Nitrate in Water: ECC Report

HL Deb 31 October 1989 vol 512 cc141-84

3.3 p.m.

Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committe on Nitrate in Water (16th Report, HL Paper 73).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we say at the very beginning of our report, in modern Europe the ready supply of wholesome drinking water from public supplies is taken for granted. So is the plentiful supply of food. The report is largely about the problems which can arise when those two basic needs conflict.

The quality of drinking water is a subject of concern to us all. However, the issues involved are complex and solutions by no means easy to find. When Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee decided to inquire into the question of nitrate pollution of water we therefore placed a great deal of emphasis on obtaining the best objective information that we could. The bulk of the evidence is printed in our report and, irrespective of the merits of the report, repays, I suggest, careful reading.

In evaluating the evidence we were most fortunate in having with us the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from Sub-Committee F, and in being able to call on Professor Keith Syers, head of agricultural and environmental sciences at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, who was a most conscientious and expert adviser to the sub-committee.

By now we have probably all been made aware of the fact of nitrate pollution, particularly of drinking water. We may, however, have only a hazy comprehension of wherein lie the dangers or indeed of what nitrate is. In our report we have attempted to place the issues in perspective. In doing so we drew upon previous reports on the nitrogen cycle and nitrate in water from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Royal Society, and the Nitrate Co-ordination Group of the Department of the Environment which reported in 1986. We also took evidence from the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Water Research Centre, the bodies which have carried out most research into the area in the United Kingdom.

So far as concerns the Community, the starting point of efforts to maintain the cleanliness of water supplies is the drinking water directive of 1980. The directive established 66 separate criteria for drinking water which cover taste and appearance as well as safety. It established absolute maximum levels both of toxic substances such as lead and pesticides and also for substances which are not necessarily toxic but which are undesirable in excessive amounts, including nitrate, ammonium and fluoride. On nitrate the directive laid down a maximum level of 50 mg per litre. The new Commission proposal is directed towards achieving that level in practice.

The draft directive on which our report is based is summarised in paragraphs 5 to 11. It addresses two problems simultaneously, that of nitrate in drinking water and that of nitrate which might cause eutrophication of inland, coastal and marine waters.

In our inquiry we first considered the risks from nitrate pollution. Nitrogen is essential for plant and animal growth. Air consists of about 78 per cent. nitrogen which is naturally present in soil and in water. Plants generally obtain nitrogen from the soil in the inorganic form of nitrate, and humans obtain nitrate by eating plants and animals. However, it has long been recognised that excessive amounts of nitrate taken in by humans can give rise to health risks.

Although a certain amount of nitrate is contained in everyday diet the bodily concentration can become dangerous when nitrate is present in high levels in drinking water. High levels of nitrate can lead to the development of methaemoglobinaemia or blue baby syndrome, particularly in bottle fed infants. As we point out in our report, that disease is now virtually non-existent in western Europe. In the United Kingdom there have been 14 confirmed reports of methaemoglobinaemia since the last war, the last of which was in 1972.

A further concern is the theoretical link between high levels of nitrate and the development of stomach cancer, although in that case the epidemiological evidence from elsewhere in the world has never been confirmed in this country.

The health risk is a small one—but that is not to say that it should be disregarded. The Community and the UK Government—who have already set up a framework in the Water Act to cope with nitrate—are right to take it seriously. The limit of 50 mg per litre for drinking water is, according to the evidence we had, playing safe by a generous margin. As we say, it is prudent. Obviously one cannot take risks with human health, but it raised the question in the minds of many witnesses whether the high cost of implementing the directive as drafted might justify a further review of the 1980 50 mg per litre limit. However, the Committee declined to question the 1980 drinking water directive which is now in force in the EC and we proceeded on the basis that the limit would not be changed.

The second main danger of nitrate in water is environmental pollution. Nitrate can be one of the causes of an excessive and undesirable expansion of plant life in salt waters and, in some circumstances, in freshwaters too. That process, called eutrophication, is most commonly seen in the growth of algae in stagnant or enclosed waters. Eutrophication is undoubtedly a serious problem. Algal blooms near the surface of water restrict light to other organisms and cause oxygen depletion at night, sometimes at such a rate that the water becomes deoxygenated and the fish are killed, as in the 1988 bloom which spread from the Skaggerak to the coast of Norway. This year's blooms in the Adriatic defaced many of Italy's most prosperous tourist resorts.

However, the link between nitrate and eutrophication is as yet unclear. If we dismiss the problem of eutrophication rather briefly in our report, it is because in the United Kingdom and in most of Europe the problem in freshwaters appears to be caused by phosphates rather than by nitrates and one cannot tackle it by looking at nitrates alone. In the sea, the effects of eutrophication are mainly evident on the other side of the North Sea. That is not to say that the nitrates may not find their way from UK rivers round to Holland and Denmark, but we had no evidence that they did. We thought that there was need for further research into those matters and suggest in our report that the North Sea Task Force might be the most appropriate body to do it.

We therefore concentrated on nitrate in drinking water supplies. Nitrate levels in water have been rising steadily over the last 30 years in many areas in the Community and are likely to continue to do so in places where acquifers have long response times. Action is therefore needed now to prevent the problem of nitrate pollution becoming unmanageable.

Although nitrate reaches water both from the atmosphere and from sewage effluent, it is generally accepted that the main cause of post-war increases in nitrate levels is the increased level of nitrate leaching or run-off from agricultural land. The Commission has now decided to tackle the problem of nitrate pollution at source by putting forward this draft directive with the target of reducing nitrate concentrations in sources of drinking water where the level is likely to exceed 50 mg per litre of nitrate, or already does so, and in waters which are or may become eutrophic.

The Commission's proposal is intended to provide a framework of action to reduce nitrate levels in affected areas largely through curbs on intensive agricultural activity in the catchments of rivers and groundwater sources. In effect, therefore, the draft directive would, if adopted, extend the limit of 50 parts per million on nitrate from the tap back to the ultimate source of drinking water; namely, the well, river or reservoir.

The main assumption behind the Commission's proposal is that nitrogen fertiliser—whether in the organic form of animal manure or in the inorganic form of chemical fertiliser—is used excessively and that its application needs to be reduced. In tandem with such reductions, the Commission wants to see other measures to encourage farming practices which result in less nitrate being lost from agricultural land. Our inquiry was therefore chiefly directed at a detailed examination of the merits and efficacy of that approach in a UK context.

The UK is peculiar in the European Community in that 70 per cent. of its drinking water comes from surface waters and only 30 per cent. from groundwater sources. The relevant catchment areas, therefore, which, in the rather vague words of the directive produce water which could contain more than 50 parts per million of nitrate are extensive. They occur in the drier parts of England. In parenthesis, I should perhaps say that there are few problems in public supplies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales due to the higher rainfall. Those drier parts are likely to comprise most of East Anglia and Lincolnshire. Those areas produce 39 per cent. of our wheat, 29 per cent. of our potatoes, 61 per cent. of our vegetables and 73 per cent. of the UK's sugar beet.

From the evidence that we received from the scientists, it is quite clear that the idea that one can reduce the leaching of nitrate from farm land by a blanket reduction of the quantity of chemical fertilisers applied is a delusion. The nitrogen cycle is fiendishly complicated and there is no direct relationship between nitrogen fertilisers correctly applied and the amount of nitrate leached out into the groundwaters. The Commission appears not to have taken that important point on board. There is nevertheless a long-term effect by reason of the nitrogen enrichment of the soil bio-mass with intensive cropping or grazing, so that there is likely to be a long-term upward trend in nitrate levels in sources of drinking water.

Restrictions on fertiliser are not likely to be effective in controlling nitrate leaching. Even quite modest reductions in nitrogen fertiliser applications could make arable farming unprofitable. In the drier parts of the U.K. there is already a deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere and from the rain. In those drier parts, if one adds to the nitrate leached from that source the nitrate leached from any crop at all except ungrazed grass or woodlands, one is likely to get a concentration in the water of more than 50 mg per litre. If therefore, one attempts to control nitrate pollution by agricultural means alone, substantial areas in the vulnerable zones that are to be designated will have to come out of production altogether.

The size and extent of those zones is therefore crucial. Where, how and when one tests for nitrate in surface waters will largely determine which are the vulnerable zones and what is to be their extent. The Commission's proposals are too inflexible in that respect and we say so. As an example, if we interpret the 50 milligramme per litre limit as an average in surface water rather than an absolute standard, because of the natural variability in such waters, one would reduce the amount of land to be designated by 30 times in some areas.

The Commission insists that control should be by prevention at source; hence its recommendation for changes in agricultural practice and land use. We argue that the curative measures, already being undertaken by the water authorities, such as blending and the natural reduction of nitrate that occurs in reservoirs, should continue to play a full part in nitrate control. We conclude that in some areas these may perhaps not be enough and some agricultural controls may be required, even though the effect on food production might be very severe. We agree with the Commission that in such cases farmers should be compensated.

The time-scale demands continuation of curative controls in any case. There are some geological formations where it takes over 40 years for water to percolate down to the aquifer. More importantly, the cost of agricultural measures alone would be enormous. Curative measures or a combination of prevention and cure may well provide the most economical means of controlling nitrates in many areas.

We therefore recommend a co-ordinated use of prevention and cure options and that the member states should be given the maximum flexibility to develop such programmes. I appreciate the Commission's reluctance to go down that road. For some years now it has advocated preventive measures to reduce pollution at source. However, we felt that an insistence on that approach was not the most realistic option, particularly where the curative approach has no adverse environmental consequences, as in the blending of supplies which the UK water authorities have been using with great success for some time.

We sum up in paragraph 183 and 184 by saying that the restrictions on agriculture which the Commission seems to have in mind to reduce nitrate levels in drinking water sources below 50 mg per litre would have a drastic effect on output and would bring extensive social and economic change to rural society in the most intensively farmed areas in the United Kingdom and probably in other states as well.

We say that such changes may well be inevitable if the problem of nitrate pollution is to be effectively addressed at source, as proposed by the Commission. However, the committee does not consider that the present state of knowledge about the processes involved in nitrate pollution, and in particular how such pollution can be prevented, is sufficient to justify the adoption of a policy that would have such consequences.

