WATER POLLUTION: EEC REPORT

HL Deb 13 October 1975 vol 364 cc721-65

6.51 p.m.

Baroness WHITE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Thirtieth Report of the European Communities Committee on Pollution of Sea and Fresh Water for Bathing (R/407/75) and on Water Pollution caused by Wood Pulp Mills (R /210/75). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should, perhaps, make it clear to your Lordships that this Motion is connected with only two draft Directives issued by the European Communities; it does not cover the possibly more controversial matter which has received a good deal of attention in the Press in the last 10 days or so, which is the entry into the acquatic environment of some particularly toxic or dangerous substances. Had we known that we were to have a reasonably long debate tonight instead of the very short time we thought was at our disposal, we might have found some way of discussing the other matter. But, as it is, we are confining ourselves to the two draft Directives covered in the Thirtieth Report of the Select Committee, and they deal only with the pollution of sea and fresh water for bathing and water pollution caused by wood pulp mills.

Those of your Lordships who have read the Thirtieth Report will realise that it is critical of the two draft Directives to which we wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House. We have asked for this debate on the first day of our return after the Recess because the Environment Ministers of the European Community are meeting later this week, I understand in Luxembourg, to consider these Directives, among other things, or rather to consider the bathing water Directive among other things; we understand that the Directive on the pulp mill effluent is likely to be considered later. We want to take this opportunity to try to spell out why we are critical of the Directives as at present drafted.

At the outset, I should like to make it crystal clear that we are entirely at one with our partners in the Community in our desire to improve the environment, I hope there will be no doubt about that. The legislative record of Her Majesty's Government over the last few years should, I think, convince anyone that the United Kingdom is not lagging behind in taking effective steps to improve the natural environment. So, my Lords, it is the method adopted, or proposed to be adopted, by our colleagues in the Community that causes us concern, not the objectives. I must emphasise this, because judging by some recent Press comments and correspondence there is obviously considerable misunderstanding, here in Britain as well as overseas, of the reasons why we consider these Directives that we are discussing tonight to be defective and why we could not advise Her Majesty's Government to accept them without significant emendation.

My noble friend Lord Ashby, a former Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, will speak with much greater scientific and technical knowledge than I can command, although I am currently a lay member of that Royal Commission. We are equally concerned with the matters of policy involved. I should, of course, make it quite clear that neither of us will be speaking on behalf of the Royal Commission, which has not formally studied these Directives, but our connection with it does at least indicate one of the reasons why we are especially concerned with the matters under review.

What we have before us, if I may take the bathing water Directive first, is only a draft and as such, of course, it is subject to discussion and improvement. But even so, my colleagues on your Lordships' Select Committee and I feel strongly that it really is a waste of everyone's time and effort when even a draft Directive is put up in what appears to us to be such an ill-digested and inadequately considered form. I understand that some useful amendments are likely to emerge later this week, but that does not, in our view, excuse sending out a draft which in its original form, which is all we have publicly before us, would have involved the United Kingdom in monitoring virtually every mile of its very extensive coastline. In the draft as it is before us we should be involved in a quite fantastic expense, by sampling at regular intervals of time every two kilometres at a certain distance from the shore, for possibly 12 months of the year, sea water in areas whether there were bathers or not, and this regardless of circumstances, from the Outer Hebrides to the Bristol Channel, from the Orkneys to the Isle of Wight. One has only to state the case to see how quite ludicrously impractical it would have been and what an absurd imbalance it would create in our pollution control expenditure—not only in money but, perhaps more importantly, in the use of trained manpower. I would hope that in future further Directives dealing with environmental matters will be more closely considered before they are issued for public debate.

This Directive is one of a series dealing with quality objectives for water according to use, the first having dealt with water for drinking purposes. This concept is, of course, sensible and entirely acceptable. But one has to define the conditions with some care, and Article 2(1) of the draft Directive with its definition of fresh and sea water in which bathing is "authorised or tolerated", simply does not fit United Kingdom conditions at all. We do not have that kind of organised beach for the most part, and anyone, if he or she wishes to do so, is perfectly free to bathe in almost every part of our coastline from New Year's Day to New Year's Eve. Nor do we have, as I have indicated, any fixed bathing season. I believe that some of the amendments which are likely to be accepted to the draft Directive will indicate that the intention is that it should apply to beaches where people customarily bathe in significant numbers. This, of course, would make a great deal more sense. I hope also that my noble friend Lady Birk will be able to indicate when she replies whether we intend to press for some seasonal time limit as well, say from mid-June to mid-September, which would make the sampling process a good deal less onerous. If some such amendments were to be made, then the scope of the Directive would be very much more manageable.

But we must then consider the quality objectives, which are the main operative part of the Directive. How are these to be judged and what is their purpose? The advice given to the Select Committee by medical experts, which conforms with the conclusions reached by the Committee which went into this matter at some length and reported in 1959, is that while we undoubtedly have beaches in the United Kingdom which would not come up to the standards proposed, their condition does not constitute a hazard to health. As Dr. R. H. G. Charles, our official witness from the Deparment of Health and Social Security put it in the printed evidence which is available to your Lordships: There does not seem to be a health risk from bathing in the sea unless contamination is of such a level that it would aesthetically be almost impossible to swim there. He was speaking, of course, of conditions in British waters, where there is always a considerable tidal flow, such as is not to be found in such areas as the Mediterranean or possibly in the Baltic.

He went on to say that there could be a considerable risk in rivers or other fresh waters. But the Directive does not seem to differentiate sufficiently between the problems in fresh water and seawater. I am aware that there are two annexes to the Directive which give conditions for fresh water and sea water respectively, but there does not seem to be any concept of the very different degree of risk which one can find in rivers or any fresh waters compared with tidal sea water.

Apart from our objection to what we consider to be the very loosely-defined scope of the Directive, which we hope will be corrected, our basic difficulty with it is that it seeks to apply uniform standards in circumstances which are widely different. Pollution which could be an intolerable addition to waters already heavily polluted as, say, the Mediterranean or the Rhine, could be tolerated without any significant ill effect on a well-swept tidal beach on the Atlantic seaboard. Why, therefore, should we be under an obligation to spend money and manpower on monitoring and cleaning up in conditions where it is certainly not necessary for health, and may not be for amenity either to any significant degree?

It is here that we part company with our European colleagues. In our pragmatic way we have achieved considerable success in recent years in pollution control, in both air and water, without involving ourselves in extra effort in areas where that extra effort simply is not warranted. We believe that it is more effective to select the areas most at risk and to concentrate one's efforts upon them.

The alternative proposed in the Directive and included, we believe, in other Directives current and forthcoming, is that of uniform standards, regardless of the condition of the receiving water, or air, as the case may be. This can involve much greater expenditure of manpower and money, and standards will be lower than they should be in critical areas and higher than they need to be in areas less at risk.

So we are concerned at the proposals in these Directives, partly as a matter of principle, which I have tried to enunciate, but we are also worried because the detailed instructions in the annexes, certainly so far as the bathing water is concerned, do not seem to us to make good sense or to stand up to detailed examination. This is something which I hope my noble friend Lord Ashby and other noble Lords may wish to speak about, because I rely on those who have greater scientific knowledge than I have myself. I have consulted within the last few days academic colleagues concerned with research into the state of waters in the Bristol Channel, particularly in Swansea Bay and the South Wales littoral. One has only to study the report of their work to realise what a complex and expensive business it is to monitor sea waters quality with any degree of accuracy.

From the discussions which I have had with those who have taken part in this work recently, I am apprehensive at the use which could be made of the instructions included in the annexes as they now stand. As I am advised, the design of a sampling programme is critical. It would be possible, with many beaches, to organise a sampling programme of a kind outlined in the EEC Directive in such a way as strongly to bias the results either in a favourable or an unfavourable direction. On a number of the South Wales beaches, for example, tidal state is a major factor in determining coliform counts, which is one of the criteria to be used, and by omitting to take samples at low tide it would be possible to produce coliform counts that would satisfy the proposed standard from waters that are frequently grossly polluted.

In the published Report commissioned by the Welsh Office on the state of Swansea Bay it says: Bacterial counts at any given site are highly variable due to a complex interaction of many factors. These include tidal states, sea state, and weather conditions. The precise nature of these interactions differs from site to site. An additional factor is the natural decay of coliform bacteria in sea water. Consequently conclusions about the level of pollution in a certain site based on a small number of observations can be wildly inaccurate. In other words, one would have to take a very large number of observations at the various points around our coast and make every sort of disposition as to the state of the tide, the temperature, and so on and so forth. It is by no means a simple matter to undertake the kind of monitoring which is proposed in the annexe to this Directive. It is also excessively costly, and without going further into detail I have entirely satisfied myself that unless we concentrated effort on the beaches which are both most used and most likely to be polluted we shall be involved in quite unjustifiable expense.

