HL Deb 06 December 1983 vol 445 cc1061-76

7.27 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. [1st Report, 1983–84, H.L. 21].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when this proposal for a council directive on the use of sewage sludge in agriculture was initially sifted to Sub-committee G of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, the sub-committee which conducted the inquiry, it was hung about with dire prognostications of the huge expense which would be involved if the directive were to be implemented without change. These predictions included costs of some £12 million per annum in recurrent costs, some £75 million in capital expenditure falling on the water authorities and perhaps £1 million annually in benefits foregone to agriculture. With these figures in the air it was obvious that there were serious implications, and it is right that we should take the opportunity this evening to debate the report.

I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, is also going to give us the benefit of his opinion on this draft directive. I shall also look forward to hearing the response from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who will be speaking for the Government. May I take this opportunity to express thanks on behalf of the sub-committee for the assistance of our specialist adviser, Professor Ron Edwards. I commend the high quality of the evidence which was given by witnesses, both in writing and orally before us.

During the course of the inquiry several members of Sub-committee G visited the Anglian Water Authority at Cambridge and were given valuable insight into the practicalities of the disposal of sewage sludge to agricultural land, including a demonstration of operations in progress. For this, I am very grateful. The late Lord Hinton of Bankside was unable to join the party on that occasion. With characteristic energy and determination, he later made a solo visit to the Thames Water Authority's site at Isleworth. Lord Hinton was a member of this Select Committee for many years and his lively contribution is sadly missed on Sub-committee G.

Community initiatives leading to the draft directive started in the late 1970s and have included a phased research project under the European programme for Co-operation in Scientific and Technical Research—more commonly known by the acronym COST. The third phase of the COST project was laid before Parliament only in June of this year (Cmnd. 8923). However, the Select Committee did not accept the argument that the desirability of further research justifies postponement of legislation. It has not, after all, inhibited our own authorities in their action to harmonise national practices in this area.

As the report shows, about 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population is served by mains sewerage. This proportion is not likely to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. At present, some 15 per cent. of sewage is discharged to the sea. Of the balance—which amounts to some 1.2 million tonnes per annum, based on 1980–81 figures—some 44 per cent. was disposed of in the sample years to agricultural land. There is no reason to believe that those figures are not characteristic of the present. The remainder was either dumped at sea or incinerated to ash.

Incidentally, there is a small misprint in the report. In case anyone should be using it for reference, it occurs in paragraph 2 on page 3, where the figure of 380,000 tonnes should be shown as the amount dumped at sea. Alternatives were disposal to landfill or an amount of about 4 per cent. of the total incinerated to ash. For comparison with the practices of other member states and other European countries, I would refer your Lordships to the report provided by the European Water Pollution Control Association, which is appended to the Select Committee's report.

On the face of it, I am sure the House will agree that disposal of human and other organic wastes to farmland is an environmentally desirable recycling of materials, including organic matter and plant nutrients. Positive benefits to agriculture include the conditioning and humifying of light soils. Sludge also contains plant nutrients—including nitrogen, phosphate and potassium—but present in only low concentrations which are comparatively trivial in relation to those applied routinely by farmers.

Of the alternative methods of disposal, incineration is environmentally wasteful and the most expensive. Disposal by landfill consumes an increasingly scarce resource represented by sites with suitable geology and hydrology. And dumping of any kind of waste at sea is becoming less and less favoured, especially by nations other than ours.

The main importance of the practice of disposing of sewage sludge to land must be seen as a cheap and convenient option, environmentally acceptable under proper controls, available to the sewerage authorities. That position is emphasised by the opinion of MAFF, whose witness said: we neither encourage nor discourage the practice. Our concern is that where the practice is employed it is employed safely". Those words appear in Answer No. 39 on page 16.

The main safety problems are, first, the long-term protection of the receiving soils from contamination by the accumulation of substances poisonous to plants, animals or man—notably toxic metals: and, secondly, the prevention of transmission of parasitic or pathogenic organisms affecting man or animals. In the United Kingdom there have been progressive developments in the control of those problems over the past three decades. In 1974 a working party on the disposal of sewage sludge to land was set up. In 1977 the working party published a set of guidelines to good practice. The working party's successor—a standing committee representing all bodies concerned—revised and extended the guidelines and published them in 1981 as Standing Technical Committee Report No. 20.

