My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The importance of the Bill becomes clear every winter when the number of people dying each week in Britain increases dramatically by 30 per cent. At the same time, in colder countries such as Sweden and Norway the death rate increases by only 10 per cent. Every winter, from December to March, the Government record between 30,000 and 60,000 "excess winter deaths"; that is, additional deaths that occur compared to an equivalent period in the rest of the year.

There are well-understood physiological links between cold homes and the increased risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and even the number of accidents and falls among the elderly. Furthermore, cold homes are more likely to be damp, thus exacerbating allergies to mould spores and other illnesses.

The need for warm homes to ensure good health is clear, but the poor state of many houses in Britain means that many households cannot afford to heat their homes adequately; and in the worst cases the heating appliances fitted simply are not powerful enough to overcome draughty windows and poorly insulated roofs. It is these households, described in the Bill as suffering from "fuel poverty", which the Bill seeks to assist. I shall return shortly to the actual definition of "fuel poverty".

The Government have sought to address fuel poverty among the elderly with their winter fuel payments. However, if the extra heat just leaks away, spending that extra money on heating has been described as trying to fill a bath without putting in the plug.

The long-term solution is to ensure that homes are cheap to heat, are well-insulated and have efficient heating appliances. That involves a one-off investment preventing the need for ongoing payments over many years. There are other benefits. When less fuel is used the environment benefits as carbon dioxide emissions are cut, helping combat climate change. Another benefit is the jobs created in carrying out the work. It has been estimated that about 30,000 jobs could be created for a 15-year period if the provisions in the Bill were carried out across the UK.

Finally, as well as the deaths I mentioned earlier, many thousands more people fall ill because of cold homes but fortunately recover. Treating these people puts a huge strain on the health service, as the annual winter crisis shows. Warmer, healthier homes would save enormous sums of money in the NHS. The figure is estimated at around £1 billion a year.

For all these reasons, I am delighted that my Conservative colleague, David Amess, introduced the Bill after his success in the Private Members' ballot. He skilfully steered the Bill through the minefield which the Commons sets for such Bills, and has now passed the torch to me. At every stage he has been enthusiastically supported by the Conservative Front Bench and the whole Conservative Party. I know many others have played important roles. David Amess has been generous in thanking them in the Commons debates. We are grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his help and encouragement.

Clause 1 sets out a general definition that fuel poverty is the situation where a member of a lower income household cannot keep warm at reasonable cost. It then expands on this general definition to allow the relevant authority, the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales, to make regulations to refine this definition. Finally, subsection (2)(b) allows the substitution of a new definition altogether.

This clause has been carefully scrutinised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and its 30th report sets out its recommendations. The committee has rightly recognised the danger that the clause enables regulations to substitute a different definition. These regulations are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. So in theory a new definition could technically result in every house in Britain being defined as "in fuel poverty" or, alternatively, no houses at all.

My position on this is clear. The long established definition of fuel poverty is, I think, a very good one. It has long been held by the current Government and interested organisations and academics that a "fuel poor" household is one that needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its disposable income; that is, income after housing costs to heat the house to 21 degrees centigrade in the main living area and 18 degrees centigrade in other occupied areas. Using this definition, the 1996 English House Condition Survey found that 5.3 million households in England are in fuel poverty—a quarter of all the households in England.

While I like that definition, I understand the need to preserve flexibility. A new index may be developed, perhaps taking account of the energy efficiency rating of the home to locate more efficiently the relevant households. If so, I would be happy for the definition to be changed, with one important proviso. Any change to the definition must not be an excuse for the removal of large numbers of homes from being categorised as fuel poor. A new definition which miraculously removed a million households from "fuel poverty" would be highly suspect and would almost certainly be fiddling the figures. I take comfort from the fact that any government trying to pull a fast one like this would have to do so publicly, as the Bill requires public consultation and allows Parliament to annul the necessary regulations. That should dissuade any government, but there are fears that it is not dissuasive enough.

I know that in an ideal world the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would wish this House to go further. The committee recommends that, were the Bill a government Bill, it should be amended to narrow the scope of any future definition. However, it recognises the specific difficulty with the Bill, which is that it is a Private Member's Bill and there is now no further time set aside for the Commons to consider any amendments we may make. As such, any amendments we make could cause the Bill to fail to become law. That risk was set out clearly to the committee by the DETR representatives, and the committee took it very seriously.

I hope that the Minister's response will therefore set out absolutely clearly that the Government have no intention of using the regulations to alter dramatically the scale of the programme the Bill envisages. I recognise that changing the way fuel poverty is measured may slightly increase or decrease the number of people affected, but if the Minister is clear that the Government will not make major changes to the scale of the programme, my inclination will be to accept the assurance and pass the Bill in order to realise the major benefits it will bring. I hope that that will also satisfy other noble Lords anxious to heed the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and that they will seek assurances from the Minister.

Clause 2 of the Bill puts a duty on the appropriate authority to publish a strategy to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, people do not live in fuel poverty. The clause sets out certain items that must be included in the strategy, including a target date for achieving the ultimate objective that must not be more than 15 years away. Clause 2 also requires consultation with affected bodies, including local authorities, the utility consumer councils, persons suffering from fuel poverty and such other persons as the Secretary of State sees fit. Finally, and of course crucially, Clause 2 requires that steps be taken to implement the strategy. There are also requirements for assessments of progress and revision of the strategy as required.

Clause 3 is a standard money clause, and Clause 4 defines several of the terms used in the Bill. Clause 4 also sets out when the Act shall come into force—immediately in England, and in Wales on a date set by the National Assembly for Wales.

I hope that my brief description of the Bill is helpful and that noble Lords will ensure that it has a rapid passage to the statute book. The Bill guarantees that both this and future governments must tackle the annual scandal of unnecessary deaths, illness and misery caused by cold homes, and in the process create thousands of jobs and significant environmental benefits. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, on introducing the Bill. It is an important Bill which matters to many people. I thank him also for explaining the intentions and possible effects of the Bill. It is supported by voluntary organisations, which have a fine record of achievement in this policy field, and it secured widespread cross-party support in the other place. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has estimated that the Bill has the potential to improve the well-being of about 5.3 million households in England and 200,000 in Wales which are experiencing and living in fuel poverty. Therefore, it is important that the Bill should become law as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, explained the purpose of the Bill. It seeks to eradicate fuel poverty in England and Wales. "Fuel poverty" is defined in very broad terms in Clause 1(1), but the definition is crucial to the scope of the Bill and the implementation of the strategy. It is contemplated that the definition will be refined by regulations made under Clause 1(2)(a), following consultation, and subject only to the negative resolution procedure. But the power of amendment under Clause 1(2)(b) goes much wider and enables the definition to be completely changed by regulations, following consultation, and subject only to negative resolution. So the definition could be completely rewritten by a future government.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, made reference to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I am honoured to be a member of that committee. In its 30th report of this Session, the Select Committee draws the attention of the House to the powers conferred by Clause 1(2) about which it is concerned. In paragraph 15 the report identifies the amendments to Clause 1(2) which the committee would have recommended if the Bill were government legislation. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has indicated that he can see the need for at least one amendment to the definition.

However, there will be a problem if the House amends the Bill. The House has already been told this morning, and the committee has been informed by the voluntary organisations named in paragraph 5 of the report, that if the House amends the Bill it will be lost because there is no more time available in the elected Chamber to consider Lords amendments to Private Members' legislation. So it is not surprising that the voluntary organisations and other supporters of the Bill strongly urge that the Bill be passed unamended by this House.

The fact that the Bill has such widespread support throughout the country, as well as the fact that millions of fellow citizens are experiencing fuel poverty and would be helped if the Bill became law, suggests very strongly that noble Lords should not put the Bill at risk of failing to pass into law. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that it is a fact that time is not available, or will not be made available, in the other place to consider any Lords amendments to the Bill. Is it the case that if any amendments were passed without time being made available for their consideration, the practical effect would be to kill the Bill? If the House is faced with that consequence, it has a direct and heavy burden of responsibility.

The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was told by the representative of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions who gave oral evidence that,

"the Government, clearly, wishes to produce a fuel poverty strategy and that is the reason why it has had no reason to object to this Bill and, indeed, has supported it".

I hope that the Minister is in a position to go further and say that this is one of those rare occasions when the Government will make time available for the consideration of amendments as if the Bill were their own. That rarely happens, but it is possible.

If time is not to he made available in the other place, your Lordships' House is surely being put into an extraordinarily difficult position. It raises the question of what is the role of your Lordships' House in relation to a Private Member's Bill originating in the other place which comes before it at such a late stage in the parliamentary Session when no more time is available in the Commons to consider amendments made in the Lords.

I trust that it will not be out of place if I were to say that the timetable and procedures in the other place should be such as to accommodate consideration of Lords amendments to a Private Member's Bill which arrives during the later stages of a Session.

I turn briefly to my second main issue. This concerns the application of the Bill to Wales. I have three questions for the Minister; first, the formulation of the strategy for reducing fuel poverty in Wales and its implementation is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. I wholly agree with that. It is right that the Welsh Assembly should decide its own strategy in the light of circumstances in Wales, which is, I am reasonably sure, one of the wettest and coldest parts of the United Kingdom and, again, I am reasonably sure, has a large share of old and substandard housing stock. The DETR representative told the Select Committee that,

"the strategy produced will be jointly produced with the devolved administrations, so everybody can see what is being done in each country".

