paper. Recycled paper generally cannot be used in the production of the higher-quality paper that is usually used in magazines. Additionally, is he seriously suggesting that anyone would decide to read a newspaper rather than a magazine on the basis of recycled content, bearing in mind that it is inherently more likely that a higher proportion of recycled paper will be used in the graphic-quality paper used in newspapers than in the glossy paper used in magazines?

§ Mr. Chaytor
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not suggesting that people will change their reading habits by choosing to read newspapers rather than magazines, but saying that—as it is already perfectly possible 10 produce 100 per cent. recycled newsprint—consumers have the right to know newspaper publishers' policy on recycled content and commitment to reducing waste. Magazine readers have the same right. As a far greater number of magazines than newspapers is on the market, consumers might decide to exercise their choice quite forcefully in that sector. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes the important point that publications are constrained in the amount of recycled content that they can use.
I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendments.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislchurst)
I preface my remarks on my amendment No. 25 by saying that I have long been sceptical about the concept of recycling. Far too many people reach for it as an easy answer to problems real or imagined. I say that because, many years ago, in one of my previous ministerial manifestations, I had a glancing responsibility for it. That experience persuaded me that, very often, the effort. energy, fuel and pollution involved in the recycling exercise far exceeds any gains that may be achieved from it. I would do better to expand on those remarks on Third Reading, but outline them now only to set in context my subsequent remarks.
12.45 pm
Amendment No. 25 is finely targeted. We are discussing the possibility of the Secretary of State making regulations, which will be the cutting edge of this measure. I hope that the Bill does not reach the statute book, but my objective is to make it as practicable as possible if it does.
The regulations will contain the Secretary of State's provisions regarding the calculation of average minimum proportions for the purposes of subsection (3) … and monitoring and enforcement of the requirements, including the setting of any penalties that may be imposed for non-compliance. That is the core of the Bill. We are talking about a cascade of activities, starting with the crucial calculation of the average minimum proportions. We then move on to talk about the monitoring and enforcement thereof, and then—even more importantly—penalties.
I have grave doubts about the mandatory and compulsory way in which the Bill is drafted. I understand and welcome the background, which is that the 584 Government and industry have sought to reach voluntary arrangements. I applaud that. Because of my scepticism about recycling as a concept, I am even more dubious about putting in statute arbitrary figures and limits in an area where inevitably changes will occur over time.
Anyone with a connection with recycling—not least in terms of newsprint—will be well aware that, over the years, the availability of newsprint has moved from glut to famine, often in extreme forms. The viability of measures involving recycling and reclamation will vary in their practicability from time to time.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is the purpose of the other provision in the Bill? The Bill is concerned not only with the recycled content—which would depend on the capacity of the industry to manufacture sufficient newsprint with that level of recycled content—but with targets for recycled collection. Does he agree that, once the mechanism for collection is in place, it will deal with the question of glut and famine in terms of the availability of material?

§ Mr. Forth
No, I do not think that that will deal with it, although it may be a contributory factor. The mere act of systematic collection will not in itself deal comprehensively with the problem. We are talking about a complex relationship between different levels of production of different items, geographical distribution, patterns of consumption and availability. Of necessity, this is a complicated series of relationships.
Unless we are prepared to go much further than we have hitherto in terms of mandatory requirements, bureaucracy and inspection at the point of consumption, use and availability for recycling, we cannot say that the materials for recycling will be readily available, even if collection is much better.
Hon. Members often point to other countries and say that they do things better in Canada, Germany or Scandinavia, for example. I am always slightly reluctant readily to accept that if something happens in another country and in a different context, it is appropriate for this country.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely what is deficient about the British in that respect? How is it that the Canadians, Scandinavians and Germans, whose reading habits, social structures and economies are similar to ours, can establish effective recycling schemes, but we cannot?

