WATER SUPPLIES

HC Deb 06 December 1976 vol 922 cc167-95

10.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)

I beg to move, That this House, recognising the existing duty of United Kingdom Water Authorities to provide sufficient and wholesome supplies of water, welcomes the EEC Draft Directive on the Quality of Water for Human Consumption (R/2098/75) and notes that it will not affect the extent to which authorities in the United Kingdom will need to enter premises to take samples. The draft directive which we are debating tonight is one of a series on water, covering both water in the environment and water for human consumption, which are in different stages of preparation in the Community. This one was published on 18th September 1975 and has been the subject of lengthy negotiations and consultations. It has already been debated in another place and considered twice by a Select Committee of this House.

I commend the Committee for its work and for drawing attention to some points of criticism. My Department has been able to satisfy the Committee on all its points except one, which it felt should have further consideration. This point concerned the right of entry to private premises for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the directive. I shall return to this point shortly.

The water supply undertakings in the United Kingdom had a statutory duty to provide a sufficient and wholesome supply of water—a duty which they have discharged well for many years. They are in a good position to meet the terms of this directive.

There are no statutory standards for drinking water in the United Kingdom. The statutes have placed a duty on water undertakings to supply wholesome water, but wholesome is nowhere defined. Statutory water undertakers have generally conformed to the World Health Organisation's recommendations, which have also been the basis for this directive. This draft directive sets standards for the quality of water for human consumption, including that used in the manufacture of food and drink, but excluding natural mineral and medicinal waters for which separate community legislation is being prepared.

Annex 1 to the directive lists the parameters, which are divided into five groups. These are organoleptic—for example, taste and smell; physico-chemical—for example, magnesium and dissolved oxygen; undesirable in excessive amounts —for example, nitrates and mineral oils; toxic—for example, lead and arsenic; and microbiological—for example, total bacteria.

Water used in the manufacture of food and drink in such a way that member States are satisfied that the finished product presents no hazard to human health does not have to comply with the directive. In all other cases, the water used in the manufacture of food and drink has to comply only with the toxic and microbiological parameters plus any other parameters which member States consider affect the wholesomeness of the finished product.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury) rose——

Mr. Marks

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall take only five minutes and that I hope to reply at some length.

I now turn to the question of sampling. It is obviously necessary to check the water supply to ensure that it conforms to the standards in the directive. A table of frequency of sampling is laid down in the directive. In the case of small sources, that is those providing less than 1,000 cubic metres per day or serving fewer than 5,000 people, the frequency of sampling is entirely at the discretion of member States.

Although the directive lays down the frequency of sampling, it does not lay down the points at which samples are to be taken. It is clearly stated in the directive that the points of sampling should be determined by the competent national authorities. The 32nd Report of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c., said that the right of entry to private premises for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the directive raised a question of importance.

This directive conveys no right of entry for this or any other purposes. Nevertheless, it may be necessary from time to time to check the water at the tap to ensure that the quality is good throughout the distribution system. This is, of course, done at present. Such samples as are required are obtained either by invitation of the owner or occupier when some complaint is made about the water supply or by requests of the water undertaker or local authority.

The evidence is that householders are usually pleased to grant such a request in the interests of ensuring that their water is wholesome. We see no reason why the present practice should not continue. There are in existence powers to enter premises by water authorities, local authorities and factory inspectors for the purpose of sampling water supplies. We do not envisage that these powers will be required for the purposes of the directive.

At the time when the Select Committee considered the directive, it was not entirely clear to what extent member States would have discretion in choosing the points of sampling. Subsequent negotiations in Brussels have made it clear that the directive lays down only the frequency of sampling. The place of sampling is at the discretion of the member State.

In general terms, we do not expect to have difficulty in complying with the terms of the directive. There are, however, two points on which we disagree with other member States which we hope can be resolved in the remaining stages of negotiations.

The first of these concerns lead. The current World Health Organisation standard for lead is 100 micro-gram per litre but the value proposed in the directive is 50 micro-grams per litre. All public water supplies in the United Kingdom would comply with the proposed EEC standard for water in the distribution system. Problems arise however when the water gets into old lead pipes. Lead is poisonous but its ingestion from water forms only part of the body's intake. The other two sources are from food and from the air. The amount absorbed from water is normally much less than that from food. Air makes an insignificant contribution.

There is no medical evidence that continued ingestion of water containing 100 micro-grams per litre of lead is harmful. There is, therefore, no medical case for lowering the limit to 50 micro-grams. There is much we have still to learn about the problems of lead in the environment. Work is going on to solve these problems. Until the necessary work has been done we feel that we should not undertake expenditure on achieving a value for lead in water which, on the evidence so far available, is unnecessary.

The second point on which we disagree with our partners is on revision of the directive. As our knowledge improves, it may be necessary to change the values of some of the parameters in the annex to the directive. It is proposed to establish a committee on technical progress to make such changes. The committee would be able to make changes by majority decision. Any change in the parameter values might involve expenditure in order to meet it. We therefore believe that such changes should be subject to the same process of consultation as the remainder of the directive.

I hope that I have covered the outstanding point which has been raised by the Select Committee and outlined the two remaining points of difficulty which we hope to resolve in the remaining negotiations. We think that this directive is an important part of the Committee's environment programme and one with which we are confident we shall have little difficulty in complying.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)

The Minister has covered succinctly and comprehensively many of the points that have been raised by this directive. He has had an easy run so far but I think that perhaps some of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and some of his own right hon. and hon. Friends—will be lying in wait to question him on the mechanics and perhaps the validity of parts of the directive. I am sure that in no way can the objectives of this directive be questioned.