In the light of that statement, it will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether it is the Government's intention that the different approaches to fuel poverty in the four different countries of the United Kingdom should somehow dovetail together. Otherwise, what interpretation is to be given to the statement made to the Select Committee?

Secondly, in Wales the strategy for fuel poverty is to be published within one year of the Act coming into force. That date is to be determined by order of the Welsh Assembly. Can the Minister confirm my understanding that the Welsh Assembly has no discretion as regards whether to bring the provisions of the Act into force in Wales?

I turn to my last question. I was surprised and concerned to read in the report of the second sitting of the Standing Committee on 12th April that the situation was not as advanced in Wales as it is in the other three countries. My concern was not alleviated when the Minister in the other place told the Standing Committee that it was not intended that nothing was to happen in Wales. It would be helpful if my noble friend, who, I believe, is the lead Minister in respect of the Bill, could provide the House with particulars of what is intended to happen in Wales within the next two or three years if the Bill becomes law.

If my noble friend is unable to answer some of the questions I have raised, I should be most grateful if he could write to me in due course.

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to support this Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just made an important speech. I should like to pay particular tribute to Mr David Amess, the MP for Southend West, who fought so hard and over a long period to navigate this Private Member's Bill through the other place. It is rare for such Bills to survive all the obstacles that appear to arise in the other place these days. I pay tribute also to his colleagues and supporters from all parties for taking through this important Bill I hope that, with our debates in this House, we shall be able to ensure that its passage is expedited on to the statute book.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, was kind enough to refer to the role that I have played in trying to deal with the problem of fuel poverty. It is an issue in which I have been involved for many years, going back to 1983, when I joined what is now known as National Energy Action, the charity concerned with fuel poverty.

I am delighted that the Government have put this problem on the map. They have made sure that the term is fully understood, even though it was not used until recently. Indeed, when I tried some months ago to place a Question on the Order Paper in relation to fuel poverty, I was asked by the House authorities what I meant by it. Now people understand what is meant by fuel poverty.

The Government have gone further than that and introduced a number of measures—the new HITS scheme and others—which will help to resolve the problem. However, even taking into account all the measures the Government have introduced so far, it could be many years before the problem is fully dealt with. That is what makes this Bill so appropriate and timely. It acts as a kind of coping stone for the efforts that the Government have already undertaken.

The Bill does one very important thing—it lays down the time-scale within which this process must be completed. Personally, I think that the period of not longer than 15 years is too long. I would hope that a programme and strategy devised in accordance with the proposals in the Bill could be so worked out that we could deal with this problem within a decade. If we were to work on the basis of improving 500,000 homes which are affected by fuel poverty per year, that would just about do it, on the assumption that the figure of 5 million is correct. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Government when they prepare the strategy.

Unfortunately, in Britain we have one of the poorest housing stocks among developed countries. We have a housing stock which, generally speaking, is much older than that in other countries. Some 45 per cent of the housing here is more than 50 years old—that is nearly half of the homes in Britain—as compared with 39 per cent in France, 30 per cent in Germany and 24 per cent in the USA. The latest House Condition Survey shows that a high proportion of houses are in need of urgent and fundamental repair. Some 4 million homes out of 20 million require urgent attention.

Unfortunately, those who live in these ill repaired and older homes are those who suffer from fuel poverty and, in large measure, are elderly people. This is a very serious social phenomenon. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, rightly pointed out, the problem of fuel poverty results from a combination of low incomes, poor housing, inadequate heating systems and inadequate insulation. These are all the elements with which the new strategy has to deal.

I lend my full support to the Bill. I hope that it will go through its stages as quickly as possible. This leads to the problem to which the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Prys-Davies referred—namely, the issue raised by the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It is rightly concerned about the use of negative regulation in relation to the wide powers given to the Government in the Bill to define fuel poverty. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, pointed out, at one extreme they could, by redefinition, bring all the households in Britain into fuel poverty, or take them all out.

That is obviously an unsatisfactory situation. I have no doubt that it has not entered the mind of the Government that they should do any such thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point. It would have been better if, as the Select Committee recommended, we could have amended the Bill to correct this anomaly. But circumstances are against us. It is a Private Member's Bill, and if we amend it and send it back to the other place, there is a serious risk—indeed, I have been assured a virtual certainty—that it would fall. Perhaps the Minister will give the House his views on that issue. If the Bill were to fail, the damage done would be far in excess of any amendment that we might introduce.

It is very important that we exercise our judgment in this matter, as we are invited so to do by the Select Committee. I hope that we decide to move in such a way as to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book. That is of vital importance. It would help if we had suitable reassurances from the Minister as to the Government's intention with regard to the wide powers they will be given under the Bill.

My Lords, I, too, wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for introducing the Bill, which I warmly and wholeheartedly welcome. I hope that it will be given an enthusiastic reception. I also hope that your Lordships will take the hint contained in the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, resist any impulse to table amendments, despite the fact that, in an ideal world, the Bill would be amended. It is very much better to have the Bill unamended than not to have it at all. In view of the tightness of time and the desirability of getting these helpful provisions on the statute book, we should give the Bill a fair wind.

The issue of fuel poverty is very real and pressing. If even 20 per cent of households have serious difficulty in maintaining adequate standards of warmth, the total of misery and suffering must be very great indeed. While I recognise the valuable and increased help given by the Government to older people, very many of those suffering from fuel poverty are not the elderly but poor families, with children, living on benefits in accommodation which is chronically damp, draughty and lacking any proper insulation—and very often lacking good heating provision.

We confront a major energy crisis. On the one hand, people need more warmth. That, on the face of it, seems to demand more energy to provide the warmth. On the other hand, we must reduce energy consumption if we are even to begin to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets set out so convincingly in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Energy: the Changing Climate. If we are to meet the needs of those suffering from fuel poverty, and, at the same time, to pursue a coherent and consistent policy of the most stringent economy in energy use, there must above all be a clear concentration on energy efficiency. That is set out in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. This will require a combination of the provision of the most efficient possible forms of heating—most of the poorest households currently depend on very inefficient forms of heating—and, above all, realistic energy conservation measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, we have a chronic problem in this country of energy inefficient housing stock.

The Bill would place on Government and local authorities the duty to make proper use of existing powers. The Royal Commission report refers to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which requires United Kingdom local housing authorities to draw up strategies for cost effectively raising the energy efficiency of private and public housing in their areas. The target is a 30 per cent reduction in household energy use by 2011, although little or no extra resourcing was provided to local authorities to help them to meet that target. Most local authorities devote less than half of one officer's time to implementing this energy efficiency strategy—which is something of a disgrace It is hardly surprising that so little progress is being made—not least because local authorities have no means of accurately measuring household energy consumption.

I hope that the passage of this Bill may be a further important factor in encouraging more vigorous and purposeful progress in working towards that energy reduction target. But the primary objective of the Bill must be to relieve the present suffering from fuel poverty. To that end, we need a government commitment to specific subsidies for the most energy-efficient heating systems: to the vigorous pursuit of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, with payments for energy saving and heat conserving measures for those receiving state benefits because of low incomes or disability. I welcome the proposed increase in expenditure on this scheme from £75 million in 1999–2000 to £175 million in the year 2001–02. I support the Royal Commission's suggestion that doctors should be able to put forward the names of their patients for prompt attention under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme if they feel that the health of those patients is particularly at risk from fuel poverty.

I should welcome clarification from the Minister on how exactly the provisions of the Bill will relate to, and interact with, the existing legislative measures that I have mentioned and other relevant provisions. What we need above all is a means of tackling in a quick, effective and coherent way—I support the target of 10 years suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rather than 15—the urgent and distressing problem of fuel poverty, but at the same time addressing the equally urgent need for energy conservation and a reduction in overall energy consumption. I very much hope that equal importance will be given to each of those vital objectives.

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to participate in this Second Reading debate. I congratulate the Bill's sponsors and supporters on their long and tireless campaign to raise the political profile of the scandal of British people dying of cold in the 21st century. The issue, nothing less than a scandal—as has been eloquently stated—did not receive the attention that it deserved until recently. I am pleased that the Government have been able to respond positively to the Bill and to the issue of enabling people to have warmer homes.

I must declare an interest as the recently retired director-general of Age Concern. The House will know of that organisation's work to support efforts to eradicate fuel poverty. It is quite clear why that has been, and remains, the case. I remember only too well having to go into TV studios throughout the winter, and particularly at Christmas-time, year after year when a cold snap caused havoc to appeal to vulnerable older people to wrap up warmly and turn up the heating. They should not have to do that. Rather, they, and indeed younger families in fuel poverty, should be able to live in more energy-efficient housing and be able to afford their lower fuel bills.

The statistics have already been mentioned. What is clear is that older people are generally the greatest victims of the cold. In 1998, there were 352 deaths in the UK the records of which specifically mention hypothermia as the main or contributory cause of death. Nearly 300 of those were of people aged 60 or under. Cold-related diseases account for a huge number of the recorded deaths that make up our appalling excess winter death rates. Two things are clear. First, for every one degree centigrade fall in average winter temperature, there are as many as 8,000 additional deaths, the vast majority among older people. Secondly, there must be a problem in the UK if our excess winter death rate is so much higher than that in colder countries such as Sweden, where it is calculated on a similar basis. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Of course, older people tend to live in the worst quality housing, often owner occupied, but ill-maintained. They are often relatively "asset rich" but are also often "income poor". The most recent figures show that the poorest single pensioners spend up to 18 per cent of their income on fuel, compared to an average of about 5 per cent. The situation has not improved much over the past 20 years, since Malcolrn Wicks, the honourable Member in another place, now a DfEE Minister, wrote his influential book, Old and Cold. But things are beginning to look rosier now, thank goodness.