§ Mr. Forth
I can give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. I have the pleasure of having working with me in my office a charming mature student from Canada. I took her the other day to see my constituency of Bromley as I fulfilled a constituency engagement. As well as remarking on the extraordinary attractiveness of Bromley and the sophistication of its inhabitants—not to mention the suitability of its Member of Parliament to its electorate—she said, as we passed from Bromley to Westminster, that the amount of litter that she observed on the streets of London. was a shock to her. That must be a familiar comment to many right hon. and hon. Members.
It is a matter of great regret to me that we as a nation are much more prone to litter our streets and parks than most other countries in western Europe and north 585 America. We can speculate about the reasons for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I suspect that you would take a dim view of that. However, as I said to the young lady who made that telling observation, I suspect that a large part of the answer is that, in the upbringing of our children, by parents or in the educational process, we lay almost no emphasis on the litter phenomenon, whereas they do in north America.
It happens that my dear wife is an American and—very proudly—a British citizen. She was brought up in the United States and has spent time on the continent, and she has often told me that she is surprised by the lack of attention that we as a nation pay to the whole concept of litter. That is one reason why I have doubts about whether the kind of self-discipline, at individual, family and community levels, that we see in other countries and cultures can be expected here. Perhaps we can develop that in the future—indeed, the implication of what I am saying is that we should do so—but simply to assume that we can readily graft on to our environment and circumstances provisions such as those contained in the Bill and expect the same results, is not a compelling argument.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the problem of the end product—the waste—but the other side of the coin is the creation of the paper that becomes waste. Perhaps I can help him with some information about Scandinavian forestry practices, including, for example, the creation of man-made forests, which completely change the ecosystem. Clear-cutting is a destructive technique that can demolish entire habitats, and huge tracts of peat land and forested wetlands are drained to create land on which to grow those forests. That is the mirror image of the waste problem that he has identified. The problem could also be addressed in this country by much better recycling facilities, as promoted by the Bill.

§ Mr. Forth
That may be so. I do not wish to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, because his research is, as ever, impeccable and all-embracing. However, my point is that the process of recycling is itself often a polluting one and is certainly a high user of energy. Too little attention is paid to that point, because it is all too readily assumed by the proponents of recycling that it must be good, partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out. My reservations are that insufficient attention is paid to the real difficulties caused by the collection and distribution process, which will contribute to traffic congestion, atmospheric pollution and the consumption of fossil fuels, which are all inimical to the environment. Those factors have to be added to the equation, and that is why I am not a fan of recycling. I remain to be convinced of its benefits.
My amendment would interpose a further element into the bland provision in the Bill, which simply states: Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations. That is the usual rather bland statement that appears in measures such as this. The amendment would insert the words including newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations. 586 I want to ensure that part of the process that the Bill initiates will be guaranteed to include the people who know most about the industry and the distribution and collection process. They should be brought into the process at an early stage, so that we can be as satisfied as possible that the measure will work effectively. It is no good theorising about the matter, and producing fancy targets in the belief that recycling works. They may make us feel better, but what happens if they are nonsense and cannot be met?
My aim is to ensure that, if the dreadful mechanism in the Bill is cranked into activity, it is at least practical and achievable. It must not be based on the fancy notions of well-meaning environmentalists—hence the amendment.

§ 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.

§ 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 587 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—certainty 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 of 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.
588 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.
589 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.

§ 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, 590 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. If newsprint is produced with chlorine and other such materials, recycling will simply involve recycling the chemicals used in its production.

§ 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.

§ 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 591 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 and insert instead the word "may".
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 Brill on its way to the statute book as a backstop 592 for a voluntary agreement that seems to he 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.

§ 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 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 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 re view will take place at the end of 2003; the Bill could be Ai 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.
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?

§ 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 596 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.

§ Dr. Whitehead
Stewardship?

§ 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 597 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.

§ 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. Green
None in London.

§ 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.

§ 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 599 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 Penile 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 and inserting the word "may". If accepted, however, the amendment would remove from the legislation a time scale and provide Ministers with a wide discretion. I certainly concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that the amendment could create severe problems by watering down the Bill so much that it has no effect whatever.

