EC Fourth Environmental Action Programme

HL Deb 09 July 1987 vol 488 cc774-807

5.54 p.m.

Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report Session 198–7, H.L. 136).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There could scarcely be a greater contrast between the debate which I have the privilege to initiate and the debate which your Lordships have just concluded; and yet there is a relationship. The debate which has just concluded dealt with a very precise problem concerned with what should be done in the best interests of the environment and of the social and economic consequences of the proposals made. The debate which I have the privilege of opening here is of quite a different character. It relates to what programme would be appropriate for the European Communities to undertake over the next five years, and that raises broad questions of what views should be taken and what priorities should be accorded to that programme.

This Fourth Environmental Action Programme relating to the period 1987–92 sets out an agenda or programme for action over that period in the same way as the previous three action programmes did. This Fourth Action Programme may be said to continue the policies set out in the third action programme. There are, however, important distinctive features which arise in part from recent developments in the Community. One of these is the ratification of the so-called Single European Act, which constitutes the first amendment of the Treaty of Rome. We thought it would be a convenience to your Lordships if the relevant portion of that Single European Act were set out in an appendix to the report where it may be found.

The Single European Act includes a chapter on the environment. It is particularly significant that one of the provisions—Article 130 R 2—includes the following sentence: Environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies". Thus environmental policy has moved to the centre of the stage instead of being at the periphery, an agreeable "add-on" to other policies. Instead it has become an essential element, a motivating force.

In recent years there has developed within the Community and elsewhere growing public demand for improved standards of environmental protection and for environmentally friendly goods. Public awareness of environmental matters has developed both within the Community and elsewhere. Many factors have contributed to this. The publicity given in Germany to the death of the forests from acid rain deposition had a great impact. Over the past few years there have been a number of major accidents such as that at Bophal and the disaster at Chernobyl; and then of course, more recently still, there has been the Sandoz disaster resulting in extensive damage to the Rhine. So the proposals in the action programme related to nuclear safety, and, more generally, the insistence on high standards of environmental protection reflect widespread public concern.

The original draft Council resolution, which will be found in Appendix 3 of our report, summarises the topics covered in the action programme and identifies 19 priority areas. Initially, the committee thought it might usefully produce an order of priority in which these should be addressed. We concluded, however, that to do this it would be necessary to carry out a study of each of the priority areas. It soon became apparent that the presidency was keen to proceed with the action prgoramme urgently. Accordingly, within the time available for publication of a report which would be useful, this was not practicable. We therefore decided to study three general themes relevant to the proposed action programme—namely, implementation, research and agriculture.

In March, this year, after the committee made that decision and commenced the study, the original list to which I referred was considerably revised and expanded by the Environment Council. It gave greater emphasis to the themes which the committee considers in its report, in particular agriculture which appears on the list of priorities for the first time.

The committee considers that implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority. More than 100 Community directives have been made on environmental matters. Failure to implement them is not only unsatifactory in itself but, where implemented in some countries but not in others, distorts the conditions of competition within the Community. Above all, failure to implement laws which have been made undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates. There is a growing gap between standards of implementation in some member states and in others. The time has come when there should be a complete review of the progress of implementation of existing directives and that there should be restraint in the creation of new directives where these are not urgently required and essential, until the backlog has been cleared.

We accept of course that new directives will probably be required urgently in respect of major new problems such as those arising out of reforms of the CAP. Implementation of directives, is required at two levels: first, by the making of appropriate national legislation in each member state to carry out the objectives indicated in the directive; and, secondly, the establishment of appropriate machinery to implement that national legislation within the member state itself. Priority should be given to identifying the most important directives which have not been embodied in national law and implemented there.

The Seveso directive is a good example. It will be recalled that this directive followed the disaster in northern Italy at Seveso. It requires that manufacturers who handle certain dangerous substances should draw up a plan of action which in the case of an accident would safeguard not only persons but the environment. It required compliance by January 1984. Yet to date only Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom are in formal compliance with it. Luxembourg's legislation is still at the draft stage and proceedings have been instigated at the Court of Justice.

This is an enormously important directive dealing with a matter of the greatest public concern. It has been said that had the arrangements set out in this directive been in force in Switzerland, the Sandoz disaster would not have taken place. Rectifying failures such as these to implement directives which have been made is clearly a matter of the first priority.

There is a close relationship between implementation of Community environmental legislation and the scientific basis for it; for legislative measures to protect the environment fall into disrepute if they are not justified—and appear to be justified—on a clear scientific assessment of need. The committee has in previous reports expressed doubts about the adequacy of the scientific basis of directives and believe it is of the first importance that this should be clearly expressed in the legislation itself.

Implementation by education of the public is bound to fail where that need is not clear, and enforcement through the courts or otherwise inevitably tends to bring the Community into disrepute where the need for the legislation is not manifest. As the committee has indicated in previous reports, there are circumstances where the course of prudence dictates in the light of evidence available that environmental legislation is required as a precautionary measure. Where this is so this should be made clear and the reasons for it.

The committee is concerned that DGXI is not adequately equipped to define the scope of research which it requires, to supervise it and to evaluate its results. The research which is necessary in relation to an environmental programme does not relate only to scientific matters such as investigation of the chemical, physical or biological consequences of certain types of pollution but may also relate to the social, economic and political consequences of environmental programmes.

Whatever the nature of the research required, however, it is in our view essential that those responsible for formulating and implementing environmental policy should be equipped to define the scope of the research it requires to supervise it and to evaluate its results. DGXI must acquire suitable people to take these responsibilities and its resources be appropriately increased.

The committee is much concerned that the profound environmental impact of changes now taking place in the common agricultural policy have received scant consideration in the action programme. The lack of an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the action programme is regrettable. It seems to us that the profound consequences throughout the Community of the reform of the CAP have not been considered in sufficient detail, and we are concerned indeed that they have not been fully comprehended.

During the course of our study some members of the committee visited Brussels to take evidence from representatives of the European Communities. We found much of this evidence was encouraging in that it indicated a line of thought and an approach similar to our own. One of those who gave evidence to us was Mr. L. J. Brinkhorst, director general in DGXI. The main burden of his evidence which is published with our report, relates to the connection between high environmental standards and a competitive economy. He pointed to the success of the Japanese in so many competitive fields of trade and industry while at the same time Japan has over recent years adopted some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world.

I recently came across the relationship between the two on a visit to the United States. Tobacco imported by Brazil from the US was said to contain unacceptable traces of pesticides. The Brazilian authorities wished to reject it on public health grounds. Some months previously I heard about a similar problem concerning the import into the United States of malting barley from West Germany which was said to suffer from the same defect.

A similar problem has recently been encountered in this country in relation to dieldrin, which has been banned for use in this country as a sheep-dip for several years; yet certain rivers were recently found to be polluted by it. It came from washing wool imported from Australia; so the question arises whether those imports should be banned. So high environmental standards seem more and more to be a necessary condition for successful export trade.

It is sometimes thought that the environment consists of wild forests and mountain streams, auks and eagles and hedgerows filled with wildlife and flowers. It comprises all these, but also juggernauts and railways, power stations and coal mines, houses and factories and their processes and products. Between them all there is constant interplay, constant friction. The task of environmental policy is to reconcile conflicting demands of one upon another in the constantly changing scene. That policy and the way we implement it moulds the world in which we live.

This is the context in which the Action Programme has to be considered. I believe, despite the criticisms we have made, that this Fourth Action Programme provides a sound basis for action in the coming years. Indeed, the formulation of such an Action Programme is perhaps a task which Her Majesty's Government might undertake for this country to provide an agenda for the direction which environmental policy should take—a context for determining priorities. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report, Session 1986ߝ87, H.L. 135).—(Lord Nathan.)

6.8 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has introduced this important debate with such an admirably succinct review of our substantial report, and even more substantial Fourth Action Programme. I am going to limit my remarks into one field. It is a major policy statement which the EC produces every fourth year, and it is to be recognised as a document full of enthusiasm for the mammoth task of improving the European environment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, the programme identifies 22 priority aims. That might be considered rather a lot of priorities. It depends of course on changing the mental outlook of the citizens of Europe in the 14 member states and in some respect their way of life. Most of the objectives cost money, and some of them a great deal. As the noble Lord has already said, there are already more than 100 directives dealing with aspects of environmental improvement which member states must legislate. Nobody can doubt, least of all myself, that the immense effort by the Commission is conceived for the benefit of all.