A number of correspondents in the Press have drawn attention to the requirements in the Directive that not only bacteriological tests should be made of coliform bacteria and so on, but a number of substances are listed which, if they are present in quantities which in some areas would be absolutely unavoidable, then bathing should be neither authorised nor tolerated. This brings me to another problem about this Directive. What is to be done if, within the period of eight years laid down as the time limit by which all our beaches are to be in a state of purity and cleanliness, we do not succeed in meeting these standards? As your Lordships will have observed, in the Select Committee's comments we said: Should the United Kingdom be required to prohibit sea-bathing, because certain standards not essential for health had not been attained, there would be a very strong public reaction and the kind of expenditure suggested as necessary could lead to a serious questioning of Community priorities.

We are now advised that the Community did not contemplate that we should prohibit sea bathing if we did not attain these standards. But if we do not prohibit sea bathing, what are we to do? Are we simply to be in default and leave it at that? The whole concept seems to be fraught with problems and it is for these reasons that we felt—although, particularly at this season of the year, noble Lords might feel that bathing water is not of very great importance—that it does raise matters which are of concern to our whole administration concerning pollution and that we were entirely justified in drawing the attention of the House to the sort of difficulties which appear to us to be involved.

I come to the other draft Directive, which is on pollution caused by pulp mills. This raises both the problem I have already indicated—that if one has uniform standards in diverse conditions one has very considerable difficulties of application—and it also brings in economic arguments which again we found very difficult to accept. I have only today received a copy of notes which have kindly been supplied by the British Paper and Board Industry Federation, and they apparently are less uneasy about this draft Directive than the members of the Select Committee, who are concerned because, among other things, the philosophy of the Community as we understand it requires that there should be uniform standards throughout the Community in aid of economic equality in competition and trade. But this argument appears to us to be fallacious and we were reinforced in this view by a study undertaken not long ago by OECD which came to the conclusion that the international harmonisation of emission standards creates distortions of trade instead of removing them, and no argument in favour of uniform emission standards was to be found when the EEC first pronounced on its action programme on the environment. It accepted, as we thought, the principle that the polluter should pay, and we believe that one of the underlying principles of international trade and exchange of goods is that of comparative advantage; in other words, if an enterprise can be sited in a position which is favourable to it, it should be allowed to take advantage of that foresight and intelligent planning.

We now find that the other countries in the Community are prepared to derogate from the principle that the polluter should pay by proposing subsidies to those who are involved in greater costs through meeting higher standards of pollution control. According to the notes supplied by the British Paper and Board Industry Federation, the Governments in the Community of France, Belgium and Italy have anticipated the Directive we are discussing and are currently paying a 45 per cent. grant towards the cost of pollution control plant. It is true that the Directive suggests that there should be a tapering of the grant, but we know how difficult it is to taper grants once they have been established and it appears to us that if we accepted this Directive it would be only the first of many in which similar subsidies might be proposed for other sectors of British industry, and we should then be involved in very considerable expenditure, a principle which hitherto we have not accepted. We therefore feel that it is only right to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House the fact that the Directive as drafted would involve Her Majesty's Government in paying, I have no doubt not only to the paper and pulp industry but also to other industries, very substantial sums indeed which, as I say, is a principle which previously we have not felt it necessary to embark upon. I do not wish to take more of your Lordships' time because I am sure that others will wish to speak on these matters. I hope I have said enough to suggest that it was necessary to draw to the attention of the House two Directives which may not seem very important in themselves but each of which brings into question principles which could be of very great significance for the future.

Lord ZUCKERMAN

My Lords, I agree fully with the gist of her remarks, but when in the earlier part of her speech the noble Baroness referred to our parting company with all our Common Market colleagues, did she really mean all of them? Do we know they are all as irrational as she appears to make out?

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I was not conscious of having used the word "all". I think I simply referred to our Common Market colleagues, which might mean that there were some—I hope there would be some—who would be sympathetic to our point of view. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirtieth Report of the European Communities Committee on Pollution of Sea and Fresh Water for Bathing (R/407/75) and on Water Pollution caused by Wood Pulp Mills (R/210/75).—(Baroness White.)

7.18 p.m.

Lord ASHBY

My Lords, perhaps the best contribution I can make to this debate is to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said and to give some reasons for the endorsement. I emphasise first what she said; that this is no trivial technical matter but a matter of high principle which affects our relationships with the Community, and in my view that needs some pressure to be brought to bear on the people in Brussels who draft these Directives which, as the noble Baroness said, are in many ways incomplete, ambiguous, not to say half-baked. But I want to begin by emphasising, as she did, that there is no conflict so far as I know between the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and the attitude of the EEC over the declaration which they made in November 1973 for the protection of the natural environment. Nor is there likely to be very much dispute about certain kinds of uniform standards, like uniform standards for products—for example, the amount of lead in ceramics—or even uniform standards for emissions of motor ears which have to be exported.

Nor do I think is there likely to be very much dispute about the need to work towards objective standards of the environment, and that narrows the dispute which has caused anxiety to your Lordships' Select Committee to one kind of thing; namely, the enforcement of standards of discharge from outside out-falls of sewers and chimney stacks into the air and water as a way of preserving the environment.

In other words, they must have identical standards not for the environment, but for discharges into the environment. It is this matter of principle which your Select Committee felt was a serious one, and one which we hope Her Majesty's Government will challenge when they negotiate with the Commission in Brussels.

What I should like to do for a few moments is to try to point out some of the more scientific implications of the proposals contained in the Directives. First, there is the question of bathing beaches. Article 2 of the draft Directive says that Member States. shall lay down the limit values corresponding to certain parameters for bathing water. Then Article 6 says that Member States, shall carry out sampling operations at minimum frequency. It will give some idea of what I regard as the spurious scientific precision which this Directive attempts to give when I say that in order to determine frequency one has to know the average number of bathers expressed as mean density per kilometre of beach and the prevailing water temperature. One has to know this from two weeks from the beginning of the opening of the season. This might be applicable in the Mediterranean, but it would be very difficult to enforce in Aberdeen shire. That is the kind of anxiety which a person with a scientific background feels with regard to these Directives.

Then we come to the parameters. The parameters which, in a bathing place which has a high density of bathers, have to be monitored once every two weeks include—and your Lordships must forgive me if I read the list, because it makes the point which I want to press—coliform bacteria, acidity, colour, phenol, pesticides, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, cyanide, nitrogen and phosphate. The question which I should like to put before your Lordships is whether the cost of doing this monitoring would be justified, what would be the point of the monitoring once one had done it and what effect would it have on the two things which matter when one goes for a swim—health and amenity?

First, may I say something about the cost? We asked those who came to see us on the Select Committee roughly what it would cost to monitor a beach. It was not a fair question but they did make a guess. I have thought very hard about their guess and I believe that it was an underestimate. They suggested that it would be about £5,000 per annum per beach. As the noble Baroness has said, there arc so many beaches around Britain that it would be very difficult to calculate the total cost, but, in order to do something very simple, I got hold of the Coastal Anti-Pollution League's list of "Golden Beaches", which are presumably those which are really very nice to bathe at. There are 315 of those beaches and the noble Baroness will be relieved to know that 103 of them are in Wales. If one does the arithmetic, the cost comes to something between £1.6 million and £2 million a year for monitoring alone on these Golden Beaches in England and Wales, let alone all the other beaches which are less golden.

What I suggest is that there are better ways of dealing with pollution of the environment, and better ways to spend £1.6 million. Furthermore, there is the question of whether these beaches—even the "Golden"ones—are all up to the standard of that long list of parameters which I read to your Lordships. They are not all up to that standard. It was again a guess and I feel that the members of the Department of the Environment would not wish to he held to it, but I believe that it was as good a guess as anybody could make off the cuff, that it might cost £100 million to bring the beaches up to that kind of level.