We believe that the draft directive was not intended to have such an effect. While we support the Commission's objectives, we are not convinced that its proposals fully take into account the scientific evidence available and we believe that the Government should use their best endeavours to urge the Commission to re-examine its proposals. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Nitrate in Water (16th Report, HL Paper 73).—(Lord Middleton.)

3.23 p.m.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I do not think that during my time in Parliament I have ever read a Select Committee report that impressed me more. In this report we have what is almost certainly the most complete compendium of information, practical experience and scientific knowledge on the subject of nitrates in water that exists anywhere. The Select Committee report is likely to be the standard work for some time to come. My noble friend Lord Middleton, his colleagues on the committee and their advisers all deserve the warmest congratulation.

I take part in this debate as chairman of the National Rivers Authority. I emphasise that in doing so I put the provisional view of the authority, because the board has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the subject fully, or formally adopt its policy on nitrates, although my colleagues are aware of the principal points that I intend to make this afternoon. I thought that I might have to apologise to the House because I feared that the debate might run for longer than I expected and I should have to do something which I always try strenuously to avoid; namely, be absent from the concluding moments. I think that it would be better if I still made that apology although I must say that the debate would have to continue for longer than most of us no doubt hope it will for me to be placed in that position.

I believe that there are two concerns that we must address in this debate. The first is the well justified concern about rising nitrate levels and their possible damaging consequences. The second concerns the proper use of resources and a choice of priorities for action.

The Select Committee report makes very clear, in paragraphs 165, 166 and 183 in particular, the immense and damaging consequences for agriculture and the rural economy in a large part of Britain that could arise as a consequence of the implementation of the draft directive. It is very important that before measures which produce such consequences are introduced we are confident that they are necessary and that the results justify what is being done; otherwise we should be diverting resources from areas of perhaps higher priority and could undermine the work of environmental improvement by discrediting policies and destroying public confidence. If measures that produce fundamental and uncomfortable changes are introduced, they must have a high degree of public acceptability. I am not qualified to comment on the medical evidence given to the committee but, again, it is true that before committing vast resources in order to tackle the problem we shall want to consider if there are other ways of avoiding any hazards that may exist.

The draft EC directive is of importance in general terms because it is the first European measure to deal specifically with diffuse pollution rather than point source pollution. Diffuse pollution is the more insidious and is harder to control. It is particularly difficult to identify the diffuse polluters and to avoid sweeping controls which affect innocent parties. I have to warn the House that this is a problem that we shall have to face time and again in dealing with legislation to control other diffuse pollutants.

As my noble friend Lord Middleton told the House, the EC directive proposal deals with two distinct issues: the protection of water resources, both surface and ground waters, intended for the abstraction of drinking water; and the protection of waters from eutrophication. Those issues require quite separate consideration.

Nitrate levels are at or close to EC drinking water standards in many ground waters and water supply rivers in the South-East and Midlands of England. Continuing rising trends are evident in many ground waters used for public supply. Nitrate levels in surface waters are more stable, although rising trends are still observed in many parts of East Anglia. Nitrate levels in surface waters depend significantly on the timing and intensity of the run-off from agricultural land. In many water supply rivers the levels only exceed 50mg per litre for one or two months and not necessarily every year.

The EC drinking water directive requires absolute compliance, but water companies are often able to overcome the problem of seasonal fluctuation by the use of blending and storage and still maintain the required quality of water in the supply. As presently drafted the proposed directive does not take into account this situation. It applies the same absolute nitrate standard to the water abstracted from the resource as it does to the water in one's taps. As Dr. Skinner, who is now an employee of the National Rivers Authority, pointed out in his evidence in paragraph 507, it would require the designation of very large areas of East Anglia and the Midlands as vulnerable areas, subject to land use restrictions, in order to control nitrate use and meet that requirement.

That designation would apply regardless of the frequency or extent of high nitrate problems and regardless of the ability of the water company to meet its water supply obligations by the use of blending and storage. The NRA feels very strongly that this would not be a sensible use of resources. As I have already observed, the impact on the agriculture of these areas would be massive. My noble friend spelt out some of the figures.

We agree with the Select Committee's view as set out in paragraphs 129 and 130, strongly arguing against the rigid definition of vulnerable zones for surface waters used for water supply. Like the committee, we want a system based on an average rather than an absolute standard. I was very relieved to see that Mr. Henningsen on behalf of the Commission, stated that "it has an open mind" on this issue. I understand that the Commission has recently presented a somewhat complicated technical alternative.

However, there are some water supply rivers where either peak nitrate levels are very high or where the nitrate minimum acceptable concentration is regularly exceeded. In those cases modification of land use practice to control nitrate levels in run off would be desirable. Two such catchments, the Cradle Brook in Anglian Region and the Bourne Brook in the Severn Trent Region are included in the advisory nitrate sensitive area scheme, and the authority will be monitoring their effectiveness with a good deal of interest.

As we have heard, entirely different issues arise in relation to the protection of ground waters. Ground waters are extensively used for public supply often without the benefit of blending and the leaching of nitrate ground water is cumulative year on year without the seasonal flushing found in surface waters. For those reasons the NRA believes that it is realistic that for ground waters the water supply standard of 50mg per litre should also be the standard that should apply to protect the resource.

In areas of intensive agriculture, nitrate leaching is often too high to ensure that ground water levels will stay below the drinking water standard indefinitely. There is a conflict between present methods of agriculture and the protection of water resources. It is the view of the authority that the modification of land use in vulnerable zones in order to reduce leaching must play a significant part in solving the nitrate problem. However, we consider it quite impracticable to proceed on the basis that this is the only method which should be used. Apart from the immense consequences for agriculture and the economy, there are some very practical immediate objections. Initial estimates are that there are significantly in excess of 100 locations where zones around ground water supply sources might be designated. The designation of these zones is a very considerable technical task and in our view it would be neither desirable nor practicable to designate all these within the two-year period allowed by the draft directive. It is also an unavoidable fact that protection by changing the land management takes a long time to have the desired effect and in many cases other solutions will have to be sought by the water companies in order for them to comply with the drinking water directive.

The authority would regret having to deploy its resources in the way envisaged in the directive by spreading its effort over all ground water sources potentially at risk from rising nitrates, regardless of urgency or the availability of other solutions. It would much prefer to act as it is currently acting in the context of nitrate sensitive areas by identifying in consultation with the water supply companies those sources where protection by changing land use management could make the greatest contribution. I have to warn that the authority would expect that this would include a good many sources currently below the standard of 50mg per litre where protection now could prevent nitrate problems occurring at a later date.

While the NRA wants to target radical changes in land use management to those areas where the effect will be greatest, it nonetheless believes that more could be done to ensure that farmers follow the best practice to reduce the leaching in their existing agricultural activities. Dr. Skinner in his evidence in paragraph 542 summarised our position on this very well. What we are arguing for is a two tier approach to the nitrate problem with "recommended nitrate practice" in use over large areas and with intensive change very carefully targeted and restricted to water supply sources within specified nitrate sensitive areas.

I turn to the problem of eutrophication. As we have heard, eutrophic waters are those which have received high levels of nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorous which results in high biological activity and reduced water quality. Eutrophication can be a natural process, but it is greatly influenced by man's activities. The proposed directive defines eutrophic waters as those where nitrogen is the factor limiting eutrophication. In the United Kingdom inland waters, phosphorous and not nitrate is almost invariably the limiting nutrient because there is sufficient nitrate to support eutrophication even where there is no intensive agricultural practice. In contrast, nitrogen is thought to be the limiting nutrient in the eutrophication problems of the Baltic and eastern North Sea. So far as we know, there are very few nitrate limited eutrophication problems in the United Kingdom estuarial or coastal waters, and the NRA would not expect there to be an impact for these waters as a result of the directive as drafted.

The NRA therefore shares the view of the House of Lords Select Committee summarised in paragraphs 120 to 122 and questions whether the problems of marine eutrophication are best dealt with in a directive largely aimed at protecting the quality of drinking water supplies. The causes of incipient eutrophication in waters are not at all well understood. Research undertaken by appropriate organisations will be required before the significance of nitrates discharge from inland waters can be evaluated in the context of the North Sea as a whole.

The proposed directive places considerable emphasis on agricultural measures involving restrictions on the use of artificial fertilisers. The authority has noted the evidence given to the House of Lords Select Committee from many agricultural experts who question the validity of these techniques in the United Kingdom situation. We broadly agree with what the Select Committee has to say on this subject. Its conclusions are summarised in paragraph 195 and were put to the House very clearly by my noble friend. A particular objection that we have to measures based on reduced fertiliser use is the extent to which they can be effectively monitored. One clear advantage of nitrate protection based on land use change is that it can be monitored and controlled much more easily and with greater certainty.

It will be clear from what I have said that I and my authority are in broad agreement with the conclusions of the Select Committee. The National Rivers Authority shares the concern of the European Commission on the problem of diffuse pollution from nitrate, and welcomes the principle of the directive. It considers that the vulnerable zone concept provides a practical means of diffuse pollution control but it is very concerned that the criteria to be adopted in defining zones are too inflexible both in their scope and timescale.

The authority can see no justification for using the absolute nitrate standard in the criteria for vulnerable zones for surface waters. It also considers that the complexity of the task of defining vulnerable zones for ground waters means that there is a risk of a serious misuse of resources unless there is flexibility that reflects the urgency or need and the availability of other solutions.

Eutrofication in which nitrate is the primary limitation is not, in our view, a significant issue in this country and the authority questions the use of this directive in order to deal with marine eutrofication which should be studied as a separate issue.

I hope that now the Commission will recognise and welcome the support that it has for the principle of the policy but will respond to the impressive weight of evidence showing that there are serious flaws in its approach. I hope that it will consider most carefully the largely agreed views of the Select Committee and the National Rivers Authority. I trust that the Government will press for the changes that have been recommended.

3.40 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for introducing the report. As the first member of Sub-Comittee D tO speak in the debate, I thank him for his skilful chairmanship in steering us through a complex subject.