When the EEC draft Directive, R 2098/75, was before the Council of the European Communities the subject matter read: Proposal for a Council Directive relating to the quality of water for human consumption. When the debate in the European Parliament was opened Lord Bethell referred to the fact that tap water: will, once this directive is implemented, become of a uniform quality in all of the nine countries. In a comprehensive speech on that occasion Lord Bethell emphasised—and we must agree with him—the utmost importance of safe drinking water. I am sure that I am not alone in recalling numerous occasions when water has had to be boiled before being used, either for purposes of dilution or for a brew-up. How much more convenient it is simply to turn on the tap.

Lord Bethell referred to the fountain of life. We are, if I am quoting correctly, invited to drink freely—not in cost terms in the context of the substantial increases we have seen in water charges. We must be able, with no fear of adverse consequences, to use water freely and without limitation. However, advice is one thing, its fulfilment quite another. Water provision is an involved, costly and complicated matter.

We are concerned here with availability and adequate standards in terms of community health, which is of the utmost importance. Clearly there can be no challenge in these terms to the objectives of the directive. Standards in this country require the provision of a sufficient and wholesome supply. I like to think that in fulfilment of these criteria we have a supply service that is second to none.

There are variations in the sum total of the constituents of water from differing sources. Standards and parameters of requirements must vary quite significantly in some respects. For example, in Bedfordshire, with which I am familiar, we draw a substantial amount of our water from the river, which flows through limestone. In another sector, it is pumped up from the greensand. The constituent parts of limestone carried in the river and greensand from underwater aquifiers are significantly different.

I question what Lord Bethell said in the Brussels debate when he referred to "uniformity of quality." I do not think that uniformity of quality is capable, or necessary, of fulfilment. These observations, particularly in the area of specific additives, are relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) spoke in the European Parliament debate about the addition of fluorine compounds. I noted, too, the comment by Dr. Hillery, the Vice-President of the Commission, who said that a conference is proposed to deal with the question of all additives to drinking water.

The Minister mentioned the problems associated with tests proposed at the point of use. The Thirteenth Report of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c., Session 1975–76, dated 10th March 1976, stated: It appears that the Directive as drafted would apply to water at the point of use. If this is the case, public authorities will be required to monitor water on the consumer's premises to ensure that it conformed to the standards laid down. The powers available to local and water authorities to enter private premises do not appear to provide powers of entry clearly linked with the purposes and with the full range of the draft Directive. Even if the available powers could in some cases be used for the purposes of the Directive it is questionable whether they should be. The Minutes of Evidence record that some months earlier—on 9th December 1975—Mr. Dorrington, Assistant Secretary in the Water Division at the Department of the Environment, said: … all our water authorities and our local authorities already have powers to take samples from the tap if they wish to do so, therefore, we should not be in any legislative difficulty on that matter. It appears that the evidence that Mr. Dorrington gave to the Select Committee was not accepted when it reported.

I have made inquiries and discovered, on looking at the practical considerations of water testing, that throughout a water supply system there are points at which it is customary to make tests and there is a particular connection point which makes that provision possible. Generally speaking, experience shows that there are no access problems. In fact, people are quite keen, if there is any question of their water being sub-standard, to allow entry so that it should be tested. That is understandable. The question here is rights of entry. I should be interested to hear the views of hon. Members on this matter.

One of the difficulties for the water suppliers is that their responsibility to supply wholesome water is to the point of entry to premises and what happens beyond the point of entry is the responsibility of the owner or occupier. If the tests are to be made within the premises at a tap point, there is the danger that the customary and recognised responsibility for the water supply authorities will be significantly extended. This is an important point to which the Minister should address himself, because from the point of entering on to premises it is the water customer's responsibility to ensure that the supply that he receives from the tap is wholesome, that his staff on the premises receive that sort of supply, and, indeed, that those invited on to the premises are ensured of a wholesome water supply.

Much depends on the type of system, whether it is a direct supply from the point of entry into the premises to the tap or whether it goes through other equipment. Does it go through a tank equipment with a cistern, for example? Does it go through a water softening device? Various questions arise.

The Minister mentioned the question of lead piping which is, and has been for many years, commonly used in internal water supply systems and can pick up a deal of lead content.

For suppliers to cover circumstances such as these and to monitor would greatly extend the responsibility of water supply authorities. There is clearly a joint responsibility between water suppliers and public health authorities. Have the public health authorities the right to take water samples for the purposes of testing to see that the supply is wholesome? There is an important question of principle here and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

Generally we welcome the objectives of the draft directive and, indeed, they must be welcomed in all parts of the House. But there must be recognition of the variation of water content and of the different chemical contents of water—subject, of course, essentially to the overriding consideration that the supply is of a quality fit for human consumption.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

This is a limited measure, and with the worst will in the world it would be difficult to find anything sinister about it, because it does not appear to be in any way a drive to some form of "Euro-water". There is to be no uniformity, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—quoted by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones)—appeared to suggest. Indeed, in reading through the draft directive, flexibility appears to be very much written into all the requirements, in part because of the factors mentioned by the hon. Member, such as the different geographical elements which affect the several parameters.