So one has to ask: for what purpose is this monitoring going to be done? I can only spend time on the main parameter, the one which is commonest and most widely understood; namely, the bacterial count of fecal coliform. The mandatory standards laid down with which we are asked to comply is that there must not be more than 20,000 of these coliform bacteria per litre if the temperature is about 68 degrees or 50,000 if it is below 68 degrees. This itself poses somewhat complex biological problems, but there are three comments which I feel should be made to your Lordships about this idea of doing coliform counts and of using them for monitoring. The first is that there is a common view that all bacteria are deadly and dangerous. Coliform bacteria are harmless and benign lodgers in the gut of every one of us. In fact, we pass about 10¹¹—that is, 100,000 million—of them a day. They do not do any harm. Therefore, the only intention of measuring these perfectly harmless organisms in the water is to use them as an index of other bacteria which might or might not be dangerous.

Secondly, the noble Baroness referred to the reliability of the sampling. I believe that, if anything, she underestimated the unrealiability of the sampling. A good deal of work has been done on this by the Water Pollution Research Laboratory here in Britain and I should like to give your Lordships two examples, taken almost at random from their annual reports, of the kind of results obtained. The daily count on one site within two or three hours of the two counts varied from 30 to 29,000 bacteria per litre. Your Lordships will remember, for the noble Baroness mentioned it, that the Directive suggests that sampling should be done 20 times in the season, not less than two kilometres apart. If one did it not less than three inches apart in an hour one might get a difference of 100 per cent. in the sample.

Another piece of work which was published only three or four years ago by the Water Pollution Research Station shows that a slight, gentle breeze blowing over the surface of the water will alter the number of coliform per litre from 1,000 to 100,000. Perhaps I have said enough to show that, as an index of sewage pollution, counts of coliform are not worthless; they are positively misleading, because they would give people an absolutely spurious impression of scientific accuracy. So that is the kind of anxiety which your Select Committee felt when it had before it these spuriously accurate parameters which we are supposed to operate all the way around our beaches.

Finally, on this part of the problem, there is the experimental technique of getting the samples. The Directive says nothing about that which would lead any practising scientist to know how to do it. One of the things which really matters when one is doing such sampling is how long it is from the time one takes the sample to the time one incubates it. Nothing is said about that in the Directive. Therefore, I fully agree with the noble Baroness that these Directives have been insufficiently thought out to be put before Parliaments or before Governments.

Having counted the coliform and found out how many there are, there is the question whether they have any effect on health. As your Lordships will remember, there was in the early 1950s a great scare that polio might be transmitted by bathing. As a result of that scare, the Medical Research Council and the Public Health Laboratory did an operation in which they looked into the coliform counts and the contamination of sea beaches around Britain. They failed to find any relation whatever between infection and the coliform count. I should like to read their conclusion so that it goes on the Record. It is that, with the possible exception of a few aesthetically revolting beaches…the risk to health of bathing in sewage-contaminated sea water can, for all practical purposes, be ignored. Although that was done some time ago, it has been fully confirmed by work in America, on Long Island, and in the Soviet Union at Yalta.

There is an even more recent piece of testimony. The World Health Organisation published a review of health hazards in the human environment four years ago, and its conclusion on this subject was: There are no internationally accepted criteria for the quality of coastal waters for bathing with respect either to microbial contamination or chemical pollution. Everybody knows—at least everybody with children knows—that when you take your kids to the seaside they get ear, nose and throat infections, and conjunctivitis from bathing. The point which, I think, has been made clear by such epidemiological studies as have been made is that although this certainly happens it has nothing to do with coli in sea water. They are infections which the kids get from one another. When they go into the water and spit or cough in it the infection comes out and it spreads in that way. Therefore there is no relationship established yet between the risks of infection and this coli count, which the European Communities would like us to use as a measure of the health of a bathing beach.

I wish to emphasise, as the noble Baroness has emphasised—and I am sure other noble Lords will wish to emphasise—that this is no plea for dirty bathing beaches—and some of them are revolting! It is not suggesting dragging our feet on the whole problem which is so well set out in the Declaration of the European Community that we should protect the environment. It is a plea not to use expensive and spurious criteria for cleanliness. The conclusion which the Medical Research Council came to seemed a dull conclusion, but I do not believe that there is a better one. It is that the realistic test of whether a beach is good enough to bathe in is that it looks clean and does not smell.

I should like to turn for a few moments to the other Directive which has been reported to your Lordships by the Select Committee, that is, concerning wood pulp mills. Wood pulp mills are notoriously bad polluters, and all that this country can do to co-operate with the EEC in having pollution diminished from these mills the better. But again in this Directive there is a rigidity which would, in my view, be quite inimicable to the optimum deployment of our limited resources—and they are limited—on pollution control. Therefore in the long run the proposals would not improve the environment of Britain; they would harm it, because the money would be ill-spent. Let me give your Lordships one example of that. In Article 2 of the Directive it says that pollution must be reduced in 10 years to levels shown in an annexe, which gives levels of two very familiar parameters: biological oxygen demand and suspended solids per tonne of product. It also allows derogations if the mill discharges into tidal waters. But then there is a rather muddy hit of phraseology: these derogations last for only five years. They may be renewed; they might not. When the Economic and Social Committee of the Community commented on this it was not very pleased. It rather frowned on this idea of these derogations being allowed in this way, saying that they did not have a "sufficiently Community character".

Therefore the ultimate aim of this Directive—and I can now quote from what the Economic and Social Committee says—is: to lay down genuinely identical upper limits for discharges. In this country we have seven wood pulp mills; six of them discharge into tidal waters, and one discharges into non-tidal waters. The one which discharges into non-tidal waters has already spent over £1 million on pollution abatement, and when its transformation is complete the effluent from that will be un to the 1912 standard of the Royal Commission—20/30 as it is called—which, as many of your Lordships know, is an effluent level not yet reached by many perfectly respectable sewage plants in this country.

Therefore, that mill, by spending £1 million, will have complied with more than is laid down in the Directive. But there is another mill, of about the same size, discharging into the sea and the question we have to face is this. Does that mill also have to spend £1 million or more on cleaning up its effluent, or can it carry out what is known to be a perfectly satisfactory procedure; namely, run a pipe a long way out and discharge the effluent into deep tidal waters, at some cost but of course considerably less cost? Your Lordships may think that this is merely shifting the danger from human beings to other creatures of the sea. But we have information about that. Recently there was a meeting at the Royal Society at which a number of biologists gave Papers on the effects of pollution on life in the sea. There was, in particular, a Paper given by Dr. Pearson on the effect of pollution from the pulp mill at Fort William into Loch Linnhe. The results of that experiment were not that the creatures in the sea were being killed. The bio-mass which is the sort of jargon which biologists use about this—the total number of living things—actually went up three times as a result of some of the nutrients which also come out from the mill.

Therefore from what evidence we have there is no reason whatever to suppose that a wood-pulp mill discharging into the right type of tidal waters, under the right conditions with a long outflow, is doing any harm to the environment. Should that mill, in order to comply with this Directive, have to produce at the end of the outflow an effluent precisely the same in quality as the effluent which would be produced by a mill on the Rhine or on the Thames, a long way from the sea?

This it the kind of problem which is set before the Government by these Directives. There will be more of these Directives. That is why I submit that it is a matter of high principle to have a view about this and to try to impress this view upon our cousins in the Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, says, some of these cousins may not need any persuasion anyway. But the people who draw up these Directives in Brussels certainly need some persuasion. I also wish to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about the need to persuade these people who draw up Directives in Brussels to do so more carefully before these are thrown to Governments for comment. The word used is "harmonisation" of elements in the environment. Having looked at several of these Directives, and knowing that there are more to come, my fear is that the harmonisation may not be conducted in a spirit of harmony, and that there are many things in these Directives which are so ambiguous that they will lead to conflict, controversy, acerbity and general ill-will.

Therefore, I hope that two things may come out of this debate which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has taken the trouble to organise, and to which your Lordships have had the patience to listen. The first is that the Government—particularly in view of recent Press statements—will give the public some very clear reassurance that we are dedicated as much as any other European country to the Declaration of the European Communities made in November 1973, about protection of the environment; and that we in no way lag behind our European cousins in that respect. Secondly, I hope that our baseline for measuring the quality of the environment is the quality of the environment; not the quality of things which are put in it. Therefore we should like to work toward objectives of quality for air and water, which is a quite different thing from laying down rigid standards for the effluents which go into water and the emissions which go into air. Therefore, I have great pleasure in being allowed the honour of endorsing what the noble Baroness has said.

7.40 p.m.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the House for not being in my place for the first two or three minutes of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I should also like to express my congratulations to her, if I may, on the very cogent way in which she has dealt with these two Directives; and to express from these Benches support for the conclusions in the draft Directive dealing with pollution and bathing in that its recommendations are wholly inappropriate for the tidal waters around the United Kingdom on three main grounds—political, expense and geographical—and the Directive laying down detailed uniform limits of discharge for pollution control in the pulp field raises questions of fundamental administrative and industrial importance, and could lead to gross distortion of trade competition between industrial companies concerned in this field.