In my short speech I shall refer to only one of the 22 new priorities mentioned in the programme. It is a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already referred: the implementation of existing directives. The noble Lord has made some cogent comments on this matter and I should like to add to them. There are signs that the implementation of some directives in some member states is no more than perfunctory. Our report observes that even a directive as dramatic as the Seveso directive has not yet been implemented in the majority of states. There are strong indications that many less spectacular directives have, in some instances, been virtually ignored.

The action programme suggests that a Community environmental inspectorate might be set up. Our report advises against that solution on the grounds that, in our judgment, the arrival of an EC inspector on the ground of an offending site would be more likely to raise tempers than co-operation. On the other hand, the Commission's innovation of visiting offices of the Commission to discuss with officials of member states at government level the measures being taken, or not being taken, to implement directives is, evidently, a useful and constructive step which our report supports.

However, I believe that the time has come to go further and to make a directive requiring member states to draw up a complete review of all directives already made. Here I go beyond our report; but the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was going some way in this direction. It would require each member state to make a report within a set period of, say, a couple of years, first, of the legislative action taken to implement each of the 100-plus directives which we have already; secondly, the enforcement action taken to ensure observance of the laws, including the penalties; and, thirdly, the measure of environmental improvement achieved in each case. Recently-joined states will need some dispensation before conformity can be expected.

The review may well show a serious measure of failure to implement existing environmental directives. However, it could be the basis for a major effort by all members of the Community to strengthen their policies and actions in this important field. If we continue on the present line we shall reach the position of the Emperor's new clothes. That would be most damaging to all of us; we should be among the naked.

I should like to make three subsidiary points in that connection. The first is a point which has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but it is worth repeating. It is that the Commission should take even greater care to ensure that the scientific basis for a new directive is soundly based. Evidently, some directives have been based on an incomplete assessment of the problem concerned. I give as a good example the directive regarding the dumping of waste in the North Sea. Apparently that was made without consideration of the major source of North Sea pollution from the River Rhine, which is gigantic, and other North German rivers. It therefore totally failed to carry scientific conviction.

In that connection, our report welcomes the Commission's intention to keep an up-to-date register of scientists in all member states working on particular subjects in order to ensure that the Commission can readily obtain reliable scientific information on all new topics under review. The scientific basis for a directive must be beyond question but at present that is not always the case.

Secondly, it must be learnt that when the Council of Ministers come to consider a directive submitted by the Commission, it is not provided with the scientific basis for the directive laid before it. Our report recommends that that is essential for a proper assessment of the merits of the directive, and that in future the scientific basis should always be laid before ministers.

My third and final subsidiary point is that the economic implications of directives is often substantial; for instance, directives relating to the prevention of pollution of water, both fresh and sea water. At the present time in this country there is a national campaign (which has been in existence for several years) to conform with the directive of water quality on bathing beaches. It costs water authorities in this country several hundred million pounds each year. That is reflected in increased charges for water treatment. That in turn is paid for by industry and all householders. However, for industry it is a significant extra cost to production.

On the other hand, it would be a rare exception to find similar action on the Mediterranean beaches, which some of us know well, of Italy, Greece, Spain or France, where existing effluents are in most cases discharged untreated into a sea where tides are small and currents slight. In those countries industry is spared the additional cost but conditions of competition between states are distorted in favour of the defaulters. Thus failure to implement a directive is given a valuable economic incentive.

I conclude that failure by the Commission to achieve general implementation of directives is not only losing the environmental benefits which each is designed to achieve, but it is having side effects which endanger the credibility and authority of the Commission. It is in the interest of all member states that top priority action is taken to strengthen the implementation of existing directives. If our report helps in that direction, it will have done a useful job.

6.17 p.m.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest

My Lords, as well as providing a most valuable analysis of the contents of the action programme, the report is welcome as a reminder to the European Commission, to governments and to us all of the range of factors which we should have in mind when discussing the environment. I suppose that now we are all environmentalists. Be that as it may, it is easy to be carried away by the sometimes passionate singlemindedness of the environmentalists. That is not to deny the need to take fully and properly into account the environmental considerations when making decisions about industry. All around us we see the results of ignoring those considerations. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has reminded us, those decisions must also take account of the realities of the industrial and employment situations.

I was struck by the statement in the action programme that high standards of environmental protection have become an economic imperative. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has reminded the House that it is proposed to amend the Treaty of Rome itself to require that: environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies". Those are high claims indeed for one factor, albeit important, in decisions about industry. Selecting environmental protection requirements for unique treatment comes perilously close to elevating environmental considerations above all else—above output, competitiveness and employment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government in examining the action programme will keep firmly in mind the possible effects on output and employment of conceding all the claims of DGXI and of the environmental lobby.

The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has referred to the claim made by the Commissioners' witnesses in evidence that environmental measures would generate jobs by increasing competitiveness. I should like to think that that was so. To be frank, I do not find it very persuasive when the only instance quoted was the Japanese motor industry in relation to the effect of improving exhaust emissions. It is of course highly desirable that emissions should be improved. No doubt that makes a contribution to the competitiveness of Japanese motors at a cost. I take leave to doubt whether that factor can carry the weight that the Commissioners' witnesses sought to put upon it.

We need to look rather to market analysis, planning, design, engineering, dependability and the involvement of the workforce in these matters rather than to the improvement of exhaust emissions as the way in which the Japanese motor industry has made great strides in recent years. No doubt it would be possible, as is claimed, to create some jobs by tighter environmental controls. For example, if we decided to pull down or seal off nuclear power stations, that would provide a fair bit of work for a few years but with the consequence of many fewer jobs being available in British industry because of our lack of competitiveness.

The report, at paragraph 18(ii) on page 8, quotes the conclusions of the working party on the environment at the 1982 economic summit at Versailles, which gives a more balanced view of policy development. Even that says: long term economic growth is possible only if we protect and conserve the environmental resources which underpin prosperity". That is fine, but it is at least equally true that we need to recognise that economic growth itself is essential if we are to generate the resources that we need to protect and improve the environment. No growth analysis may appeal to Merrie Englanders. I do not find it a very attractive scenario, nor, do I think, would most employees.

I believe it is crucial, therefore, that these broader considerations be kept firmly in focus by those who make the decisions. That can best be done by improving the consultative processes between those deciding about environmental matters and industry, by which I mean employers and trade unions. The environment starts at the place of work. If we have the right measures to prevent industrial accidents and noxious emissions and to restrict noise pollution, we should already have gone quite a long way to protecting the external environment.

In my view we need the explicit incorporation in Community instruments, including the directives, of explicit requirements for national governments to consult representatives of employers and unions at national level. We need also explicit requirements for the Commission to consult representatives of employers and trade unions at the Community level.

I share the view of the committee and of the Government that implementation is better pursued at national level. So far as I am aware there are reasonably satisfactory arrangements for access by industry to civil servants and to Ministers in our own country, although one might have a look at that in consultation with the inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that there are no gaps.

However, the impression that I get from the evidence given to the committee, and indeed from my experience as a former member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community, is that access to Community bureaucrats is very patchy and often unsatisfactory. It is so much easier for civil servants to draft directives in the quietness of their own offices or in their own official committees than it is to have to engage in nitty-gritty arguments with representatives of industry about the need for particular measures and about the form that directives can most practically take. If the result of more consultation were fewer directives, there might be a positive gain in present circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, reminded us that more than 100 environmental directives are in operation already.

The director general of DGXI on environment informed the committee in evidence: I have been struck to see that DGXI has moved up to the No. 3 position in the number of directives not being implemented". I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether top or bottom of that league wins most Brownie points in Brussels.

Consultation of the kind that I am urging provides two-way benefits. It gives industry a chance to tell the Eurocrats what is possible within available resources and what are the best and most practical ways of protecting and improving the environment. On the other hand, it gives the Eurcrats the means of putting more effective pressure on industry to make the changes that have been established as necessary.

I very much agree with the Committee's conclusion: Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority". If it had said "top priority", I should have agreed even more strongly.

6.28 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing the report in such clear terms. I welcome its conclusions and the way in which it has been presented to us. I believe that all of us who are interested in the environment have been immensely heartened by the inclusion in the Single European Act of an environmental policy as a component of other European Community policies. Many of us have been fighting for this for years.

I congratulate the committee on looking at the fourth directive and concluding that its report should be based on three themes, all of them important and having an impact on most activities within the Community.

Like other speakers, I regard the implementation of already-existing directives as the most important of all. I am in complete agreement that member states should introduce legislation within their own nations to fulfil the requirements of the directives. On the whole, this seems to have taken place, albeit sometimes very belatedly or even too late. They have introduced legislation. But the question of enforcement produces a completely different answer. As already stated and as all of us know, the existence of a law which is not enforced puts that law into complete disrepute.