The directive essentially sets down the quality for public health reasons and the appropriate monitoring procedures. I have only two questions to ask. The first is on fluoridation. It appears that fluoridation is not relevant to tonight's debate, in that the directive sets the maximum content at only 1.5 milligrams per litre, which is well above the fluoride levels in the several schemes in operation in this country, which roughly on average are at 1 milligram per litre. Given the revision procedures which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State set out, presumably there would be no danger of these procedures in any way being used for enforcing fluoridation in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, concerning lead levels, my hon. Friend suggests that the directive's recommendation is for 50 micrograms per litre, and that all the authorities in the United Kingdom can adapt to this without any difficulty. He stressed that medical opinion was divided on the health effects of lead. We went over this ground before in the debate on lead content in petrol. It is clear that medical opinion is divided, but this is an uncertain and potentially very dangerous field. I hope the Government will not be too restricted by the public expenditure constraint, which my hon. Friend mentioned, where there is a genuine fear among many sectors of the Community about the public health dangers.

It appears that the debate tonight is taking place only because of the Select Committee's concern about the supposed powers of entry. The hon. Member for Daventry mentioned that there is a real question of principle as to the point at which the sampling procedure is to be taken. I am not sure that this is such a major factor, because presumably there is likely to be very little difference in quality between the supply of water at, say, the point of entry to the household the tap and at any point along the distribution system. The only elements which could affect that would be the old lead pipes or other things which could have a relatively marginal effect on the end product. Therefore the sampling could be at any point of the system.

The Select Committee's fear appears to be more on the ground that an Englishman's home is his castle and on the ground of civil rights. This is a question of the legal powers currently available to the various statutory undertakings, including the water undertakings. Certainly my understanding is that all these undertaking already have that power. Indeed, most householders, one assumes, would be only too delighted to facilitate the entry of the relevant officials to ensure that their water was of the proper quality. This again appears not to be a real objection. Therefore one is puzzled why the Select Committee, in the light of this knowledge of the existing powers, has still persisted in its concern on this matter.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) found this directive not sinister. I do not think that "sinister" is the term I would apply to it. But I do not agree with him in questioning that this is an appropriate subject to be debated on the Floor of the House, and not only because of the question of rights of entry, which was specifically raised by the Scrutiny Committee.

The motion is so effusive as to use the term "welcomes". In one respect, this wording is to be welcomed, and I hope that it represents a departure which will become standard form from the old, bad custom of merely "taking note" of these documents. At least it is helpful when the House is presented with a specific proposition with which it can agree or disagree. But in no other sense would I welcome the contents of this directive.

On the contrary, I think that it is perfectly absurd and futile that the EEC should be concerning itself with standards of water supply inside this country. The Minister admitted that his introductory remarks were brief, but there was one essential which they did not contain and which would have been expected—an explanation of how it comes about that the Community is concerning itself at all in seeking to establish uniform or uniform minimum standards of water supply throughout the Community.

We have not—at any rate yet—heard the suggestion that it is necessary, in order to secure freedom of trade within the Community, that we should all drink water of the same standard. It may be, admittedly, that there are some marginal effects on some items which enter into trade between the various parts of the Community, but if so they must be a minuscule element of the effects of water supply in the various countries and are obviously a subject which can be more efficiently and more directly dealt with in directives which apply to particular articles of commerce which might be affected.

I think that there is a certain impertinence, even, in a directive of this sort coming to the United Kingdom from the Continent of Europe. I do not know what your custom is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your travels on the Continent, but my practice—and I think that it is a wise one—is, outside the major towns, never to drink water from the tap and never drink carafe water, and I observe that it is not only the inhabitants of these happy islands who are liable to illness if they infringe those general rules of hygiene when travelling on the Continent, because local inhabitants themselves are commonly observed not to be prepared to drink water from the tap or from carafes in restaurants but to purchase only bottled water, often at considerable expense and inconvenience.

Now these people, who are far behind the general level of the water supply which prevails in this country, have the impertinence to set up this cat's cradle —and we are only at the start of it, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear—of regulations in order that we in this country, who have been perfectly capable of improving and maintaining an ever-improving standard of water supplies, shall be brought into some degree of uniformity with what prevails, or, rather, does not prevail, upon the adjacent Continent. This is an example, and an example which fully calls for debate on the Floor of the House, of Community legislation for legislation's sake.

This is a matter which each individual country in the Community is perfectly capable of regulating without interference by the Community authorities.

The water and public health authorities in this country are perfectly capable of continuing as they have been for a century or more past. Our Public Health Acts include all the powers and requirements necessary to do this job to satisfaction and for the purposes of public health. This is the kind of creeping interventionism——

Mr. Marten

Etatism.

Mr. Powell

—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) calls it etatism, and not unjustly—into the sphere of purely domestic concern which, if it is not checked, will be rapidly extended and accompanied by the growth in the vested interest in the bureaucracy which inevitably comes with it.

So far from feeling that the House should be welcoming the directive, and so far from agreeing with the Government in going along with the Community, it should be understood from this debate that we do not want and do not need Community legislation of this kind. It is irrelevant to the economic purposes of the Community. It can be relevant only to its most exorbitant political purposes, and it is something that this House and the country can do very well without.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

I should like to fall into line with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who, as usual on these matters, has hit the nub of the situation. This country has an excellent record in the provision of water supplies, a record of which we can be proud.