The report shows that the draft directive tends to over-simplify a complex problem. If applied as proposed its economic and social effects on the countryside could be draconian. It is interesting to note that the opinion of the report is borne out by the comments of the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. It reported in April of this year and in paragraph 10 stated: In view of the significance and undoubted controversiality of this proposal the Commission would have been well-advised to justify the proposal at greater length. … Brevity, which can otherwise usually be congratulated, could in this case result in the charge that the Commission has failed to make its case and to consult sufficiently widely". It can be seen that the comments of that committee tend to echo the criticisms in the report.

The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has given an excellent summary of the report and its conclusions. I should like to deal briefly with the agricultural aspects of the problem. The report points out what would happen to large parts of East Anglia, the Midlands and Kent if the proposals were adopted in full; it would tend to mean the end of modern arable farming in those areas. The report contains some figures. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have attempted to produce a detailed cost-benefit analysis and to calculate the economic effects of the proposal in the draft directive.

Assuming that the directive is not implemented so as virtually to wipe out large tracts of UK arable farming it is important to examine what could be done to minimise the economic effects of the directive on farming and to maximise the environmental benefits. It is clear that farmers must alter many of their farming practices. But careful reading of the evidence suggests that, provided there is available the weight of scientific research and advice, that may not be as difficult as it appears.

The report of the same committee of the European Parliament stated: When properly timed and applied in amounts recommended for optional harvest, it is possible that there will be little or no increased nitrate leakage above levels which would occur naturally. … It has also been suggested that a large proportion (up to 80–90 per cent.) of the inorganic nitrogen found in the soil and at risk of subsequent leaching derives not from artificial fertilizers application but from the mineralisation of organic nitrogen". I should like to refer to what I consider to be significant evidence. It appears on page 50, at paragraph 212 of the report, in the comments of Dr. Greenwood. He said: The first thing I want to make clear is that in this system, if it is an optimum level of nitrogen fertiliser, you will find that the fertiliser is much the most effective way of getting the nitrogen into the crop. There is going to be less leaching for a given yield with fertiliser-N than with any other source of nitrogen". I thought it important to press the scientist and to ask whether we could get the soil sampling right, and even the tissue analysis of the crop, so that we were applying in the most environmentally friendly way only the amount of the bag fertiliser and inorganic nitrogen which would be taken up in the crop. I asked whether that would be more environmentally friendly in terms of nitrate leaching than any system based on organics. Dr. Greenwood said: Yes, correct. Organics are very inefficient at conserving nitrate. If you have organic manures you lose much more nitrate for a given yield of crop or a given production of cereals in this country". We must consider the point most carefully because an idea exists that in order to solve the problem all we need to do is to stop using the bag fertiliser and begin applying the organic fertiliser. The problem is by no means solved; it is in fact made much worse. The AFRC stated that per unit of production there would be an increase in the amount of nitrate leached from organic sources compared with inorganic nitrogen.

All that ties in with the recommendations in the report as regards the role of ADAS and the provision of advice to farmers. I have spent more than 30 years advising farmers. I must admit that the necessity of changing the habits of a lifetime is a culture shock to us all, including ADAS. For example, a few years ago I attempted to arrange a seminar involving ADAS on the subject of low input farming. ADAS refused to attend unless the title was altered to "lower" input farming. It is a connoisseur's distinction, but it was extremely important to ADAS at that time. Only last week we learnt that ADAS has appointed 12 advisers on organic farming. It is only a few years since ADAS and the Ministry refused to have anything to do with organic farming. They certainly refused to apply research funds to the subject. If they had we should now be benefiting from that research.

This is not intended to be an argument for organic versus inorganic nitrogen. However, only yesterday I was sent figures from Mr. Barry Wookey which are most interesting. Many noble Lords will know that he is the leading organic farmer in this country. After a rotation period of eight years he shows the nitrate loss from his system of farming. He farms three years of grass and clover, two years of arable, one year of grass and clover and two years of arable. During the first three years the nitrate loss is minimal—virtually nil. In the fourth year—that is, into the arable crop—the loss reaches the level of 100 kg of nitrogen per hectare. That is a very high loss. It then tends to fall away for the rest of the rotation. That confirms that even under the organic systems the loss of nitrate can be very high.

Over the whole rotation period on his farm the average loss of nitrate was 20 kg per hectare. Continuous corn farming would average twice that amount; that is a loss of 40 kg per hectare. Intensive grass farming would be twice as much again; that is a loss of 80 kg of nitrogen.

It is interesting that the average loss in his rotation—and it is important to note that it is an average as opposed to an absolute standard—is approximately 20 kg of nitrogen per hectare as borne out in the report. It states that the annual rate of leaching from the soil must be kept below 20 kg of nitrogen per hectare if the concentration of nitrate is not to exceed an average of 50 mg per litre during the year. Therefore, the evidence from his farm is not entirely on all fours with that which we received from the AFRC. That tends to point out the need for increased research and advice to farmers.

In discussing the need for advice I cannot resist pointing out, as I have on previous occasions, the absurdity of treating the crop response to nitrogen as near market research which is suitable for industry funding whereas research into the leaching of nitrates is regarded as being for the public good. It is quite clear that in order for farmers to have the advice that they need to minimise the economic damage of the directive and maximise the environmental benefits there must be a great deal more publicly-funded research and advice. That is borne out in the report at paragraph 177.

The report states: While the Committee recognise the theoretical differences between the agricultural and environmental aspects of nitrogen use there is a clear danger of public good research going unfunded because of its commercial implications for the farming industry. This would be most unfortunate. The public benefit of research into the agricultural use of nitrogen is great and demands continued government funding". In case anyone wonders why farmers should not be expected to pay for this research, it is worth pointing out that since the war a large amount of public money has been used to fund advice to encourage the use of inorganic fertilisers. Indeed, it is not so many years ago that farmers received a fertiliser subsidy to increase the use of fertiliser.

If it came to a discussion on the subject of who is the polluter and who should pay, we could have an interesting debate on where the responsibility for nitrate pollution actually lies. We also have the ideas of the Government to designate areas as nitrate sensitive areas and to have surrounding advisory areas. An interesting aspect of that was reported to me only last week by a tenant farmer who has a farm in a NSA. His family has farmed that farm for many generations. Each generation has asked the landlord for permission to buy the farm but that was always resisted. With the advent of the NSA in which this farm exists, the landlord's agent has visited the tenant farmer and asked him if he would like to buy the farm. There is a knock-on effect on land values which has not been discussed.

In conclusion, the report is perhaps the most authoritative and objective study yet reduced on the subject of nitrate in water. We must hope that the Government and the European Commission will take full account of its evidence, conclusions and recommendations before the directive is given the force of Community law.

3.52 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I should like to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about this excellent report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee. In my view it gives a very balanced view between the dangers of nitrate pollution and possible damage to the agricultural community. It deals with the alternatives of blending and treatment and with the difference between preventive and curative measures, as I say, in a completely balanced manner.

It is a problem which all of us realise will be very difficult to solve in this country. One of the most difficult problems is the long-term outlook for nitrates in water due to the slow percolation of rainwater through unbroken rock. There will be continuous problems for the future unless we concentrate on that area. We will perpetuate the problem even further into the future because we are really now suffering from what happened 20 to 30 years ago.

I believe that the report's recommendation that ADAS should provide free advice to farmers on reducing nitrate pollution in the same way as it now gives free advice on the evidence of pollution by slurry and manure is to be welcomed. We all know that over the years farming methods have at times misused nitrate application. The report gives various examples about the benefits of nitrate. It mentions autumn application of nitrate to winter wheat. That has been proved to be of little benefit to the farmer and therefore not really economically viable had he been given proper advice. It is also probably the most dangerous application.

I am not a scientist but I am a farmer, so I am aware of the enormous economic problems which could be caused to the agricultural industry if the interpretations of the directive were taken at face value. Therefore, as a farmer, I am very grateful to the committee for its recommendations and its balanced view on what should be done.

One of the most important suggestions which the report makes relates to research. In this country we have two research councils: the AFRC and the NERC. They are working in different but basically the same fields when we are looking at the problem of pollution, agriculture and the environment. It must be a mistake to have two research councils working in isolation. It would undoubtedly be helpful to have an integrated programme to integrate those two research councils as suggested by the Science and Technology Committee in its 1987–88 report. However, of overriding importance in this field is that such an integrated research council should be given adequate funding to fulfil its responsibilities. That funding must come from the Government. I cannot help interjecting that today the Government expect too much research funding to come from the industry itself. That is sometimes right but in this case I do not believe it to be right. Also, we cannot expect the voluntary, charitable research funding agencies to provide the money for this research. It must come from the Government and it must be adequate.

Another problem is mentioned in the report but the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, spent slightly less time on this problem; that is, the eutrophication of both fresh and salt water. There appears, from the evidence given to the committee, to be ample proof that nitrate on its own is not responsible unless phosphorus is equally to blame. The Commission stated that it is aware of that problem and intends to introduce proposals for the reduction of phosphate pollution in a forthcoming directive. I should have thought that in view of the interrelationship of those two pollutants an integrated approach would be more likely to achieve success and avoid unnecessary duplication.

The Commission explained that it was not possible to include action on phosphate in the present proposals because phosphate pollution derives from point sources, which was mentioned by one noble Lord, whereas this directive deals with the much more difficult problem of diffuse sources. The Commission also stated that it was under pressure of time. I should have thought it would be easier to deal with the phosphorus problem than to deal with the diffuse sources of pollution. It would be in the interests of the pollution question and of help, I believe, to the agricultural community if directives dealing with both those pollutants were taken together.

I cannot help but mention at this point that I am a little concerned that the Government have given permission for the water authorities—it is a blanket permission, according to The Sunday Times of 22nd October—to dump dangerous substances into rivers from up to 12,000 storm sewers. If we are to take this problem seriously that sort of thing should not happen. We are taking this problem seriously because it will not go away. We have to take concerted action. The Government must look in every way to see what effect their actions are having, because one cannot help feeling that they have something to do with the privatisation of the water authorities.

This report will greatly add to the sum of knowledge available in this difficult field. I sincerely hope that great notice will be taken of it—in fact, I know that it will—in the European Commission.

4.1 p.m.