I do not believe that we can expect DGXI, with its limited staff, to contemplate large-scale monitoring of what goes on within each Community state. I would therefore strongly support the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that reports from each nation should be called in to DGXI. At the moment, reports are often inadequate and not always submitted regularly. We should be very careful to avoid the position whereby every time a nation fails to fulfil its obligations under directives it is taken to the European Court. I realise that Luxembourg has been taken to the European Court over the Seveso directive. But one cannot contemplate the Commission taking all the other nations to court in turn. It is one of the great problems of how we manage to enforce legislation as a Community.

I am glad that the report mentions the importance of voluntary organisations. If we go back in time—a long time—it was largely voluntary, non-governmental organisations that began the work of alerting us to the dangers inherent in disregarding the impact of our way of life on the environment. That remains so, and it will fall to a great extent on voluntary organisations within each nation to act as watchdogs in regard to non-implementation. Their contribution to furthering education on environmental matters must not be underestimated. In fact, voluntary non-governmental organisations are admirably placed to take their own governments before national courts when they fail to implement legislation within their country.

I welcome what the report says on the question of lack of research funds in DGXI. I welcome the setting-up of a register of scientists working on particular environmental problems. We all know that voluntary organisations, universities and scientific bodies are engaged in research. A large number of expert scientists all around Europe are working on these problems. It would be lunacy, in my view, to create large sums of money for research at DGXI without first drawing on the research that is already being carried out. This cannot happen without the setting-up of a register to make certain that all the different types of research are pooled in one centre.

That is not to say that I believe it is right that the research money at present available to DGXI should have been reduced. That is a tragedy. Even with a pool of knowledge coming into DGXI, it will have to be analysed. And that has to be done by research personnel. However, it is important when we look at these questions to avoid duplication of work and to make use of the knowledge that already exists.

One point I welcome particularly in the report is obvious to everyone, I think. I welcome the recommendation for closer co-operation between DGVI and DGXI. It is impossible to imagine that someone can believe that the impact of agriculture on our environment is not one of the most important. In view of proposed changes in the CAP, we need to look at the environmental impact of set-aside and large-scale afforestation. I welcome particularly the suggested setting-up of an independent body like the Nature Conservancy Council to advise DGIV and DGXI. I think this report will be a valuable document, and I thank the committee for it.

6.37 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, as a member of the committee, may I thank the noble Baroness for thanking us? However, really all the congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has so ably chaired that committee for the past four years in a very decisive, clear and helpful manner; and he has turned his attention to the very wide range of different environmental subjects that have been brought before us. I have been constantly astounded by the depths of his learning and the speed with which he manages to research each subject that comes before us. He has served the committee extremely well during his period of chairmanship and there will be many of us who will be sorry to see him "rotated". That happens to the best of us from time to time. I also congratulate him on the extremely capable way in which he ranged over the full scope of the committee's report.

I shall not attempt to do the same myself. I simply want to bring some emphasis to two points. One of them has been repeated by most speakers so far: that is, environmental research. The second is the small but important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already drawn to your Lordships' attention. It appears in paragraph 103 of the report.

First of all, I want to talk a little about the scientific base of community legislation. During the hearings of the Select Committee, it was somwhat startling to hear Mr. Waldegrave say—as recorded in paragraph 58 of the report—that the scientific basis for proposed directives is not presented to council and that council Ministers do not insist on scientific evidence being made available to them.

It is in the environmental field that this evidence is of paramount importance. Pretty well every environmental directive that is framed by the Commission is based on science and scientific research. Scientific evidence is taken of the damage that pollutants do to the environment, the concentrations at whch those pollutants are damaging and the concentrations at which they are adjudged to be safe. That scientific information forms the very basis of the standards laid down in the directive.

As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, emphasised and as the report declares in paragraph 91, it seems absolutely essential that this information should be available to decision-makers. If I can urge anything on my noble friend who is sitting on the Front Bench it is that he will always insist on having a scientific adviser at his side or accessible when he is in the smoky hinterland of decision-making at the ministerial meetings.

However, I recognise that there are other considerations, as Mr. Waldegrave himself accepted (Question 380). First, no scientist would claim that science itself is free from dispute. On the basis of the most rigorous evidence, scientists can and do disagree. It then falls to my noble friend to make a political judgment. There is also a second set of circumstances, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has laid emphasis in his speech, which I found extremely interesting and thoughtful; namely, that at the socio-economic level there must be other factors that weigh more heavily in the opinion of policy-makers than the straightforward scientific indications themselves.

I think that all environmentalists must accept that there are times when those factors will appear to be of overriding weight and will influence decisions to the detriment perhaps of the environment. However, I believe that in such circumstances democratic government absolutely requires that the conflict between science and politics must be exposed and made explicit. So once again I urge on my noble friend that when a decision appears to be in conflict with scientific evidence, perhaps on grounds which I can broadly call socio-economic, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, it must be openly stated from the very beginning, and pseudo-science must not be used to justify the decision.

I should like to emphasise and draw attention to paragraph 89 of the report which states that the budget for environmental research is too small. The Commission of the European Communities itself wishes to enlarge the budget for scientific research. At the time of the Select Committee's visit to Brussels, what is now called the "framework programme" was in an early stage of consideration—I refer your Lordships to Question 285 in the evidence of Dr. Bourdeau, which is appended to the report. Since that time the discussion has reached the Council, and Her Majesty's Government find themselves in a somewhat isolated position in insisting on a standstill budget rather than an expansion for which the Commission hoped.

I do not claim to speak for all British scientific opinion but it is undoubtedly true that scientific opinion in this country strongly supports the Select Committee is urging the importance of and the essential need for expanded support for research in the environmental field. However, as your Lordships can see by reading somewhat between the lines of the evidence of the Natural Environment Research Council in this report, there is a body of scientists somewhat averse to having extra resources directed exclusively to Brussels for onward redistribution.

One point that was mentioned by the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council is that inevitably—and one must recognise excusably—there is a certain amount of what one might call financial friction because some of the money is necessarily absorbed in overheads.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the suggestion that there should be a register of scientists, but there are also other ways in which the role of the Commission can be enhanced in improving direct liaison between scientists, national research centres and scientific institutions of member states. I see the role of liaison along those lines as being important in two ways in particular: first, in order to avoid the duplication of research effort in national centres; and secondly to encourage joint programmes of the nature that the Commission seeks, but programmes which are funded by national sources when national interests are clearly identified and seen to he involved in a joint exercise.

Were I to be asked for examples, I should cite the current European Geotraverse, which is organising seismic research from Norway through to Iberia and possibly as far as Yugoslavia, and which is being co-ordinated by the European Science Foundation. I feel that there is perhaps a role for the European Science Foundation or some other body of senior politicaly-uncommitted scientists as a referral and cordination body in overseeing the Commission's environmental research or at least being used as referees for it.

I turn to my second topic which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is clear from the evidence of the senior civil servants—for instance, Mr. Rowcliffe in Question 3 and the Minister himself in Question 371—that there was considerable effort within the Government machinery to assemble a multidepartmental response to the action programme. Inevitably that must have forged links. People who did not normally speak or write to each other must have done so. I believe that when such linkages are established they represent a real and important resource in any administrative machine and should be preserved.

In itself that is one argument for presenting in the form of a published response the Government's own forward programme for the next five years to match the Community's action programme. I believe that the action programme itself deserves a national mirror. It would set priorities for expenditure and establish targets against which progress could be measured. As an example I draw my noble friend's attention to what in the Netherlands is called the "Indicative Multi-Annual Programme", which in effect is a rolling five-year forward plan for environmental action. In that plan the Government's aims for pollution control in all media—air, land and water—are integrated and exposed for national scrutiny. I believe that that is a good model which could be followed to advantage by our own Government.

Evidence from practice in the Netherlands suggests that it has an important additional value other than that which I have already mentioned. It has value to industry in focusing interest on the issues, raising the level of discussion inside big companies and attracting the attention of senior management and those who have to plan the forward budget. Such a rolling five-year forward plan would also be valuable to research councils and other scientific institutions, including universities, which in many cases are also working to corporate plans with a three-year to five-year forward look and whose own planning systems would be strengthened by clear evidence of the Government's intentions.

I believe that that would improve the outsider's perception of the Government's environmental concern, indicate to industry where investment on pollution control should be concentrated, and prepare the scientific research community to put forward its strength at the right time and for the right causes.