I understand that our water supplies are the subject of a Green Paper. This is one of those subjects that Parliament should be free to determine in the way that historically we have found most useful, that is, by working with and consulting all the interested bodies so as to provide consumers with the best possible service and the highest standards of health protection.

The Community has intruded upon a sovereignty. That intrusion borders upon an impertinence. For many years I have camped, caravanned and motored through the smaller villages and townships of France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere in Europe. I can confirm that the inhabitants of these areas are extremely cautious over their use of water from outside taps, which are often situated near latrines.

Who in the United Kingdom is afraid to take water from any tap, be it in village or town? Who for one moment would question the methods of caring for and maintaining our reservoirs? Who would question the daily and nightly testing of our water? If the Common Market wants advice on standards, it should come to this country for it.

It appears that the Government have, once again, come along with nice words to say that they welcome this. I understand that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who has approached this matter in his usual fair-minded and objective way, has not contravened what might be called good parliamentary practice. We are not here to question good parliamentary practice but whether Parliament is having its time wasted on matters with which we can best deal ourselves and which should not be lost in a morass of legislative and documentary work.

These documents go back some years. The time lag on these matters in the Common Market is alarming. I would have thought that any Minister worth his salt would go to the Common Market and say "Look, mind your own business!"

I am against the Common Market. I make no bones about that. The whole objective has been to achieve some form of economic unity. Strong reservations have been expressed in this House over sovereignty and monetary policies, but there have been margins of agreement between both sides on economic unity—although I disagree because I think it is self-defeating. On topics such as water we should have a right to determine for ourselves because we have the highest standards.

Who are we to allow our business in the United Kingdom to be placed in the hands of those people in that large building in Brussels? They go on that circus to Strasbourg every three months in order to keep the peace over some local triviality. They do not know the business of water provision in the United Kingdom. If I had to make a choice between drinking water in the United Kingdom or anywhere on the Continent, the choice would be here. We have the highest standards.

The House of Commons should send a message to the Common Market. The right hon. Member for Down, South has been consistent. Some of my hon. Friends have been consistent. We are not questioning the objective or telling the rest of the EEC that they are wrong to seek higher health standards. But we have a right to say to the rest of the Common Market, "Mind your own business. We are the pacemakers in this game."

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

It is seldom that during European debate I find myself in sympathy with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), but I do tonight. But they have both missed the point. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who spoke during the debate in the European Assembly, also missed the point when he talked about uniform standard. That is not the objective. We are trying to achieve minimum standards below which no one will fall.

Hon. Members have referred to their travels on the Continent and to problems there. I have every sympathy. and I know the problems that can arise. This is not an adjacent Continent. It is our Continent, and about 10,000 people from these islands travel in Europe every year, sometimes at their own risk.

We should take pride that we have nothing to fear from inspection of the quality of our water. We can live up to any standards. We set an example to the rest of the Community. It is easy to say that this is an impertinence on the part of the Community. but it is not that at all. If the hon. Member for Hartlepool has listened to the debate in Committee, and in the European Assembly, he would realise that the Community is looking to us for a lead. I am proud of that. They expect us to set a standard—which in fact we already set. We should stand out against the setting of falsely high standards by the Commission. It falls into this trap time and again.

The Minister referred to the standard of lead content and mentioned 100 micrograms per litre and the proposal to reduce it to 50 micrograms. I have no time for this trivia and nonsense. I look for a common, uniform standard to safeguard the ordinary people living in the Community.

I believe that this is what the document sets out to do. I agree that it goes too far beyond that, that it is too detailed and complicated and that it has become fair game for those who wish to mock the work of the Community which, in terms of public health and the environment, is right in basic essentials.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) that most hon. Members would not agree with Lord Bethell, who has a wrong view of what drinking water is about. I understand that the specialists say that there are no absolutes in the purity of water, at least in this country's main system.

However, I disagree with what the hon. Member for Dorset, West said about example. It may be that in our public water supply we enjoy a standard not always found throughout mainland Europe, but if there has to be a raising of standards, it need not necessarily be done through the Community. The World Health Organisation has European standards which are referred to in the document before us. Additional standards may be necessary in connection with ions, but it would have been better if the Community had adopted WHO standards or, if those standards had been thought inadequate, changed them.

There is surely no need to have a colossal bureaucracy learning all the intricacies of the complicated matter of water supply, going through many official consultations and to some expense to reach a standard of water which might be better assessed by the WHO anyway.

I understand that there is also an organisation called EUREAU, comprising the water authorities of a number of countries. I suspect that it goes beyond the boundaries of the EEC. Surely that would have been an alternative or at least another organisation which could have harmonised with the WHO to produce an international standard if one were required. It would have had the additional advantage of extending beyond the boundaries of existing members of the Community.

I hope that the Minister can say why we did not consider, as a nation member of the Community, using existing organisations instead of going through the lengthy and complex procedures of having European regulations.

The motion welcomes the draft directive and notes that it will not affect the extent to which authorities in the United Kingdom will need to enter premises to take samples. That, in effect, is what the Minister said in his opening speech. That is not what the undated Explanatory Memorandum says. I am becoming tired of complaining about undated memoranda from this Government because they have large numbers of well-qualified people to help them. We should not have undated memoranda to EEC documents which are subject to change.

Paragraph 14 of the memorandum states: It is now proposed that member states should be able to lay down the points of sampling But when opening the debate the Minister did not say that. He said that it had now been "decided" that member States should be able to lay down the points of sampling. My hon. Friend's remarks are compatible with the terms of the motion but incompatible with the signed memorandum of his hon. Friend the Minister.