In view of the criticisms which have been made of these Directives, it may not be without significance that perhaps one should consider quite briefly the basis of the growth of the Community programme relating to the environment during the last three years. As your Lordships are aware, Article 2 of the Rome Treaty assigned to the Community the task of securing, first, an harmonious development of economic activities; secondly, a continuous and balanced expansion; and thirdly, an accelerated raising of the standard of living. There was no express mention of environmental matters, but when the Heads of State of the Community met in Paris in 1972, which was before the United Kingdom had joined the Community, they thought it was time to say something about environmental matters and so they put a gloss on, particularly, the third point in Article 2 of the Rome Treaty. They declared, Economic expansion is not an end in itself…It must emerge in an improved quality as well as an improved standard of life". They went on to declare that it was therefore necessary, inter alia, to pay, special attention to the protection of the environment so that progress shall serve mankind". A few months later, in 1973, there followed a programme, which comprised a lengthy recital of admirable objectives with which most of us would no doubt agree, regarding the setting, the surroundings and the conditions of life. But, if I may say so, on my reading of many of these long-winded documents—and I have read a great number of them—I have been left with the impression that they comprise a generalised, inchoate sprawl composed somewhat in a hurry. Too much seems to have been recited with too broad a sweep in pursuit of the so-called spirit of Community harmonisation, without due regard being paid, particularly in the anti-pollution field, as it seems to me, first to the vast amount of work already done nationally and internationally; secondly, to the standards and methods being employed to combat pollution; and, lastly, to the different geographical circumstances in which pollutants occur in various parts of the Community.

It is my view that the Directive on pollution and bathing, as drafted, illustrates the failure to appreciate that the conditions imposed, in so far as they can be understood, are totally inappropriate to tidal coastal waters of the United Kingdom and, if I may refer to Wales, quite ridiculous in so far as the coast of Wales is concerned. The conditions to be imposed are, for example, extremely costly, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, have pointed out. Although it is known that some bathing places are not too pleasant, even in Wales, the risk to health is very slight indeed, as is stated on page 4 of this Thirtieth Report of the Select Committee. It would be wholly unrealistic for the United Kingdom to be compelled to pay vast sums in this connection, as this Directive envisages.

In conclusion, perhaps I may refer to the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, in his very interesting broadcast talk, the text of which was published in The Listener of 21st August last. He was then dealing with pollution from lead and carbon monoxide, and he pointed out that the suppression of pollution was often very expensive. He suggested that in view of the expense it was desirable, when dealing with environmental pollution, to apply what he termed a risk against benefit analysis and to question in particular cases whether, in their circumstances, the expenditure was wise where no appreciable health hazard occurred. I therefore invite the Government to press for such an analysis on EEC Directives of this kind, many of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, pointed out, will no doubt soon descend upon them; and to say that even if only on expense grounds the Directive on bathing is wholly unacceptable in the light of the economic and geographical conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom.

In view of the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, it would be presumptuous of me to take further time of the House in face of the expert views we have had this evening. Therefore, I do not propose to speak any further on the second Directive except to say that I endorse the criticisms and suggestions which have been put forward to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and the noble Baroness, Lady White.

7.48 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Baroness on opening this debate so effectively, and indeed on raising it tonight. I should begin by declaring an interest in this matter as Chairman of the National Water Council; and perhaps that enables me to make the point (and the comments I am going to make are not going to be in any sense debating points; rather they will be factual) that in this country, in our national water industry, which covers the whole spectrum of the hydrological cycle, we now have, I would think, the most effective organisation of water of any country in the world. We really have at last got management control of it; so in the advancement of our policy, and indeed in the endorsement of it, I believe we have a machine of which we can be proud.

I should first like to say that without any question at all we in the water industry, which is really, if I may call it such, the battleground over which this debate is taking place, of course endorse 100 per cent. the policy which the EEC is trying to promote; and we dedicate ourselves to the statement to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, so eloquently referred, which was made in 1973. We entirely approve of a collective programme which will progressively improve the water environment for the whole of the EEC; indeed, I hope it will go wider still. This is clearly something which is going to be both individually and collectively beneficial to us; and, of course, in many cases, especially in Europe, it is quite impossible to make any progress unless there is collective action.

The point of departure, which is the point which has already been made so cogently by both the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and indeed by my noble friend on the Liberal Benches, is the method of implementation. Here, as has again already been so lucidly explained, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, with his great scientific knowledge, our approach has always been (I say "always": it has been so for many years) to deal selectively with discharges, and to set standards according to the condition of the water into which the discharge was going to take place. This, I believe, has given us flood results. If we look at the River Thames (which, I would think, is the prototype of a well-managed river) we can see that at the top of the river standards are established—effluents like those at Swindon and Oxford—which are very high indeed and which are going to achieve an effluent probably as good as the river water itself. As the river goes further down, where the volume is greater, it is possible to accept slightly lower standards; but, still, at the end of it, the quality of the river has to be high enough to supply the greater part of London's water.

Here we can see this kind of selective standard effectively applied to bet very good results and with proper consideration of the resources which will be involved—because here we are dealing with something which is very expensive. The total capital programme for the water industry this year is about £600 million; and no less than two-thirds of that, slightly over £400 million, is going on what we call the "dirty water" side, on sewage treatment and sewage. This is an enormous sum, judged by any standards, and I doubt whether any of our neighbours in Western Europe have got, per head, a higher annual expenditure than that.

Even with that enormous expenditure, the progress that we can make is very slow. We have talked about bathing beaches. I think of the cost of one scheme alone, the scheme which would give effective treatment on land of the effluent now discharging into the Solent from the Portsmouth-Southampton complex. This will be of the order of £25 million to £30 million on just one scheme alone. The cost of the Tyne scheme, which is to come to fruition in the next three or four years, will be something over £50 million in order to clean up that estuary. These are enormous sums of money and you cannot afford many of them. You must be highly selective in settling priorities if you are to get the best possible results. Let me make it plain that this money does not come out of the sky, it must be borrowed; and every consumer in the country, domestic and industrial, must pay an extra charge for it. The measure of the present capital programme, on the dirty water side alone, will add something like 10 per cent. to the charge for water next year. This is the measure of the resources involved in this and it emphasises and underlines the necessity to have the kind of scientific and economic approach which we have had up to date.

My Lords, let me say we have not a bad record here. The river pollution survey of 1972showed that in previous years there had been a very substantial improvement in the general condition of our rivers. We are moving in the right direction. That industry, which has to pay for a very large part of all this and which has to meet the cost of pre-treatment, has been most co-operative with the new water industry. We are now in a position to exert perhaps rather more authority than was possible in the past and we are getting very good co- operation from industry which discharges toxic effluents which have been upsetting the work of the sewage works and generally causing a great deal of pollution in the past. We are getting good co-operation and they are prepared to set up the expensive and difficult treatment plants to give pre-treatment before their effluent goes into the public sewer.

I should like to confirm one point which the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, made with a wealth of scientific detail. It is that the capacity of the sea to take the discharge of effluent is very great indeed; but it depends on three things: first, on pre-treatment to remove the toxic elements, if there is an industrial effluent in it, so that there is no build-up of toxic (and particularly metallurgical) elements in the effluent which will have a poisonous effect and build up in the fish; and, secondly, that the outfall is long enough to carry the discharge of the effluent beyond the tidal limit so that the effluents get out into the sea. Thereafter the sea has a great capacity to absorb effluent. On the figures that I see, I would confirm his references to the Fort William effluent and the disposal of a great deal of sewage sludge in this country by dumping from ships in the North Sea, in the Bristol Sea and in the Irish Sea. These areas where large quantities of sewage sludge are dumped are carefully monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; and they show that not only has the fish life not diminished but that it has increased. Evidently, there is quite a nutritional value in effluent so long as you remove the toxic elements. So long as the effluent is taken out far enough, this is a very sensible way of disposing of effluent.

My Lords, I would hope that the EEC will see the wisdom of what is being said here tonight with great authority by experts in every aspect of this matter. I hope they will see that this really is the sensible approach to establishing general standards for the EEC: to establish selective standards and then to give the most careful consideration to defining the parameters. The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, made hay of the parameters which are put down here; but it is difficult to get parameters right, especially in sampling sea water.