That is why the Government's commitment genuinely to tackle fuel poverty and to develop a strategy is welcome. I look forward to its publication by Christmas. I know that the Bill does not take us much further forward because much of the work is under way and is not dependent on the Bill's passage. However, the measure is welcome in that the Government should have a legislative framework in place setting out the requirements placed on government to devise a strategy and to implement it by 2016.

But there is much more to do. I have welcomed the improvements to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). The new HEES will go some way to helping more older people. However, it will not eradicate fuel poverty on its own. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, 2016 is a long time away for an 80 year-old person living in a cold, damp house.

The winter fuel payment is now a significant amount, at £150 a year. Most older people welcome this recognition that they spend, and need to spend, more of their income on fuel than the rest of the population. Many older people need this money but, frankly, many do not; and more to the point, many do not use it on fuel. Many give it to charities such as Help the Aged.

There has been a separate debate about whether or not the money spent on the winter fuel payment should be rolled into the state pension or paid weekly. I sometimes ponder on the additional resources that could be ploughed back into affordable warmth schemes for those who need them more if the payment were to be taxed. Only about one-third of pensioners pay any tax at all, which means that the richest pensioners benefit by up to 40 per cent more from the winter payment than the poorest two-thirds of pensioners who do not pay tax. Will the Minister tell the House how much more there would be to spend if the winter payment were to be taxed?

However, the real point regarding the winter payment is that the sum spent by the Government, now over £1 billion a year, should be better guaranteed to be spent on providing warmer homes. I therefore seek reassurance that those who hold the purse strings will not say to the Minister, "Well, we spend billions on the fuel payment and now we've got the warm homes Act, so we have sorted out the problem", because the job is not done. To sort the matter out we must also spend money on housing, improving it so that it is more energy efficient. We must get rid of inefficient electric bar heaters, draughty windows, and so on.

The Bill offers a framework, but it is for the Government to deliver—preferably well within the 15-year period written in to the Bill. Once again, I congratulate the noble Lord on piloting the Bill through this House.

My Lords, I shall be brief. I endorse the aims of the Bill and the support of my party for it. I remember when I was very active in these matters in the Liberal Party, and other Liberal Members will probably remember the late Dr Geoffrey Taylor, from the West Country, who campaigned on this issue and whose figures for the aged who died of hypothermia were horrifying; they were much challenged and derided at the time but were subsequently proved to be true. This measure is long overdue.

As we have heard, the Bill is flawed and should be amended. I agree with those who say that it is ridiculous that we should not have the opportunity to do so. Nevertheless, in my 30-odd years in this House I have helped, or sometimes tried to stop (although I did not succeed), the passage of Bills which were a great deal more flawed than this one. I am not at all sure that I am not presently in the process of helping to pass laws that are considerably more flawed than the Bill now before us.

We should not let anything interfere with our ability to get this into law as quickly as possible. As every speaker so far has said, we should ask the Government for their full co-operation in implementing the Bill when it is passed, thereby ensuring that we get the maximum benefit out of it in the shortest possible time.

My Lords, it is quite clear from all the speeches that have been made this morning that this is a very worthy Bill; indeed, there is no question about that in anyone's mind. But, as I am speaking in the gap of this debate, it would be wrong to reiterate the arguments as to why that is so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I should like to draw attention to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which highlights the fact that Clause 1(2)(b) produces a mega "naughty": it is a Henry VIII clause par excellence.

Under normal circumstances we would not allow this to happen, but these are not normal circumstances. I calculate that there is a maximum of five-and-a-half weeks to the end of this Session. There is no more Private Members' time left in another place. However, where there is a will there must be a way. There is provision for the Government to make time to correct what I regard as a major "naughty" in another place, if they have the will to do so. There is also the opportunity to have a "No. 2" Bill, which I am sure, with the agreement of your Lordships, would go through this place with the speed of light. It could then be left to another place to decide which of the two Bills was right and preferable. I have no doubt that a No. 2 Bill correcting the catch-22 situation as regards regulations from the negative resolution procedure to the affirmative procedure would also pass speedily through the other place.

However, I suspect that the Government do not have the will. That is the real crux of the problem. So what lessons can be learnt for the future? The lesson that I propose to put to your Lordships is a little radical but not terribly so. We have set up a successful and very well respected Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It has come to be respected by governments of all colours—and quite rightly so. It is even respected in another place which is not always so when we try to do our work in this House.

In order to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again, I suggest to your Lordships that we consider most thoroughly amending the standing orders of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation so that it can look at Private Members' Bills that are going through another place and give a view upon them. I accept that that is a radical idea; I accept that it is different; and I accept that it is, perhaps, a little eccentric. But none the less, I believe that the usual channels in both Houses ought to consider my suggestion very seriously.

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, on introducing this Bill. I also congratulate him on his good exposition of the human misery surrounding the need for the Bill and its importance to us and to many elderly people. I, too, give the Bill a very warm welcome. I extend my congratulations to those who have worked so hard to get the measure to this stage, especially the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which has campaigned on these issues over a number of years. I know from personal experience how difficult the road of a Private Member's Bill can be. I successfully piloted the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in another place. Incidentally, noble Lords may be interested to know that I wanted to call it the "Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill", but the Clerks in the other place told me that I could not possibly have such a title because it was a piece of legislation, not a campaign. I leave noble Lords to think about that.

Why do people campaign so hard through the tortuous process of the Private Member's Bill system on these issues? We have heard from several noble Lords that many people are appalled at the scandal of poverty, and, indeed, the ill health and the deaths that surround it. However, as we have also heard today, people are equally concerned about the sustainability of our planet.

We on these Benches strongly believe that the environment is not just something that we inherit from our parents: it is something that we must protect and improve for future generations. We believe that good health and a clean environment promote freedom and justice by ensuring that people are able to make the most of their life chances regardless of their background or their financial circumstances.

There are many who share that opinion; indeed, the Government have expressed a similar view, especially when talking about social inclusion. However, as noble Lords have pointed out, the sad fact is that on energy efficiency in homes and on fuel poverty, they have been rather slow to tackle the issues comprehensively. That is why it has been left to other organisations and to Back-Benchers in Parliament to take up such issues. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others, this is often not a very satisfactory way of dealing with major problems. The Bill has encountered difficulties during its parliamentary process. That would not have happened if the Government had been prepared—and this also applies to previous governments—to draw up important environmental legislation. Other noble Lords have echoed those sentiments.

There has been strong criticism from Parliament's own Select Committee on Environmental Audit, to which reference has been made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford talked about the 22nd Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Energy — the Changing Climate, which was particularly critical of the Government. I shall highlight just two points from the report. First, it said that,

"UK governments have never pursued an integrated and coherent energy policy".

Secondly, on the issue that this Bill seeks to tackle, the report said that,

"there is a pressing need for further expansion of government programmes for raising energy efficiency and increasing warmth in low income homes, going beyond the existing … schemes".

My noble friend Lord Ezra backed up that particular point.

Many noble Lords have outlined the human misery caused by cold, damp homes. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, pointed out the fact that there are problems every winter for elderly people, while my noble friend Lord Ezra drew to our attention the problems associated with poor housing stock which surround the whole issue. Other noble Lords made similar points. We can understand the urgent need for action in this area and why so many people, despite their reservations about how this legislation has come forward, are urging both the Government and noble Lords to go against their instincts and ensure that the Bill gets through. I agree that this partly depends on whether the Government have the will to take such action. The process is not insurmountable if the Government want to do something about ensuring that the Bill is more perfect legally than is the case at present. However, I hope that that will not prevent our getting it on to the statute book.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also mentioned the Home Energy Conservation Act, I agree that that Act has not fulfilled its potential However, it can, with this Bill, play an important role in tackling the problems of fuel poverty.

I am pleased, however, that the Government have recently considered how we can improve local authority performance. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, part of the problem is resources. That is particularly the case for hard pressed local authorities. However, it is short-sighted not to invest in this area. Investment now will save money in the future, will create jobs and will stop the dreadful scandal of people dying every winter.

I believe that the Government could do much to assist. One of the provisions of the Home Energy Conservation Act is to provide statistics on the location of cold homes. That enables us to target resources effectively. If the Government gather data through the national census, appropriate questions need to be asked to enable us to obtain the information that is required.

I hope that the Bill will be enacted speedily. Within a year of its enactment—I sincerely hope that it occurs well within that year—the Government will be required to draw up a strategy to end the fuel poverty scandal that we know exists in at least 5 million homes. Like others, I believe that the target date of 15 years mentioned in the Bill is far too long. I hope that the resources will be made available to achieve the target date within 10 years.

As I say, I hope that the Bill will be enacted speedily. The breadth of contributions made today in support of the Bill show how important it is, how much support it has, and how urgently it is needed.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich on introducing the Bill so ably on behalf of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree. It is particularly fortunate that my noble friend Lord McColl should introduce the Bill as, with his medical knowledge, he adds to the strength of the arguments made in favour of it. I also congratulate my honourable friend Mr David Amess on having steered the Bill through the other place.