I cannot find the paragraph—if it exists—which either says that the point of sample will be at the tap—which was the original proposal—or which describes the modification which has been agreed and lays down that the point of sample will be at the discretion of the member State. The Minister appears to agree with me. We are therefore being asked to welcome a directive which allows sampling at the discretion of the member State.

Although some may laugh about harmonisation of water, we have some incongruity in the document. My hon. Friend said that notwithstanding that member States will be able to choose where sampling will take place, from time to time sampling from the tap will be necessary. Why? That may be wise or good, but is it necessary?

I am not a member of the Select Committee which considers these issues but I take an interest in water and I have contacts with the National Water Council. In evidence to the Committee the Council said that its powers would not extend this far. The Council said: These bye-laws are not easy to enforce as it is, and the Council must make the obvious comment that there would be very difficult problems in enforcing mandatory standards at the tap. … Water authorities would be most reluctant to engage any large inspectorate required to enforce the EEC directive or to incur the odium and the expense of frequent intrusion into private households. Perhaps what the Council said is not necessary because, as my hon. Friend says, sampling will be at a point decided by the member State. But that is not in the document and the Minister said that there would be need to go to the tap. I hope that he will clarify the rather muddy water contained in the document.

Two other minor matters arise. The first concerns the National Water Council's comment on coliform content. In this country we have a minimum requirement of one to two milligrams per litre whereas the EEC insists upon nothing. The National Water Council asks why the EEC insists on what appears to be such a high standard.

The second matter—it may involve a typing error—concerns nitrates. An interesting article appeared in the November issue of "Water" which shows that due to our agricultural practices we have up to 30 milligrams per litre of nitrate in water percolating chalk and Bunter sandstone. The World Health Organisation's recognised limits are between 11.3 and 22.6 milligrams per litre. The National Water Council document points out that the EEC is insisting upon standards which are more rigorous than those of the World Health Organisation, but in the print before us, on page 25, the nitrate level is shown as 50 milligrams per litre, which is nearly five times the WHO standard. There seems to be some misapprehension here. If the WHO stanwards are a maximum of about 22, the EEC standard, according to this document, is well in excess of that, although the National Water Council says that it is well below it.

Perhaps this is again one of the amendments about which we have not heard. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to reply to that point tonight because it is rather detailed. However, he might care to write to me about it later, because nitrate concentration is the cause of some concern although a lot of work is being done on it.

Finally, I have in my hand the November Bulletin of the Food and Drink Industries Council. That Council has been much concerned with this issue. The bulletin contains a rather important paragraph about water, and refers to the exercise of the FDIC Water Quality Sub-Committee in respect of the European CIAA organisation, of which the FDIC is a member. It says, Much has been learned from this exercise. In particular, the value of the opportunity that CIAA provides for UK industry to influence the views of the European food and drink industries as a whole and thereby the European legislators. Whilst the long-established channel of influence via the UK government representatives will remain vital, the advantages of an increasingly effective CIAA are now becoming apparent. Therefore, on perhaps the unlikely subject of water, we have a statement from a national body of manufacturers in Britain to the effect that because of the pressure that it has been able to bring through the CIAA—and presumably it is pressure on the EEC—while it pays lip service and says that the long-established channel of influence via the United Kingdom Government is still important, it is getting some results and is making, as implied, almost better headway, perhaps, by going to the European channels.

That is something that the House should note, because on the unlikely subject of water it shows that the power of not only the British Government but the British Parliament is being eroded.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

In this short debate I had intended to pose only two questions to the Minister. However, it is worth noting that often these short debates, particularly on European subjects, bring to the Floor of the House debate in the real sense, which is frequently something missing with the more set speech and, supposedly, on grand occasions.

In one small way I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), echoed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is of considerable note that the Government, in the way that the motion is placed before us, have taken a recommendation of the then Procedure Committee. We did not have two Procedure Committees at the time. The Procedure Committee urged that when European debates came to the Floor of the House, the motion should have some meaning and not be just a "take note" motion —a vote against which would mean very little. The recommendation was that if it could be specifically said that the Government were welcoming or being critical of an EEC directive, this would be of benefit, and that it ought to be made clear to the House whether the Government could in any way comply with it. The fact that this has been possible is a step in the right direction, and one that the Government business managers should emulate in future.

I agreed with much of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said, but I think that he reached exactly the wrong conclusions from the evidence. He was worried and concerned, as was the hon. Member for Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), about provisions for taking water from the tap in a number of European countries. I do not accept that what the right hon. Gentleman said applies to all European countries. Denmark and Germany cannot comply with the standards that we require. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot with impuity drink from the tap in some European countries, that shows precisely the need for this kind of directive in obtaining a minimum standard.

The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) were most apposite—that we were seeking not absolute standardisation but a minimum standard for the whole of Europe. I would very much welcome such a standard.

The Minister, like every other hon. Member, will naturally be concerned about the rise in water rates, which every part of the country has suffered, is suffering and looks likely to go on suffering. The chief executive of one of the largest water authorities said recently that authorities must be concerned about demands for excessive water purity, which might be unnecessary for ordinary health reasons. In addition, he said, the greater the purity demanded the more massive the cost involved.

Does the Minister consider that the directive demands an unnecessary degree of purity? Is there any way in which, by our own standards, we could simplify our purification procedures and save considerable sums of money? That would be appreciated by the ratepayers.