My Lords, finally there follows the problem of enforcing it all. My knowledge of the Rhine indicates that there they have a great deal farther to go than we have in most rivers in this country. I hope that some note may be taken by our friends in Brussels of what was said here so that we do not establish standards which will really be of no help in advancing the general programme of the conservation of the environment for which we all wish.

7.58 p.m.

Lord DIPLOCK

My Lords, I do not propose to speak on the merits of this proposed Directive. After the cogency, clarity and authority with which they have been expressed by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lords, Lord Ashby and Lord Nugent of Guildford, it would be a work of supererogation for me to add my voice to that. What I wish to do 1s to draw attention to a wholly different objection to this Directive: that is, the grave doubts which I must voice as to the vires of the Directive dealing with bathing water, the doubt as to whether it is a Directive which the Council have any power to make under the Treaties. For simplicity's sake I will confine myself to sea bathing.

I express a view on vires with considerable diffidence because, if the Directive is made, the ultimate decision as to whether or not it is within the power of the Council will lie with the European Court. In the special report of a Select Committee of 11th December 1974 attention was drawn to the expansive view which the European Court of Justice may take about the objectives of the Treaty. But attention was also drawn in the final paragraph of that Report to the fact that there are some limits to the powers which the Council have to make Directives; and in my view this Directive exceeds those limits— or perhaps I should say in the jargon of the Community, "exceeds those parameters".

The key to this Directive is the definition of bathing water as water in which competent authorities of Member-States authorise or tolerate bathing. If they authorise or tolerate bathing, they must ensure that the water conforms to the limits. So the Commandment of this Directive is not, "Thou shalt not pol- lute"; it is, "Thou shalt not bathe in polluted waters." A layman might well be excused for asking: "What on earth has that to do with the Economic Community?"

The Directive claims to rely for the enabling power upon Articles 100 and 235. Those are very wide Articles, but there are limits to what they authorise. Article 100 is confined to the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative action, as directly affect the establishment or function of the Common Market". It is not the approximation of all laws, but the approximation of laws which only fall into that category. Article 235 authorises action necessary to achieve one of the objectives of the Community in the course of the operation of the Common Market". The objectives are set out in Articles 2 and 3. They include, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, the harmonious development of economic activities, continuous and balanced expansion and the accelerated raising of the standard of living". Even those are not objectives in vacuo; they are qualified by the introductory words: By establishing a Common Market and approximating the economic policies of Member-States. The mere fact that a measure improves the standard of living, or the quality of life, is insufficient. To improve the quality of life, if we are utilitarians, is I suppose the object of all legislation. But the Treaty does not authorise Community legislation—for instance, by requiring all Member-States to subsidise opera in every town of over a quarter of a million inhabitants. Nor does it enable the Community to lay down what the health service shall provide, or prescribe parameters for that. A Directive of the Community must be directed to promote the Common Market; that is, the free movement of goods, persons, laws, competition, or economic policies as distinct from health and cultural policies.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the proposed Directive gives two justifications. The first is that marine pollution may cross national frontiers. That may be a very good reason for prohibiting marine pollution—to preserve the economic resources of the Community fisheries and so on. But it is not a good reason for saying, as this Directive says, "Pollute as much as you like, but you must not bathe in the sea at the source of the pollution or at its destination on the other side of the Channel. "The second justification, and the only other given in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that tourists who are nationals of other Member-States may get infectious diseases when bathing in water polluted by sewage. This reasoning would justify control by the Community of the whole of the public health legislation in all Member-States.

I venture to suggest that that reason is not one which justifies, or makes legal, action by the Community in the field of sea bathing. There is a possible argument that it distorts competition if one State requires a lower standard of industrial effluent, which is less expensive to attain, than another State. The validity of a Directive designed to secure this purpose is at any rate arguable, though for reasons which have already been given it may seem specious. It is indeed the justification which is given for the Directive relating to pollution by wood pulp materials. But the bathing Directive does not do this. It simply says to Governments of Member-States, "Do not pollute or do not bathe—the choice is yours."

Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to the Declaration at the Summit Meeting of Heads of State in October 1972, when some splendid things were said about the environment. That was followed by a Council Declaration of 22nd November 1973, containing a general statement that improvement in the quality of life and the protection of natural environment are among the fundamental objectives of the Community. A statement by Heads of State or by the Council cannot extend the objectives of the Community which are laid down in the Treaty; it cannot extend the powers of the Council to make Directives which are not covered by the provisions of the Treaty itself. Under our own European Communities Act 1972, the Treaty is the only source of validity of Community legislation in the United Kingdom.

May I say something about the application of the Treaty in the United Kingdom. I should make it perfectly clear that the question of whether or not the Treaty is ultra vires depends upon its subject matter, and not upon the particular legal situation regarding bathing in the United Kingdom. So its invalidity could not be cured by altering the definition of "bathing waters" to "waters in which significant numbers of persons bathe". In England the foreshore, with a few exceptions, is the property of the Crown. In England there is no public right of bathing off the foreshore. The position is Scotland may be different. It appears, so far as I can see, to be a little doubtful; but in England there is no doubt about it. So that nearly all the coastline of England, at any rate, falls within the description: "sea water in which the authorities of Member-States 'tolerate' bathing."

To comply with the Directive, whether in the present definition or in the proposed suggestion, the Government must prohibit bathing anywhere on the coastline where regular sampling and analysis required by the Directive are not carried out. If power to do this were taken by Act of Parliament, that would be done. The Act would be valid even if the Directive is, as I venture to submit it is, ultra vires the Treaty. But if it is done by subordinate legislation under Section 2(b) of the European Communities Act 1972, that subordinate legislation could, on reference to the European Court, be questioned under Article 177 by a person prosecuted for unlawful bathing.

I submit with great respect that the subject-matter of this Direction is one for national law only. Under the Treaty it does not lie within the powers of the Council to make a Directive in this form. I would venture to suggest that is an additional reason why it should not be made.

8.12 p.m.

The Earl of KINTORE

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for initiating this debate and enabling us to take part in it. I must declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Water Services Committee for the Grampian Region, which deals with both water supply and disposal. I am also a member of the River Purification Board—we have a different set-up now in Scotland from that in England—and I am even a humble member of the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord concerned with training in Scotland. I represent two regions on that body, because they are so mean about numbers that they have given us only one between two. However, that is another point.

I do not think I have ever attended a debate in your Lordships' House when, with one exception, I have entirely endorsed what other speakers have said. I except the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, only because his erudite knowledge of the law is so far beyond my own that I cannot pretend even to understand it. I should like to point out, however, that the North-East of Scotland is rather different, as regards bathing, from Luxembourg—in fact I do not think that Luxembourg has any sea.

I was going to talk about long sea outfalls and so on, but it has all been said for me. However, I should like to point out that in many parts of Scotland, including my own, we have many highly unsatisfactory short sea outfalls and they can give rise to considerable pollution. Whether or not there is any danger here I have not the remotest idea, but I rather gather from the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, that there is probably not. It is a disgusting thing and very unpleasant. That is all I wish to add to that part of the discussion, except to say that I find it satisfactory that Venice is employing British consultants to solve her sewage and waste disposal problems. I think that shows we are not too lacking in knowledge in these matters.

I find the second part of the Report rather more difficult. This may be going a little wide of our subject, but this refers to pulp. I believe there is some controversy as to whether it is wood pulp or just pulp which is mentioned in the Directive. That has, I think, been challenged and it is not very clear. In any case, it seems to me silly to pick on one little item in a rather large industry. Surely if you arc talking of pulp, if there is to be a Directive it should include everything, including the pulping of paper, of which we do an enormous amount in this country. To illustrate something of what happens at the bottom end of the scale of this water control in which I am interested, we have on one of our two salmon rivers—the River Don— large number of paper mills. One particular mill is causing considerable pollution. They are doing what they can about it, but they are currently discharging into the River Don 4½ million gallons of effluent a day—and the Don is not all that big a river. There is a pretty good pone. I may tell you.

We are very concerned about this and have tightened up our consent conditions. We have given the millowners 12 months to put their house in order, and this one board and paper mill are spending something, in the order of £750,000 in putting in dump tanks and a secondary treatment flocculation tank. That should get their suspended solids down to what is probably an acceptable level for discharging into the river, bearing in mind its size and other conditions. They might also scrape through with their BOD. Whether or not this will solve the problem I cannot say. If it does not, they will have to spend approximately another £750,000. It is right, and the company agree it to be right, that they should do this for environmental reasons, but I think it is extremely hard on them if their foreign competitors are getting something like a 45 per cent. subsidy, whereas this mill is getting nothing. However, they are putting their house in order. We have many meetings with them and progress is being made. We discuss matters amicably.