Your Lordships' Select Committee was led to understand that all cases of overt poisoning or animal disease occurring after 1981 were associated with failure to follow the guidelines. Accordingly, in paragraph 46 of the report it will be seen that the committee accepted that in the United Kingdom those non-mandatory guidelines are generally working satisfactorily.

But it would be arrogant for this nation to oppose for that reason efforts to achieve Community-wide improvements in the environment by the introduction of a directive such as this. It appeared to the Select Committee that it is only necessary to ensure that regulations embodied in such a directive are compatible with United Kingdom practice where it has proved satisfactory beyond all doubt. It was the Select Committee's opinion that to achieve that objective the draft under review needs modification.

The points at issue are discussed in paragraphs 48 to 56 of the report, and I shall summarise some of them briefly and selectively. First, it was the opinion of the Select Committee that the directive should be confined strictly to the disposal of sludge from sewage works. Where other sludges and similar wastes, including animal wastes, are concerned, it may later prove necessary to have regulations. But different considerations apply and the two topics should not be combined. On the other hand, it appeared to the Select Committee that there was no sound environmental reason to exclude small sewage works from the ambit of the directive—even those small sewage works receiving only domestic sewage. If exclusion is retained in the directive, it should be optional so that it need not be applied in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, concerning the limits of toxic metals, the factor of real importance is the ultimate concentration of toxic metals in receiving soils. Provided concentrations are held at acceptable values, the committee attach less importance to limits in the sludge itself. Nevertheless, the committee noted that in some cases concentrations of toxic metals in sludges applied to land in the United Kingdom have been relatively high by the standards of the figures presented in the report. Because of their capacity to enter the food chain and their toxicity at low concentrations, lead and cadmium must be of particular concern. The DHSS evidence on page 76 is very relevant.

Thirdly, on the subject of restrictions on the acidity of receiving soils, measured as pH, the committee felt that the limits may be unnecessarily severe. The committee appreciate that the activity and availability of toxic metals varies with soil acidity. There should still he room for wider variation to be permitted at the discretion of qualified advisers. The committee understood that sewage sludge is already being applied in many parts of the United Kingdom to land that could be excluded in terms of the directive; as far as is known, such applications are perfectly safe. It follows that failure to amend the draft directive in this respect would be likely to restrict unduly the area of' agricultural land available for the disposal of sewage sludge in this country. This would be one important contribution to the increase in costs of the affected sewerage authorities. It would also represent a loss in nutrient value to agriculture.

But the fourth point—and the point in this draft directive most likely to impose increased costs on the authorities trying to dispose of sewage sludge and the difficulties to the farmers receiving it—is that concerning the contentious issue of the no grazing period after sludge application. The problem here relates to the danger of transfer of pathogenic organisms, including salmonella, which can cause serious enteritis, and the eggs and larvae of internal parasite, notably the beef tapeworm.

As the oral questions Nos. 240 to 247 show, members of Sub-committee G argued on theoretical grounds that the three-week period conventionally allowed under United Kingdom guidelines appears to be close to the margin of safety. The sub-committee accepted evidence that it has proved safe in practice and therefore support the amendment to the directive to allow local relaxation of the Commission's proposals for six weeks. Nonetheless, I think that it is important to note that the committee entered a reservation appearing in the last sentence of paragraph 50 to the effect that modifications of United Kingdom practice may be needed in the light of further epidemiological study.

There is no time for me to cover all points raised in this report. It appears to me, as it appeared to the sub-committee, that all are in fact capable of being incorporated in a revised directive without in any way compromising its basic thrust. I speak for the Select Committee when I say that we should like to see appropriate amendments raised in negotiation in a constructive fashion so that an agreed text can be settled. The directive could then clearly be a valuable instrument for the improvement of environmental conditions in some member states of the Community, and need not be incompatible with the generality of present practice in the United Kingdom. I hope my noble friend Lord Skelmesdale will give us up-to-date news on the present state of negotiations on this directive.

I should like to say a few words in more general terms. The proposals expressed in this draft directive arise out of the Community action programme on the environment. In addition, Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty of Rome are invoked. During the course of the inquiry, and not for the first time in similar inquiries, witnesses called into question the legal basis of the environmental programme. This topic was first aired in the House before I had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House in the debate on the Select Committee's report on the approximation of laws under Article 100 on 4th July 1978. Since then it has been widely discussed.