To ordinary people, the answers to those questions would be much more interesting than most of this debate. My only other criticism of the directive would arise if we were required to take steps that were most costly than the Minister and his expert advisers believed were necessary.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I should like to suggest to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that the experience of last summer would indicate that the problem facing the United Kingdom is a shortage of water in various parts of England and Wales rather than a need to standardise quality throughout the country. We can pass all the directives we like, but we shall not change geography, and the quality of water in the United Kingdom varies because of geography.

There are three matters that I should like to take up with the Minister. The first concerns the Explanatory Memorandum from the Department of the Environment. As it concerns Scotland, I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone)—an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The memorandum says: It is probable that implementation of the directive could be achieved by administrative arrangements. But, if implementation could not be achieved by agreement with the regional and island councils, subordinate legislation might be required…". Does this mean that the House will have to be involved in additional legislation during the coming parliamentary Session if we cannot get such administrative agreements with regional and island authorities?

Secondly, how much is all this going to cost the water authorities? The rate support grant is being reduced for local authorities in England and Wales and in Scotland. Are we at the same time putting additional burdens on water authorities?

Thirdly, there is a local matter with which my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park will be conversant. It concerns the lead content of the water pipes serving the Glasgow area. Earlier this year there was considerable anxiety about certain medical effects of that lead content. I understand that Professor Goldberg, of Glasgow University, has been doing some work on the medical effects of a high lead content. Can the Minister say how that work is progressing? A grant is payable in respect of it by the Scottish Home and Health Department.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised one or two issues requiring clarification in Brussels following which they should be brought back to the Scrutiny Committee as amendments to this draft proposal. I totally agree with him that there is so much confusion that the Minister has a duty to bring back the directive as a properly amended legislative document for the Scrutiny Committee to consider, so that it may recommend amendments as a matter of interest, but not for debate, or for debate again if they are sufficiently important. I hope that that sensible proposition will be accepted by the Minister early in his reply to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) said that the Community looked for a lead from the United Kingdom, as we should see if we read the report of the debate in the European Parliament. I have read those speeches and I have the report here with me, but I cannot see anybody looking for a lead from the United Kingdom—unless the report of that debate has been forgotten.

I join those who ask why we need this provision. We operate perfectly wholesomely to the World Health Organisation's standards. Why cannot we pass a simple regulation to say that other members of the Community shall adopt the World Health Organisation's standards, too? Everybody would then be happy, not in a Community way, but moving towards the WHO standard. That would be convenient to everyone in every country.

I disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). One of the first things I do when ever I go to a foreign country is to have a glass of water from the tap in the bathroom. It may be in Cairo or Rio de Janeiro. I have done it all my life. I have been to many countries, and I have never been ill, simply because I have inoculated myself by the very simple principle of drinking water wherever I go. If we become too prissy with draft directives of this sort, which are tighter than the World Health Organisation rules, when we step over the ever-rising tariff wall of the Common Market we shall all drop like flies through illness because we have not inoculated our bodies against these terrible foreign things.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Continentals drink special bottled water, I agree, but it is not because their own water is impure. Those bottled waters are laxatives. There is a tendency to constipation on the Continent. I do not mean to be unkind but it is true. I am being serious.

In the European Assembly debate there was mention of trade. Lord Bethell, the rapporteur, who had gone into the matter in depth, said: Various products are also manufactured with the help of tap water and it could become a barrier to trade, were it found that water was being used in the manufacture of various products which did not meet the health standards of one or another country. What is the evidence that water has ever been found to be a barrier to trade in manufactured goods? There must be much evidence on the basis of which Lord Bethell made that statement, and we are entitled to hear it. Lord Bethell said the same about tourism: It therefore seems desirable, from the trade point of view and from the tourism point of view perhaps, that water should be brought into a certain uniform category throughout our countries and this is what is proposed. To look into the mind of Lord Bethell, who went into the matter in such depth, one has only to read his peroration, in which he said: I must confess that I am excited by the idea that water, the fountain of life, should be of a uniform quality and degree of safety from Jutland on the Skagerrak to Sicily in the Mediterranean and that everywhere throughout the Community it should be safe to drink this water.—(Applause)." That sets the tone of what lies behind the directive.

When we get down to details we find that there are certain exceptions. In paragraph 13 of the Department of the Environment's Explanatory Memorandum we read: The difficulties of the food and drinks industry will be much reduced by a provision in the directive allowing water which is not of the quality required by the directive to be used in certain food and drink processes provided the final products are not harmful to human health when consumed. But that is the present position. Why are we having this directive, if there is to be this relaxation, this breaking of the rules?

Whisky is a category on its own. Mr. Hillery, answering the Assembly debate on behalf of the Commission, said: there are, of course, exceptions made for soft drinks and whisky, which, I think, is reasonable. I would not like to interfere with that trade. Why not? Has he a vested interest in drinking whisky? I find this curious. When somebody likes something, he says "You need not obey the rules". I do not want to harm our export trade, but I must say that we have not a clue where the water comes from that goes into the whisky. It is kept secret. It is water from the burns, which may be the one factor that gives me a headache when I drink whisky. It may be very impure. We should know more about that.

I repeat what has been said about the cost. What will be the cost over the long term? Can we afford it? Should we afford it? Is it a waste of money? How many extra officials will be necessary to implement the proposals in this directive? Perhaps we could have answers to those questions.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I should like to make one observation and to ask one detailed question.