6.50 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee on the excellent report that they have produced, which deals sensibly and sensitively with a wide range of environmental issues. I should like to deal briefly with some of the agricultural issues that arise from the report of the Select Committee and also the Fourth Action Programme.

When I looked at the Fourth Action Programme—and here I enter a small note of dissent from other speakers—I began to feel that the problem of introducing a Community-wide agricultural environmental policy may be even harder, if that were possible, than the problem we face in having a Community-wide agricultural support policy. I notice that the Select Committee noted that there was "surprisingly little reference to agriculture" in the action programme. I wonder, perhaps suspiciously, if those who had to draft the action programme recognised the difficulty that I have just described.

Regarding specific agricultural issues, first, there is a great danger if we mix up the problems of the environment; of social structure and of price policy. Such problems relate to each other and obviously have a knock-on effect. I believe there is a great danger in piece meal solutions which isolate different areas of the problem, and also in attempting, for example, to solve a structure problem through the price policy. This also applies to environmental problems.

I believe there is an overlap between environmental and rural structure problems. There are particular dangers in this for the UK because we have larger farms with a better structure in agriculture than the rest of Europe. We must remember throughout the effect on rural employment. There are references in the Report of the Select Committee to the larger farms. But it is the larger farms which provide the jobs in British agriculture. Somehow the idea of making large farms smaller may sound great in theory, but is almost impossible to put into practice. To pick up a phrase used by my noble friend, Lord Murray, farmers may say "We are all environmentalists now". I am afraid that is not really true. The majority of farmers I know are much too busy earning a living at the moment to worry too much about conservation issues. But it is a fact that it is the larger and more prosperous farms which, in the main, have planted trees and protected flora and fauna and led the efforts in the countryside on environmental issues.

Referring to the problem of pollution mentioned in the reports, we must remember that some farms are victims of pollution. Those who farm on the urban fringe find that their crops and animals suffer from industrial pollution. In some cases, people are also a problem. On one of the farms with which I am connected we farm up to the garden fences of a large urban area. The problems in the part of the farm which is nearest to the houses mean that we are not able to put livestock on the land, and the household items that pass through our equipment are interesting and curious. Obviously, in the report there are mentions of nitrates, pesticides and the handling of organic waste. There is a problem, and it is largely one of definition.

Concerning the problem of nitrates, for example, there is reference to the fact that the polluter should pay, and also to be fair, the report mentions the difficulty of deciding who is the polluter. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a school of scientific opinion which holds that some at least of the nitrates which are now in our water result from the ploughing up of grassland in the War to grow arable crops. It has taken a long period for this to leak out into the acquifers. If that is the case which polluter will pay? I suspect the answer may well be that we will have to install plants for denitrification, to deal with the problem—perhaps that is the only answer. In that case who will pay for such plants? As a side issue, when the Government produces its prospectus for the privatisation of the water industry I shall be interested to see how they propose to deal with this particular problem.

As far as pesticides are concerned we have to be realistic and practical. At the moment farmers are being squeezed unmercifully on prices. If we are asked to restrict the use of pesticides and thereby reduce our yields, then there must be some form of compensation. I shall refer to that matter later.

There is a mention in the report of the ideas for set-aside and afforestation. The Set-aside idea, in my view, is a palliative. It may be only a temporary answer to a long-run problem. I should like to discuss less intensive farming—it is a phrase used in the report. What does it mean? We have had something like 40 years of production-oriented farming in this country. We are used to thinking in terms of producing more and more which is the policy we have been encouraged to follow. But there is a problem of definition for example, I was involved in the organisation of a conference and we wanted to make the title "Low Input Farming". We asked ADAS to help us and to speak. They refused to do so unless we altered the title to "Lower Input Farming", and not "Low Input Farming". It is a connoisseur's distinction, but it was important to ADAS at the time.

In my experience it is not necessarily true that less intensive farming is more 'inefficient'—a phrase used in the report—even in terms of return on capital. I will make a forecast that it will be the low cost farmers who will survive the current recession in agriculture. Successful farmers have an unsophisticated business plan: they intend to be the last one to go broke.

Less intensive farming will be good for the environment; it will mean reduced production and will help to deal with the problem of surplus. However, it is much harder technically. It requires a very high level of technical competence not to reach for the sprayer or the syringe when there is a problem on the farm. Very little work has been done on the techniques and the economics of less intensive farming. A firm direction of research and development is needed to show farmers how to farm less intensively and still remain profitable.

As I said, we have had 40 years' of production-oriented farming. This has fed through into farmers' attitudes. To take a small example, there is the pejorative and slightly contemptuous description used by farmers of organic farming as "muck, mystery and magic".

I am attracted to less intensive and low input farming. I think we should do a lot more work in research in this area, but the problem is actually how to farm less intensively. There is a good idea which the NFU mentioned in their evidence to the Committee of a contract conservation. A farmer would contract to product environmental benefits. For example, on the farms with which I am connected we have had ADAS prepare a land management plan. They have done a superb job of identifying the footpaths, the areas for tree planting, the hedgerows, the flora and fauna and many other aspects of conservation. It would have been comparatively easy to link into that land management plan a conservation plan which showed how to reduce production on our farm. We would not mind doing this so long as we are paid a premium to make up for lost production if we are doing it for the benefit of the community as a whole.

There must be specific research and development directed to low input systems. In my view, most farmers would welcome such systems. Successful farmers have a rooted objection to spending money and they would be very attracted to low input systems and methods.

It is a matter of general agreement in the European Community and on all sides of politics that the environment belongs to us all. I am delighted to note there is now general acceptance of a good socialist argument. Everyone now believes in interventionist policies to protect the environment. As an aside, it will be one of the nicer political ironies in coming years to see free marketeers in this and in the other place queueing up to support substantial interference in the operation of the free market and perhaps agreeing with plans to pay farmers to produce less.

There is a simple point; if the environment belongs to us all then we all have to pay for its protection. We have been encouraged for a number of years to expand production; and we have created a substantial capital base to enable us to do that. The whole community has to share in the cost of adapting to the new pressures. The whole cost must not fall on the farmer but I am afraid that I have a nasty suspicion that it well might. To sum up the argument on compensation, I shall quote from a publication by Green Europe entitled Environment and the CAP: The Commission's new guidelines acknowledge that the role played by agriculture in protecting and improving the quality of the environment can and must continue. If this objective is to be achieved, attitudes must develop in two ways. In the first place, farmers must realize that certain constraints on the development of their activities are indispensable not only because of market forces but also because the natural environment in which they work is a vital asset which must be safeguarded for future generations. Secondly, the consumer and the taxpayer must realize that special services are rendered by farmers in the safeguard of the environment and that these services, where they entail constraints encroaching on incomes, must be properly remunerated". There is another fundamental problem which must be faced by the farmer and the conservationist. It is the problem that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. One might he called in as an adviser to a farm or an estate where the fields are small, the crops are full of weeds, the hedgerows are overgrown, and the land is crawling with rabbits and other vermin, and where the trees which are growing are all in the middle of the fields. In that situation, what would we do? We would make the fields larger. We would straighten out the hedgerows. We would take out trees but for every one tree taken out we would plant two. The two would be planted in the corners of fields or in the hedgerows. We would have to destroy the vermin but, at the end of that period, I would regard the farm as more beautiful and more pleasing to the eye.

I have discussed this matter with some conservationists who take completely the opposite view. They argue that the weed-filled crops contain a variety of species and that the overgrown hedgerows, provide the habitat for a number of species of animals and insects. There is a fundamental divide here which we would do well to face and not to ignore.

I conclude with a true story. Recently, we visited a deprived rural area on holiday. I looked out over the water from a jetty on a lovely evening. On the jetty there was a group of lads who did not have much to do. It was, as I have said, a deprived rural area. I waxed rather lyrical about the beauty of the place and how they were fortunate to live there. There was some puzzlement until one lad said "That's fine, Mister, but you can't eat a view." We might well keep that profound observation in mind when considering these important issues of the environment and conservation.

7.3 p.m.

Lord Denning

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee for their excellent report, I wish to emphaise the importannce of the European Community as regards legislation which affects all countries of the Community. Surely, in regard to the environment the law should be harmonious and equal throughout all the nations of the European Community. This is the European Year of the Environment. And this very month—on 1st July—the Single European Act has come into force. Article 130 R in the Select Committee's report states the action that the Community should take on the environment. It states: In preparing its action relating to the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data; environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action; the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions". What a programme for the European Community to develop! The Select Committee has reported on the Community's present legislative machinery and on the weaknesses and drawbacks that need to be remedied. The great value of the report is, I hope, that it will draw to the attention of those Eurocrats in Brussels—that is the right word—those weaknesses and those drawbacks which at present exist so that they may remedy them.