The merits of the Bill have been thoroughly explained by my noble friend Lord McColl and others. Therefore I shall not comment further on that. However, suffice to say that we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the Bill. I join others in congratulating all those organisations that have helped in preparing the Bill and getting it this far. However, yet again, we in this House find ourselves in an unsatisfactory position vis-a-vis a Private Member's Bill. Not for the first time we are told in no uncertain terms that if we amend the Bill it will be lost due to a lack of parliamentary time in another place. It is certainly not the first time I have been involved in a Bill where that has happened. A couple of years ago I believe that we were told that we could not even have a Committee stage in this House for fear of losing a Bill.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, suggest that the other place should arrange its affairs in order to find time late in a Session to consider amendments made in your Lordships' House to Private Member's Bills. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory that the final day for consideration of Private Member's Bills occurs towards the end of July. Yet we are still taking a Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill in this House in October in the knowledge that if we seek to amend it it will be lost. The situation is all the more unsatisfactory when our own delegated powers committee makes such strong recommendations for amendments and states that if it were a government Bill it would insist on those amendments being made. In normal circumstances this House would always wish to abide by the recommendations of our committee as it has such a high reputation. The committee states:

"We would, however, understand why, in the case of a benignly intentioned bill such as this, the House of Lords might feel compelled to stifle its protests and let the bill pass unamended".

That is certainly what I propose to do. However, as I said, the position is unsatisfactory.

My noble friend Lord McColl asked the Government for some assurances which I hope that the Minister will be able to give. Ideally we should be able to amend the Bill in Committee in this Chamber and the Government should provide time in another place for those amendments to be considered. Is there any chance at this late stage that that might happen? Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will make time available in the other place for that to occur? If the answer is no, as I suspect it will be, I ask the Government for a further assurance. If we pass the Bill unamended, will the Government at the first available opportunity when another suitable Bill is introduced, amend this Bill to take account of the Committee's recommendations? I do not know when another suitable Bill might be introduced. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that the Government would then take the opportunity to amend this Bill to take account of the Select Committee's recommendations.

As I said earlier, we support the Bill. I again congratulate my noble friend and my honourable friend Mr David Amess. I shall certainly not stand in the way of the enactment of the Bill.

My Lords, I also thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for introducing the Bill in this House. As he indicated, it is an important Bill in terms of improving energy conservation and energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty. He spoke of the dire problems that are engendered by people who are cold in winter; namely, deaths, serious illness and pressures on the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, illustrated graphically the problems that the Bill is designed to tackle. I also praise the efforts of Mr David Amess and the enthusiastic support for the Bill from people of all parties. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, mentioned his own party and the Liberal Party. There is also fairly enthusiastic support for the Bill from the Labour Party and from noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber present today. Perhaps even more importantly, there is support from those bodies which have campaigned for the Bill and the strategy that it will deliver.

As I say, the Bill has widespread support. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said about the title of the Bill. I am gratified that the authorities in this House seem a little more "user friendly" than perhaps was the case in another place in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that we now understand the issue of fuel poverty. The Government certainly do and have pledged to put warm homes and tackling fuel poverty at the centre of our strategy on the environment and social policy. Research indicates that cold homes are the major domestic health hazard and that tackling fuel poverty requires improvements in the energy efficiency of vulnerable households. We are determined to tackle fuel poverty, and to do so on the lines of this Bill.

The Bill seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for reducing fuel poverty and to set a target date by which as far as reasonably practicable persons in England and Wales do not live in fuel poverty. That is a worthy and necessary aim. As noble Lords said, at least 4.3 million households were estimated to be experiencing fuel poverty as at 1996.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and others raised issues of definition and numbers. It depends to some extent on how one defines fuel poverty but there is a fair degree of consensus on how this should be approached. The 4.3 million figure comes out of the English House Condition Survey 1996. The Government's consultation document on the new homes energy efficiency scheme highlighted some of the technical issues surrounding a definition and, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, the identification of numbers was not so complete in Wales as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The Inter-Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty, which I chair jointly with my right honourable friend Helen Liddell, is considering some of these technical issues. It is in that context rather than under any major revision of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that we might define everyone or no one as being in fuel poverty. Any minor change in the definition would he within those constraints. The general phrase on the face of the Bill addresses three important issues in relation to strategy. First, it provides an immediate framework for the preparation of a strategy with the flexibility to explore freely and agree the most appropriate definition within those terms after proper consultation. I can reassure the noble Lord that that would require widespread consultation.

Secondly, it avoids tying a fuel poverty strategy to an absolute once-and-for-all definition, but again within the confines to which I have referred. Finally, some have argued that inclusion of a final definition in the Bill would pre-empt the conclusions on the strategy itself.

Having said that, I am clearly implying that noble Lords should not be as concerned as some may be and as perhaps may be the interpretation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in relation to Clause 1(2)(b) which provides power to substitute the definition of fuel poverty. Once the strategy has been published, it is intended that there should not be further opportunity to amend the aim or goals established under Clause 1 of the Bill. We intend to ensure that that is achieved by a careful drafting of our aim and strategy and, in doing so, intend to prevent any future attempt to frustrate the aims of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, hinted, we intend to produce that strategy within a very few months.

We also need to bear in mind the wide-ranging nature of that strategy. Fuel poverty arises from a combination of low incomes on the one hand, poorly insulated housing on the other, and expensive or inadequate heating systems. Under-occupation of houses can be an issue, in particular for single, elderly people in the private sector. It is, therefore, a complex equation. However, the Government do not think that it is right that households which suffer from fuel poverty have themselves to make choices between being warm and well and sacrificing spending on other pressing priorities. That is why we are committed to tackling fuel poverty.

We have begun with a number of policies—for example, the reduction of the level of VAT on fuel and energy efficiency materials supplied through government schemes. People can now afford to provide adequate heating within their homes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we have also developed the new home energy efficiency schemes with grants of up to £2,000 and comprehensive packages of heating and insulation improvements now available to households which are most at risk to cold-related ill health—the elderly, families on low income, the disabled and chronically sick. We have introduced and subsequently increased the winter fuel payments for pensioners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, indicated, there are some controversial issues surrounding that. Nevertheless, I was gratified to hear today that most pensioners welcome provision of help in that form. More broadly, we have provided substantial help to local authorities to improve the quality of their own stock in the social sector generally. Within that there is clearly an energy efficiency dimension.

Those developments, and many others, form part of a comprehensive drive to tackle fuel poverty. It will form part of the strategy arising from the Bill. I have the privilege to chair jointly the Inter-Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty. That body also includes representatives from the devolved administrations. Together we are considering the impact of all government programmes designed to tackle fuel poverty. We seek to develop a more accurate picture of how quickly the issue can be addressed and at what cost, and to publish a strategy setting out the Government's fuel poverty objectives, how they will be achieved, what legislation and other means we should need to tackle them and identify some of the resources required and the timescale. In that context the shorter timescale than the 15 years provided in the Bill will be considered.

To a great extent, therefore, the Bill mirrors what the Government were already doing. Nevertheless, the Bill is needed because it will have the effect of enshrining in law the proposals in that strategy and make them central to the Government's programme, ensuring that the most vulnerable households need no longer risk ill health due to a cold home.

The merits and substance of the Bill are agreed on all sides of this House and in another place. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies raised two issues. One was echoed by many noble Lords. The first relates to Wales and the devolved administrations. The National Assembly for Wales and other devolved administrations are represented on the inter-ministerial strategy committee. The Bill provides for the Assembly to define fuel poverty in a different way should it so choose and to specify a comprehensive package of measures which may well be different in Wales from England. That is an inescapable consequence of having devolved administrations with the ability to make their own regulations. The idea of the inter-ministerial group is that the strategies pursued in the four countries would to a large extent dovetail to meet the overall objectives. But they may well be somewhat different in each of the countries. As my noble friend is aware, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland the mixture of housing is different from that in England in terms of type of tenure and, to some extent, age of stock. There may well be good reason for some differences of approach by the devolved administrations. However, they will all be brought together within the overall strategy.

The clearance for the procedure reflected in the Bill in relation to the National Assembly for Wales was through normally agreed procedures with the Assembly on the basis on which we now deal with these matters with the devolved administration.

Almost all noble Lords raised the issue of the regulation-making power in Clause 1(2)(b) and the comments of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee describes this Private Member's Bill as benignly intentioned with,

"widespread support and the potential to affect the well-being of very many people".

That is a view clearly shared in the House today. For that reason, the committee would understand were the House to decide to give the Bill passage unamended to the benefit of millions of households whose interests would be safeguarded by the Bill. The Government are already drawing up a strategy. The consultation draft will be published shortly. That will include references on the definition. Any subsequent change in the definition under Clause 1(2)(b) would not alter that commitment and would be within the context of that document.

I appreciate that in other circumstances we might wish to amend the Bill, but I also recognise the situation that we are in. I agree that it is not the most satisfactory situation but it is not unprecedented. I could not possibly comment on any current Bills to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, might have been referring, but it is not unknown for the House to approve Bills that are not 100 per cent satisfactory but whose overwhelming effects would be positive and benign. The same may apply to one or two Bills that did not produce such obviously positive effects. I therefore join those who suggest that, despite the issues drawn to our attention by the Select Committee, we should pass the Bill unamended.