§ 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 600 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 601 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.

§ 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.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Does my hon. Friend accept that his argument would be invalidated if it were proved that the effect of the voluntary agreement would be to establish the targets on at least the same, and possibly a better, time scale than that in the Bill?

§ Mr. Dismore
I do not agree, because the problem with voluntary agreements is that they are, by their nature, not contractual. Just because something is written into an agreement, it does not mean that the agreement could not be torn up and recycled itself the very next day. I am concerned about the terms of the voluntary agreement as it stands now between the Government and the industry, and how that agreement will develop in the future. If the Minister will not be under an obligation to produce regulations, as he would be under clause 1 as presently drafted, it is important that the Government make it clear that they favour a certain timetable, with a process to monitor progress, and targets. The Government should also make it clear that if there was any backsliding in implementing the voluntary agreement, they would not hesitate to return to the House—I would hope in Government time—with legislation that contained clause 1 as it stands.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a valid point and here is a risk that those who favour amendment No. 26 could be said to be facing both ways at once. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that amendment No. 26 should not be accepted. If it is, we would accept as second best some clear assurances from the Government on how they see the position developing. I give way to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

§ Mr. Maclean
I apologise, but I was not attempting to intervene. I was merely poised to stand up to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman was concluding his speech.

§ Mr. Dismore
In that case, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston.

§ Maria Eagle
Given that our analyses appear to coincide, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill, if amended by amendment No. 26, would not be worth pursuing and it would be sensible to wait—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is now repeating her earlier intervention. This debate is becoming very repetitive and I shall be moved to invoke Standing Order No. 42 if it continues much more in that vein. We have substantial business still to complete today and if I hear more repetition, I shall invoke the Standing Order.