Lord Northbourne

My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on the admirable way in which he chaired this interesting inquiry. I also congratulate him on the great clarity with which he presented the case this afternoon. It has been one of the most interesting of the many inquiries in which I have participated with Sub-committee D.

One of the disappointing aspects which came out of the inquiry is the curiously superficial approach of the Commission in putting forward proposals of this importance. It is clear from the evidence we received that it did not take adequate care in considering the evidence before framing the proposals put forward to the Community. It emphasises, I suppose, the importance of the work of your Lordships' Select Committee in sifting the evidence.

This afternoon I should like to introduce one slight minority view and to question the conclusions which we reached in paragraph 185, in the summary, which state that nitrate levels in drinking water which exceed 50 mg per litre may represent a health risk and that the existing limit is a prudent one. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the 50 mg limit is excessively cautious. I should like to consider that evidence for a moment. If we look at methaemoglobinaemia—in spite of listening through the entire inquiry I am still unable to pronounce it—the Royal Commission, for example, states: The disease is extremely rare in the UK where only 10 cases have been recorded in the past 30 years, one of them fatal. It appears that whenever methaemoglobinaemia and the factors contributing to it have become widely known, the condition has become rare and fatalities reduced to vanishing point". The report continues: In the great majority of those cases of methaemoglobinaemia where the nitrate concentration of the water was known, the levels greatly exceeded 100 mg of nitrate/1". The evidence taken together suggests that possibly 100 mg per litre would be an extremely cautious level to take. The evidence in relation to bowel cancer is similar.

If I were a bureaucrat sitting in Brussels I am sure that I would say, "Well, if 100 mg is safe let us take 50 mg and be doubly safe". However, from an agricultural point of view there is a vast difference in whether one settles on 100, 50 or even 70 or 80 mg. I suggest that it would be a great deal better if we accept a figure somewhere between 50 and 100 mg—perhaps 75 mg—for the following reasons.

The effect on agriculture of a limit of 50 mg is absolutely dramatic. That point has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Middleton and Lord Carter. A fairly simple piece of arithmetic is involved. Most crops release approximately 50 kg per hectare of nitrate during the course of their cycle. Using a map of the rainfall of the eastern and south-eastern parts of England and the Paris basin, calculate the amount of rain that falls on a hectare and divide that into 50 kg per hectare of nitrate. One arrives at a figure which is in excess of 50 mg per litre. Therefore, mathematically it is an unavoidable conclusion that if crop agriculture is to continue in those areas we either have to accept a limit at source in excess of 50 mg per litre or we have to accept some measure of blending or treatment of the water.

The other consideration which comes from the report is the proposal that water should be tested at source. The point has been made, but I should like to repeat it, that there are serious seasonal fluctuations in the concentration of nitrogen in water, particularly surface water. This arises because nitrogen is released, as has been said, mainly from the organic biomass in the soil. The organic biomass in the soil is warmed up during the summer. The late summer and autumn rains come along, resulting in a warm and wet biological situation in which there is activity and a considerable amount of mineralisation of nitrate takes place. Along come the winter rains and that is leached out of the soil. Therefore, in the early winter one tends to have a high concentration of nitrates in the rivers and the surface aquifers.

If we are to be told that we cannot have one day in the year when the level of nitrate exceeds 50 mg per litre in any of our water sources we shall be greatly restricted, and unnecessarily restricted, because if that water is put into reservoirs or into storage in lakes two things happen: first, it becomes blended with other rainfall which falls later and has less nitrate in it; and, secondly, there is a natural process of denitrification. Incidently, one of the areas of research which would be extremely interesting to pursue is the possibility of developing bacteria which are more efficient at speeding up that process of denitrification in stored water. That is by no means beyond the bounds of scientific possibility.

Finally, I should like to say a few words on the problem of good agricultural practice. The Government and the Commission may be running into what might prove to be a hornets' nest with the phrase "good agricultural practice". I do not know entirely what the Government and the Commission mean. Clearly the recommended practice in regard to the application of chemical nitrogen where you put a little on the plant when it is growing fast to enable it to take it up and then put a little more on so that as much as possible is absorbed by the plant must be good agricultural practice. The nitrogen is not wasted and it is not leached out of the soil.

However, I was brought up to believe that good farming is keeping up the fertility of the land. I was brought up a little after Sir George Stapleton in the days when ley farming was fashionable. Ley farming is a big no-no as regards nitrate because I understand that every time you plough up your lea 280 kg per hectare of nitrogen is released from the soil in the first year, and more in the second year. Therefore, we must look at low fertility farming.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was talking about organic farming, which need not be low farming though it usually is. In my view, the only kinds of farming which will be effective in terms of controlling the nitrogen released into the aquifer are low farming and what I consider to be low farming plus hydroponics. In other words, you keep your land infertile and then feed it like one does a house plant with a little nitrogen—as much as it is prepared to take up. That does not coincide with my concept of good agricultural practice and I believe that the Government probably have a job in hand in seeking to work out with the industry what they mean by good agricultural practice; otherwise the misunderstandings which could arise will cause considerable unhappiness.

4.10 p.m.

Lord Walston

My Lords, I share the views already expressed that this is a most valuable report. It deals with an important matter and marshals a whole array of facts which are presented in a very clear fashion. The report makes it relatively easy for those who were not involved in the actual discussions and who did not hear the evidence to obtain a very comprehensive view of the problem.

I have only one criticism to make of the report. Having marshalled and presented the facts, the committee puts forward conclusions which, if I may say so without offence, are too gentle and too mild. The criticism is implicit but I believe that the report would have carried even more weight if it had been absolutely explicit and forthright.

I begin by asking: what is the justification for a Community approach? I hope there is no need for me to remind your Lordships that I am a very strong supporter of the EC. I do not want to say anything that is going to weaken its development. I cannot see that this particular directive is in any way going to affect fair competition between member states; it is not in any way going to impede our advance towards 1992. I cannot see why this matter should not be left to individual member states to take what steps they see fit as regards the health of their own people, the environment in which they live and the enforceability of whatever regulations may be made.

One outstanding feature of the report is its finding that the recommendations are largely unenforceable even in the United Kingdom let alone in other countries. Paragraph 163 of the report makes that very clear where it states: At a local level compulsory restrictions on farming practice will be difficult to enforce and the difficulties of implementation might delay action on the scale or of the type necessary". That is a polite way of saying that they are completely useless.

A second point that struck me—as it has other noble Lords who have spoken—is: what is the risk to health? As noble Lords have been reminded, there have been no cases of blue babies since 1972. In the previous 27 years there were only 14 reported cases. That cannot be considered a major health hazard. As regards the carcinogenic possibilities it is significant to me that in East Anglia where the level of nitrates in the water is the highest in the whole country, the level of intestinal cancers is among the lowest. That point is dealt with in paragraphs 31 to 33.

Paragraph 33 states: The Institute of Cancer Research considered the evidence from epidemiological studies that dietary nitrate is involved in the aetiology of stomach cancer in developed countries to be 'very weak"'. So the two diseases which could stem from nitrates are dismissed as being either unproven or scarcely existent at all. Here I go along very much with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. If so much money is to be spent, might it not be used in saving more lives and doing more good than would be the case if it were spent on this particular form of water purification? Paragraphs 106 to 108 give some very interesting information on that subject. No specific figure is given but the committee suggests that if the directive were fully implemented there might be a fall of one-third in the value of arable production. The total arable production is worth £4 billion. If that figure were reduced by one-third it would mean that the reduction and therefore the cost to the country and its economy would be £1.3 billion. I am referring to paragraph 165.

I wish to give your Lordships an indication of the scale of deaths caused by other forms of accidents. I asked the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for some figures. It spends just under £5 million a year; slightly less than £1 million comes from government sources. It is not a question of unproven cancers of the stomach and of no blue babies in the past 17 years: it is question of 14,000 people killed annually, largely through motor accidents. There are many other causes as well. In addition, 7 million people are hospitalised.

If one is considering spending anything like £1 billion in reducing some risk to health, surely at least some of that money should go towards the reduction of these other accidents which account for so many deaths and so much suffering. I know that cost benefit is a fashionable term now. However, when we are contemplating the expenditure of large amounts of money we must make certain that such sums are wisely spent and that they will do good. Here the case is very far from proven.

The third point that comes to mind in reading the report is: who should pay for the pollution which undoubtedly takes place? Pollution is undesirable and should be minimised. I go along entirely with the thesis that it should be the polluter who pays. But who is the polluter? Am I the polluter because 40 to 50 years ago I ploughed up grassland and the results of that are now still dripping through into the aquifers below the chalk? Am I the polluter because since then I have practised what the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Carter, have described as good farming practices, namely, rotational farming, the farming of manure and all the rest of it, with results that are now adding to the nitrate concentration in our drinking water?

Paragraph 127 of the report states: Past agricultural practice will continue to affect nitrate levels in slow-response aquifers for 40 years or more. The DoE desk study concluded that for three such aquifers in Norfolk and Kent a reduction in groundwater nitrate concentration to 45 mg/1 would not be achieved by 2040 even if the entire catchment areas were put down to unfertilised grassland now". So the principle that the polluter pays is, to put it mildly, a somewhat complex one and is difficult to enforce.

I have a suggestion. In future there should be a levy on all nitrogenous fertilizers. The levy should be earmarked specifically in the first instance for further research into the methods of purifying water supplies and removing the nitrates by technological means. The nitrates will continue to come into our water supplies regardless of what is done in farming practices. And having developed that research the levy should be used to pay for the actual processes, which are expensive according to the report—and I am sure that is true—so that indirectly the polluter generally will pay.

My fourth point concerns research, which was dealt with in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. There is undoubtedly a lack of knowledge about all these problems. There is a lack of research. In some ways more serious than that—and it has been brought out clearly in the report—is the lack of co-operation between the soil scientists and the hydrologists and the people who have already done a good deal of work and know much about this problem. Paragraph 174 makes the point very clearly. It says: The major inhibition to the development of accurate models has been the absence of an integrated approach; while hydrologists, soil scientists and agronomists have developed a considerable understanding of particular aspects of leaching there has been no attempt to bring experts from all fields together in one team. This has led to the absurd situation whereby the validity of the model primarily relied upon by the Government, the Water Research Centre model, has been the subject of open disagreement between soil scientists and hydrologists … This is no basis for sound policy-making. An integrated team should be established. That point is of vital importance and it is one of the areas where action can be taken at very small cost.