My observation is that while I always listen with pleasure to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because they are so good at debunking the European Economic Communities, I do not find it a very edifying spectacle for my hon. Friend, as it were, to adopt the position "We are all right, Jack, we have very good water, we do not need to share the results of our experiences and high standards with anybody else, we might as well clear out of this organisation because we do not need what it is determined to give us."

I should have thought that we could be proud of our good water supplies and seek to be a little less selfish towards those who are less fortunate than ourselves, particularly when it does not cost us much—I hope that it does not—to maintain these high standards as a result of this directive.

Mr. Marten

I am not being selfish; I merely want our colleagues in the Common Market to adopt the same World Health Organisation standards as we have. It does not concern us at all. Let them get on with it.

Mr. Lawrence

It does concern us, because we are part of that organisation. We should continue to do what we can to hold it together and to make it work as successfully and happily as we can.

I come now to my question, which concerns Article 6. That article provides that The Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure regular monitoring of the quality of water intended for human consumption, particularly in order to check the true concentration of the different parameters measured. That puzzles me in connection with fluoride. The matter is referred to in the annex to the directive as one of the "Undesirable or Toxic Factors" which can be found in water. I understand that it lays down a maximum concentration of 1.5 milligrammes per litre.

I ask my question in relation not only to what the Common Market is seeking to get us to conform to but to our Government's attitude to fluoridation. What use is there in laying down a maximum concentration such as that unless there is some agreement about what is meant by an optimum dose?

I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he considers to be the optimum does of fluoride which: (a) children and (b) adults can consume daily consistent with the complete absence of dental fluorosis and certain health safe. We are concerned—the Minister will recall—with producing positive good health, not just with the absence of bad health. The answer was: Fluoride is naturally present in varying proportions in much of the diet and the intake consequently varies from person to person and from day to day. That is interesting, but he then goes on to draw the conclusion that: It is therefore impracticable to state an optimum dose —as good a non sequitur as ever I have heard—and he adds, and the purpose of fluoridation is not to provide a specific dose of fluoride but to reproduce the beneficial effects of the most satisfactory proportion found naturally in drinking water, namely, in temperate climates, one part of fluoride per million parts of water. Extensive studies here and abroad have shown that this proportion of fluoride in drinking water, combined with the intake from the diet, is not associated with any harmful effect in children or adults."—[Official Report, 8th November 1976 ; Vol. 919, cc. 53–4.] I do not find that satisfactory, in the light of a vast amount of experience accumulated in the United States, where fluoridation has been going on longer than in this country, which shows that there are some possible harmful effects from fluoridation.

I am concerned that the Minister does not seem able to answer the question "What is the optimum dose?". I asked the question again on 26th November. I asked "Why it is impracticable to state what would be an optimum dose, and received the answer because of normal variations in dietary intake". The fact that there can be a variation in the amount of fluoridated water that a person drinks does not answer the question "What is the optimum dose?" The answer continued: the object of fluoridation was not to provide a specific dose of fluoride but to reproduce the effects of the most satisfactory concentration found naturally in water supplies."—[Official Report, 1st December 1976; Vol. 921, c. 151.] It then gave the established wisdom that there has been a United Kingdom report on the first 11 years and that the practice is completely safe, but unless we know the optimum dose, we cannot say that it is safe. That is because fluoridated water has a cumulative effect. If my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, in the beautiful rural constituency that he represents with such distinction, drinks more water than I do, he will absorb more fluoride into his system. Not only do we not know how much water people drink; it seems that we cannot assess the optimum dose.

Some recent research has been alarming. I quote the Daily Telegraph of 12th August, which is headlined Fluoridated water may be harmful to plants". It states. Fluoridated water can have a stunting effect on plants, experiments on growing cress at Liverpool University reveal. The cress also had the effect of concentrating the flouride, Mr. Jack Tolley, water toxicologist in the municipal laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering at Liverpool University, found. 'If fluoridated water is used for agricultural purposes, and is concentrated in plants, man could be at the end of a poison food chain'. He is implying, is he not, that there must be an optimum dose beyond which it is unsafe?

The Commission document implies that we do not have to worry about an optimum dose and that as long as there are 1.5 milligrams per litre in the water it is OK. It is not OK with me. How can fluoride be effectively monitored in accordance with Article 6 of the directive to ensure good health for water consumers if we do not know the optimum dose for good health.

I should like an answer from the Minister if he can give it, but my guess is that he will not be able to give me one. He has not applied his mind to the question, any more than the Secretary of State for Social Services applied his. Before unelected bodies start forcing fluoridation down any more people's throats, we should at least have an answer to the question that I have posed.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Marks

I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said, some speakers have answered queries raised by others. I shall do my best to reply to the points raised. There are continuing negotiations on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is in Europe at the moment and will be in Brussels on Thursday for further negotiations. I assure the House that he will be made aware of all that has been said before he goes into those negotiations.

Dealing with Lord Bethell's remarks in the European Parliament, may I say that there is no intention on my part, and, I am sure, on the part of the Community, to make tap water of a uniform quality. What we are all trying to achieve is a better standard for water throughout the nine countries. The addition of fluorine compounds was a point which I expected to be raised, although the directive is concerned only with the quality of standards in supply. It does not recommend the addition of fluoride and neither does it do anything to prevent fluoridation. It simply says that water should not contain more than 1.5 mg of fluoride.