Some of the comments that have been made are not proper for the House to discuss, let alone for a Minister to make a serious response on, because they relate to procedure in another place. Were the boot to be on the other foot, we would resent any suggestion by another place that they should override or make forceful proposals to this place as to how we should proceed. It is accepted procedure that at the start of a parliamentary Session the other place agrees on a finite number of days for discussing Private Member's Bills. The last of those days has passed, so the logical conclusion is that were the Bill to be amended in your Lordships' House, it would fall this Session. It would be sensible for us to recognise that and to pass the Bill unamended.

It would not be appropriate to go further than that on procedures in another place. I hope that the House hears what I am saying and passes the Bill unamended, to the benefit of the millions who currently suffer from fuel poverty in our country.

My Lords, I asked the Minister for an assurance, not concerning another place, that if the Government had a suitable legislative opportunity in a future Session they would amend the Bill, which would by then be an Act.

My Lords, I am being asked to do all sorts of improper things this morning. It is not convention to anticipate the contents of a future Queen's Speech. I fear that I can go no further than that today.

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this helpful debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for putting so clearly the problem that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation set out. I am reassured and encouraged by the Minister's comments.

I like the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we should get a move on and aim to improve 500,000 houses a year. That is a great idea, which was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who has done so much work over the years with Age Concern.

As a member of the medical profession, I also very much liked the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that doctors should be empowered to put forward names and have some influence on the issue.

It may be improper of me, but I also very much liked the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that there should be some interaction to enable the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to look informally—and, of course, with great tact—at Private Members' Bills earlier in their passage, perhaps between the Commons Committee and Report stages.

Finally, I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Biodiversity in the European Union Final Report: International Issues (22nd Report, Session 1998–99, HL Paper 119).

My Lords, apart from having been a member of the sub-committee which produced the report, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a member of the North West Regional Committee of the National Trust. I am also a member of organisations such as Friends of the Earth, CPRE and others.

I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for giving us the opportunity to debate the report. I start by underlining what he said about the leadership that we received from the chair in the form of Lord Cranbrook. He brought to the work not only an intellectual and emotional commitment which was outstanding but, of course, a lifetime of experience. I believe that this House will miss him badly in its future deliberations.

It was also right of the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, to underline the work of the Clerk who disciplined us in a gentle way into concentrating on producing the report. Again, I believe that he brought to the committee not only his professionalism but his love of the countryside—which I happen to know on a personal level is very deep—and his real understanding of some of the issues with which we were dealing.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, in saying that it is very good to see my noble friend the Minister on the Bench today. His stamina and the style which he manages to maintain at all hours of the day and night in dealing with the prolonged consideration of the countryside Bill are, I believe, a challenge to us all.

I hope that the House will forgive me if, in my approach, I simply underline some of the salient points. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, concentrated on the international issues, I shall underline some of the implications for the United Kingdom. I believe that it is very important that in our approach to the European Union and, indeed, to the wider world we operate on a basis of "do as we do" rather than "do as we say".

At the start, I underline that in my view there is absolutely no room for complacency. The World Wide Fund for Nature estimates that more than half of the sites of special scientific interest have deteriorated as a result of years of damage, destruction and neglect. More than 20 such sites have been damaged since the time of the Queen's Speech last year. The foundation gives examples of species for which action plans were published in 1995 but which are still declining: for example, the tree sparrow, which declined by 87 per cent between 1970 and 1998; the turtle dove, which declined by 77 per cent between 1970 and 1998; the skylark, which declined by 52 per cent from 1970 to 1998; and the water vole, which has declined by approximately 90 per cent in the past seven years.

The Woodland Trust reminded us that in the 1999 report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF, English Nature, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre and ERM, entitled The Impact of Climate Change on Wildlife, it was bluntly stated:

"Climate change is already happening and it is affecting wildlife and wildlife habitats now. It will continue and its impacts will increase. Current policies and approaches to nature conservation must be widened to cope with climate change".

Action will require the concerted commitment of a broad cross-section of Ministers and departments, not only environmental Ministers and departments. That must happen in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

It is clear that biodiversity objectives will never be achieved without a wide range of complementary policies, as the report spells out, especially in the spheres of agriculture and forestry, other countryside policy, devolved and regional planning for sustainable development, air quality, protection of the aquatic environment and fisheries policy, not to mention industry, trade, transport, defence and, of course, education. That is why a central biodiversity unit, reporting to parliamentarians in London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, is so essential.

That is also why, outside designated areas, the biodiversity action plan process should be a statutory requirement. Too often at present the process goes to the bottom of the administrative pile. Indeed, that is why the buffer zones envisaged in the habitats directive are indispensable. In my view, it is lamentable that we still do not have such buffer zones in the United Kingdom.

It is obvious that the battle for biodiversity will never be won on the basis of isolated sites of commitment alone. Having said that, nature conservancy must invariably be an explicit statutory purpose of the SSSIs themselves.

More generally—and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, dwelt on this—there is a desperate need in the countryside as a whole, throughout Europe and the world, to take far more seriously than we do the regulation of four-wheel driving, motorcycle scrambling, the use of mountain bikes and the behaviour of walkers with dogs not under proper control. All those activities can wreak havoc on conservation and biodiversity. Certainly, all European Union directives should be examined to establish their potential for protecting and enhancing conservation and biodiversity.

With regard to Natura 2000 sites, much more data are urgently required; the report emphasises that. Reliable data are essential to good decision-making. Here, I am certain that NGOs, well demonstrated by the WWF and the RSPB, have a vital part to play in gathering and helping to assess such data. But for the Natura 2000 network, the percentage of national territory so designated is not a convincing measure of site designation. Instead, I suggest that it should be the percentage of relevant habitat which is protected, and, of course, the report makes that point.

A far-reaching issue is the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Farmed land accounts for some 75 per cent of the United Kingdom land area. Agricultural policy and practice have tremendous significance for our countryside and biodiversity. The common agricultural policy has been a disaster. Over-grazing on our uplands is a nightmare.

The discipline is not just to accommodate the importance of environmental considerations in our agriculture but to achieve a change of mindset by which agriculture becomes seen as part of our total management of the environment. Government and European policy and financial support should be geared to that, and fast. Our farmers must become the vanguard of the battle for biodiversity, the environment and, indeed, for any kind of worthwhile future for our children and grandchildren.

We should be open to indictment as half-hearted were we to concentrate on biodiversity on land to the exclusion of the maritime environment. The British Isles are home to an extraordinary array of marine biodiversity. Within our 12-mile limit, let alone any 200 nautical mile economic zone, there is an area equivalent to 70 per cent of the land surface of the United Kingdom and there are at least 8,000 species of marine organisms within those waters.

It has been estimated that 50 per cent of the United Kingdom's biodiversity is found in the seas. Effective commitment to the preservation and enhancement of biodiversity in that marine dimension is disturbingly lacking in the policy commitments of both the European Union and successive British governments. The common fisheries policy has proved impotent, if not downright counterproductive, in that respect.

The maritime dimension, therefore, must be addressed without delay. What is really required is for legislation to be announced in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. However, with a sense of caution, lest that does not happen, the very least we can do is to make a firm beginning in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill currently before this House. The Bill has as one of its stated purposes,

"to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife".

That is why I believe that Amendment No. 536AA to that Bill is so critically important, putting, as it does, a statutory responsibility on government for action in the maritime area.

In conclusion, I have argued that the battle will not be won on the basis of isolated sites and that a national integrated approach is essential. But, in fact, it must be a global, international approach. For a start, as we move towards enlargement of the European Union, we must insist that the concerns expressed in the report are taken seriously by candidate member countries. At present, the evidence of that is scarce. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that that will change.

My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for taking the place of—and I hope I can still describe him as such—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who chaired this committee. Were he still with us, he would have fulfilled the role of introducing this debate.

I can speak of the great experience and expertise of Lord Cranbrook because one interest I should declare is that I was chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for five years. At that time, Lord Cranbrook was chairman of English Nature. He was quite the greatest expert in our midst on European Union matters concerned with nature conservation and biodiversity.

Therefore, I wondered why on earth it was necessary to have a specialist adviser when the chairman was, quite frankly, the greatest expert. I should have thought that the specialist adviser held something of a sinecure. Having said that, I know the specialist adviser and recognise the practical contribution he would have made.

Having declared a past interest as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, I should also declare an interest as a farmer and as vice-president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I also have a number of other conservation interests.

Since the report was produced by the Select Committee, as a report of Sub-Committee C, there has been a shuffle of responsibilities in the sense that Sub-Committee D, which was previously concerned with agriculture and food, has now assumed responsibility for the remit of sub-committee C; that is, environment, public health and consumer protection. Although I now chair Sub-Committee D, I am not prepared to concede that that is necessarily the best of all possible solutions as to how the Select Committee can cover the full range of responsibility. But I must admit that in relation to European Union policies on biodiversity, there is a great deal of logic in bringing together agriculture, environment and the fisheries, for reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has reminded us. But without having effective agriculture or fisheries policies, there will very quickly be an impinging on biodiversity.

Other noble Lords who have spoken have already reminded us that on Monday of next week, we are about to launch ourselves into Part III of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I am one of those who has been waiting impatiently to reach that part of the Bill, which I consider to be the most important. We have waited 20 years for what is really of quite critical importance to wildlife and conservation in this country. I must be careful not to anticipate the debate, but this report—and particularly the interim part of it which was published earlier—urges that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales should be given improved powers of protection and management of designated sites. That includes sites of European status as well as those of UK status. We recognise that the requirement for improved protection, which is spelt out in the interim report, is, indeed, addressed in part at least by the Bill. I shall not anticipate the debate on that point.