In order to reach a resolution in relation to the draft directive on sewage sludge, the sub-committee turned to the legal adviser. His opinion on the subject of vires is printed as an appendix to the report. The Committee's reasoned conclusion appears in paragraph 49. Because I believe that this issue ought now to be firmly laid to rest. I will read the closing couple of sentences. The Committee, support the view that the Community environmental programme has not only gained theoretical and practical acceptance by the Community Institutions, but has also been recognized, and to a substantial degree encouraged, by both Government and Parliament in the United Kingdom. The current proposal represents another step in the implementation of that programme and one which cannot now be challenged on legal grounds".

I believe that there is good evidence that the impact of the Community action programme on environmental issues in this country has been progressive and beneficial. I was interested to note acknowledgement of this positive effect in the recent Government response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the water industry. In paragraph 3 this report says: Significant changes have taken place in the water industry since 1974", not only as a result of reorganisation…Emphasis on providing for the future has swung away from water quantity to water ouality considerations due, inter alia"— and the first of the reasons for this mentioned in this report is— the impact of European Community Directives". This is the first listed influence, and I believe that this statement is undeniably true. I also believe that an important influence arises from the exchange of views between European Community officials and our own national officials in the environmental field. The parallel progression of this draft directive and our own national guidelines on the disposal of sewage sludge is surely not a coincidence. In evidence, Mr. McIntosh of the Department of the Environment said that his department have known since 1977 that the directive was impending. I was personally sorry to learn from him that the first reaction of the Government was one of opposition. I feel that in the complex subject of environmental protection it is excessively complacent to deny—I am not applying that complacency at all to Mr. McIntosh, but referring to it in entirely general terms—that ideas from the European Commission services and from practitioners in other member states can and do have a valuable formative influence on United Kingdom theory and practice. I was pleased to get the pat on the back at the same time from Mr. McIntosh. On re-reading the evidence, I was gratified to be reminded of his kind words, saying that both the discussions with Sub-Committee G and the subsequent reports are, a great help in clarifying our ideas on particular subjects".

This is the last report that I expect to be introducing to you as chairman. I hope it is effective in its double role, illuminating the House and helping to clarify the progress of the ideas of the department. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. [1st Report, 1983–84, H.L. 21].—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

7.48 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I think first and foremost I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, not only on the way he has introduced the report but on the work he and his committee have done in producing it. It is, of course, a fairly difficult subject; a subject which I think is incomplete in many ways. We have a lot to learn about it. I should also like to add my sympathy at the loss of Lord Hinton to this committee. He did a lot of work in this House and in this field.

This is a comprehensive report, and it will be very useful to people who are dealing with this rather large subject. The noble Earl has gone over many of the main points, and I do not want to reiterate too many. I should like to say that my interest in the subject is that, being a farmer, I have some experience of applying sludge. About 10 years ago I used quite a large quantity of solid sludge before they had liquified it and before they had done a lot of work on stabilising it and purifying it, and quite frankly it was not a success. We had bad crops for a couple of years, and I am quite sorry that I did not follow up the reason for this, as I should have done. I may say that through no fault of any landlord I was giving up the tenancy. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may take the point that I showed no interest because I was giving up the tenancy.

But more research has been done since then, and three years ago I did another fairly large acreage of parts of several fields—four fields, to be exact—into which I put oil seed rape, barley and wheat. Quite frankly, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, pointed out, NPK was very low, even in large quantities of sludge, and the benefit one should really have got is some nitrogen, for I think we get a very heavy leach of nitrogen, especially if one does not inject the sludge into the soil or work it in immediately, which we did not manage to do in every case. In one case we ploughed it in, probably too deep. In any case, we did not find a lot of difference in the results from these fields. But I propose to have an analysis carried out next year to see if there is any basic difference in the various analyses, including trace elements, and so on. But there is one point, and I think the noble Earl mentioned it. We do see a difference in the physical condition of the soil, which is rather important in heavy Essex clay.

There is a problem, which I believe is mentioned somewhere in the report, as to when to put the sludge on. In modern cereal growing, no sooner have we finished harvesting one crop than we are putting in the next one, and it is almost impossible to find the time between the two crops to put on the sludge. The new system of lagoon storage is probably the answer. I note that the companies dealing with it are giving farmers assistance, and, in fact, are paying for the whole job of putting in lagoons for storage.