§ Mr. Dismore
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I have transgressed, but I was trying to deal with points that have been put to me. I can tell the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that I am just getting into my stride. Having dealt with amendment No. 26, I shall turn to the amendment in my name and 603 that tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). His amendment deals with a similar subject but takes a somewhat different angle.
The debate has touched on consultation. Amendments Nos. 11 and 25 are the two sides of the same coin. My amendment No. 11 approaches the issue from the environmentalist's point of view, while amendment No. 25, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, approaches it from the industry's point of view. It is appropriate that the whole coin should therefore be considered.
Amendment No. 11 has been criticised by several hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston asked why it proposes that only those groups that the Secretary of State considers appropriate should be consulted. I assume that she is not suggesting that the Secretary of State should consult groups considered inappropriate. I think that she answered her own question, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Test in his earlier intervention. My amendment has been called woolly, but it offers the only way to ensure that environmental groups are consulted.
It would not be sensible to set out, in a schedule or elsewhere, a long list of environmental groups. In the Committee considering the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, a Liberal Democrat amendment proposed that a long list of environmental groups should be consulted in respect of the work of that new body. Under scrutiny, it turned out that the list was out of date: some organisations had ceased to exist, but others that should have been on the list were omitted.
I am therefore reluctant to include a long list of environmental groups, which my hon. Friend the Member for Test may have suggested merely as a debating point. Such a list would be out of date almost as soon as it was compiled. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston suggested introducing a regulation-making power to adjust the list, but that would take us back to the proposal in amendment No. 11, which is that only appropriate groups should be consulted. Such regulation-making powers could be exercised only if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to add organisations to the list, or delete them from it. That argument is therefore somewhat circular, and takes us back to the proposal in my amendment.
An interesting criticism centred on the definition of an environmental group in these circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston asked whether housing groups would be included. That is a valid question, and it could be argued that they should be included in the provision, but I think that the House will know which groups we are talking about. Such groups are difficult to describe but, as with elephants, one knows them when one sees them.
Mention has already been made of Friends of the Earth, which has played a constructive role in persuading and cajoling Government and industry to adept the voluntary agreement. I suspect that it will play an important role in monitoring that agreement's progress. Greenpeace has also been mentioned, but many other organisations deserve to be consulted.
For example, Waste Watch is a national charity, and a very focused organisation, promoting practical action on reducing, reusing and recycling waste. In contrast, Friends of the Earth deals with many issues as well as recycling, 604 and would have had something to say about the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, had we debated that. Greenpeace's interests include the nuclear industry as well as recycling.
The hon. Member for Ashford mentioned the powers of some big organisations to "buy out" smaller ones or freeze them out of the market. First, I am not sure whether environmental groups operate in any sort of a market, and secondly, it is inevitable that there will be single-issue pressure groups highly focused on the issue of recycling.
I can imagine that people with bees in their bonnets about newspaper recycling might combine specifically to monitor progress on the voluntary agreement. Not only do pressure groups form to lobby to create new legislation but, once it comes into effect, pressure groups then form to make sure that it is implemented in the way that they wish. There is a strong argument for considering national and international organisations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and those at a more local level.
My amendment was criticised as being woolly. I do not think that it is. If a group believes that it should have been consulted, there is always the fallback of judicial review. The amendment would create an expectation of consultation. [Interruption.] Yes, it will mean more work for lawyers. I am a lawyer, although I do not see myself getting a great deal work out of this particular aspect, as I am sure that the Government will ensure that all those who should be consulted will be consulted, as a result of my amendment. Therefore, the risk of judicial review would be extremely small or non-existent. When the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was at the Home Office, I think that the risk of judicial review was rather higher. Indeed, he was on the receiving end on several occasions.
There is a safeguard through the courts and judicial review if groups believe that they have been unfairly excluded from consultation. Equally, if organisations such as the housing groups mentioned earlier feel that they should have been consulted, when it was clearly inappropriate to do so, they would get short shrift if they applied to the courts for judicial review so as to be incorporated in the consultation process.
I made one or two interventions on the wording of amendment No. 25 during the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I have some concerns, such as whether the word "organisations" could be interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively. I think that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it would be appropriate for his amendment to be read on the basis that "organisations" meant all the groups identified—newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations. However, I am not sure whether the amendment as drafted achieves that aim. On reflection, the right hon. Gentleman may consider withdrawing his amendment, with a further amendment tabled in another place to correct the problem.

§ Mr. Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, given the constraints of time. I would ask him to address an omission from the list, notwithstanding the qualification that he has just made. I refer to the trade unions which represent the staff who work with the recycled material. Should they not have been included in the list in the first instance?

§ Mr. Dismore
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Perhaps we could bring the trade unions into the category 605 of environmental groups, because increasingly they take a wider interest beyond simply those of their members. It is a welcome development in the modern trade union movement that it is looking more broadly at some of these issues. There is a risk that they could fall foul of my argument, given in response to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston on the housing pressure groups, in that their interest may be seen as peripheral. It is all well and good consulting the bosses who will issue the orders and directives, but we must also ensure that whatever is decided is practical.
When talking to people such as the local authority workers who collect the recycling bins, I have often found them to have sensible suggestions on how to improve the mechanics. Having said that, I can see an argument against my amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in that perhaps we should also have included local authorities in our joint group, if I may put it that way, of organisations that should be consulted. We have not included the local authorities, but there can be little argument that they have to be consulted as they are ultimately in charge of the recycling projects.
In parenthesis, bearing in mind the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I regret that her local authority is one of the worst recyclers in the country.

§ Maria Eagle
The council is Liberal Democrat controlled.

§ Mr. Dismore
Perhaps if the Liberal Democrats pray in aid Sutton, we can throw the brickbat that Liverpool is not one of the best performing local authorities in such matters.

§ Mr. Green
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the subject of local authorities. Would he care to reflect on the performance of local authorities in the constituencies of Ministers? At the bottom of an already bad league comes Sedgefield, where recycling is only 1.4 per cent. Does he agree that that is disgraceful—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I discourage continuance of that particular line. We have had Sutton, Liverpool and Sedgefield. The debate is about newsprint.