It is clear that when we come to determine how we fulfil our responsibilities for designation at the European level—the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, reminded us that the acronyms are confusing: SPAs, SACs and the like—it has to be based on sharing data from all sources. In the United Kingdom we are, in one respect, extraordinarily fortunate. We have more data about our wildlife and habitats than most if not all other countries. That is because of the breadth of amateur interest. There are a number of people who are prepared to spend week after week monitoring birds or butterflies. I refer, for example, to members of the British Trust for Ornithology. I refer also to the research capacity of institutes such as the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, one of the stations of the Natural Environment Research Council, and many others. When all those data are put together, we have the basic data which gives us the ability not to just designate but to monitor and manage.

The problem is that, because many such records go back for many years, it has been difficult to collate the data in a manageable form. For example, when information is collected on bats, there might well be interest of geological importance which is not necessarily available when designating geological SSSIs.

It is one of the priorities of the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan to bring this widely dispersed data together. When I served on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, one of the initiatives which we set up, along with many organisations, was the National Biodiversity Network. I am delighted to see that in the four or five years since I left the JNCC, that is now up and running as a trust in its own right with 12 founder members representing institutes such as the Natural Environment Research Council, countryside agencies, the Environment Agency, the Natural History Museum and others.

This is an excellent way to ensure that United Kingdom biodiversity information needs are shared. There is still a need to develop this partnership of national systems with other national information data collection systems in the European Union. In conserving our own wildlife, all we are saying, in many respects, is that this is part of the range which extends throughout the rest of Europe. It is only when we understand the significance of wildlife in the European context that we can make best use of the data.

Now that agreement has been reached on a dedicated software tool, which has taken some time, I believe that everyone recognises how in practice this information can be collated and made accessible to all parties. There is always a danger of thinking that designation of a European network of sites of community importance—the Natura 2000 series—will solve a problem. It obviously helps, but by itself, designation does little. It does not deliver protection. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the report, which states that promoting biodiversity has major implications for community polices outside the specific field of nature conservation and protection.

In other words we cannot consider nature conservation as a watertight compartment. As has been said, we have to consider not just a nature conservation and environment policy, but agriculture, fisheries and other maritime interests, transport, industry and much else. Insofar as the European Union has policies in such respects, each and every one has to be tested for its impact on wildlife and habitat degradation or habitat enhancement. Let us be positive, from time to time.

The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, referred to the failure to take full opportunity of the agri-environmental measures. That has always been a frustration. I remember many debates and reports from the old Sub-Committee D on agri-environmental measures. It has been demonstrated that we have now a number of pilot schemes in this country and elsewhere in Europe funded modestly from the agri-environmental measures of the common agricultural policy but simply not developed as we would wish.

We often know what is needed to make commercial agriculture—by which I mean competitive agriculture, insofar as we can be competitive in northern Europe—compatible with wildlife interests. We need to keep diffuse habitats; in other words a range of habitats. Corridors for wildlife are essential. We need to retain some semi-natural areas. There must be an appropriate use of inputs.

With the changeover from spring-sown crops to a greater predominance of autumn crops, we have lost the autumn stubbles which were so important for feeding wildlife. There are fewer rough areas and we are over-grazing large tracts of the highlands. They do not amount to tinkering at the edges and having a green margin to agriculture. They amount to fundamental problems in the common agricultural policy which come back ultimately to the need to have effective economic instruments. It can be and would be done, if only the common agricultural policy could be thought through de novo. While we have to have environmental measures latched on to the side and at an inadequate level, we are missing the opportunities to which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, referred.

Finally, I refer briefly to the promotion of local biodiversity action plans. Again, I must not anticipate the debate we shall have on an amendment to Clause 3 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. The United Kingdom National Biodiversity Action Plan is an impressive document based on the commitments we made at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro. If we are to make that action plan work, we have to enlist the good will of every conceivable interested party: the land managers; local industries; schools; conservation groups; various NGOs and fishing and maritime interest organisations.

Unless people recognise that there is a light touch and there are carrots rather than sticks, I doubt whether we will ever be able to enlist the ground support. That is why I am slightly nervous about introducing too many elements of compulsion. By all means we must encourage and enlist the good will of every interested party. However, if, as the report recommends, we put the statutory responsibilities on the face of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, we must be careful that by so doing we do not in any way dissipate the good will which already exists. With that minor observation on the report, I thoroughly commend it and agree with every other aspect.

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the final report of the Select Committee on Biodiversity in the European Union and this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for introducing it. Let there be no doubt about the vital importance of this issue: it is not an optional extra; it is not the subject matter of some eccentric hobby; it is not an expendable aspect of human life. As the Rio Earth Summit statement said eight years ago:,

"Our planet's essential goods and services depend on the variety and variability of genes, species, populations and ecosystems. Biological resources feed and clothe us and provide housing, medicines and spiritual nourishment £ The current decline in biodiversity is largely the result of human activity and represents a serious threat to human development".

Recognition of the centrality of biodiversity to human flourishing and even, one might say, to human survival is fairly recent. I am glad to say that successive Lambeth Conferences—meetings every 10 years of the Bishops of the World-wide Anglican Communion—have emphasised over a long period of time the importance of biodiversity as part of the stewardship of creation entrusted to the human race. The last Lambeth Conference, which took place two years ago, was very outspoken. I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I quote one or two of the comments made in the final report. It reaffirmed the biblical vision of creation, according to which,

"Creation is a web of inter-dependent relationships bound together in the Covenant which God has established with the whole earth and with every living being the divine Spirit is sacramentally present in Creation, which is therefore to be treated with reverence, respect and gratitude: human beings are co-partners with the rest of Creation and living bridges between heaven and earth".

It went on to regret the extinction of many thousands of plant and animal species, and saw that servanthood to God's Creation is becoming the most important task facing humankind, to be tackled by people of all faiths working together to care for, look after and protect what has been entrusted to us.

I apologise to your Lordships if I speak in an evangelical way; perhaps just occasionally it should fall to those of us who sit on these Benches to strike that note. Those are statements of a confessional nature, but they rightly transcend the traditional divisions between faith communities. They may not be accepted or welcomed by everyone but they attempt to establish a theological and philosophical, as well as a scientific, basis for caring about biodiversity.

It is not difficult to portray biodiversity enthusiasts as tiresome people wanting to impose restrictions, regulations and prohibitions on the legitimate freedom and variety of human activity—to take an essentially negative view of this campaign. The reality is that the campaign for biodiversity is entirely positive—an essential element in a sustainable future. It has a significant contribution to make to the local economy (through tourism and agri-environment schemes); to education (through all kinds of field activities); and to health (through a cleaner, more varied and enjoyable landscape).

It is important to recognise the significant contribution of the pioneering work of the European nations in identifying and supporting the issue of biodiversity. And I do not simply mean the European Union. It was the Council of Europe which as long ago as 1979 produced the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, a convention which had, I believe, 38 signatories. Later the European Union signed up as a corporate member and so developed the habitats and species directives and in due course the Natura 2000 proposals. Each member state is bound to work towards compliance with the directives in the identification and protection for SPAs for birds and SACs for habitats.

It must be said, and the report makes it clear, that progress has been depressingly slow. There has been a good deal of political infighting; disagreements, for example, between the Federal Government and the Länder in Germany. There have even been some difficulties with devolution within the United Kingdom. But tribute needs to be paid to the European work over more than 20 years and to the EC biodiversity strategy.

As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the sad thing is that there is a serious debit side to the European contribution. The CAP and the central fisheries policy have both seen significant reductions in biodiversity on land and at sea and the radical reform of the CAP is essential if those two fundamentally contradictory elements in EU policy are to be reconciled. Agenda 2000 cries out for more rational and coherent policies.

There have been some very encouraging developments in the enhancement of biodiversity within the United Kingdom. The strengthening of protection for SSSIs in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is a great step forward and very welcome. And so is the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan. But, as has already been said, co-operation is needed on a number of different fronts if action is to be effective—obviously from those concerned with farming and forestry. However, we also need regional and local authority commitment and the co-operation of business interests. It can be said that significant contributions from commercial firms have greatly improved biodiversity and have been much more than window dressing for PR purposes. And we need the voluntary sector, especially the nature trusts and organisations such as the CPRE and the CPRW. Here I must declare an interest as president of the CPRE in Herefordshire and a patron of the Herefordshire Nature Trust. The promised enhanced protection for AONBs will also make a positive contribution to the cause of biodiversity.

However, the UK biodiversity action plan needs statutory underpinning. I echo what has been said by other noble Lords about what we hope might be achieved in next Monday's Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. We look to the Government to signal wholehearted commitments to the biodiversity action plan in principle and legislation to back it up in practice. It is excellent that protection is now offered to candidate SPAs and SACs and that owners and occupiers must prove that any proposed new development or activity will not have a prejudicial effect on the conservation purposes for which those areas have been designated.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House some assurances about Recommendations 42 to 45 of the report about sorting out areas of responsibility for these matters and establishing proper and effective co-ordination. That seems important in this area, with the many diverse interests concerned.

Perhaps I may make a few final comments about specific issues. Recommendations 18 and 19 are about coherence and compensation. We do not want islands of biodiversity separated by wildernesses of intensive farming or abandoned land. Field boundaries are very important, and as well as hedges, which enjoy some modest and selective protection, we need protection for stone walls and field margins and we need corridors. We need consistency to link up the areas of the richest biodiversity.