One thing concerns us very much in that part of the world. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that he had his hands on £400 million for improving sewage works, and so on, in England and Wales. Well, by golly! in the North-East of Scotland the population is increasing by leaps and bounds. We have the oil industry there and we have very inadequate sewage disposal works anyway. They are mostly grossly overloaded, both hydraulically and biologically. We are allowed to borrow, and are told to borrow money for pipes, drains, sewers and so on, but when it comes to sewage works: no. If you can pull the plug, chum, and it goes down to the bottom, that is all they are worried about.

This is really an intolerable state of affairs. I find myself being pressed and pushed to get on with oil related development necessitating drainage. I know I am, or would be, putting it into an overloaded sewage works. Seventy-five per cent. of our effluent was well above the 20/30 Royal Commission standards, which we do not rigidly adhere to although they give a good indication of what is required.

It seems to me that wearing one hat I have to agitate and endorse the purification board to sue myself under the other hat because I am being pushed by the Government who are refusing to let us borrow money. This is so, but there may be good reasons for it. But what we really want is this—and I do not know whether the noble Baroness who is to reply can help. We should like to have a small deputation to see the Minister to find out where the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has got all that cash from.

8.21 p.m.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady White, on her introduction of this debate and the Select Committee on their Report. She has with her speech at the beginning enabled us to have an excellent and well-informed debate. Although there are only two Directives before us this evening it gives us the opportunity to discuss the principles and particularly the one in the second Directive. We on this Bench will wish to consider the whole subject in due course. This. I am sure, is the first of several other debates there are likely to be in the future, particularly when other industries and substances are involved in Directives.

At this stage I should like to make clear that I agree in general with the Sub-Committee's criticisms; and also to make clear that we on this Bench wish to eliminate pollution and improve environment. I think that statement goes for everyone in all quarters of the House. But it is the methods of achieving this which are at issue. We in Britain differ in our methods, as noble Lords have described in their speeches, and methods which may be appropriate for other members of the European Economic Community may not prove suitable for Britain. This has been brought out in the Report. But, at the outset, I would say that I believe it is important that the Ministers who handle this subject do so with the greatest care and consideration for the problems of our partners in the EEC. We should not give an unfortunate impression of simply throwing a spanner into the machinery for achieving improvements in removing pollution and safeguarding health.

The first Directive on bathing has been dealt with already in the debate. I would only draw attention to the Report's point that there is a great difference between the semi-enclosed and almost tideless resorts on the Mediterranean and the tidal seas around our coasts. Another point is that little consideration has been given to fresh water bathing where the health hazards in our case in Britain are more likely. Certainly the proposals for sampling, as suggested in the draft Directive, would involve expense and bureaucracy which I am sure your Lordships would not wish to support. But I am not suggesting that more should not be done, that more cannot be done, in various places in Britain to improve conditions for sea bathing.

I now come to the second Directive on pulp mills. This raises a principle which might appear also in future draft Directives and be applied to other industries—the principle of fixing uniform standards of emission everywhere. We have a longer coastline than any other member of the EEC and conditions are very different, for example, in the North of Scotland on a sea firth than from the mouth of the Thames. Our system which is proving effective, is one in which the circumstances in each case are carefully considered and conditions are then imposed before consent is given accordingly. Provided this is done, no unnecessary effort need be spent and resources need not be wasted, causing higher prices of manufactured products.

Then there is another principle in the draft Directive, one which the EEC has adopted from us. This is the principle that the polluter pays. But I suggest to your Lordships that these two principles are related because an industry is much more prepared to pay when it knows that it is covering the expenses of what is required in the circumstances of its particular site. It is much less likely to agree to that principle when it feels it is being asked quite unnecessarily to pay extra money for conditions which do not exist at its particular site. I may take as an example a pulp mill on the West Coast of Scotland—and a particular one has been mentioned during this debate—on a sea firth with little population or industry in the area. That, of course, will present quite different problems of dealing with pollution from another in an industrial area and not on tidal waters. The requirements in each of these cases are likely to be entirely different to obtain the same results; that is to treat or disperse the effluents and avoid pollution.

This brings me to another point, which is that if we were to follow the EEC principle it would take away advantages of certain development areas in this country where new industry is concerned, and indeed where new industry is needed. Two of these advantages—and they certainly occur in Scotland, not everywhere but in important places—are, first, plentiful supplies of water and, secondly, the availability of natural pollution removing agencies, especially tides. These are factors which are not to be sneezed at or overlooked. They are taken into consideration and weighed carefully by industrialists when considering whether to establish or expand in certain development areas, and it would be a blow to regional development in this country if we were forced to undertake a system whereby industries had to incur all the expenditure for full treatment measures in some loch in the North of Scotland, as if they were in the middle of a city or on a small river.

On the other principle, that the polluter pays, there is a point to which the Committee has drawn attention which is important and I do not think it has been mentioned. It is to be found at the bottom of page 7 of the Report. Here the Committee has rightly pointed to the danger to British industry, who take trouble now to establish factories and projects at the most suitable sites environmentally, if subsidies are to be paid for a period. The "polluter pays" principle will not be entered into fully, it seems, until some years have passed. This would mean there would be less incentive to establish at the most sensible sites environmentally if the subsidies were being paid, even if only for a period. Another important advantage of the British system is that it takes account of changes in circumstances at different sites; for example, changes in technology in the treatment or recovery of industrial wastes. These changes take place from time to time and can be expected in the future, and this can alter the circumstances at particular sites.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashby, gave us the benefit of his vast experience in this field, and in particular as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He has given us some hard, scientific facts in support of the Select Committee's Report. But I should like to add, as I noted from the Observer, in case all your Lordships did not see it, that the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, was reported as likening the draft Directive's principle to insisting on a 30 m.p.h. speed limit on the M1 motorway because it was necessary to have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in Piccadilly. That puts the argument very clearly.

The significance of this second draft Directive is that the principle may be incorporated in further Directives unless our position is made clear diplomatically but firmly. I know that representatives of industry are anxious about this. Their principal worry is that it would be an addition to manufacturing costs and consequently to prices at home at a time when the main national effort is deployed in trying to contain inflation. In the talks which we understand Ministers are to have on this subject in the near future with the EEC I trust that the importance of this point will be a high priority while joining, of course, in the general campaign to improve environmental conditions in Europe.

My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has given us an excellent example of the management of the Thames. This was at one time a very formidable task and he and his colleagues arc to be congratulated. As on other occasions when we have had debates on the EEC, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has drawn attention to the legal and constitutional situation in relation to the Community. I myself am glad to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate. Then my noble friend Lord Kintore has spoken of conditions in the East of Scotland which, as he knows, is not far from my home, although I live in the North, not the North-East.

In conclusion, may I remind your Lordships that from 1970 to 1974 I was Secretary of State for the Environment North of the Border, during which time I had charge of all the functions relating to environment. I should mention, of course, that I was also Secretary of State for many other subjects, including health, agriculture, housing and education. Early in that period we in the Scottish Office launched an ambitious scheme for removing pollution from Scottish waters. By 1974 there was only a small area of fresh water and of sea water round the Scottish coastline which was not of an acceptable standard. I am as keen as anybody to continue the campaign to eliminate pollution. I trust, however, that in the coming negotiations we shall be able to retain our methods of doing so.

8.33 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, it is very seldom that I have the opportunity to reply to a debate which I hoped would go on for rather longer. I was learning so much all the time. There were moments when I felt that I was falling out of the higher flights of science into the higher flights of the law, and then flying into the dizzy heights of Scotland. Not only did I find the debate interesting—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for initiating it—but it has had all the ingredients of something which we should all get our teeth into more often; that is, discussion of the environment. I am a passionate anti-pollutionist, and I have always been a pro-European. As a Minister in the Department of the Environment it is pleasant to realise that we can discuss other things, apart from viewing the subject as a kind of umbrella covering various large Ministries.

May I say right away that the Government are in agreement with nearly all that has been said on every side of the House tonight. The debate which my noble friend Lady White has made possible could not have been more timely. The Minister of State, Mr. Howell, will be attending cm Thursday the Council of Environment Ministers which will be considering the draft bathing water Directive and also another water quality measure on dangerous substances in the aquatic environment. There is no doubt that this debate has been invaluable in providing an opportunity not only for discussion of the principles and the practice on which, in all our collective opinions, a sound water pollution control policy should be based, but in giving support to the Minister in putting over the Government's view.