On the question of putting sludge on grass, I think this needs care. We put it on direct from the tankers, and I would have thought that using rain guns would be necessary to get a better spread on grass. But, then, there is the problem, as we have, being in a built-up area, of the spread and the smell over a wide area.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, emphasised the question of six months when putting sludge on grass over a period if it was raw sludge, and six weeks, in the directive, for stabilised sludge. In this country, of course, we have three weeks. I am doubtful whether I would like to put cattle on the grass after only three weeks; but there is confusion on this. I have had some inquiries, particularly from the CWS, who have farms all over the country and who are probably the largest farmers in the country. They are getting sludge from various areas, and they ask what on earth is the difference between stabilised and non-stabilised or raw sludge.

The evidence on pages 94 and 95 is rather confusing. Various people questioned what is stabilised and what is raw sludge. The chairman caused even greater confusion when he said: May I draw the Committee's attention to Article I of the Directive in which the term 'stabilized' sludge is defined. The term 'raw sludge' is not defined and the term 'non-stabilized' is not defined, although one can assume that it is the opposite of 'stablilized'.". I think we will need to get a little more information about the definition of "stabilised sludge" and of "raw sludge" to stop this confusion. I tried to find the directive to see what it said, but was unable to do so.

The noble Earl has dealt with some of the points that I noted in the report. One, of course, is the code of practice. I do not know whether the Minister has noted that the latest code of practice that we have in agriculture has not been very well followed. I refer to straw burning. I hope that a code of practice for sludge will be better dealt with than that.

Referring to paragraphs 32 and 51, the noble Earl emphasised the necessity for bringing in all sludge in this country right down to the smaller areas below 5,000 population. I imagine that the report states that it is more likely to be not as well treated or as well stabilised as that from bigger areas.

On the question of a pH value below 6, where it is not recommended to apply sludge, it will cut out a tremendous number of farms, particularly in the area around London, if that is emphasised too much. It does not say why this is not recommended and I presume there will be a reason, and that we can be assured on this subject. I presume that the authorities who are putting on the sludge make a test and if a farm is below pH 6 they will inform the farmer and he may then have to put on lime which today, the Government having withdrawn the lime subsidy, is very expensive. I am sorry to be so hard on the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Of course, soil specialists can be brought in to deal with that.

It is rather important—and this is why I am sorry I did not do it—to keep records. It is only right that it is emphasised that the disposal authorities should keep the records because the farmers will certainly not do it. I would be interested to know how that is to be done and how the records will be obtained from the farmer. That is an important point.

I now refer to paragraph 50. At the top of page xvii the report states: There is an increasing tendency for farmers to store and apply sludge to land and if this trend continues the necessary control over metal contamination may be exercised only by controlling sludge quality. It did not escape the Committee's attention that, in the United Kingdom, metal contamination of some sludges is unduly high when compared with other Member States. I could not quite understand why storing the sludge could have an effect on the metal content. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will look at that point as it is slightly confusing.

I do not want to go any further. The point made about trace elements is rather important. I do not think that we who are in agriculture pay enough attention to the trace elements in our soil. They can make a big difference to crops, particularly to brassicas, oil seed rape, peas, and so on. If by the application of sludge we can get trace elements into the soil as required, that in itself would be a great help.

I agree with paragraph 55 that everything needs to he kept under review. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have much to learn about the application of sludge. I agree that it is a great help and could be a great help to agriculture. The noble Earl gave the figures for the value of nitrogen, and so on, and we certainly do not want to waste it.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, finished with a broad review of the environmental problems and that, too, is important. I compliment him and his committee on an excellent report which should be of great help to the farming community and a good guidance to the Commission in framing its directive.

7.59 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl on an excellent and very necessary report. It is curious that we have just had a debate on the Falkland Islands, which is a very exotic subject, but I think that in practical terms this report is perhaps more important than the debate just concluded.

I am probably the only noble Lord here who has ever carried night soil on his shoulders, in China, to put back on the land. In fact. I can almost guarantee to be the only noble Lord to have done that. But it is quite extraordinary to think how China, with its enormous population, has kept up the fertility of its soil by using every single drop of fertiliser and returning it to the land.

I think that this report is enormously important not really for agriculture but for the environment and for the improvement in the environment which can come about through the knowledge which this report so amply demonstrates. This country has more experience of using sludge, whether treated or untreated, on the land than any other European country. When one considers the mass of evidence which is assembled, I am perfectly certain that this report will keep up the high reputation that your Lordships' Select Committee reports have in Brussels and will add greatly to the knowledge in the Commission. I hope that it will improve the directive—as, indeed, it needs improving —in the light of the extra experience which we have in this country.