We need to speed up the process of diverting financial support from product subsidy to agri-environment schemes. Although statistics can prove anything, the table on page 10 of the report makes it look as though what we are spending in this country on agri-environment programmes compares most unfavourably with what is being spent in most other European countries.

It is serious that so much overgrazing has taken place and noble Lords have referred to that. It is good that there is to be a transition from headage payments to acreage payments. However, the level of support is critical. The proposed arrangements will leave hill farmers significantly worse off, despite the transitional payments. We must be more generous if we want to achieve the continued farming of upland areas and that enhancement of biodiversity which the new arrangement is intended to deliver.

Finally, I turn to the vexed question of the misuse of land in ways which can have a devastatingly damaging impact on biodiversity, especially the increasing use of four-wheel-drive vehicles. That is not simply a matter of particular landowners giving permission for the use of particular tracts of land. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out in the Committee debate on Wednesday, we need more effective protection because owners may not care and may not be interested in the biodiversity aspect of giving permission for their land to be used in that particularly destructive way. The Government have acknowledged that problem and I very much hope that in due course they will bring to the House specific suggestions for solving it.

I reiterate the enormous importance and urgency of the need to promote and protect biodiversity. There have been some notable successes; for example, the Manor Farm Project in Yorkshire where David Bellamy issued a challenge to the farm management both to increase biodiversity and to increase farm profits. And it was achieved. That may not be possible everywhere but it is an interesting indication that it can be done. There are some encouraging sign at both European and UK level.

However, the pressures bearing down on biodiversity, the ruthless processes of globalisation and commercialisation and the sheer increase in population are very powerful factors working to reduce biodiversity. We look to the Government to be absolutely committed to the cause of biodiversity in their priorities, legislative measures and contribution to educating and encouraging people to care more about these issues which are, in the profoundest sense of the phrase, for the common good.

My Lords, I, too, want to begin by commending the members of the committee for producing the report. It is readable, understandable and, above all, short. That is quite an achievement, considering the complexity of the information. I am aware that when debating biodiversity it is easy to become side-tracked and talk about smaller issues such as the curious success of the ruddy duck. But to focus on the larger issues, as the report does in such a readable format, is a success.

As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, one of the problems in this country is not so much the mapping of biodiversity but the fact that it is continually under pressure and stress and is being destroyed. A number of speakers have pointed out that one reason for this—it is a mantra that becomes increasingly desperate each year—is CAP reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, pointed out, the opportunity was missed on the previous occasion that CAP was considered. The pace of reform of the CAP indicates that perhaps we shall not have significant reform for decades.

Like the report, I should like to focus on the biodiversity action plan. The report comes up with some rather nice three-letter abbreviations (or TLAs as they were called in the Territorial Army); for example, SACs (special areas of conservation) and SPAs (special protection areas). It is always helpful when they are put in this format. However, the proliferation of environmental terms and agencies meant that I had constantly to refer to the appendix to look up a large number of agencies. When I read the report I was concerned to note that some of the bodies grandly named as having certain areas of responsibility did not cover them at all.

One of the issues raised in the debate is whether the biodiversity action plan should have a statutory basis. While I understand the past sentiment of the Government that the plan should have a voluntary basis so as to get the generous support of many organisations, which would not be as keen to assist on a mandatory basis, I refer to one of the drawbacks of the present situation in Wales. In recent years the Countryside Council for Wales has been operating under a frozen budget and has had to drop significant sections of its workload. The CCW has prioritised those programmes which are the subject of a statutory obligation. As a result, BAPs have not had a statutory status. Therefore, the work in Wales has been de-prioritised, which is a serious problem.

I believe that a solution may emerge on Monday when an amendment is moved to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. However, if the Minister can indicate the likely stance of the Government it may help us to decide how strenuously the amendment should be pursued.

I should like to deal with agri-environmental schemes. I declare an interest as a landowner on whose land such schemes are taking place. We on these Benches believe that agri-environmental schemes should not he seen merely as a means of replacing one form of subsidy with another. Such schemes should have clearly defined biodiversity objectives and be looked at in conjunction with other schemes. However, the agri-environment schemes are the only ones that we have at the moment. In areas where good work takes place the problems have been exacerbated by a number of bureaucratic changes, two of which I cite. First, this year farmers saw environmental payments for agricultural schemes, such as countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas, reduced by 10 per cent in line with the overall fall in cereal prices. This makes a nonsense of the environmental value of management carried out under those schemes because the costs remain constant, in particular the cost of stone-walling. My wife banned me from stone-walling because, on the previous occasion, I almost put my back out. That is a specialised, and extremely expensive, activity. At the minute, in Northumberland the cost is about £18 per yard.

Secondly, currently in environmentally sensitive areas 84 per cent of prescriptions are in tier 1. Effectively, that pays farmers not to intensify, as opposed to carrying out positive management. Therefore, that scheme has no biodiversity benefits. We need a massive expansion of uptake in the higher tiers before restoration targets for habitats, such as lowland, wetland and grassland, can be met. However, all the usual factors, including lack of resources, restrict uptake.

I have one specific question on the agri-environmental schemes: is the livestock exclusion annual payment scheme (LEAP) to be reinstated? This is a matter of particular concern because it is one of the payments that can encourage farmers to reinstate natural woodland and remove cattle and stock so that regeneration can occur.

Having spoken to a number of people about the report, it clearly defines a number of problems in the translation of the aims and objectives of European policy by the different departments, for example, MAFF and the DETR, and local statutory authorities. The report also gives an underlying indication that an associated problem is money, as highlighted by the right reverend Prelate. I should be interested to hear an indication from the Government as to whether they intend to increase the underlying funding for the reinstatement of biodiversity up to European levels.

I conclude on a positive note by referring to a matter which was dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I refer to the excellent work carried out not only by government departments and statutory authorities, such as those concerned with the national parks, but by NGOs. I am aware from the projects that are being undertaken in Northumberland that small and large NGOs, such as the RSPB, do the most work not only to monitor but to counteract some of the depletions in biodiversity.

My Lords, I open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for introducing the report today. Rather than declare an interest, I point out that I am perhaps less qualified than anyone else contributing to this debate to speak on biodiversity, having recently spent a considerable number of hours with the Minister on another Bill. It may be that I have not done as much homework on this matter as I should.

Today's debate has been extremely enlightening and interesting. I believe that both the interim and final reports have provided a good number of sound pointers. In particular, I note that there are a considerable number of areas highlighted in the report which in the view of the committee need urgent action by the Government. How many of those matters are to be dealt with in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill that the House is considering will emerge in the next week or two.

A large number of the points raised today by noble Lords were raised one way or another during our Committee stage on the Bill and there are more to come in Part III. In particular,' a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, pointed out that the recent review of the CAP was a missed opportunity. I agree and am sad to reflect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that CAP reform may still be many years away. If so, it will make the looking after of our biodiversity interests more difficult.

Habitat restoration was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and others, and we debated that at length in Committee. Again, a lot depends on the available finance—who will pay and where will the funding come from? Many noble Lords, discussed the problems of four-by-four vehicles and the destruction that they can create to the environment. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate reminded us of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the other day. I shall not go through what everybody said; many key points were repeated today, which is not surprising considering that the report is extremely objective and sets out a clear schedule. But perhaps I might just pick up on one or two points.

There needs to be some form of long-term legal underpinning of the United Kingdom's biodiversity plan. The point was well made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Judd—if I am wrong, forgive me—that public bodies can keep their priorities in relation to budgets and cash only if there is a legal underpinning. As has been said again and again, in order to maximise the contributions towards achieving the biodiversity plan, we need to involve all those concerned with land management and land ownership. It must be frustrating if one works hard for a few years with the support of a local authority or government agency and then suddenly they run short of funds. Not only does progress stop but, as we know in nature when we stop caring and maintaining, we start to go backwards. I therefore press that point on the Minister. We should expect public bodies to plan to remain involved and to keep their priorities for biodiversity plans at a high level.

Another area I should like to touch on, because it is close to my heart, is marine biodiversity. As was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, within the 12-mile limit of our shore lies 50 per cent of the United Kingdom's biodiversity. A European legal case was confirmed in the High Court which was to the effect that under EU Commission rulings, we are responsible for biodiversity up to 200 miles out to sea. It is an important area that needs to be considered. That again reflects back to debates we had on the countryside access Bill. Members of the Committee were pressing the Government that, should there be increased access to the coastal strips, it should not be a matter of regulation and in the gift of the Secretary of State of the day but an issue that should come before Parliament. That is relevant to today's debate and I therefore put a marker down there.

Another area about which I am concerned from a governmental point of view is in relation to devolution, particularly as my home is in Northern Ireland. As I understand the report and the situation in Europe, the United Kingdom as a whole has targets and objectives that it is expected to meet. The area covered is the whole of the United Kingdom, including the devolved parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland. I understand also that if we fail to meet our targets and are brought before the European Commission, we may be fined. How does the Minister intend to manage that within the devolved situation if Northern Ireland and Scotland do not pay due attention and come up to scratch with our expectations?

Perhaps I may conclude by saying that from these Benches we support further reform of the CAP—that goes without saying. We support legislation to protect wildlife. We would like to see greater protection introduced for wetland areas. We would like to see greater development controls on farmland. A great deal has been said today about the integration of biodiversity and modern agriculture, and there is clearly a great deal more to be done, whether in relation to the uplands or high pressure cereal crops and farming. But one thing that was not mentioned is that we would like to see a major emphasis and shift from future construction on the greenfield sites to the brownfield areas.