Very few people know the system of legislation which exists in the Community and which applies to the whole of Europe. Fortunately, it is summarised on pages 10 and 11 of the report. However I refer back to Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome which shows that nearly all the legislation is enforced by means of directives which are issued in Brussels. The treaty states: A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods". A directive is prepared and made binding in its result by a department of European civil servants in Brussels. It does not go before any Parliament or any democratic society. Those civil servants have to collect information from all the countries they can on science and research and also on the economic effects of the directive on countries of the Community. Is that done properly?

Already 100 directives have been issued. They are supposed to be implemented within a couple of years. Let us see what the report says in regard to the Seveso programme and all the remedies that should be contained in it. The report states: The date set for compliance with the Directive was January 1984, yet only four of the twelve Member States are in full formal compliance with the Directive: Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom". None of the others has implemented it at all. It is only when we implement it that it becomes binding on the people. That is the next stage. The directives are passed in Brussels but we have to pass them here by regulations or statutes. We have to pass the legislation and implement it, and only four countries have done so at the moment. What about the others? The first stage is important. Not only should the directive be properly prepared after it has been fully investigated by scientists and others but then each member state must pass its own legislation so that the directive is uniform throughout all of them. Every state must do its job.

It is one thing to pass legislation and make our regulations about bathing beaches or pollution to comply with the directive and make them binding on the people. But the next stage, having passed the laws is to enforce them. The European Commission has no possibility of enforcing legislation. The enforcement depends on each member state. The legislation is passed and then we have to have inspectorates, police or constables to implement that legislation and see that people obey the law. How many countries do that? As is pointed out in the report, it is the job of the national governments to take their obligations seriously. Are the laws enforced in all these countries?

Those are the drawbacks to which the committee drew attention. Not only must each member state implement the directives but each member state must enforce them on the peoples of its country. That is the whole objective. If countries do not implement the directives or if, when they are in place, countries do not enforce them, the whole structure falls down. There is nothing worse than having a law which is not obeyed.

I have spoken at this length because this is an important matter for the whole Community. I hope that we in England play our part. When there is a directive, I hope that we will implement it by legislation or regulation. When we have the legislation or regulation, I hope that we will enforce it. However, it is also important that other countries do the same. Otherwise we can be free of pollution in England but when we go to other countries we will find pollution because the laws are not enforced.

I have said as much as I have in order to thank the committee for drawing our attention to these important matters. I hope and believe that the measures going forward from this House will enable the people in Brussels and in the Community to see what ought to be done in the future to remedy the drawbacks to implement the directives properly.

7.13 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the committee for what is a most interesting report. I was particularly interested in the third theme discussed on page 9 of the report concerning the relationship between agriculture and the environment. I speak tonight as a farmer.

I think that there is sometimes too much antagonism between conservationists and farmers. It is true that sometimes their interests clash. More often I think that they can be brought together by discussion and by planning. Whereas in past years the target for agriculture was to produce as much as possible regardless of anything else, today the reverse is true. Some products are largely overproduced; some are not. I was particularly interested in the description by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of farming on lower production rather than higher production.

In paragraph 61 of the report the situation is put clearly: The most urgent problem facing agriculture in the Community is excessive production, which results in stockpiling of food and unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of the Community". That has been hammered home over and over again. The report describes how the 12 nations of the EC are affected by agriculture. In 1985, 10.4 million people were employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. Agricultural employment in the Community accounted for 8 per cent. of civilian employment. The extremes of employment are given in the report. In the United Kingdom, 2 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, whereas in Greece the figure is 29 per cent., in Italy it is 11 per cent., in France it is 7 per cent. and in Germany it is 5 per cent. That variation underlines the difficulties the Community has in coming to any satisfactory conclusions in the matter.

However, the report makes various suggestions which I think could be followed up. It suggests changing production to find out what the public want to buy. That is one of the first priorities. How much this is being done in Europe is hard to say. In the United Kingdom, many farmers are experimenting and changing their production. I know dairy farmers who are turning milk into yoghurt and hill farmers who are raising deer for venison; and we all know the success in many places of pick-your-own fruit and vegetables. Forestry is being explored by farmers. In some sheep areas, goats are being raised for mohair and sheep are being raised for merino wool.

All of those things, whether they succeed or not, are efforts at alternative production. The difficulty is how to make money on which to live and preserve the countryside at the same time. Foresty is much talked about at the moment. We import 80 per cent. of our timber. However, one cannot live off trees. There is no return on trees for 20 years or more. Every farmer who gives up selling agricultural produce every year would have to have considerable grants until the timber he is growing becomes saleable. That could take a long time if hardwood and broadleaved trees were planted.

The United Kingdom has inaugurated the environmentally sensitive areas programme. Those are grant-aided and supervised to cover the cost. That policy has been a great success and I think that it will protect both the farmer and the environment. The plan for woodland development can help in cutting down overproduction in agricultural produce in certain ways.

The report has an interesting account of scientific research in agricultural production which could have an effect on environmental policy, economic activity and employment. But this is a very big proposal and I think that the committee was wise to postpone the study until some immediate actions are taken.

Coming back to my original remarks, we need more efforts to find out what the consumer wants to buy and to try to produce it, better marketing of produce, encouragement of farmers to try new production and closer co-operation between the environmentalists and the agricultural community. I think those interests can very often work together. This report is full of excellent suggestions. They affect all the countries of the EC and I hope that the report will have a very wide circulation in Europe as well as in this country.

Lord Rugby

My Lords, the right honourable William Waldegrave, when he was Minister of the Environment, was indefatigable in his addressing of various meetings and lectures. He made his point the necessity for a logical approach if we are to make progress towards the type of improved environment which we all desire. He described that approach as holistic. I think he realised that any sudden change in a particular sphere might well have serious secondary repercussions in another sector and that it would be necessary to make progress slowly.

When the agricultural industry catches a cold, a large number of subsidiary industries get terminal pneumonia. My own experience of over four decades spans the time of tiny fields, manually cultivated by men, women, children and horses, up to the present day where a man and his son operate a thousand acres, barren of hedgerows, using massive machines and huge imputs of fertilisers with regular dressings of chemicals and pesticides to match. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I cannot agree with him that we have created a situation of better or more employment, although I do not think we should go back to the original time to which I have referred.

Lord Carter

My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I did not say that we have created more jobs. However, if we start with the situation as it is now, it is the larger farms which employ fewer workers.

Lord Rugby

My Lords, it would be true to say that where our best soils are concerned—and I agree with the report of the Commission—we have reached the point of saturation. There are very definite fears that we can go no further and we must now think about reversing the situation.

For 40 years the gospel according to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, landlords and the agricultural colleges has been one of more, more and more. Taxation demanded it, higher rents compelled it and the great god economics decreed it. The momentum has been built up steadily and remorselessly and what we are now saying is, "Forget it all and back to the drawing board".

Farming is a long-term process, and if the momentum has to he stopped and reversed the holistic approach, as the Minister stated, is the realistic approach and not jumps of 20 per cent. which will have undesirable repercussions. Realistically, I believe that the programme should be over a much longer period with the accent being on the rehabilitation of the rural areas with proper rotation and conservation as the top priorities. If this step-by-step approach is taken on board, it is the only way that the aspirations of those who wish to see a greener and possibly happier environment may be fulfilled. It has to be tackled.

Finally, I associate myself totally with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his great contribution to this report.

7.21 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I also begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the way in which he has presented this report. As always, he leaves very little for other Members of the Committee to say. I therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence if I repeat some of the remarks that he made.

In company with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe our greatest concern must be about the implementation of directives. I take as my text the very first sentence of the very first paragraph in the opinions of the Committee and I remind your Lordships that it states: Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority; for law which is not implemented undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates. I think that that says it all and much of what we have been discussing tonight supports it.

I want to take up and develop that theme just a little. What have we all been saying tonight? We have actually said in different ways that the long-term success and acceptance of Community law will depend on the practicality of the laws which are created and their relevance to their subject. This in turn depends upon the credibility of the organisation—that is, organisation with a small "o"—behind the creation of the legislation, about which we have heard a great deal, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Nugent, made clear as did very eloquently the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It also depends upon the validity of the research upon which it is based and the public perception of the aims and relevance of the whole exercise.