I agree with my noble friend Lady White that some of the recent statements in the Press—and there have been a mixed bag of them—have probably given the impression that we are the environmental philistines of Europe. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, that it is right that we should give the public the lead in seeing that this is not so. On a superficial reading, without the very deep and wide knowledge which has been expounded on all sides tonight, it is a very seductive argument—"Britain the odd man out." "Britain against the reduction of pollution." "Britain no longer supporting environmental programmes", and so on. In fact, this is quite untrue. The truth is that with our flexible system of control we have, over the years, achieved a steady improvement in the quality of the environment, and can compliment ourselves on comparing favourably with other countries, including those which operate more rigid systems of control.

The suggestion that the Government have changed their attitude towards the draft substances in the aquatic environment under pressure from industry is one of the kites which has been flown, and it is completely unfounded. I should like to make it crystal clear that the debate is not about the objectives of controlling and reducing pollution, but about what action should be taken at Community level. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about the importance of our taking collective action. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who so rightly indicated the delicate line which we tread between co-operating in Europe and using what we consider are the best methods at home.

It would be very unfortunate and quite wrong if any criticism which has been made tonight by noble Lords who have spoken, and also by me when speaking on behalf of the Government, were interpreted elsewhere as an anti-European statement or move; it is not. I am saying that there is obviously great merit in trying to obtain agreement on the quality of life that we want to have. The debate is about the means of achieving the best environmental ends, and this is where the doubts arise. Our approach to pollution control has been not to set absolute standards, but to start by looking at the use to which we want to put the environment and the quality that this requires, and then to work back to the controls necessary to achieve that quality. Since environmental conditions differ so widely in Europe, it is clear that the controls that are required to achieve the same end must differ also; otherwise, the general waste in expenditure, in manpower, in initiative and in brain power would be tremendous.

May I turn first to the draft Directive on quality objectives for bathing water? This draft Directive is one of a series defining quality objectives for water, according to its use. The first of the series, on the quality of surface water for abstraction for drinking water, was adopted by the Council of Ministers last November. Whatever criticisms we may have of the draft, we entirely support the proposal to define quality criteria for sea or fresh water bathing and to improve waters in which people bathe until satisfactory standards are met. This is not because there is any significant health risk in sea bathing in British waters—except, I imagine, of catching cold. I noted what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, said about the North-East coast of Scotland, which I love to visit but would never bathe from. Bathing in rivers, however, is another kettle of fish.

Nevertheless, water off some of our beaches, even if not dangerously polluted can be extremely offensive. This is not a situation we should tolerate and I was delighted to hear the extremely interesting and brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, when lie brought it down to simple fundamentals, that if the beach smells all right and looks clean, you do not need to go to the extent of detailed monitoring.

Even so, we do not want standards which are too rigid. As I think has been pointed out, we do not all start from the same point. For example those who have bathed in the Mediterranean—and I think many of us probably have—may have found the sea warmer than, say, at Brighton, but they will certainly in many places have found it more polluted. So it may be comforting for British tourists to know that all members of the Community are agreed on trying to achieve proper stan- dards of bathing waters. But, of course, we all start from different points.

The proposal at no point mentions prohibition of bathing and our partners have no wish to prohibit bathing, either. In case there is any doubt at all about this, I can say quite categorically that the Government have no intention whatsoever of asking for powers to prohibit bathing in areas in this country where the standards in the Directive cannot be met, but where no risk can be identified to a bather's health. My noble friend Lady White raised the question of sampling during a particular season, and the latest draft defines the bathing season not as an official season but as the period in which most bathing can be expected. On the question of sampling and monitoring. I do not think I can add anything to what the noble Lord. Lord Ashby, has said.

Before coming to our fundamental criticism of the draft Directive there are a number of other criticisms, many of which have already been met by changes in the text. These are too lengthy to go into here, but I can say that the unsatisfactory definition of the scope of the Directive which applied to all areas where bathing is "tolerated" has been amended to refer instead to areas where bathing is "customarily practised by significant numbers of people"—still not exactly precise but, we believe, a great improvement. We have also managed to have the unnecessarily heavy weight of sampling and testing very much reduced.

So far as the standards in the Annexe are concerned, we have done our best to see that these are as well based and practical as possible. These standards are not, however, fixed on scientific considerations alone. Sometimes a compromise has to be made because different Member-States, for their own administrative or political reasons, see these questions from a different—not always wholly scientific—point of view. In other words, however often some scientist may say and prove that the standards need not be as stringent as some countries feel they want to keep, there are other motivations at work and the decisions are not made on science alone.

The chief issue which remains unresolved concerns the question of the proposed time limit of eight years, within which the quality objectives must be achieved. Here, I am in agreement with what noble Lords have said against the rigidity and over-simplification that this proposal tries to bring to very complex decisions on the most effective way to manage our rivers and coastal waters, and to the priorities for expenditure in achieving this variety of environmental objectives. I think all the speakers in this debate drew attention to this extremely important and vital question of expenditure. What we are talking about here are not decisions on how fast improvement can progress in one area or another, or on whether it is more important to concentrate inevitably scarce resources on cleaning up rivers which may be required for use for drinking water, or on providing adequate sewage treatment to serve vital new housing developments, rather than to divert money to improving bathing waters. In our view, these are essentially national or local decisions—not ones that it is possible or appropriate to take at Community level.

It is right to set a time period as an objective at Community level. It is also right that Member-States which cannot meet the objective should be prepared to explain their alternative priorities and plans. With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that all British beaches will comply with the standards set out within eight years, but we are quite prepared to explain just how and on what criteria water authorities' plans are based and what our timetables are. This is all a question of discussion and the exchanging of views and, although we may feel strongly about it and put our case strongly at the Council for more flexibility in Article 4 of the Directive and against unnecessary rigidity, there is no reason why, as I think has been pointed out already, even though we may not agree to the harmonisation which has been asked for, it should not be discussed harmoniously. What we want is a power for Member-States to make an exception from the normal eight-year-time-table in areas where improvements do not necessarily have a high priority, and it is on this point that we shall be arguing our case very strongly with the EEC.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, criticised the draft Directive as being ultra vires the terms of the Treaty of Rome. This is an issue which has inevitably arisen when the Community has wished to take steps which, although within the general spirit of the aims of the Community, were not perhaps specifically envisaged when the Treaty of Rome was drafted. In trying to reply to the noble and learned Lord and, I am afraid, in trying to prove him wrong. I must say that I felt much happier on the occasion when I found myself on his side—or I found him very much on my side—when, some time ago, he gave a Minority Report on the law of conspiracy. This time, unfortunately, we are slightly on opposite sides of the fence. But whether anyone was thinking of the environment programme when the Treaty was originally drawn up in 1957, it is difficult to know—probably they were not. We have come a long way since then and the subject of environment is very much part of out living conditions. So I accept that a rationale which links a proposal like the present bathing water proposal to a strict interpretation of the precise terms of the Treaty must be a little tortured, and that by our strict interpretation of the term "vires" as applied to our own subordinate legislation, there must be some doubt whether this can be done at all.

However, as was made clear in the Special Report on this subject on 11th December last year by the Scrutiny Committee, the approach by the original six members of the Community and by the European Court in assessing the legality of subordinate legislation is much broader than the approach that English courts adopt towards our own subordinate legislation. Therefore the Government feel that with this draft proposal it is certainly possible to make a case for saying that it falls within the broad objectives of the Common Market, as these are understood and interpreted by the Community and that, to quote from the Special Report: It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the European Court would uphold the legality' of any legislation or Directive which the Court considered capable of forwarding any of the objectives of the Treaty. None of our partners has questioned the viresof the bathing water proposal: indeed all seem to feel that it has a value in promoting, to quote Article 2 of the European Treaty: The improvement of living conditions [and] the harmonious development of economic activities through the Community". I am aware that this probably will not satisfy the noble and learned Lord, but it is true that we in our courts have a stricter and narrower interpretation than the courts on the Continent. Here we are talking about the European Court. This is not to say that "anything goes", because the European court is likely to be broader in its approach than a British court would be. Quite rightly we should keep a watch on community proposals to see that the Community vires is not abused or stretched too far.

It is absolutely right that the very points raised by the noble and learned Lord should be constantly put before us so that we are wary and aware of what we are doing. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has done the House a great service by drawing our attention to this point. But in the present case, the Government feel that nothing is to be gained by questioning the legality of the proposal and, indeed, in certain respects we are inclined to welcome it in its broad outline.