In summary, I would say quite forthrightly that the proposal should be rejected. Secondly, there should be a levy on nitrogen sales forthwith with the proceeds of the levy being devoted to research and treatment. Thirdly, it is perfectly right to encourage lower nitrogen use, especially in winter. It is also correct to discourage for that and for other reasons too intensive livestock farming.

Finally, there should be more research especially into purification treatment. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and to his colleagues for giving us this report.

4.24 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the members of the Select Committee for their careful and penetrating report on a complex and important subject. The analysis of the agricultural consequences of the directive, if pursued with 100 per cent. rigour, is both authoritative and alarming. I hope that it will be studied by the Commission and acted upon.

A plentiful supply of pure water is a blessing which most people in this country feel is God-given, and which we in Britain believed we had, until in 1980 the Commission introduced a directive setting the nitrate standard at an absolute level of 50 mg per litre. Previous to that date we in Britain had adhered to the World Health Organisation standard of 50 mg per litre with an acceptable range of 50 to 100 mg per litre. In that respect I am coming around to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Perhaps we should be at 75 mg per litre. Other than one fatality of blue baby syndrome in 1972, there is no medical evidence of anyone in Britain suffering harm from drinking our water.

During the many years that I was active in the water industry it was managed satisfactorily for the health of our nation without this new stringent standard. In particular I would claim that the water supply in our country has been bacteriologically safe at a standard achieved by few other European countries. In my opinion attention needs to be given to bacteriological standards in member countries at least as urgently as to nitrate standards. We have only to look at tourist experience on holidays in Europe and sufferings from Damp;V to see the need for it.

I recognise of course that the inevitable growth of the nitrate problem needs to be dealt with. But I would have more confidence in the Commission's directive if it published the evidence on which it was based. It has not done so. Furthermore, as the evidence to the Select Committee discloses, scientific bodies in this country such as the Natural Environment Research Council, the Water Research Council and the Agriculture and Food Research Council were not consulted in framing the directive although it is well known that more work has been done in Britain on nitrates than in any other European country.

I turn now to the agricultural implications with which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, dealt so well in his speech. The directive requires vulnerable areas to be defined in member states. In Britain these would be East Anglia and the Midlands, where farming practice would be closely restricted as to cropping, fertiliser application (both organic and inorganic), and livestock population. This has been referred to by many noble Lords. In paragraph 165 the Select Committee estimates that there would be a reduction of one-third in the output of arable crops if the directive were strictly interpreted and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, an annual loss in crop value of the order of 1.3 billion. That would bankrupt many farmers and would seriously reduce the nation's food supply. Strict application throughout the EC would presumably have similar dire consequences. The ultimate result would be the highest standard of nitrate-free water with the lowest standard of food supply. I just do not believe that the Commission intends any such folly.

There is a ray of hope. The report observes that Annex 3 of the directive appears to modify the mandatory form of Article 4 with regard to fertilizer applications and land use options. In addition, the Commission's witness, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out, was willing to consider the United Kingdom's contention that the standard of 50 mg per litre should be observed as an average rather than as an absolute, particularly with regard to surface waters, which are inevitably so variable. That more common sense approach seems to give hope.

In the meantime Her Majesty's Government have agreed to work towards full compliance with the directive but have set the target date as 1995, two years after 1993 as proposed by the directive. It is on that account that I understand the Commission intends to arraign Britain before the European Court of Justice. Just what that will achieve is difficult to understand. If the Commission wished to make an example of a spectacular breach of this directive, it can consider—much nearer to home for the Commissioner—the eutrophication of hundreds of miles of the Adriatic Sea this summer, with disastrous consequences for the golden bathing beaches of Rimini and other resorts.

Returning to the Government's proposals for compliance with the agricultural aspects of the directive, these are defined to operate on a voluntary basis with emphasis on good farming practice, rather than on precise restrictions on fertiliser application. The report reviews the complexities and uncertainties of the relationship between farming practice and nitrate build-up and concludes that this is a sound practical approach. I certainly do so myself. But its success will depend on full co-operation from the many farmers concerned. I am confident that my old friends in the National Farmers' Union will give full support. I must say that I found the Select Committee's expert analysis on the whole of this subject brilliant and I am most grateful to it.

I conclude with a further reference to the non-publication of the scientific evidence on which the directive is based. This is a point which was strongly emphasised two years ago when we were debating the Commission's Fourth Action Programme. We went further—the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, supported me—and asked that the scientific evidence should be placed before the Council of Ministers when the Commission is seeking their approval for a directive. Without that safeguard, defective directives—and I suspect that this may be one of them—may be placed before Ministers for approval.

For instance, a directive on the dumping of waste in the North Sea was drafted, ignoring completely the pollution from the Rhine effluent, which discharges many times more pollution than any other source in the North Sea. However, in the case of the nitrate directive, no medical or other scientific authority can advise against a directive aimed at making drinking water safer.

There are obvious doubts about the cost-effectiveness—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, emphasised this—of a measure which, if strictly applied, could make such a drastic reduction in food production. But without the scientific evidence published, an intelligent discussion of the merits of the proposal is impossible. So it really is in the interests of the Commission itself, if its reputation and of all member states that it should accept this practice. I hope that one of the consequences of this admirable report will be that it will do so.

4.33 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, like other noble Lords I think that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, is to be congratulated on his report. Of course, he did not do it all himself. His committee helped a bit, as did the officials. The report is reasonably short compared to some of the reports we get. However, it might have been better to have a glossary of pronunciation to deal with 19-letter words which appear here and there and to which my dictionary did not rise although they were explained in a later paragraph. The report gives a tremendous amount of information which should be useful in countering the recommendations which have been made, and I hope that it will be used by the Government in due course.

Four farmers have spoken ahead of me and it will be rather difficult for me to say anything new from the agricultural and farming point of view. But one sees in paragraph 41 that in 1985 only 1 per cent. of the population were affected by water containing more than the prescribed amount of nitrate and in 1987 the figure was something less than 3 per cent. So it seems that the recommendations are a very large hammer to crack a not very big nut.

What we are really talking about is the result of an agricultural revolution that has taken place over the last 50 or 60 years. I started farming 63 years ago next month and I have seen it all. There has been a huge reduction in manpower to the detriment of the countryside. There has been the demise of the horse. The engineer and the mechanic have superseded the blacksmith. There have been fantastic developments in mechanisation—sometimes overdone. I remember the late Peter Smith, a very well-known farmer in the West Country giving a talk at Oxford emphasising that farmers were using power too much and wishing that they would stop using a JCB to bury a dead cat.

But, above all, there are the plants that the plant breeders have given us and which have allowed us to use to the full what the chemical industry produces in the way of fertilisers, pesticides and so on. I always put the plant breeders at the top of my list, because of the advantages that they have given to agriculture, with the enormous improvement in the plants produced in the last 30 or 40 years. As a result, the production of temperate foods has risen from just over 30 per cent. in the late 1920s and early 1930s to over 80 per cent. today. One of the tables in the report shows an over-production of wheat, but that is not quite true. There is over-production of feed wheat, but we still buy an enormous amount of hard wheat from Canada and elsewhere. Some of those points should be mentioned.

The committee states—and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned that it was not as firm as he would have liked it to be in its statements—that it is very tentative, "about the reduction in production" that a drastic cut in nitrogen and phosphate use would make. It is pretty obvious from the figures we have that one-third is not an overstatement.

To give an example, I started farming in the centre of Aberdeenshire on a farm of about 240 acres. We though we were doing very well in producing 30 to 35 cwt. of cereal. It is more than likely that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, will agree with me there. Last year, my nephew who now farms that farm grew 50 tonnes of wheat in a 12 acre field. If he is restricted in his nitrogen and goes back to even two tonnes, we are talking about a very high figure indeed. We might have to purchase anything up to £1,000 million to £1,500 million-worth of wheat and other cereals as well. Not only that, but there is the compensation that farmers would have to receive as well.

I understand that the installation of a denitrification plant is a fleabite compared to the annual cost that I have just mentioned. I also know the argument that this will satisfy people who are worried about the overproduction of food, that it will reduce the surplus and save money there. I think we should look carefully at any suggestion of reducing food production in a world where there are 800 million people on what is almost a starvation diet. An important point for the future is that population control has obviously failed. If your Lordships do not believe me, you should ask Mr. Gandhi. It is rising at a rate which means that there will be 7,500 million people by 2025–2030. It would be wrong to do anything which would reduce food production.

If we were forced into extensive farming and adopted the rotation of our fathers and grandfathers, they would turn in their graves to think of being restricted as to the amount of muck—I am sorry, farmyard manure—they would be allowed to plough in. They could never get enough of it. I shall again tell a story of one of the best farmers I knew—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will agree with me—in West Lothian. He was known all over the country as a first-class arable farmer and stockman. Every time he passed a farm manure heap, he lifted his cap.

When we look at the question of rotation in organic or extensive farming, whichever way one wants to look at it, we must be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, emphasised, about how much nitrogen is released when one ploughs up pasture, especially pasture that is well endowed with wild white clover. All those matters must be taken into consideration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I followed George Stapleton's plans to a tremendous degree, as did many farmers in areas where rotational farming took place.

On the question of the eutrophication of water—I believe that is the word—the chairman again said that the matter was unclear. That was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I gather that there is a feeling that growth in streams is becoming an environmental problem. It can be well conrolled. I had a curious experience. I had a pond not far from my house about the size of this Chamber. We drew water from it for spraying when high volume spraying was the fashion. One day a vandal poured a five-gallon drum of gramoxone into the pond. I have never seen such a clearance of pond weeds in my life. The extraordinary thing was that about six weeks later fish came into the pond which had never been here before. My problem then was to keep away young boys who left litter when they came to fish. It should not be a problem if the growth is controlled.

With that, I believe that I have said enough to suggest that I am not too keen on the ECC's recommendations, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I am a strong believer in the European Community.