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, for introducing this debate on behalf of the Select Committee and I echo his and other noble Lords' appreciation of the work of that committee and its staff, and of our former colleague, Lord Cranbrook. This is a good report. Despite its relative brevity, a number of far-reaching but clear recommendations have been made and as the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, said, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the glossary is an important tool for those of us who plunge into this field.

Many of the recommendations in the report were, or are, being taken forward and it is noticeable that many noble Lords—not least the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—also have a deep interest in the countryside Bill. There is considerable overlap in that regard, to which we shall return on Monday.

This is a vitally important topic and I do not resent at all the right reverend Prelate taking an evangelical line today. This is something which needs proclaiming, preaching to educate and inform all members of society who might otherwise inadvertently, though sometimes deliberately, undermine the biodiversity we have in the United Kingdom and across Europe. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, we need a firm legal underpinning of our approach to biodiversity. The UK Government are working on a number of fronts. We are doing this on land at the national level through site protection and wider countryside measures and in the marine zone. Compliance with the birds and habitats directives is being achieved in collaboration with the European Commission and other European Union member states. But it involves partnerships beyond that, with the devolved administrations, with local government, the NGOs—as indicated by my noble friend Lord Judd—and of course with the wide range of people throughout the country who have a huge interest in this area, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, indicated.

On the question of devolution, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, clearly many of these matters are devolved and it is necessary for the United Kingdom to have both a coherent overall policy and to fulfil its obligations under EU and other international law. That is why we in the devolved administrations keep very much in touch on this issue, and instruments such as the biodiversity group and so on cover the United Kingdom as a whole. It is important that we all adopt broadly similar, or at least compatible, approaches to meet our obligations here.

On site protection, which is perhaps one of the main areas addressed in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring that SSSIs are fully protected. We are in the process of seeking powers in that Bill to strengthen existing measures. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the problem of deterioration of many of these sites. That can be caused by development pressures, whether industrial, housing, or agricultural, or man's total lack of consideration for the environment in which he works and takes his pleasure. It can also be caused by huge issues, such as climate change, also referred to by my noble friend.

Provisions to improve management of SSSIs is very important. It is very important to take the landowners on board in this, and many of them have a very good record in that respect. Those measures are included in Part III of the Bill. We shall probably have quite a lengthy debate on Monday on many of those issues, and I do not want to pre-empt that. The measures substantially strengthen the power of conservation agencies and provide for their more effective management.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, broadly speaking, recommendations nos. 2 to 6 and recommendation no. 21 are being directly dealt with within the Bill. A range of actions will affect some of the other recommendations, including those relating to Natura 2000, site identification and so on.

Perhaps I may try to address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, and then see if I have the time and the tolerance of noble Lords to wind up more generally. Several noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Judd, the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—identified the need for further reform of the common agricultural policy. That is certainly true. It is a view shared by all interests in this area, right through from farmers to those concerned with particular habitats and species. There has been substantial reform and we should not underestimate its effect, in particular, the creation and now our desire to strengthen the so-called second pillar of the CAP, which provides for measures to promote both rural development and environmentally friendly farming. But we will accept that there are further measures that are needed and we continue to pursue that in the EU context.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of marine conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue in various ways. The Government acknowledge that the system of marine nature reserves, put in place by the 1981 Act, has not been in some respects as successful as we had hoped it would. However, the application of a habitats directive has created a series of marine special areas of conservation and is developing management schemes for those sites. In drawing on those experiences we set up a review of marine nature conservation the year before last. The group has representatives from all interest groups and we hope to report by the end of this year. The focus is on inshore waters between the low water mark and 12 miles. But they will be taking note of developments beyond that, including changes to the SSSI which are proposed by the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.

Separate consideration of regulations for offshore waters is already under way. We hope to consult on that before the end of the year. Therefore, we recognise the need to strengthen matters in that area.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised more generally the issue of resources. Clearly, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring sufficient resourcing both to the DETR and its agencies and MAFF to enable them to play a major role in that. We believe that we are making adequate provision. For example, in the last spending review another £2 million was given to the Environment Agency for biodiversity-related projects this coming year.

Perhaps I may revert briefly to the marine side. As far as concerns the habitats directive, we are developing that beyond territorial waters. We have begun a scoping exercise which will assist in the eventual identification of sites containing, for example, reefs, deep coral and sandbanks.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords referred to the issue of biodiversity action plans, which is also an issue we shall probably debate on Monday. The UK is a signatory to the convention on biological diversity. Article 6 of the convention already requires preparation of a national strategy. In many respects, so far the voluntary approach has worked well between the Government at various levels and the voluntary sector and others. A statutory approach in some ways might put some of that at risk. Some parties might fear the implications and withdraw support and others might try to renegotiate already agreed targets. So there are dangers in moving to a statutory approach. We recognise the importance of enshrining the commitment of public bodies to integrate biodiversity into other policies. We want to reinforce that. I shall not go further than that today. As I said, we shall return to the issue on Monday.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also raised the question of the funding for the Countryside Council for Wales. We understand that additional resources have been given this year specifically to help it deliver the Natura 2000 sites. Primarily that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, but I understand that to be the position.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised the important issue of the exchange of data across the EU and the engagement of officials from this country with officials from abroad. That is very important for us. The EU Environment Director-General is looking to facilitate the exchange of data sources. A database of sources is being set up and will be accessed from the European Commission's website. But contact on all these fronts is very important and officials from my department and from the Environment Agency have over recent years spent a lot of time contacting and being engaged in joint action with many of their colleagues in other EU countries.

Consultation and contact also take place with interests within this country, particularly with conservation NGOs, currently in the context of identifying European sites. In that context, I am pleased to say that in a recent report the WWF indicated that the UK had fewer additional sites which would merit designation than most other EU states. In other words, there was already a degree of protection for most of our important sites. That is good news and it means that we can concentrate on those areas we have already identified to a large extent.

Activities on this front have to fit in with wider efforts on the countryside which the Bill and other aspects of government policy address. Efforts are being made to address this point in the wider countryside reforms and in developments under the common agricultural policy. The England rural development programme, which the Minister of Agriculture announced in October, will put another £1.6 billion into addressing the economic and environmental aspects of rural development, and enhancing biodiversity through the support of agri-environment schemes is a key aim of the EU's development dimension. I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, an immediate answer on the LEAP programme. I shall write to the noble Lord.

The report stems from the need to address the European dimension. It is particularly important to work closely with the European Commission and other member states. I have referred to the importance of the exchange of knowledge and the opportunities for scientists and officials and others active in this field to meet and exchange views. Administrators are regularly in contact on that. The challenge of enlargement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, referred in his opening remarks, needs to lead to a further assessement of biodiversity when we look beyond the current 15 members of the EU to the rest of the European continent. In many respects, some of their environment has been deeply damaged by the developments of the past 50 years, but other parts are in a better state than some of the agricultural land within western Europe. We need therefore both to restore some of the land that has suffered depredation and to ensure that whatever developments take place under the common agricultural policy when those countries become members of the EU does not lead to a depredation of the agricultural land in many of those states.

To sum up, the United Kingdom continues to play a key role in seeking to preserve European biodiversity as a whole by ensuring that nationally important sites are identified and fully protected, by identifying and protecting, at the earliest opportunity, sites of European importance, by taking forward a range of wider countryside measures and by taking steps to apply the habitats directive in the marine zone. In so doing, the United Kingdom Government and other levels of administration within the UK are helping to shape the protection needed for important species and habitats at home and abroad. We will continue to do so.

In that respect, the timely report from your Lordships' Select Committee, the recommendations that it has produced, and this debate will form a useful background to further developments of policy. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I shall check in Hansard. If there are any points that I have failed to address—I am sure that there are—I shall write to noble Lords accordingly.

My Lords, it would seem obvious to say that this has been a very good debate. I believe passionately in what the report says. I thought it was wonderful that I did not hear any dissent from it on any side of the House. That was most encouraging. It was music to my ears. One aspect of being a Cross-Bencher is that you watch these parties doing things around you and you wonder what on earth they think they are up to. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford understands me when I say that. We are all trying to go in the same direction. I do hope that on Monday we try to get in the right hole, if I may mix my golfing metaphors.

I do not want to delay the House any more than necessary but I would like to make one or two points. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for what he said. I know that water voles are disappearing rapidly. I know why. I have to declare an interest in having a cat that catches them. That was being frivolous, of course. The problem is very worrying.

I am delighted by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I was also very moved by the right reverend Prelate's speech and by the practical way in which he approached the subject. I hope to goodness that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is wrong about the CAP. Until the CAP is properly reformed, we cannot increase the size of the EU. There is no way in which the common agricultural policy can refer to the central European countries.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am worried about the devolved situation. I suggested that perhaps there are occasions when MAFF and the DETR cannot agree with each other. One has those two bodies —and four lots of them—throughout an area, which I am sure no bird would recognise as being a different country. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would know, but I do not think that many birds do—or fish for that matter. The devolved situation is slightly worrying and must be watched.

I am not quite sure whether the Minister answered all five of my questions—I shall have to read Hansardto find out—but I am sure that he will write to me. I thank him very much indeed for what he did say. After a debate which has knitted everyone together, I hope that we can get all noble Lords to continue happily with Part III on Monday.