In paragraphs 82 to 93 the report draws attention to existing deficiencies and confusions in the organisation within the Community and attaches great importance to the need for proper research. Paragraph 94 highlights the crucial role of monitoring the effects of directives. This Front Bench agrees with all these opinions of the Committee.

As the report indicates, some member states are not complying with Community law to the detriment of us all; but I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that each member state must oversee its own implementation. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made that point, too. However, to a certain extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there has, at some stage and in some way, to be an oversight between nations on how the laws are being implemented. I cannot make a suggestion as to how that can be done, but I do not go along with the full-time inspectorate which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, prescribed. That would lead to an unnecessary degree of bureaucracy.

On 27th January the committee discussed with the Institute for European Environmental Policy the desirability of member states acting with awareness of each other's methods and progress. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was eloquent on this point and emphasised the need to avoid duplication between research efforts and other areas of activity. I fear that that desirable situation is a long way ahead. In the meantime, we in this House can do little about those erring members other than to press our representatives to take action when possible and where appropriate. What we can and should do is ensure that our own country meets its obligations under Community law and shows a responsible approach to the discussion of problems at the pre-legislative stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray that implementation is best left to member states, as I said earlier, and that anything else is unlikely to be effective, but to begin with we should play a large part in the creation of that legislation.

There is not time this evening to cover the whole range of environmental problems where action is required, but I shall point to some areas where a more positive approach by our Government could have been expected. I make these cricitisms and in the spirit of this debate I preface them by saying that if the Government feel that they are unjustified, perhaps they should look at the lack of real information which is available to us when we ask questions on the Government's actions and overall intentions. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made a plea that the Government should state their intentions ahead and I fully support that. His plea was more eloquent than mine but the end result would be the same. We need more information and we need to be taken more into the confidence of the Government about what it means.

Starting with air pollution, Britain has been persistently unco-operative in the fight to reduce SO2 emissions from power stations, despite mounting evidence of the damage caused. Britain has delayed and reduced action to clean up vehicle emissions to the point where not only must we endure a continuing threat to human health and to the environment, but also an effect on the development of our pollution control industry. We are falling behind the rest of the developed world and we shall pay a price economically as well as environmentally if this is not corrected. It may already be too late.

My noble friend Lord Murray feared that environmental protection may cost jobs, but there are many jobs that can be created in environmental protection. The one I have already mentioned in the motor industry can create many jobs and, in fact, work is already going ahead on catalytic converters and on other measures which are in some degree awaiting the Government's actions. I give another smaller example—water treatment works create jobs; and so does the manufacture and installation of carbon filters and the manufacture of equipment for chemical analysis. Those are small examples which point to the way in which the whole business of environmental protection and pollution control creates real jobs which are ongoing.

Britain has been less than co-operative on the control of chlorofluorocarbons—CFC for short. Questions in this House have failed to produce clear answers. The predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was known to be concerned about this problem. It is a world problem with global effects. In parts of the United States and Scandinavia the use of CFCs has been banned. My latest information is that the United Kingdom has begun to press for a 20 per cent. reduction in Europe. but if, as we hear, West Germany carries out its plan to ban CFCs, this percentage reduction would be achieved within the Community without any concessions from Britain. I hope to be convinced by the Minister when he replies that we would not be party to such a cynical exercise. Can the Minister tell us in plain language where Britain stands on this issue? We know that at the end of April there was a conference in Europe on the matter. I have completely failed to find out what happened at that conference.

I turn now to water pollution. Increasing pollution of our water supply is a mounting anxiety. I should in this context discuss pesticides and nitrates but my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, fully covered the agricultural side of the discussion. Perhaps I can say how right the committee was to regret that there was not an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the programme that we are discussing. I firmly believe that the potential for co-operation between agriculture and the environment is as great as the potential for conflict. I hope that given the right approach we shall explore the potential for co-operation rather than conflict.

I wish to highlight the problem of pollution from aldrin, dieldrin and endrin—drins for short—as they are currently the subject of a proposed directive. Those highly toxic substances appear in our waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, as a result of a number of industrial activities; for example, wood preservatives and the treatment of imported wool fleeces. There are permitted limits which are considered safe to be found in our water although they are sometimes exceeded by accidental discharges. The long-term danger is that the drins are, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in a memo last September to the Select Committee, "Toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative". By the time they have penetrated the food chain by a few stages, they are dangerous to fish, to birds and eventually to man.

I understand that the present method of monitoring drins is to measure their presence in water, with no account being taken of deposits in sediment or the bioaccumulative effect. In response to the comments of Sub-Committee F, which I understand will soon be published, the Minister's predecessor at the Department of the Environment said: In implementing the directive, this Department will take careful note of your comments regarding the remaining uses of drins and will be considering what further action might be taken towards eliminating pollution by these substances, with particular regard to inputs from diffuse sources". Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in his department on those promised considerations? Time grows short, and I have not even touched on the enormous problem of waste disposal or the bathing-beaches directive. Those and other topics must be left for another day.

In conclusion, I want to take your Lordships back to the policy paper on the fourth environmental action programme which is the basis of our report. Paragraph 2 of the introduction states: The natural environment is still deteriorating in the Community, as in other parts of the world. Intensive crop farming is sapping the soil. Some water courses are still little cleaner than sewers. Air pollution is wreaking enormous damage. Ever increasing amounts of non-recyclable waste are being generated. Industrial hazards too are mounting. Many inner-city areas need extensive redevelopment. In short, natural resources—the lifeblood yet at the same time the limit for all economic and social development—are not being properly used. Public concern is rising unabated". The report recognises those concerns. I hope that in his reply the Minister will show that Her Majesty's Government intend to respond to them.

7.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, it is fitting that the first environment debate in this House in the new Parliament should be on the subject of the European Community's fourth environment action programme, the key policy document guiding the Community's environmental protection activities for the next five years. The concluding remarks of the noble Baroness show what important subjects of concern are raised in this whole general context. A glance at the contents page indicates the scope of the activities covered by it and, to look on the bright side, shows how far we have come since 1972 when the Community first took an interest.

There are now over 100 environmental directives, ranging in subject from water pollution to the protection of wild birds, from the disposal of waste to the control of asbestos. We now have an environment chapter in the EC treaty, brought about by the entry into force on 1st July of the Single European Act, and so for the first time, protection of the environment is explicity recognised as a Community policy. This is an important development which the Government welcome.

Faced with the broad scope of the document and its 19 detailed recommendations the Select Committee might have been forgiven for skating superficially over the whole field. Instead, under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, your Lordships took the eminently sensible view that to do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter, it was desirable to have a selective approach. They therefore concentrated on three main themes—the implementation of EC legislation, the scientific basis for legislative proposals, and the relationship between agriculture and the environment. With infallible judgment, they lighted on the three areas of particular concern to the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred critically to the insufficient contribution made by the United Kingdom to the Community's legislative process, and asked some questions which I can perhaps come to in a moment. I shall give a rather general answer. Your Lordships may wish to know the state of play in Brussels on the programme. The United Kingdom has played a constructive part.

The Environment Council had a preliminary discussion in November 1986, during the British presidency. At our instigation, the Council adopted a welcoming resolution commending the programme for further study. Discussions continued in the early part of this year and culminated in a draft resolution agreed in principle at the March Environment Council. This resolution, which will be published in due course, emphasises the importance of the effective implementation of environmental measures, and urges the integration of environmental considerations, into other areas of Community policy.

At the United Kingdom's request, there is an explicit reference to encouraging agricultural practices that are environmentally beneficial. I believe that the text reflects the concerns of the Select Committee. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is now appropriate for the United Kingdom to lift its parliamentary reserve. The European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee have both delivered their opinions on the programme, so the resolution can be formally adopted very soon.

The Government agree with the committee that implementation of Community legislation should be given high priority. There is clearly little point in constantly pressing on with new measures if the existing legislation is not being implemented effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others of your Lordships made the point that it is important to distinguish between formal implementation and practical implementation.

There seems to be a view prevalent elsewhere in the Community that provided a given directive has been transposed into domestic legislation, that satisfactorily completes a member state's obligation. I exaggerate, but not greatly. We should be concerned with improving the environment, not with counting up the number of directives that we have managed to negotiate in Brussels. As my noble friend Lord Nugent added, non-implementation can carry with it on some occasions unfair economic advantages to industry in a defaulting nation. There is a tendency, we feel, in the Commission to take a purist view of implementation. In certain cases they seem to be eager to take infraction proceedings for theoretical reasons with scant regard for the practical aspects of implementation. To give one example, there are a number of directives about the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The due date for implementation is long past and no member state has been able to implement the measures because there is no Community definition of "waste".