4.44 p.m.

Lord Bridges

My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly in the debate to support the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. As he explained, I was not formally a Member of his sub-committee, although I was invited to take part in its deliberations as a member of the Sub-Committee on the Environment. I fully share the conclusions reached in his committee's report which I believe to be a thorough examination on the best evidence available and a fair appraisal of the Commission's proposals. I also thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my participation in his work and for his lucid introduction to the debate.

The committee was right to welcome the Commission's proposals. The problems of nitrate pollution and eutrophication are growing and the consequences could be considerable. There is a manifest connection between the large growth in agricultural production which has taken place in the last generation and the increase in nitrate pollution. One fact brought to our notice and mentioned in the report is that the increase in the use of nitrogen fertiliser in this country has grown by a factor of eight since 1945. That is a considerable growth.

The European Community has a clear responsibility in that area as it gave birth to the common agricultural policy, which provided so much of the stimulus to the growth of production and the finance necessary to sustain that growth. The report also mentions the fact that the European Community has responsibilities for the environment as a result of the adoption of the Single European Act. It is a serious matter for the Community as a whole, and the Commission is to be commended for its action in addressing it.

It was also most helpful for our committee that Mr. Jorgen Hennigsen, the director concerned in DGXI of the Commission, was able to attend one of our meetings. That enabled us to have a better understanding of the rationale behind the Commission's proposals. It also enabled us to explain some of the difficulties that we found in them. Noble Lords who have read the report may agree that the account of that meeting, which begins on page 196 of the report, is one of the more valuable features of that document.

Mr. Hennigsen made it clear that the guiding thought behind the Commission's proposals was that of the precautionary principle; that is to say, the avoidance of pollution in the first instance rather than its treatment and reduction to a safe level after the event.

The sub-committee was in general sympathetic to such an approach, although I note the pertinent remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the 50 mg per litre limit. It is perhaps relevant to draw your Lordships' attention to the passage in the report on that question which concluded with the words, "They"—that is to say, the members of the committee— considered that it is for the proposed regulatory Committee to determine whether the limit should be re-assessed"; in other words, whether the limit of 50 mg per litre was correct, something that we examined but upon which we made no recommendation other than that which I have mentioned.

We were able to point out to the Commission a number of practical matters where we believe the draft directive to require some further consideration; for example, our belief that the sampling of drinking water should be undertaken at the point of abstraction for use rather than at points in the aquifers from which it might be taken. That was a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.

One of the difficulties which emerged from our consideration of that problem was that of scientific uncertainty. Although the general way in which leaching takes place is understood, the precise measurement of the circumstances (the rate, the place, the time and so on) cannot at present be made with confidence. That was one of the reasons why members of the sub-committee felt that they were unable to endorse the contents of the Commission's proposals in their present form. The driving force in Brussels seems to have been concern about the eutrophication of the coastal waters of Holland and Germany rather than the issue which is of greatest concern to this country; namely, the concentration of nitrates in drinking water.

Here lies one of the reasons for that divergence of opinion between the analysis made by the sub-committee and the proposals put forward in the draft directive. In other words, the directive has been put forward to deal primarily with a Continental problem. It has also relied on a method of analysing the nitrogen content of the soil, a German method called Nitromin. We are told that that has worked well in the north German plain but does not seem so well suited to the different soil conditions in this country.

The issue of scientific uncertainty has been underlined by events which have taken place since our report was written. The recent appearance, I believe for the first time, of algal bloom, some of it toxic, in fresh water reservoirs in eastern England should make us realise how quickly the situation could deteriorate. Of course, we have had an exceptional summer but those of us who believed that algal bloom was a rare event in our fresh waters will need to think again.

There have been other events this summer to remind us how rapidly the situation can change. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has mentioned, the deterioration of the waters in the upper Adriatic and the problems of algal bloom off the coast of Norway are very real elements of the problem. We also mention another area which has not arisen so far in this debate and which I believe to be of great importance; namely, the contamination of the upper Baltic where for some years now serious damage has been done to the water purity and the fish population. So we need to get to grips with the problem on an international scale, both in the Community and more widely. I strongly encourage the Government to pursue their present international activity as a matter of priority. The North Sea task force evidently has an important role to play in such an international approach.

I have one further comment to make which is intended not so much as a criticism but rather as encouragement. Those who read this report will notice that there has been some lack of contact between the agricultural and scientific, experts in this country and those who are responsible for studying these issues in Brussels. I do not seek to blame anybody for what has occurred, but I suggest it is of importance that the best scientific knowledge available to our experts should be communicated to those in the Commission who are preparing proposals on an issue of this kind. It is very important to understand what is happening in terms of scientific evidence. This needs scrupulous attention.

It seems to me to be particularly unfortunate that the Rothamsted research centre, which has unrivalled knowledge and experience of the effects of nitrogen fertiliser, will not be able to contribute more in this case. In saying that, I recognise the problems of the Commission, which is often without extensive scientific resources of its own and has very compressed deadlines for its work. However, knowing that—as I am sure the Government do—increases the need for us in this country to do all that we can to provide the information and evidence available to us.

The noble Lord, Lord Walston, felt that we should have been more explicit in our remarks and more forthright in our recommendations. The sub-committee did not seek to give vent to its feelings on the subject. There were reasons for our moderation. The report was written in a manner calculated to be persuasive, both of Her Majesty's Government and of the Commission. I hope that its contents and the comments made in your Lordships' House this afternoon will enable the Government to press ahead with their work on this very important subject.

4.54 p.m.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I wish to open by complimenting my noble friend. His lucidity in presenting the report today has put a seal on his wholly admirable steering of the committee towards a report which many have been most generous about this afternoon.

I must confess that when the subject was first broached as a matter for investigation, I felt slightly cynical. After all, I remember saying to myself: think of the many foods we used to enjoy eating and against which we are now warned—no fat on meat; beware of eggs; beware of pâté; watch out for potato skins. It is not only food. Earlier this year one of the quality Sunday newspapers contrived to imply that the most moderate drinker of wine is at risk. I am glad to say that it did not have the audacity to make such a reference to those who drink Scotland's most noble drink! From biblical days wine has had a fairly strong association with water. But the anxiety shown by the World Health Organisation dispelled such heresies as these.

I am quite certain that it was right to hold this inquiry. However, it is not in the least unreasonable to point out several inconsistencies thrown up as regards the United Kingdom, when examining a directive designed to apply to the whole Community. Much has already been said about the blue baby syndrome and I do not propose to touch on it again. Then there was cancer. A study of one town in the United Kingdom prompted some concern, but a subsequent review did not confirm it. Fertiliser workers exposed to high doses of nitrogen have suffered no increase at all in susceptibility to cancer. As nitrate levels in water have risen in the United Kingdom, the incidence of stomach cancer has fallen. In East Anglia in particular, where the nitrate level is highest, the level of cancer is at its lowest.

The greatest inconsistency, to my mind, and perhaps the most elementary inconsistency of all is that I myself hardly ever drink water on its own, yet if I go to many countries in the Community the one thing I would never dream of doing is drink water straight from a tap. However, I would without hesitation turn on any tap in this country if I were desperate for a drink of water. And why not? As the Department of the Environment told us in its evidence, 97 per cent. of our people drink water uncontaminated by too much nitrate. Therefore, I am bound to feel that my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, had a point when he mentioned sledgehammers and nuts.

However, the limit has been laid down with the backing of the World Health Organisation. So one must accept from all the evidence we heard that, as the fertiliser nitrogen is a major cause of nitrate pollution, unless its application is restricted nitrate levels in sources of drinking water will continue to rise. How does one apply these restrictions? One certainly does not do so by using a blanket, as suggested by the Commission. One rather interesting answer was given to us when we asked, as we did fairly persistently, why there was no nitrate problem in Scotland. I believe my noble friend Lord Middleton touched on this today. He said that the greater amount of rainfall up there was probably responsible. However, the rainfall on the east coast of Scotland differs very little from that in East Anglia.

The answer given to us by a representative of the Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association Limited at paragraph 458 of the report stated: I cannot offer a direct solution. The nitrate problem in Scotland is negligible to non-existent, and let us be grateful for that. Quite seriously it may well be—we do not know the detail of this—that the details of farming practice in Scotland are sufficiently different from those in East Anglia to have made all the difference". This causes me to wonder whether a little investigation along these lines might not be a good plan.

Further, the one thing I am quite certain we must not do by way of restriction is to make spot checks of the nitrate content in streams or rivers. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to this. I think it is worth quoting from the answer given on this subject by, this time, the Agricultural and Food Research Council. It makes such interesting reading. The evidence stated at paragraph 242 of the report: One great difficulty would seem to come out of a paper we had from the East Scotland college about sampling of water supplies in the East. They say there are enormous fluctuations in the same spring between one month almost and another. (Dr. Greenwood) Yes. (Professor Stewart) Yes, that is absolutely true: from one week to the next, often from one day to the next. Spot testing on one particular day makes no sense". Therefore, averaging is absolutely essential. If the evidence given on behalf of the Commission means what it says, it should be fairly easily obtainable.

There is the possibility of blending as much as possible. However, I am told that that is limited in its scope. I remember making what I thought was a helpful suggestion to the committee. I pointed out that there were high nitrate levels in the South but no nitrate problem in Scotland. I further pointed out that the Kielder reservoir in Northumberland was underused. I asked whether it was possible to transfer, as is the case with gas, water from one area of the country to another. I was quickly disillusioned. I was told that the idea of pumping water from Northumberland up over the Yorkshire Moors and then having it run down again into East Anglia was a little far-fetched.

All the evidence on farming practice showed—again this has been touched on by several noble Lords—that if the restrictions were rigorously applied farm incomes would suffer catastrophically. Therefore, the Government's ideas on the setting up and monitoring of pilot sensitive areas are to be welcomed and a realistic package of measures and payments must result.