When one looks at the whole environmental situation, it is obvious that a great deal more of the waste from our cities has to go on to the land. People will not tolerate for much longer the dumping at sea of enormous quantities of waste of every sort. This report will go a long way towards creating the conditions which will allow much more sludge to go usefully back to the land. This is very important, although the use at present is very' limited. I understand that only 1 per cent. of agricultural land is fertilised with sludge. But the evidence shows that sludge is very valuable on light land—although mistakes can be made. Again the evidence here will help in the creation of knowledge on how best to use it. The world's phosphates are finite. There is great trouble over the various deposits in the Sahara, and so on. Every bit of material that we can return to the soil must at the end of the day be valuable.

Every day we cut down thousands of acres of trees to provide the newspapers that we read and the other paper that we use. At the end of the day anything that is economical and returns the produce of the soil to the soil must be extremely valuable. The report must be very useful in Europe. Our experience in Scotland and elsewhere, and such things as the report of the Macaulay Institute, show that some of the levels advocated in the directive are too high and not useful in this country. Also our experience of using sludge on poor land and rough grazing must again be taken note of by the Commission and by the Government in their negotiations.

I echo the words of my noble kinsman. The maintenance of proper records is absolutely essential. This point was highlighted by the committee. I think that this is the point of the paragraph which my noble kinsman did not quite understand. If farmers store the sludge they can then put a large amount on to a small acreage, which would up the concentration of possibly toxic metals and other deleterious substances.

All through the report we have great practical guidance and experience put out for the benefit of the Commission and the Government. It is true that the three-week grazing period for treated sewage can safely be followed. In the evidence we have seen that there has been hardly any case whose condition can be taken as due particularly to putting treated sludge on that sort of land. Again, the exclusion of towns with a population of over 5,000 people cannot really be understood. An enormous number of people live in towns of this size. If the practice can be harmful and affect health and the environment, surely the whole population should be included. The report highlights this exact point.

In short, it is an excellent report. A terrific amount of work has gone into it. Evidence has been taken from a very wide field. I finish simply by congratulating the noble Earl and his committee on a most useful report.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, before my noble kinsman sits down, he said I was not very clever in not understanding the paragraph. May I read the sentence to him again? It reads: control over metal contamination may be exercised only by controlling sludge quality". It does not say "quantity".

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I suspect that there is a certain grammatical error. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, correctly interpreted the intent of the phrase.

8.6 p.m.

Lord Energlyn

My Lords, far be it for me to enter into a contest between kinsmen. But I should like to compliment the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and his colleagues on their patience in dealing with this tiresome intrusion into the age-old practices which have been carried out so successfully in Britain for decades. We know more about the processing of town sewage than any other country, with the exception perhaps of America.

I must declare an interest in that I have a number of patents in this field. I can compete with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He boasts of having carried night soil on his shoulder; once a week for about two years I carried a bottle of sewage into my laboratory. The reason for doing it was to obtain from that sewage enzymes. It was a cheap source of enzymes for a number of my experiments. I consequently gained considerable experience in the various types of sewage. Both the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie, were baffled by what was meant by this or that type of sewage.

To look at the matter realistically, I would take a forthright view and frankly say that I should not modify the directive; I should ignore it and replace it with a directive telling the EEC to come to see what we are doing and to impose our standards upon Europe. When one reads what is said, it is clear that these bureaucrats have scarcely ever seen a really sophisticated sewage station. For example, they should visit Mogdan, which is one of our oldest and most celebrated plants. What they do at Mogdan today, the other sewage farms of the world do tomorrow. They were the first people to introduce anaerobic digestion and to produce bio-gas. In fact most of our sewage stations produce enough bio-gas to run all their machinery. Nothing like that on such a scale can be seen on the Continent. We are talking about great expenditures of money on the disposal of sewage in this country.

There is a great deal of talk about the actual composition of sewage. I should like to consider this in two parts. First, I should like to take the nice political subject of trace and toxic elements. I just giggle when I look at some of the figures on which claims of toxicity are made without there being a real knowledge of the function of these metals in the soil and in the plant. They are two quite different things. To talk of cadmium at 16.2 PPM or something like that is just a piece of scientific jargon.