In the schemes introduced in the United Kingdom the fluoride level is controlled at between 0.9 and 1.1 milligrams per litre, which is the amount found to give substantial protection against dental decay without risk of mottling of the teeth. This directive is irrelevant for the purposes of fluoridation, although I appreciate the point raised by some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who deals with the medical side of these matters, will take to heart.

Turning to the question of right of entry, the public health authorities and the water authorities have the right to take samples in the normal course of their duties at the moment but it is a right which is rarely, if ever, used. We feel that the existing methods and legislation will be sufficient. We certainly do not propose any amending legislation.

The question of public expenditure was raised—

Mr. Spearing

Before the Minister leaves that point, will he deal with the issue of what is and is not in the document? The House is being asked to take note of the effect upon entry, and my hon. Friend has not answered my question about where this is dealt with in the directive.

Mr. Marks

I have not yet come to my hon. Friend's speech, and if I do not hurry I shall not have time to deal with it.

To replace all of the lead pipes, which are the main cause of one of our differences of opinion with fellow members of the Community, would require a considerable amount of money. The number of lead pipes used for water supply purposes, particularly in the older industrial districts, is considerable. A great deal of money would be needed to replace all of them at once. Much has been achieved through the slum clearance programme, whatever might be said of its scale in our large cities. There is no doubt that considerable expense would be involved, certainly to reach the standard that the directive requests.

This is a complex problem. In the majority of cases little or no lead is dissolved from the lead pipes by the water. In a few cases, when water has been standing for some time in lead pipes, the amount of lead picked up can exceed the World Health Organisation standards of 100 micrograms per litre. The Department of the Environment, together with other Departments, has just completed a survey of lead in drinking water which will be published shortly. It shows the complexity of the situation. It has been assumed that it was soft water which dissolved the lead. The survey showed that in some cases soft water is not a lead solvent while in other cases hard water can contain lead. We are examining the results of the survey and will announce plans for dealing with the problem in the United Kingdom. Again I make the proviso that this is an expensive business.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), as I am sure our water authorities will be, for his tribute to those responsible for our water supply. I appreciate that he would say of many directives, as he said of this one, that it is nothing to do with the EEC. Whether we or they have a better quality of water or less pollution, we are members of the Community and I believe that we should welcome the Community's support in seeking to get better tap water supplies.

I, too, have visited the Continent and have seen young children trying water out immediately, whether the tap says "Water not drinkable" or "Water drinkable". We should welcome any attempt by the other eight member States of the Community to help us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) asked whether the time of Parliament was being wasted. I must point out that this discussion is taking place on the Floor of the House at the request of the Select Committee.

I come now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). In his memorandum Lord Nugent assumed that the directive would be held to apply at the tap and that sampling would be obligatory at that point. This is not so. The difficulty of enforcing the directive at the tap was pointed out, at water authorities are not responsible for the quality of water beyond the curtilage of a house. However, the water authorities have power to enforce byelaws by preventing waste, misuse and contamination of water and they have powers of entry for that purpose.

I apologise for the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum is not dated. I have noted my hon. Friend's remark in this respect. It is a remark that I often made in the past. The Explanatory Memorandum was prepared for the meeting of the Select Committee in July. There have been considerable negotiations since the document was prepared. The statement that member States shall determine the point of sampling is contained in Article 12(3) of the document R 2736/76 issued on 23rd November.

We are advised that the water authorities will be able to meet the coliform levels in the directive as published. In the World Health Organisation European standards for drinking water, the recommended level is less than 50 milligrams per litre.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Union of Water Supply Associations —EUREAU. This is an advisory body, not an executive one. The nine member States thought that there should be a more definite ruling.

My hon. Friend was referring to the World Health Organisation European standards for drinking water, which are advisory standards for water throughout Europe. The directive has been adapted for the special needs of the nine member States in the light of the improvement in knowledge and the experience gained since the WHO standards were published.

The hon. Member for Honiton mentioned the question of water rates. At this time of the year, many of us would like to talk about this question. We shall have an opportunity to do so on the Water Equalisation Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome as a representative of the South-West.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should now be thinking about making water less pure. That is not a point of view which will find favour in the country as a whole. In the past we were pacemakers in the provision of pure water, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said. Perhaps the best pacemakers and our saviours during the recent drought were, in the main, those county borough authorities which spent so much money over the past 100 years on ensuring that we had a good system.

With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be writing to him. As my hon. Friend pointed out, he has listened to the whole of the debate.

The hon. Member for Honiton asked whether the directive demands too high a degree of purity. We do not think it is too high, except in the case of lead, in regard to which, as an industrial country, we have had a particular problem for a long time.

The hon. Member also asked if we could simplify our treatment methods. That is a matter for the water authorities themselves. Many of the powers for dealing with questions of water supply have been devolved to the water authorities, which, in all cases, include a majority of local authority representatives.

In conclusion, I repeat that the debate has been a particularly valuable one. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, when my right hon. Friend talks to the representatives of the other member States in Brussels, he be putting these points extremely forcibly, as he has been putting them over the past 12 months. As we all know, he is capable of doing that.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That this House reconising the existing duty of United Kingdom Water Authorities to provide sufficient and wholesome supplies of water, welcomes the EEC Draft Directive on the Quality of Water for Human Consumption (R/209875) and notes that it will not affect the extent to which authorities in the United Kingdom will need to enter premises to take samples.