§ Mr. Dismore
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for coming to my rescue, so that I do not have to answer the intervention made by the hon. Member for Ashford.
The point being made about local authorities in the context of the measure related to consultation. The measure refers to the Secretary of State consulting organisations representing such persons as in his opinion will be affected by the regulations. I am not sure whether a local authority is actually an organisation in that context. Given the wording of the provision, there is a strong argument that a local authority is not an organisation but a public body.
606 The word "organisation" is not defined in the Bill, nor—to develop earlier criticisms of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—is it defined in his amendment either. Perhaps we need a further amendment—an interpretation clause—to say what "organisation" means. In defence of my amendment, "environmental group" is pretty clear, but "organisation" may be a little loose.
One of the other criticisms made of my amendment and that of the right hon. Gentleman is that consultation leads to cost and delay. Of course it does. The question is whether such costs and delays are worth while. It is a little disingenuous both to complain that consultation creates cost and delay and to say that we should give broader consideration to the whole issue of consultation. We need to keep a sense of proportion.
Obviously, delay has bedevilled recycling over the years. One of the criticisms expressed today was the risk of delay should amendment No. 26 be accepted. However, delay caused by dragging one's feet is not the same as delay created by engagement in constructive dialogue. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and me are geared much more towards ensuring that we engage in such dialogue with both sides—the environmentalists and the industry. Through that dialogue, we can develop achievable, realisable and deliverable objectives on recycling. If that costs money, so be it. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds—it is more like the cost of a few cups of tea and some biscuits, and of writing a few papers. That would ensure that the proposal is developed effectively.
For those reasons, the amendments tabled by myself and by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are worthy of support. I have identified a gap in the amendments as there are other groups and organisations that should be consulted. Perhaps that gap could be plugged in another place, although that is not to argue that our amendments should not be added to at a later date. However, I have grave reservations about amendment No. 26. If that amendment is accepted, I may have some difficulty in supporting the Bill on Third Reading.

§ Mr. Maclean
Compost, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate, so I shall not be repetitive if I propose compost as the solution to amendment No. 26. It is part of the key.
To illustrate that fact, I can do no better than quote from the press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 25 May, "The Waste Mountain—Waste of money, waste of space". It states that the combined recycling and composting targets set for England and Wales over the next few years are to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005; at least 30 per cent. by 2010, and at least 33 per cent. by 2015. Throughout the press release, composting is considered to be an alternative to recycling.
I support amendment No. 26, which would delete the words shall within one year of the passing of this Act. 607 In principle, I support the insertion of the word "may". I also support amendments Nos. 11 and 25. If the current wording of clause 1 remains, the Bill will focus narrowly on recycling newsprint and newspapers, but that may not be the best overall solution.
In the rest of their waste strategy, the Government talk about recycling or composting. If the Bill is accepted, we shall force newspaper manufacturers, owners and suppliers and those producing newsprint to concentrate on one approach—increasing the recycled content of their material.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may do your bit for recycling; we may all do our bit to recycle newspapers. I tend to think that using newspapers as one could in the old days to wrap up fish and chips may be more environmentally friendly, although we cannot do that now, because the environmental health officers have got at us. I am not making a facetious point. Using newspapers in that way, or for composting, which is referred to in the Government's official documents, may be a more environmentally sensible use of old newspapers than collecting them all, transporting them by lorries to recycling centres, melting them down with chloride, chlorine, other chemicals and goodness knows what else, burning huge amounts of energy to dry them out and then rerolling them and churning them out as part of the recycled content.
That is not just my fanciful idea, although I generally follow the view that the answer lies in the soil—so to speak. It is not just my view that we should not focus on a narrow approach. I have studied the Government's waste management strategy.

§ Mr. Brake
The right hon. Gentleman has moved on from the point about composting, but is he aware that no composting takes place within the Palace of Westminster?