On a recent wet day I pulled out from one of my bookshelves a book by one who was undoubtedly the greatest advocate of agriculture in the 1930s. I refer of course to Mr. A. G. Street whose general theme then was that we were all crazy because we were trying to grow grain in this country when we grew the best grass in the northern hemisphere. How strange that seems today. Mr. Street wrote: This island is noted for its rich old pastures which have not been ploughed up within living memory—and which are, generally speaking, the most valuable farming land in the country". I wonder whether there was a nitrate problem in those days of the 'twenties and 'thirties. We are told, and have been told throughout the inquiry, that it is only when one ploughs up grass that nitrate leaches. We know that 8 million acres of grassland were ploughed up during the war. We have heard of the leaching that that has caused and is still causing. However, ploughing up was what the nation required, just as governments up until recently have required maximum food production. When I say recently, I mean recently in farming terms. That is why it is my submission that compensation for damage done by high nitrates caused by national demands must be generous.

5.7 p.m.

Lord Raglan

My Lords, I have been on Sub-Committee D for a long time now. I am bound to say that this was perhaps the most interesting inquiry I have sat on. The sub-committee needed to find a careful way through a lot of evidence and some rather ill done research and present its opinions in a balanced way. I think that with the help particularly of our specialist adviser and the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, we managed to do so. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, thought so, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. My noble friend Lord Walston thought we were not tough enough. I hope that the mildness of our language gave emphasis to the gravity of our conclusions.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Government have only recently woken up to the fact that they signed the drinking water directive back in 1980. They were not adequately prepared for the good Mr. Henningsen's onslaught when it came. The Government have not committed enough money or urgency to the necessary research.

I suspect that the Commission has scented an issue in which to cast itself as the good fairy as a relief from being an Aunt Sally. In my opinion and in the opinion of several noble Lords who have spoken, it too has not done its research. In this regard one needs to remember that it is not amply staffed and has habitually got round that situation by firing off draft legislation at member states and studying the feedback. It can thereby tap the expertise which is at the disposal of the governments of member states. In this case, because there has been a lack of research on the part of those governments, the Commission has had difficulty in knowing where to go for that expertise. It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Henningsen and DGXI are committed to further study of the problem.

Sub-Committee D encountered an instance some years ago of the Commission becoming so carried away in pursuit of a goal that it pre-empted the results of sound scientific research a then had to back down. It is tremendously important that both the Commission and the Government should address this understandably emotive subject in as clear-eyed and objective a fashion as possible. That means not going along with either of the two extremes of thinking that I have encountered on this issue. One extreme is the view that there is no need to control nitrate application because the world is short of food. The other is, in essence, that bag nitrogen should not be applied at all because it is artificial and therefore harmful.

As regards the first view, although there is a general food shortage in the world, there is—as there needs to be if we are to be sure of being fed—a surplus in world food trade. That is why governments have to continue to support agricultural supply. Otherwise the fall in prices occasioned by the trading surplus would soon lead to shortage. While it is the Government's duty to maintain that trading surplus, and at reasonable cost—which is why intensive farming is necessary—they also have a duty to ensure that farming practices thus encouraged do not have harmful effects.

We saw no reason why the 50 mg limit should be raised. However, it must be emphasised that there is no magic in that figure. Nor is there any firm evidence that twice as much would be harmful. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, has said, 50 mg is 5 mg above the World Health Organisation recommendation. I do not know whet her to believe the WHO or the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The World Health Organisation has set a limit of 45 mg. In the present state of knowledge and in the absence of contrary evidence it seems wise to aim for that figure.

There are ways of reducing the present rate of leaching in certain areas which have now been declared nitrogen sensitive. Greater care can be taken in the application of nitrogen; over-application in the form of "insurance" dressings can be firmly discouraged; slurry disposal can be controlled; and perhaps even the age-old practice of clover ley farming should be questioned.

At the other extreme, the call to stop applying artificial nitrate is made in ignorance of a basic knowledge of chemistry and on the priciple that anything which is called "organic" is natural and good and anything artificial is unnatural and bad. However, there is no such thing as organic nitrate; it is by definition an inorganic compound. A plant must have it to grow at all and cannot get it directly from compost, humus, or other organic matter. That has first to be degraded by soil bacteria to produce inorganic nitrate, which is chemically indistinguishable from the nitrate which comes out of a bag. One needs to face the fact that applying compost, as is done in organic farming, is just another way of artificially conveying nitrate to a plant.

There is another aspect of organic farming which needs to be borne in mind when considering leaching. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, touched on the issue. In theory at least, the application of bag nitrate can be controlled to give only the optimum amount to the plant. It is not possible, however, to control the decay of organic matter, whether it consists of compost, turf, dung or the roots of a harvested crop. It is the decay of that organic matter which leads to the autumn nitrate flush. That is the main cause of nitrate pollution. Only the complete cessation of arable farming, of whichever sort, would prevent that happening. Even then the effects would not be felt in underground water supplies for decades.

On the evidence we received, the problem is not nearly so serious as to require such a measure. Fifty mg is not a panic figure but a prudent one. Even though you may be careful to bring your water below that limit, a fondness for vegetables, whether organically grown or otherwise, will inescapably deliver into your stomach large quantities of nitrates in another way. That is the kind of fact of which people should be made aware.

The issue does not require sweeping changes, dramatic gestures or the laying waste of whole tracts of countryside. It should be tackled thoughtfully and bit by bit over the next decade.

I was impressed by the water authorities' calm evidence. They believe that by spending about £90 million over the next five or six years they can bring all water supplies within the 50 milligramme limit. It therefore appears that the Government, if rather belatedly, are going the right way about tackling the problem.

However, I enjoin them to take people along with them. That means explaining what the problems are and the ways in which they can be tackled. People are understandably very poorly informed about the subject, but I have found them to be most interested in such facts as I have been able to bring to their notice. For example, nitrogen is not some strange and fearsome element but makes up 79 per cent. of the atmosphere; not only is nitrogen necessary to plants but it is an essential constituent of protein; large amounts of nitrogen come down in the rain anyway, and so on.

The Government need to clue themselves up on the issues and then impart the knowledge in clear, plain language to the public at large, because unnecessary alarm has been created. They then need to persuade the Commission to modify its approach because the draft directive is not a practical document at present.

5.18 p.m.

The Earl of Radnor

My Lords, perhaps I too may say how much I appreciated sitting under the chairmanship of my noble friend and having him lead us through a scientific labyrinth of great interest and considerable complexity. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that the report is a book which many of us will keep by us for reference for a very long time to come.

Having said that, there are two matters upon which I am not entirely in agreement with the report, and they are precisely those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.

At this stage in the debate it would be sensible for me to simplify the whole question as much as possible. The way to do that would be to start with the objectives of the directive. They were dual objectives. The first concerned public health and the second the eutrophication of waters—the enrichment of either fresh waters or sea waters. I make no apology for repeating what other speakers have said.

Regarding the first of the objectives, the two diseases which are thought to result from nitrates in water are methaemoglobinaemia (it would perhaps be easier if I referred to it as the blue baby syndrome) and cancer of the stomach, which is a highly emotive subject. There are few people who are not aware of the dangers of that disease.

Perhaps I may take the blue baby syndrome first and repeat what has been said with one small addition which comes out in the evidence and which has not been mentioned. There have been 14 cases since the war and one death in 1972. But even that death was slightly suspect because of the confusing factor of bacterial contamination. That is one health hazard. In this country—I cannot say with certainty what is the case in other countries, but I think the figures are comparable or even better—there is a minimal risk.

Our evidence told us that animals subjected to experiments involving nitrates—the ingestion of nitrates—suffered from stomach cancer, but this, I believe the medical research association said, was not reflected in humans. I have two close relations who are doctors of some importance. Whatever the BMA evidence—it used the word "prudent", as we did ourselves—those two doctors and their friends believe that there is extraordinarily little danger to health from nitrates.

So far, so good—or so bad, according to how one likes to look at the matter. Let us then look at the 50 mg per litre limit which must be attained by the mid-1990s, failing which we shall be taken to court. Again, it comes out clearly from the evidence in the report that the eastern counties—the eastern Midlands, Kent and possibly other parts of the country—would have to radically alter their agriculture. Agriculture as we know it in those places today would be totally destroyed. I am sure that the figures that my noble friend gave were entirely accurate, but they do not describe in human terms what is involved. It means the whole of the eastern counties, or very large tracts of them, going down to unfertilised grass or trees.

Trees do not grow so well in the eastern counties; they prefer the rainier districts. There would surely be a knock-on effect for other parts of the country if those areas were no longer allowed to be the granary of England and to produce our potatoes and sugar beet. Nature abhors a vacuum, but farmers in other parts of the country would soon see an opportunity and, even if their land was not suitable, would be liable to plough it up and try to make some money. That would have a dramatic effect on the appearance of this country and on the general environment. We would find that, rather than coming down the hill, the sheep would go up the hill. The arable land would follow as the best lands—the dry lands of the eastern counties—were put out of action.

As something worse always lies behind the figures, one must then think of the unemployment that would result. There would be massive rural unemployment. There would probably be fewer people working in the country than since before the war, and that would again have a dramatic effect. There would be unemployment among farmers with all the difficulties that have been mentioned—for example, whether they should be compensated. It is not at all fanciful to suggest that the number of suicides among the farming community would compare unfavourably with the danger of blue baby deaths. There would be nervous breakdowns and suicides. I am prepared to bet that that would be worse than what would happen if we maintained our proper top limit of 100 mg.

I believe that the limit is completely wrong. We described it as a prudent limit. "Prudent" is a strange word. It does not mean that it is the right limit; it means that it is safe. I should have preferred that we said an over-prudent limit.

We also said in our conclusions that we hoped that the EC would reassess the limit. I hope that by being aware of the situation—one does not deny the existence of nitrate pollution—it will be contained. Our previous limit, which appeared to be completely safe, should not be reassessed but reinstated. That would give us plenty of time to watch carefully to see whether we were in a deteriorating situation. The evidence is that we are not in a deteriorating situation at the moment and that things are stabilising reasonably well. But it would give us time to watch the situation and, if necessary, take action over a longer span.

Most people know that eutrophication can be limited by either phosphates or nitrogen. They would say that it was ridiculous to talk about it in depth unless one considered those two elements together, which the directive has chosen not to do. I would therefore dismiss that until such time as it does just that. Like all noble Lords, I am aware that eutrophication takes place in the North Sea, the Adriatic and possibly in some inland waters here. But it is no good pontificating about nitrates in relation to eutrophication without considering the phosphate input which may be equally important and is very often more important.

