My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to be able to introduce this debate on a Bill that, despite being short in length and proposing only a simple change in the law, could make a dramatic difference to the way we deal with waste.

Dealing with waste is one of the most serious environmental problems we face in this country. Without action, we face a waste crisis. The total amount of rubbish thrown away by households in this country continues to grow every year and communities do not want new incinerators or landfill sites. Existing landfill sites are running out of space in some areas of the country, and even where we still have space, EU law—the landfill directive—requires the United Kingdom to make swingeing cuts in the amount of material landfilled each year. This is the most obvious aspect of the problem: not having anywhere to put the rubbish we generate. But failure to recycle causes other problems too.

The need to find new materials to replace the various things that are thrown into landfill or incinerated also damages our environment. For example, in Iceland a wilderness area vitally important to Icelandic reindeer, seals and pink-footed geese which spend the winters in this country, is threatened by the construction of a huge aluminium smelter and the hydro-electric dams required to power it. In parts of Scandinavia, wildlife-rich, old-growth forests have been logged and replaced with mono-crop forests to make paper, yet every day tonnes of paper and aluminium are thrown away when they could be reused.

There is a further problem. By not recycling and instead acquiring and processing fresh raw materials, we are wasting energy. Every time we recycle a glass bottle rather than make a new one from raw materials, we save enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for one hour. Saving energy means that recycling also helps to prevent climate change, and this could make an enormous contribution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency created a model to determine the flow of climate change gases. Applying the model to the UK waste stream suggests that every year we could save 4.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions through recycling. That is equivalent to the energy that would be saved by a 12 per cent reduction in traffic. So to reduce the pressure on our landfill sites and to stop the need for new incinerators, to reduce our need to dig up or clear-cut wildlife sites, and to prevent climate change, this Bill will of course be a great help.

The UK has lagged far behind other countries in terms of its recycling. In its report of October 2002, the Green Alliance compared UK policies and performance with seven other countries or regions in a report called Creative policy packages for waste: lessons for the UK. The report found that the UK had in place fewer legislative and incentive-based measures to encourage recycling than most of the other countries studied. It had only three measures, compared with eight in Denmark and in the Flanders region of Belgium, seven in Sweden, and six in Switzerland and the Netherlands. We also recycle less than other countries, managing at the time of the report to recycle just 11 per cent of municipal solid waste compared with 62 per cent in Flanders, 45 per cent in Switzerland and the Netherlands and 38 per cent in Sweden.

Survey after survey has found that recycling is popular. People will take part if they are provided with the facilities to recycle. The Government's own strategy unit commissioned MORI polling to inform its report and it found that the demand for kerbside collection services is high. Three out of four people said that they would recycle more if the facility were available to them.

The initial evidence suggests that this claim is borne out in reality. In London there is a correlation between the availability of kerb-side collection and self-supporting levels of recycling, which have more than doubled relative to those that do not have a collection service.

Qualitative evidence suggests that access to a collection service also plays a role in catalysing wider environmental awareness, even though many initially only used the service because it was available. The act of participation itself seems to foster a greater sense of environmental responsibility. In May 2002, the Environmental Agency carried out similar polling and found that nine out of 10 people would be very likely to separate their rubbish if provided with the facilities to do so.

That is the background against which the Bill has been drawn and is no doubt the reason that it made good progress in the other place. It is clear that recycling has major environmental benefits; that the UK is far worse at recycling than we should be; and that improving our performance would be very popular.

Before taking your Lordships briefly through the Bill, I should acknowledge the help given by various people in getting the Bill this far. The honourable Member for Lewisham Deptford deserves particular thanks as it was her decision to adopt the Bill after being drawn in the Private Members' ballot that provided Parliament with the opportunity to debate it. She piloted the Bill skilfully through the other place and I owe her great thanks.

Similarly, the Ministers who responded positively to her efforts deserve thanks. Both the former and current environmental Ministers played an important role. It is also important to pay tribute to the Opposition parties in Another place that have supported the Bill. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat front bench spokespersons have enthusiastically backed the Bill, meaning that it is a real cross-party proposal to improve our environment. The Bill has also received support from hundreds of organisations.

It will perhaps be helpful if I briefly explain the terms of the Bill and the thinking behind them. The Bill seeks to add to Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is the section that puts a duty on local authorities to collect waste from households in their area. Clause 1 of the Bill inserts, after Section 45, a new section that requires English waste collection authorities to ensure that arrangements are in place by the end of 2010 to collect at least two recyclable materials separately from the remaining waste.