The noble and learned Lord appeared to put another point; that the proposal would be intro vires if it allowed no flexibility at all for Member-States in dealing with bathing in polluted waters. This would lead to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, where a Directive which forced us to divert significant expenditure, against our better judgment, to one area of improvement was perfectly in order, but where one which defined the broad objective but left Member-States with a certain amount of reasonable freedom to decide the best policy in the light of local circumstances, was not in order. I feel that we should be opposed to that conclusion. If we are to work together with our partners in Europe, it seems to me that there has to be flexibility all round which I submit, with great respect, has also to extend into the legal area.

My Lords, if I may now turn to the draft Directive on water pollution from pulp mills, this is a rather different matter from the bathing water proposal because, unlike the bathing water Directive, it would involve a radical departure from the principles upon which we have based our pollution control measures in this country to date, which were stressed so well by my noble friend Lady White and by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. Also, it is a Directive which has not got as far as the bathing water Directive, because as yet, there has not been much discussion on it. There is great advantage in hearing the views, which have been put so strongly and forcefully tonight, at this early stage of mutual discussion.

It is an essential feature of the system we use for controlling polluting discharges that decisions about the precise levels of pollutants which may be allowed should be taken by water authorities in the light of differing local circumstances. It makes a great deal of difference to the level of controls if the discharge is made into an inland river used for drinking supply, or into an estuary or the sea. This is not because we do not care about polluting the sea, but because the capacity of tidal waters with strong currents to absorb the pollutants without any harm is so much greater. Several noble Lords have pointed this out. To ignore this fact, and to impose rigid, uniform standards on mills regardless of where they are situated is to risk wasting money treating effluent, sometimes to unnecessarily high standards. It also takes away the incentive for an industrialist to site factories where wastes can be most economically disposed of. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had to say on this particular point.

The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the "polluters should pay" doctrine. It is true that the EEC is phasing in the PPP doctrine over the first six-year period up to 1986. Member States should observe the "polluters should pay" doctrine. Certainly our Government have no intention of giving grants in this area. As there appears to have been some confusion over this, we should make the position clear. Indeed, there is no requirement in the wood pulp Directive which would require us to give grants. We have no intention of giving them, as I have said. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out that it would have quite the reverse effect to that which has been widely quoted, that it would improve competitive conditions; in fact it would distort competition considerably. Even if in principle the Government did not think it was quite wrong, in Community terms it would be quite wrong to adopt something which in fact it has been agreed to phase out over the six-year period. So there does not seem to me to be any argument in that particular point at all. It was certainly not a question of any sinister pressure by industry which made the Government take this view. It is a view that the Government have taken all along, as did the previous Government.

My Lords, we simply cannot afford to waste money in this way, particularly at a time of economic stringency when we must he even more sure that our inevitably scarce resources are put to the best possible use. The Government have not had a change of heart over this, as the Press, and according to The Times of this morning, Mr. Peter Walker, have said. There is no change of heart in our attitude, because throughout the discussions in Brussels on the dangerous substances in the aquatic environment decision and on the pulp Directive, the attitude of the Government has been quite clear and consistent. We are opposed to the setting of standards for discharges at Community level. This is not because we do not want an effective environment policy; it is because we wish to remain free to pursue environmental improvement by methods which we feel are tried and effective.

We cannot see that any environmental advantage can be gained by changing our practices. As I think almost every noble Lord has said, we should be aiming at the whole environment. I am most grateful for the authoritative contribution to this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, in support of the policy of the Government. I am saved from having to explain things which I would not understand deeply enough myself. The noble Lord has given examples of how an acceptable quality in the environment can be achieved in difficult circumstances by applying widely different standards to sewage or industrial effluents.

My Lords, we must recognise that our approach is not adopted by all our partners. This again, is a question of flexibility. Some Member-States take the view that the best way to achieve definite progress in controlling polluting discharges is to work to uniform standards which they feel are more readily enforce- able and in some cases more readily accepted by their industry. Continental water pollution policy is also dogged by the problems presented by major international rivers, such as the Rhine. Although we are now part of one Community, every State has its own particular problems. We have to work out ways of dealing with those problems individually, and also with our different partners in the Community.

The Government have sympathy with these special problems and, of course, in our turn we do not want to limit their freedom to adopt what means they consider most effective for achieving the quality of environment they desire, and in the way in which they feel they can most easily and desirably bring it about. We would not agree that our more flexible approach is less readily enforceable by water authorities, whose powers and duties extend to determining what the use and desired quality of a river should be, and controlling and monitoring all discharges made into the waters. I do not think there is any need for me to go into the point of the colossal expense involved in this, because the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, dealt with it in such an expert manner.

My Lords, I would emphasise once again that our criticisms of this proposal do not in any way spring from a desire to allow pulp mills to get away with gross pollution of tidal or other waters. The story of the improvement of the tidal Thames is generally recognised as a notable success, and the published results of the River Pollution Surveys show a definite improvement in river water over the years of the survey. The updating of the survey is a continuous process. I am now in a position to say that the latest information we have indicates that this improvement is continuing. Within the resources available to us we are by no means dragging our feet in controlling water pollution, and we have been in the environmental business for rather longer than some of our European colleagues.

In the Government's view, I repeat, it is important to agree at Community level the quality objectives we should aim for in the environment. I also agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, when he said that the Commission—these were not his words—should do its homework properly; I believe it should constantly draw on the expertise of Member-States, and the Secretary of State for my own Department put this point of view very firmly at the last Environmental Council in 1974. We shall be seeking to persuade our partners that decisions about the methods to be used for achieving satisfactory water quality—whether by some national uniformity of standards, or, as we think, by more flexible application of local controls coupled with effective monitoring of discharges and receiving water—can best be left to national Governments. We all want cleaner rivers and cleaner seas. In the United Kingdom we have evolved a method which we believe will enable us to achieve this as economic resources allow. We believe it is an effective and cost-effective method, and I can assure the House that the Government are, and will continue to be, most active in seeking to convince our partners in Europe of the good faith and the efficacy of our approach to pollution control.

9.2 p.m.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I should like most warmly to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think it has proved that the setting up of the Scrutiny Committee for EEC delegated legislation has been worth while, if only in that it can give us a chance of discussing the principles contained in some of these Directives which we find on occasion very difficult. I hope that what has been said in this House tonight will not make matters more onerous for the Minister, Mr. Howell, when he goes to Luxembourg later this week. I hope he will feel that we have tried to put a sensible point of view. I trust it will not be thought that we have been too complacent. That, I think, is one of the dangers in pointing out where we find difficulties with the suggestions put forward by our partners; it may appear that we are over-complacent about our own performance.

I think our own performance is very creditable, but I have here, for example, a list of Welsh beaches which by no means reach the standards of golden beaches. I had rather hoped that my noble friend Lady Birk might have said something about Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, which, unfortunately, is not yet to be implemented. I would also hope that the Government are giving some thought to positive usage of sewage, which can, I believe, be turned to food for animals, for fish farming and so forth. We should not take it for granted that even taking it by the longest outfall to sea is necessarily the best way of dealing with sewage products.

Having said that, I should like to thank all noble Lords very much indeed for their contributions in this debate, and I hope that the Motion will be approved by the House. We had thought of putting the Motion in more positive terms and asking the House formally to approve our Reports. We felt, however, that this might be regarded as perhaps a little undiplomatic, and so we are asking the House merely to note them. But I hope the House will at least do that with attention.

9.5 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, as she raised two important points by way of questions I feel that I ought to reply to them. So far as implementation of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act is concerned, I can only tell her that so far as I am concerned she is preaching to the converted. I nag everybody all the time about it. The problem, as I think she is aware, concerns the capital that will be involved in implementing it. But I think she will be glad to know that the enormous amount of consultation that needs to take place on implementation is already proceeding, so that when we are in a position to financially implement we shall have done a good deal of work.

On her second point, about conversion of sewage, here again we are quite ready to undertake or to support any research which we think is viable. If my noble friend has in mind the report of the work that is taking place in the Thames on the conversion of sewage into foodstuff for poultry, the reason why the Department turned down that suggestion was because they did not think it was a viable enough proposition for us to put money into at that time, that in fact those concerned had not gone far enough. I hope the House will bear with me, because I thought these were two extremely germane points, particularly in view of the very good point my noble friend made that we must not appear complacent, which we are not. We are very well aware that the sooner we can implement Part II of the Act the better, and obviously we are prepared to support any research that we consider is well worth doing.