The Commission, to give it credit, recognises that an agreed definition must be found and has arranged expert meetings to discuss the problem. Nevertheless, it is simultaneously pursuing infraction proceedings against all member states. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in her speech stated that she could not envisage the Commission taking all member states to court. I think that the example I have just given—which is not altogether an isolated one shows that the noble Baroness was absolutely right. It is ludicrous to my mind to have a situation of the kind that I have just related, which to my mind undermines the credibility of the Community in monitoring and enforcing Community legislation. Incidentally, this approach seems also to be at odds with the Commision's evidence to the Select Committee that infraction proceedings are used as the ultimate recourse. I have to say that in our experience that is not the case.

The committee also made a number of detailed points on this theme. Your Lordships want a complete review of the progress of implementation of all existing directives and recommend that the Commission should identify the most important directives and concentrate on them as a first priority. This is a matter for the Commission to consider in the light of the resources that it has available. If it decides to follow this up, I give an assurance this evening that it will have the full support and co-operation of the United Kindgom Government although we hope that any such review could be carried out with the minimum load on member states. A welcome development is the planned meeting of the Commission and member states tomorrow to discuss the implementation of water direct ves. We think that this could be a useful approach.

My noble friend Lord Nugent went further and recommended that each member state ought to review their implementation of directives and report on the results which the member state had achieved. I am due to attend the Environment Council in about a fortnight's time on behalf of the Government. I think I had better find out what effect my noble friend's recommendation has had on members of the council and report back to him when I return home.

The Committee also noted that reports from member states on implementation are often submitted late or not at all. Here I think that the United Kingdom takes this obligation seriously and we have a good record which is, in the Commission's own view, better than that of any other member state. We shall continue to keep up the good work. Without such reports is is virtually impossible for the Commission to carry out its monitoring functions effectively and to ensure that directives are being implemented throughout the Community. This will be particularly important with regard to the Seveso Directive, so rightly mentioned by many noble Lords in the debate this evening.

The Fourth Action Programme touches also on the possibility of a Community environmental inspectorate. I should like to say, although this has not figured very much this evening, that we share your Lordships' view that such an inspectorate is unnecessary and would lead to additional bureaucracy without additional benefits. The committee recommends closer co-operation between national inspectors. This already happens to some extent but we would welcome some further development. We can all learn from each other in tackling common environmental problems and establishing common monitoring standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, advocated not just that, but more communication between those who produce and implement the directives and those who work in industry. I should like to say that we are carefully examining recent Commission proposals for a scheme of demonstration projects in the field of environmental protection which should also have a positive effect on employment.

Perhaps I may move a little further back in the process of making Community laws to the second area of the committee. I welcome the stress laid by your Lordships on the need for Community enviromental legislation to have a good scientific basis. That is a matter mentioned in particular in the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, at the beginning, and by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. This means wide consultation of experts and will help to protect the reputation of the Community as an environmental policy-making body. It will also avoid wasteful use of resources in meeting unjustifiably stringent environmental criteria.

I should like to respond to my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Cranbrook by saying that we eventually would wish the Commision to attach to legislative proposals the scientific case for action as well as an assessment of the costs and benefits of accepting or of not accepting its proposals. I believe that if this could be achieved it would go some way to meeting the concerns of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook about avoiding pseudo-science in decision taking.

Intimately connected with this is the need for the Commission Environment Directorate General, DG XI, to be closely connected with formulating and evaluating research so that its results are used to inform Community policy proposals. In fact we believe that DG XI ought to be the customer for the bulk of Community enviroment research. This does not necessarily imply any overall increase in staff resources but rather, I suggest, a transfer of resources from DG XII (research) to DG XI as recommended in the evidence to your Lordships' committee of Mr. Waldegrave, my predecessor.

Perhaps I may strike one discordant note. It is about the only one on your Lordship's extremely comprehensive report. I do not think the Government accept that environmental research is underfunded in the Community. The Community programme represents only a very small percentage of total spend in member states. The Community cannot hope to substitute for these national programmes but should complement them. The best way to do this is by co-ordination of national effort—concerted action, as it is called—only funding research where there are gaps in the knowledge needed to underpin Community policy. Better value for money is obtained by contracting-out research to teams in member states than by using the Community's own joint research centre. On specific points raised by your Lordships' committee perhaps I may say that the Community funds research on waste recycling—in the materials programme—and research on clean technology demonstration projects under the ACE (Action by the Community relating to the Environment) regulation which is administered by DG XI.

I should like to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we should take account of a pool of scientific knowledge in member states before we allow DG XI to set up new machinery which duplicates what is already being done. That is a point on which we feel very strongly in Government. I was very glad that the noble Baroness made that point.

Improvements are in sight in the way that Community research is conducted. I welcome the evidence which I read from the witness from DG XII who pointed the way towards a sharper definition of research needs. Flexibility to reallocate funds to emerging new priorities has been urged on the Commission by the Department of the Environment. Multinational teams are now the norm in Community environment research and this should surely help reach scientific consensus on environmental issues.

My noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned in this general context of this part of the report the framework programme. Perhaps I may say that the framework programme, of which environment is only a small, although very important part, limits the total expenditure and content of community R&D for five years ahead. This was discussed by the European Council on 29th-30th June. Intensive negotiations are now proceeding in Brussels aimed at securing agreement to a programme which will preserve important research, but also respect budgetary discipline.

Finally, there is the third area, the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Here I welcome the fact that this third theme was brought out so clearly by the committee. I agree with the two noble Baronesses, my noble friend Lady Elliot and Lady Nicol, when both said that there should not be antagonism between environmentalists and farmers. Indeed in recent years there has been a real attempt to achieve greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies.

Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 now gives statutory backing to the agriculture department's practice of seeking to integrate wider environmental, social and economic objectives with agricultural policy. The farming and rural enterprise package announced by the Government on 10th March comprises a number of new policy initiatives designed to assist the rural economy while conserving the countryside. The agricultural publication in that package sets out the Government's proposals for encouraging farmers to adjust their output to changing patterns of demand. The Government have also been active in pressing for greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies in Brussels. One well known example to your Lordships is that of environmentally sensitive areas, which was pushed through entirely by the United Kingdom. Applications from farmers in the first five English ESAs cover some 78 per cent. of the total area which is considered suitable for participation in the ESA scheme. By any reckoning that is an encouraging start and preparations for an extension of the scheme, as your Lordships will know, are now under way.

But this is only a beginning. Still more needs to be done. I agree with your Lordships' committee that perhaps too little attention has been given in the Fourth Action Programme to ways of integrating environmental and agricultural policies. The committee looked in particular at the socio-structures regulation, now formally agreed, and especially at its provisions for incentives to farmers to reduce production of surplus products. Member states have a fair degree of flexibility on how they may implement the extensification scheme of the socio-structures measure in their territories. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that a good deal of consideration will have to be given to the environmental effects of set-aside. I agree with the noble Baroness and the Government will be consulting widely. But we believe that measures to divert land from cereals production, and which complement a realistic price policy, ought to be able to make a positive contribution to reducing agricultural surpluses, while allowing us to protect the environment.

Meanwhile other things are being done and my noble friend Lady Elliot gave us some interesting examples of different enterprises on farms in the ceaseless search for non-surplus production.

The report of your Lordships' committee raises the question of how in practice the Commission should provide for the integration of policies relating to agriculture and the environment. Your Lordships stress the need for close collaboration between DGVI and DGXI. I agree it is essential in formulating policy proposals that the two directorates work closely together. It is for the Commission to consider how this can most effectively be achieved and the necessary scientific advice obtained.

Your Lordships also referred in the report to the directive on environmental impact assessment. As many of your Lordships will know, the directive will require systematic assessments to be carried out for certain types of major project which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. That directive is due to come into force on 2nd July 1988. The Government are fully committed to its implementation, and our preparations are well advanced for projects such as planning controls. We published draft proposals for consultation last year and have had a helpful response. We shall be coming forward with the necessary draft legislation later this year. Other work is also in hand and I understand that our preparations are very much in line with those of other member states.

I was very interested to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the agricultural aspect of the report. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to the noble Lord's particular plea in his speech for more R&D into low input farming, although I think the noble Lord is probably well aware that a great deal of thought has been put into that in the Ministry of Agriculture, and work is also going on. Nonetheless, the noble Lord made an important point and I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.