Waste collection authorities can avoid this duty if they are satisfied either that the cost is unreasonably high or that comparable alternative arrangements are in place. Concern has been expressed that these two provisions could become opt outs allowing councils to get out of providing the separate recycling collections we want. However, I have been encouraged by the Government's commitment, given in debate in another place, that the opt outs are narrow, a commitment which I hope will be repeated here today.

On costs, I accept that in a very small number of places it does not make sense to recycle. In fact, the current law allows such exemptions from very remote households that may not even get their rubbish collected. My view is that if a council is going to a house to collect rubbish, there is no reason why it cannot collect recycling. Split-bodied collection vehicles can allow both collections to be made at the same time in a single trip. Alternating rubbish collections, so that rubbish is collected one week and recycling the next, has also been used successfully.

Successful recycling projects already operate in two areas where cost is often quoted as being prohibitive—rural areas and tower blocks. I therefore think it is hard for existing councils to argue that these schemes could be very expensive. Such an argument was put to the Minister in Committee in another place by the honourable Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, who asked:

"Would the Minister accept that if a local authority can produce a good recycling scheme that is economic, there is no adequate excuse for another local authority that is not able to do as well?".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 10/6/03; col. 22.]

I was encouraged by the Minister's reply of "I entirely agree".

As to what will be considered "comparable services", I see no problem with a provision of extremely high density collection points. I can envisage a new housing development where a point was built for the recycling and dustbins of perhaps 10 to 12 surrounding homes, for example, as matching a doorstep scheme—and perhaps even more convenient for the householders, who would not need to keep recycling boxes in the home.

However, any council trying to argue that a few extra bottle banks provided a "comparable service" should certainly be prevented from getting away with that. This argument was put to the Minister in Committee in another place. The honourable Member for Bexhill and Battle tabled an Amendment requiring any "comparable facilities" must allow householders to recycle within 100 metres of their home. Although the amendment was not pushed to a vote, it led the Minister to say:

"We want to put in place the best arrangements. In relation to a bring-site, 100 m is quite a long way—perhaps it should be rather closer than that".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 10/6/03; col. 21.]

I am therefore content that Clause 1 provides a reasonable balance and will result in almost every if not quite every home having a recycling service that is as convenient as it can be for them.

There are two other aspects in this part of the Bill on which I should like to comment. First is the number of materials to be collected. Various supporters of the Bill have argued for the collection of four materials to be required rather than two. I sympathise with that view. There is also evidence that increasing the number of materials recycled makes people better at remembering to separate their waste. However, those backing the Bill accepted two materials—and let me point out that the Bill refers to "at least" two materials—as a compromise, so that we could take an important step forward with Government support. I hope the Government can give advice to councils to ensure that the scheme they set up can be cost-effectively upgraded to collect more materials in the future.

Finally, there is an option in subsection (5) of new Section 45A for the Secretary of State to allow up to an extra five years to meet the requirements of the Bill. I confess I would prefer the Bill without that option, and I hope it will not be used. I know my noble friend the Minister may not be able to promise this today, but I hope she will go as far as she can in that direction.

Clause 2 allows the same power that Clause 1 places on English waste authorities to be applied to Welsh authorities if the Welsh Assembly deems that appropriate. Coming from Wales, I am very pleased that the Welsh Assembly now wishes to have this power if it needs to use it. Waste is a devolved issue in Wales, so should Wales wish to follow England in requiring doorstep collections, it would require changes in primary legislation that are beyond the Assembly's powers. This clause gives them the necessary powers.

Clause 3 requires a report to be made by the Secretary of State no later than October 2004 detailing progress on recycling. I think that is a sensible requirement, as it allows us to see how we are making progress and will, it is to be hoped, focus minds on meeting the challenge set out in the Bill.

The remaining provisions are, I hope, self-explanatory. They give definitions, make minor drafting amendments required to keep the earlier 1990 Act consistent and give the Title and the extent.

The Bill is not complicated, and would make a huge difference. Recycling provisions have been increasing recently, but we still have a long way to go. This country has a bad record for missing the recycling targets that it has set itself. Indeed, as far back as 1990, we set a target to recycle 25 per cent of our waste by 2000. The latest figures show that in 2001–2 we managed less than half that amount—just 12.4 per cent. At the current rate of increase, we would meet our 1999 target in about 2014. We need to break the cycle of failure, and I believe that the Bill would play a huge part in achieving that. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gale.)