From the whole report we can see that the experts have been trying to tell us that we know so little about soil processes that it is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules as to what is a toxic ingredient and what is not a toxic ingredient in the soil. The function of the trace elements is to stimulate the microorganisms in the soil, which in turn transmit them into the growth mechanism of the plant.

Having said that, I next come to the real merit of sewage. Whether it is sewage wet sludge or sewage solid cake matters not. Both types of sewage contain the most important element of the lot; that is the enzymes. These are the organic catalysts that there must be in the soil before the soil can he really fertile. Without the enzymes, nothing happens; the soil is sterile.

I do not want to be tiresome, nor do I want to give a lecture on soil chemistry, but I believe that the Government should be very cautious about accepting any part of the directive, because it would do a great deal of harm to the farmer who is trying to make a living. Further, if we accept the directive, it will be almost impossible for sewage farms to dispose of their sewage cake. So I suggest to the Government that they look again at what is proposed, or rather I would say brush it under the carpet and forget it.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, we have had a most useful and informative discussion of a practice which is almost as old as mankind, hut which in our modern communities is now a subject of considerable technical complexity. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in congratulating my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and his colleagues on the subcommittee which produced the report on their work, not forgetting that admirable servant of all such committees, their clerk.

So often we debate these environmental subjects in isolation. in a rather insular fashion. Therefore, I was delighted to have the comments of the two noble kinsmen who joined in this evening's debate, as well as the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who shed a rather different light on a matter which some of us have been thinking about for the last few weeks.

In this country we already have a good set of guidelines for the disposal of sewage sludge on land, which have worked well for six years. Let me say straight away that in principle this proposal by the Commission to provide a regulatory system of control for the use of sewage sludge in agriculture is one which the Government approve of in principle, though in its present form we consider some of it to be unnecessarily inflexible and therefore impracticable. Since the keyword in this country's environmental policy is practicality, we consider that the draft directive has some way to go before it becomes Community law.

As to when that might be, I would say to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that it is for the presidency country to decide how the time available will be shared between the dossiers outstanding. Some time was spent on negotiations on this subject under the German presidency earlier this year, but that has not happened under the current Greek presidency. I very much hope that the French will he able to find time for negotiations in 1984.

On the subject of practicality, I would say that I rather doubt whether application of the draft directive would prove cost effective. We are pleased to see that, as stated in paragraph 46 of the report, your Lordships' committee is in agreement with that view. I would not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn. However, the United Kingdom has some not inconsiderable experience in the use of sewage sludge to support this opinion, having 96 per cent. of its population served by public sewers, and 84 per cent. by sewage treatment works.

No other country in the world has that degree of provision of such services. The most recent estimate for the rest of the European Communities suggests that only 43 per cent. of their population is served by sewage treatment works; or about half the proportion that there is in the United Kingdom. On that evidence it is clear that a substantial increase in sludge production in continental Europe must he provided for in the future, and that in practical terms the most economic route for disposal is likely to be to agricultural land; as we have found by experience in the United Kingdom. It would he prudent therefore to provide a framework of guidance for such operations before the sludge is produced and creates a disposal problem.

Our sludge disposal authorities, on the other hand, foresee no such massive increase in their sludge production in future. Such increases will arise in only a few areas, mainly as a result of efforts to improve the quality of some polluted estuaries, and these increases will add no more than 4 per cent. to the 1980 output. That is negligible in comparison with the rest of Europe, and it partly explains our feeling that elsewhere there are perhaps problem areas of higher priority for examination than that of sewage sludge disposal.

We consider that our existing system of non-mandatory guidelines for the safe use of sludge in agriculture is satisfactory, as your Lordships' committee has reported. The guidelines are subject to review and modification as research and technological advances dictate and they represent the consensus view of the Government departments concerned, as well as of the sludge producers, farmers, and other interested parties.

Nevertheless, we would not wish to obstruct the efforts of the Commission to provide a Community-wide system of control to ensure that there are long-term safeguards to protect human and animal health, and the general environment. At this point I should like to endorse the conclusion of your Lordships' committee, in paragraph 48 of the report, that the proposed directive should apply only to sludge produced from treatment of the contents of public sewers. That is what our system of guidelines sets out to regulate, and we have separate instruments of control for disposal of wastes from industry, whether of "agro-food" or of any other kind. We shall therefore seek to ensure that if adopted, the directive is so limited in its application.