§ Mr. Maclean
It may not take place within the Palace, but we can produce plenty of material that would be suitable—whether shredded or not—to go into organic recycling facilities and compost.
Removing the words that the amendment would delete and inserting the word "may" would provide flexibility, and give a chance for the principle of life-cycle assessment to take effect. Life-cycle assessment is the systematic identification and evaluation of all the environmental benefits and disbenefits that result from a product throughout its life. I do not know whether the Government have carried out any research, and I have not had a chance to study the work of the International Institute for Environment and Development. which has published many papers on the subject. It is concerned by the targets in the Bill, and those targets would be obviated if the amendment were accepted.
Life-cycle assessment enables us to decide what is the most environmentally friendly way to deal with newsprint and newspapers. I hope that the Minister will not skimp on his reply. Labour Members have made many important points, and I do not want him to accept the amendments on the nod. We require detailed answers. Is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions aware of any organisation that has carried out a proper life-cycle assessment of newsprint and newspapers, so that we can be told what are the best ways to deal with them?
608 Composting appears throughout the Government's plan. Is it the Department's view that the best thing to do with newspapers is to compost them? Is it best to use them for fibreboard and insulation or to make them into briquettes that can be burnt? People in my constituency do that in a highly inefficient way as part of a work experience scheme. Or is it best to recycle newspapers? We need to know about the part that recycling plays in life-cycle assessment, and its merits compared with other methods of waste control.
Before giving the industry firm targets, and retaining the requirement in clause 2 for the Secretary of State to do that, we must examine waste reduction. Businesses must consider waste reduction options, from the design of a product through to its manufacture, transport, packaging and the way in which it is sold. Paper and cartons used in packaging food and other materials make a major contribution to waste. Developing them as environmentally friendly products would aid considerably the preservation of the environment. Government Members may say that by retaining the wording of clause 1(1) and forcing more newsprint to be recycled, more may be made into cardboard boxes and other material.
I do not object to more recycling of such materials, but recycling is too narrow a term, and we should consider re-use. If the Bill dealt with re-use of newspapers and materials in the widest possible context. I would take a more favourable view of its rather rigid targets and be less sympathetic to the idea of deleting certain words in clause 1 and inserting the word "may". If the amendment were accepted, that would make the Bill consistent with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill and other legislation in which the Government have deliberately got rid of firm targets. The Minister must justify why it is appropriate to keep rigid targets in the Bill, when similar targets, and reference to them, was deleted from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. I shall not go further down that route today.
In their strategy document, the Government state they have three principles on recycling and waste—I am glad that they have found three. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that the first principle concerns the best practicable environmental option, and requires those taking waste management decisions to obtain advice from waste management companies and others with relevant expertise, to use the life-cycle assessment tool currently being developed by the Environment Agency, which I have just described, and to involve local communities and take full account of local decisions.
Amendment No. 11 would require the Minister to consult such environmental groups as he considers appropriate. Amendment no. 25 would require him to consult newsprint suppliers, newspaper publishers, retailers and consumer organisations. Those are all worthy organisations. The amendments may not be phrased properly or correctly, but they share the same principle, which is identical to that in the Government's waste strategy and involves getting advice from waste management companies and others with relevant expertise, and following the life-cycle assessment principle.
609 The Government's second principle of waste management concerns the waste hierarchy, and is relevant to deleting the words in clause 1. It suggests that reduction is the most effective environmental solution, which makes sense, as producing less material and less waste means that there is less to recycle. When reduction is not possible or practicable, the Government say that re-use should be implemented as the next fall-back. I agree with that. Failing that, one moves on to recycling, including composting. If none of those measures are possible, waste should be disposed of.
Does anyone in the House seriously disagree with that solution? One should reduce waste when one can, and when one cannot, re-use. If that is not possible, one should recycle and compost. If that is not possible, one should dispose of, dump or destroy the waste. The Bill, however, imposes a single solution.