The noble Lord also spoke about the problem of nitrates and the polluter pays principle. The Government accept that it is not always possible to apply the polluter pays- principal directly. In considering who should meet the bill for resolving the nitrate problem, we shall have in mind the contributions that can equitably be made by farmers on the one hand and consumers through the water industry on the other.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, towards the end of her speech, mentioned CFCs and the problem of the ozone layer. We are continuing to work closely with our Community partners during negotiations on a CFC protocol to the Ozone Layer Convention. I believe that work will be completed in time for the diplomatic conference which is planned for the month of September. We expect to agree further international controls on the basis of a production freeze to be followed by specific reduction of CFCs with provision for systematic scientific and economic reviews. It is not true, as I know has been said in public from time to time, that the United Kingdom is at odds with our Community partners on this. In fact the truth on CFCs is that we are leading the way.

The noble Baroness said just a few words about air pollution. Perhaps I may equally briefly make the point that we are accepting the need for a continuing reduction on both sulphur dioxide and in nitrogen oxide. I think it is fair to say that we are among the leaders of European countries in taking positive action to try to reduce emissions. We have endorsed plans by the Central Electricity Generating Board to retrofit control technology—a matter which the noble Baroness mentioned in passing—at a cost of some £1 billion. Three major power stations will be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment to remove SO₂ emissions.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the very difficult matter of the drins—as they are called. That is, aldrin and dieldrin, etc. The directive on discharges to the aquatic environment of this very difficult group of pesticides (known collectively as the drins) which has been agreed by Community environment Ministers recently is based so far as is possible on sound scientific judgment. It has to be acknowledged however that it is extremely difficult to establish practical and soundly based environmental standards for these substances.

However, because there are no authorised discharges of these substances in the United Kingdom, the standards incorporated in the directive do not in any case have any practical force here. What is particularly important is that any remaining use of these substances should be very tightly controlled in order to prevent any discharge to water by unauthorised, accidental or diffuse means. I like to think that this is very much in keeping with the conclusions of Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' House in considering the Commission's proposals on the drins. This is something at which the Department of the Environment will be looking further, despite the fact that the directive makes no provision for actions to control use.

Your Lordships made a suggestion (which the chairman of the committee mentioned at the end of his speech) that the United Kingdom might develop its own multi-annual rolling programme similar to the Fourth Action Programme. We shall certainly wish to consider that idea further. Our initial reaction is that it would have the advantage of enabling the Government to set out their objectives for the further improvement of the environment and the steps by which we aim to achieve them. Against that however a large part of the United Kingdom's activities in this area are already bound up with Community action and it might be difficult to divorce the two. But we shall certainly give the recommendation of the committee further thought.

Finally, perhaps I may express my thanks to the Select Committee for a most comprehensive report and for the stimulating ideas it contains. It has been a very great help to the Government in clarifying our own thinking on these important issues and I hope that others will find it equally useful. Our debate today certainly suggests that this is already the case.

8.1 p.m.

Lord Nathan

My Lords, my task at this hour of the evening is to thank those who have participated in the debate and that I do wholeheartedly. Perhaps I may say to those noble Lords who were kind enough to refer to my period as chairman of Sub-Committee F, which was formerly Sub-Committee G, how grateful I was for their kind remarks about the time I had held the chair. It has been an interesting and sometimes exhausting time, not exhausting because of people but because of the subject which was sometimes difficult to grasp. It has been an interesting period of four years. Now the time has expired, I shall watch someone else taking over that burden. I have greatly enjoyed it and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your kind remarks.

In thanking noble Lords who took part in the debate I would point out—I was personally very glad of this—that they included a fair representation of those on Sub-Committee F. They also included a member of Sub-Committee D, the sub-committee of the Select Committee concerned with agriculture; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who assisted us in this inquiry. Three members of Sub-Committee D assisted us and their names are mentioned in an annex to the report. Their attendance and help were greatly appreciated.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is a long-standing member of Sub-Committee F. He speaks with enormous authority on water and on almost anything relating to the environment. The point he was making, I believe, is that each state must report what it is up to and how far it has gone along in doing what it ought to have done. There is one addition to reports by member states on what they have done about adopting national legislation and the enforcement of that national legislation. I refer to the effect upon the environment of having done so. This is enormously important; but it is certainly not done and is extremely difficult to measure. It would be interesting generally to have some indication of whether the effects of our labours are beneficial. I hope so. We get very little monitoring of results.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised an interesting point about employment and industry. It linked closely with that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, relating to the balance between the scientific evidence, which may lead one in one direction, and the economic, social and perhaps political factors, which may lead one in another. I am sure that the answer, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, particularly mentioned, is that we must be clear about what we are doing and not fudge the issue and reach a conclusion without really knowing what we are doing and why. I am certain that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, must be brought into the equation—ostensibly and visibly so.

The Japanese motor industry to which the noble Lord referred is an example. I had in mind in referring to Japan—the director-general Mr. Brinkhorst had it in mind also—that because of the high environmental standards the Japanese have adopted, they have a considerable industry for the development of pollution-control equipment which they are presently licensing—the know-how and perhaps patents too—to European undertakings, including, to my knowledge, this country. So that factor might be brought into consideration.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has so much experience in these matters, spoke of the part which voluntary organisations could play not only in being a goad to implementation, scaring government into doing something, but also, as she pointed out, in educating the public. That point was well taken. To a large extent, many of these matters could be resolved if the public were aware of the consequences, most of all and most obviously with regard to litter where education could have a substantial effect.

I was delighted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to the suggestion I put forward, which was also supported by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about the United Kingdom environmental programme. I am glad to know that the Minister will give that matter consideration. I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, especially the point about work on less intensive farming which must be profitable. This was the heart of what we were saying in the report. We did not say so explicitly but our view was that "set aside" has not been thought through. That was a polite way of saying that we did not believe that this would work. We thought that afforestation had not been thought through in that we had received evidence that in certain circumstances afforestation could be environmentally disastrous, that is, from the point of view of the farmer. There is a high degree of common view on that matter, and I hope that we may progress in the requisite research on the less intensive farming aspects.

It is always a privilege to find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has participated in a debate. He was very much concerned about a matter which has concerned me over many years—that the making of directives is an indication of virility, if that is the right word; the more you make the better you are doing. What we are saying in this report is, "Just hold steady and let us see where we are going before we have too many more". I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, about the ESAs which, I believe, have been such an enormous success. That success is growing. I hope that that will prove to be a successful way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, a member of the committee, who has given great assistance over the years, made the interesting point that you should not change overnight vast programmes of agriculture throughout the Community. I think he would be inclined to say—I do not know whether he actually said it—that to reduce agricultural production in certain areas by 20 per cent. overnight would be quite disastrous, not just to the environment or to farming but also to the industries underlying both. I am sure that that is right. It is another reason why one feels that the whole programme of reduction of the CAP requires much more research and consideration on environmental and other grounds than has been given to it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, assisted us in this inquiry. She was at one time a member of Sub-Committee G and we were sorry to lose her to Sub-Committee D. But she rejoined us in that capacity for this inquiry. It was interesting that she laid stress on the dieldrin situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replied. That seems to me to be one of the areas where we really have to act. She also laid stress upon the necessity for the directives to be practical and relevant to our needs; otherwise, just as with directives which have no less an adequate scientific basis and fall into complete disrepute, you will not be able to get people to go along with them.

As I have said before to the Minister in other contexts when he was there in other capacities, it is gratifying to find such a positive and understanding response to the report that we have produced. On the point that he made (with full justification, of course, with regard to the process of enforcement through the courts) that this was not a satisfactory way of proceeding and that there is a mass of litigation going on, I think that the tone has changed. At least that is the impression I got as a result of our going to Brussels and taking evidence there. We shall have to wait and see. Certainly the impression I got from being there was that they would regard litigation as the last resort and an indication of failure on their part. That, practically speaking, quotes the evidence we were given. That seems to me—and I speak as a lawyer—to be a positive approach.

The other point which struck me in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the need for adequate science for a reason different from that given by any others in this debate; that is, that if you have inadequate science you have unjustifiably stringent standards with which you have to comply. That seems to me to be unsatisfactory. Again from the evidence we took we gained the impression—at least I did—that the attitude to the scientific research required at least in the environmental field in DGXII has changed for the better. It is a much more positive approach than hitherto.

I conclude by saying that I am most grateful for the substantial support from so many of your Lordships in this debate, and I am grateful to your Lordships for being here at this hour and giving that support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.