Another area of inconsistency is that the proposal as it stands will exempt from control sludges produced at treatment works serving populations of fewer than 5,000 people. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, considered that that provision was illogical, since such works could well pose relatively greater risks of pathogenic origin than the larger works where individual sources of infection are more likely to be diluted in the sludge. The noble Lord did not actually put it quite like that, but I understood that that was what he meant. I agree with the noble Lord, and indeed our system of guidelines provides for no such exemptions.

However, we would not seek to constrain the freedom of individual member states to make their own appraisal of the risks and the costs of containing them, having regard to the wide variations in agricultural practices which exist across the Community. That aspect has already been raised by some delegates during preliminary technical discussions of the proposed directive in Brussels, and no doubt it will be looked at again. For our part we shall bear that point in mind.

There is one particular application of sewage sludge which we should like to see exempted from the provisions of the proposed directive. I refer to the long-term practice at a number of our sewage works of utilising land mainly for sludge disposal purposes but at the same time carrying on successful commercial agricultural operations. The soils at these sites already contain heavy metal concentrations well in excess of the limits recommended in our guidelines, and yet by good management and selection of crops the resulting farm produce poses no risk to human or animal health. We therefore endorse the view of the committee that this practice should continue, subject to regular sampling and analysis of the produce in order to safeguard the food chain.

I should now like to move from the general into the more detailed technical provisions of the proposal. By its nature sewage sludge has a content of pathogens and heavy metals which pose different problems to he dealt with. Taking first the pathogen aspect, the Government would endorse the opinion of the committee that by practical experience of operations our national guidelines are effective.

In particular, I refer to our practice of permitting grazing by animals three weeks after spreading stabilised sludge on grassland. This has been mentioned this evening. United Kingdom records of animal health since 1975 have shown no evidence of a significant connection between sludge and infection. In our climate it is not practicable to operate a six-weeks' suspension of grazing, because it would be too disruptive of normal farm management. If that limit were adopted, I have no doubt that there would be a marked reluctance by farmers to continue to accept sludge on their pastures. I stress the word "accept" because this is the essence of the practice of utilising agricultural land for the safe disposal of sewage sludge. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, whose experience in his four fields I found most interesting, has rather missed the point. Disposal of sewage sludge is a practice generally worth more to the sludge disposers—in other words, the water industry—than to the farmers, even though there is nutrient value in the sludge, and its organic content can be a good soil conditioner in certain circumstances. If we restrict farm operations unnecessarily, we shall reduce the available opportunities for recycling our wastes. We shall therefore press for the directive to specify the more practicable no-grazing period of three weeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, waxed almost lyrical about trace elements and heavy metals. Regarding the latter, with the heavy metal content of sludge and its potential toxicity to plants, man and animals, it is our view that if there is provision for controlling the annual rate of addition of these trace elements to soils and for regular monitoring of their concentrations in the receiving soils to ensure that safe limits are not exceeded, there is no necessity to back up belt with braces and place limits on the allowable metal concentration in the sludge. Research projects both here and abroad have confirmed that it is the general availability of these trace elements in soil which is important and not their level of concentration in the sludge. How I agree with him on that point, and the fact that different soils have different capacities of absorption!

Of course farmers are unlikely to accept sludges if, because of high metal content, the small amounts that they can spread safely contain negligible plant nutrients. This will restrict the use of sludges with relatively high metal concentrations. Our guidelines make only two exceptions to this approach in that they recommend that sludges with lead concentrations above 2,000 milligrams per kilogram and fluorine above 3,500 milligrams per kilogram should not be used on pastureland in order to protect grazing animals from the effects of direct ingestion of sludge.

I have noted the reservation expressed in paragraph 50(i) of the report that if storage and subsequent spreading of sludge is controlled by farmers rather than the disposers of sludge, this might adversely affect controls over metal contamination. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, picked up this point. For my part, I submit that the periodic monitoring by sludge disposers of the quality of soils in the fields affected by sludge applications will safely pick up any heavy applications well before the limits set by the guidelines are reached. It is of course the responsibility of the disposer and not the farmer to maintain adequate records.

There is another aspect of the metal concentrations in sludge which must not be ignored. Quite rightly, the proposed directive sets much store by the advantages of stabilising sludge before transporting and spreading it on land. However, treatment processes for sewage sludge which destroy pathogens can also remove a substantial proportion of the organic matter, leaving any toxic metals more concentrated in a smaller total mass of sludge solids. It seems to me and indeed to the Government entirely illogical that a sludge which can be used safely on land in its raw state if ploughed in immediately might he rejected once it has been processed to make it safer from a pathogenic aspect.

The committee discussed in its report the directive's proposed mandatory limits on the allowable concentrations of certain heavy metals in soils receiving sludge applications and concluded that some were unnecessarily severe and should be reviewed. This is the Government view, and we endorse also the Committee's opinion that the directive's 10 year average rule for limiting annual additions of heavy metals to soil is perhaps ambiguous. We would prefer to see an annual maximum addition specified as well as a long term average—as is the recommended practice set out in our guidelines.

The acidity or alkalinity of agricultural soils is of importance to the farmer in the management of his operations and to the sludge disposer because of the effect of pH value on the availability of trace elements for absorption by plants. The proposed directive would prohibit the application of sludge to land of pH less than six, and this could have serious effects on United Kingdom sludge disposal practice, especially in Scotland and the north and west of England where many soils are naturally below pH 6.

Your Lordships' committee was of the opinion that the pH 6 restriction was much too stringent and would unnecessarily reduce the amount of agricultural land available for sludge spreading. It would also penalise unnecessarily those farmers who gain benefit at present from the application of sludge. The Government endorse the view that flexibility be built into the control regulations of the directive to enable best use to be made of sludge over the widest area of land by applying specialist agricultural advice to spreading operations on the more acidic soils. We also agree that there could be economic benefits in extending this flexibility to increasing the allowable metal concentrations in soils which are permanently alkaline.

I have noted your Lordships' concern about the apparent lack of consideration in the directive of the practical aspects of sludge spreading, especially from the point of view of nuisance from smell. United Kingdom guidelines, on the other hand, do provide more detailed advice.

Perhaps, I might end on a more general note. In the environment field generally United Kingdom policies take as their starting point the need to protect man and the environment and then relate controls on activities to the fulfilment of that need. The effect of this is to require the most stringent controls where the need is greatest thus ensuring the most effective use of resources. The system is flexible, practical, cost effective and, most important of all, effective in protecting the environment. Similar considerations apply to the disposal of sludge to agricultural land. This activity represents a positive re-use of an otherwise waste resource.

Our policy is therefore to encourage this use, where it is economic, subject to a framework of controls to protect the environment which can be applied to suit differing conditions of soil, climate and agricultural practice. What we are looking for from Europe is a directive which similarly takes into account the widely differing circumstances which prevail in different parts of the Community and which, while ensuring the environment is protected, does not inhibit the use of sludge on agricultural land. To this end we will make available our expertise in this field and enter into the negotiations on this directive in a positive and constructive way.

This, in my book, is not complacency although perhaps the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, might be understood to be such. So far as vires is concerned, this proposal is firmly rooted in the Community action programme. As with other directives on the environment, Article 235 of the treaty is involved as its legal basis. Article 100, which is related to conditions of competition. is also quoted but is perhaps less easy to justify. Nevertheless, there is no question of the Government questioning the vires proposal since we recognise that Article 235 is sufficient on its own.

I, like my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, hope that this questioning of the vires of almost all the environmental directives now and in the future is a practice that we could now usefully abandon. The Government are grateful for the support shown here today for their policies. I should like to express my particular thanks to the committee for its concise appraisal of the probem and for its suggestions for improving the proposed directive, and to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for initiating the debate.

8.28 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I am heartened and grateful to hear the words of my noble friend the Minister, particularly his winding-up peroration. On his previous exposition, so far as I can see, there is complete agreement between the Select Committee and the Government, which makes me feel that perhaps—let us hope—we both have it right. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred to the one point that has not, as it were, been fielded—the definition of the term "stabilise". I reiterate that, in the view of the Select Committee, it felt that these terms, which are practical words, should he left undefined in terms of the directive, to be defined by use in the field by the practitioners themselves. I think that that is the best general approach.

The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, in praise of sewage, promote me to a little levity, if I may. This is a hereditary House. I believe that, having not only inherited a title, I might also he permitted to inherit jokes. I am not sure from which generation this joke came. But when my father or my grandfather, as my father told it, decided to install a water closet for the use of the gardener, the gardener said. "Very good, my Lord, if you will. But, don't forget, her Ladyship is mighty fond of celery"!

On Question, Motion agreed to.