In conclusion, the report seems to lead us on to a more fundamental question; namely, what is the genesis of the reports? Who produces the idea, a perfectly good idea in this case? Who decides? Who advises about it? What scientific advice is taken? Do our Government have the opportunity at an early stage to suggest who should be our advisers? It appeared from the extremely learned people to whom we spoke that they had not on the whole been asked their opinion. When we asked Mr. Hennigsen how the 50 mg limit had been arrived at, he said that the decision had been taken before he came into the picture. He did not seem to be absolutely sure. Yet there had been a meeting in Berlin of experts from various countries. He thought that there had been another meeting before that. That seems inadequate. I felt that it was an inaccurate answer.

I should like to ask whether there is a chance that in future we might be able to put in more information before the directives are produced, rather than discussing them as we are doing now when the matter seems to have got a little out of hand. To reverse it will take a great deal of trouble. It should perhaps never have been put into quite such a violent forward gear.

5.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I first enter this fascinating debate by confessing a disability which is shared only by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Bridges, and no others: I am not a farmer and know nothing about farming other than what I read. However, I have caught up a certain amount as a result of this excellent report. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, the members of his sub-committee, their specialist adviser and clerk and everybody who submitted evidence.

As I said, the report is a work of great profundity and extension. It covers a serious subject in a depth and with a catholicity of evidence which is quite remarkable to a layman such as myself. Let me start with the common ground on which everyone who has spoken this afternoon has agreed. First, there is a 1980 directive signed by the British Government which requires compliance by 1985 with a number of standards, of which nitrate levels is only one. Some noble Lords, and particularly those on the Government Front Bench, will perhaps recall that this summer the House took the view that further indefinite delay in complying with the 1980 directive was not acceptable and that there should be compliance by 1993. That was not the view taken by another place and we have no legislation at the moment that requires compliance by any particular date.

However, the directive is there. It has been signed and it places an obligation on the British Government. That was the starting point for the sub-committee's deliberations, as indeed is explicitly stated. Certainly I am not qualified to go into any of the medical or agricultural technicalities—indeed they are far more than technicalities because they are essential to the discussion—into which the sub-committee entered. I should simply like to say with regard to the medical point that the World Health Organisation in 1984 confirmed the figure. Indeed it gave a slightly more rigorous figure of 45 mg per litre. It is not just Europe which sets standards of that kind; standards of the 45 mg level exist in the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Finland and so on.

So if there is error in the limit, and some noble Lords have suggested that there is error, it is worldwide and it is not one that is confined to the United Kingdom. Of course there is a great deal of scope for discussion and even disagreement about the way in which the maximum acceptable limit is calculated on an average or an absolute basis and whether it is measured at source or at the point of entry into the drinking water supply are matters which are perhaps of much greater significance than whether the level itself should be 50mg, 45mg, 75mg or 100mg.

I am bound to say that I agree with those noble Lords who said that, when considering drinking water quality, it seems more relevant to measure it at the point where it enters the drinking water supply than to take the measurement at source. That seems to me to be common sense. Whether that deals with the environmental eutrophication problem is an issue that I certainly am not qualified to judge. As I said, the starting point of the sub-committee's deliberations was that the 50mg per litre measure was a prudent measure and that the only criticism or way in which it should be questioned was not on medical or environmental grounds but on grounds of cost effectiveness.

A number of noble Lords made very interesting comparisons of the cost effectiveness of expenditure on reducing nitrate levels with other forms of public expenditure. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, preferred to spend public money on reducing road accidents rather than on dealing with nitrates in water.

The other common ground which I think we have in this discussion is the fact that nitrate levels, perhaps not in surface water but in ground water at any rate, are increasing not only in this country but in all countries, particularly the countries of Northern Europe where intensive agriculture itself has been increasing. When I read the supplementary submission from the European Commission which precedes the evidence given by the members of the Commission who attended the sub-committee, I note that that is certainly true for France, Germany, the Netherlands and possibly for Belgium although not for Portugal; I leave Luxembourg on one side and there is no evidence for Greece. But certainly in the large agricultural countries where intensive farming, and intensive arable farming in particular, has been encouraged, levels of nitrogen are increasing, have been increasing and appear to be likely to continue to increase. If nothing else that gives some support to the Commission in drawing attention to this problem and seeking to control it.

Undoubtedly it is illogical that over the past nine years attention has been concentrated only on nitrates rather than on phosphates when we know, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, that phosphates are a major cause of algal bloom and eutrophication. Certainly it seems urgent that the Commission should complement its work on nitrates by producing a draft directive on phosphates.

I sympathise with noble Lords who suggest that one cannot deal with the eutrophication issue as a whole unless both issues are considered. However, nitrate as a cause of eutrophication is not insignificant. In the report I read that nitrate-caused eutrophication in the Norfolk Broads, although it may not be the only cause of the dramatic decline in the environmental quality of the Broads, has led to the destruction of the reeds there with the result that we now import reed from Hungary. I should have thought that that commodity was low on the priorities for imports.

Next we have to look at the actual proposals in the draft directive, which have been widely attacked. I do not find those proposals as overwhelming or as hard as some noble Lords have suggested. The draft directive states that each member state should declare vulnerable zones. That is only one step further in compulsion than the nitrate sensitive areas that the Government are proposing to designate on a voluntary basis. But even within those vulnerable zones the restrictions are only to be imposed within a period of four years. There is no more urgent deadline. Moreover, although the restrictions are to be compulsory on manure—I must not enter the debate on "organic" and "inorganic" about which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, knows far more than I do—they are only to be compulsory on animal-based nitrates. Where they are concerned with bagged fertiliser, the standards are to be national rather than Commission imposed. So the proposals are not quite as extreme as some noble Lords, perhaps not intentionally, seemed to me to suggest. All the other measures that are proposed in the draft directive are measures which the British Government and other member states would only have to consider. It is expressed no more firmly than that.

In considering the terrible increases that have been observed, one thinks of the eutrophication of the Skagerrak and the Adriatic coast. It is confined in this country, I understand, to a few harbours and to a number of our smaller streams which are certainly not as attractive as they used to be. When we consider that, I do not think that we can blame the European Commission for starting this process even if we can say justifiably that it ought to have examined other causes of environmental damage or of impurities in our water supply.

The sub-committee gives the impression that it is common ground that the causes of high nitrate levels in our drinking water are virtually entirely leaching from arable land. Indeed, that is expressly stated in the report of the Select Committee. The concentration on this leaching as a problem is clearly the right focus of attention in the Select Committee's report. However, the question then arises—a number of noble Lords referred to it—as to whether it is right to concentrate on dealing with the problem at source, through curbs on agriculture or through treatment. I hope I am not alone in thinking that perhaps neither is sufficient by itself. If we are to achieve the requisite reduction in nitrate levels in our drinking water, certainly there will have to be substantial expenditure in denitrification plant. There is no doubt that whatever else we do we shall have to engage in treatment. It may be by denitrification plant or by improvement in our blending systems in our fresh water reservoirs. I do not know the details. However, it is not inconsistent with that to say that in the light of increasing nitrate levels in ground water we ought to be making a start to deal with the problem at source.

In its report the sub-committee points out that there is an argument that restriction on agricultural production and on intensive agriculture would be nothing but beneficial. To be fair, I immediately say that the Select Committee rejects that argument. Paragraph 181 of its report states: Over production of agricultural commodities in the Community remains a major problem, despite the recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy. Expenditure on agricultural support still accounts for two-thirds of the Community's budget, and has led to destabilisation of world markets, artificially high prices and widespread opportunities for fraud. Solving the problem of agricultural surpluses at a stroke through restrictions in land use would be an attractive side effect of environmental pollution". That is not the view of the committee. At paragraph 182 the committee does not agree with that approach. It considers that the right method is systematically to attack some of the market support mechanisms that have led to the distortions of the common agricultural policy. I do not deny that that is a proper approach. But we cannot entirely neglect the possibility that there could be significant environmental benefits, as well as the disadvantages to agriculture which have been referred to by many noble Lords, in adopting a rather firmer treatment at source by reduction.

That should not necessarily be ruled out just because the treatment of the finished product is essential. After all, interventionism in our farming is not new. Much of this grassland was ploughed up as part of the war effort. It has been ploughed up because of the financial benefits arising from the common agricultural policy. As recently as 15 years ago—as I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Carter—government were giving specific subsidies for the use of nitrogen fertiliser. Therefore, to reverse that policy in the light of newly available facts is not necessarily dangerous.

I think that we can all be agreed on one point. A number of noble Lords have stated this. It is essential that when the Commission publishes such directives it should produce the scientific evidence for its conclusions. I believe that there has been some justification for complaints that this has not been done in this case. The British Government also have a responsibility for providing their own research evidence. I was disturbed to hear that some of our research establishments, notably Rothamsted, are not able to provide the scientific background that is necessary. For a long time I have been disturbed at the distinction between near market research, to which reference was made by my noble friend Lord Carter and other noble Lords, and public policy research.

It appears that where issues of agricultural efficiency, public health and the environment arise we are too ready to describe research as near market and to deprive it of government funds. When we consider the budgets for the research councils, notably the Natural Environment Research Council and perhaps rather less the Agricultural Research Council, there is evidence that a change of heart by government in the funding of that research is a necessary precursor of a firm view of the scientific and research issues that are involved in this debate.

Vol. 512 It is a serious and valuable report. I am not qualified to agree or disagree with the many detailed conclusions in it. However, I join with other noble Lords in thanking all those who produced it.

5.47 p.m.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the quality of the speeches today in your Lordships' House and to emphasise the value that the Government place on debates such as these. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will carefully consider the points that have been made about this proposed directive.

I pay tribute to the excellent report that my noble friend Lord Middleton and his colleagues have produced. They have successfully brought together the key factors that must be considered in any policy to control nitrate pollution. We have studied the text of the report with interest. It has made a valuable contribution to the debate on nitrate control policy both in this House and elsewhere by identifying the significant issues.

Before dealing with the Government's response to the scrutiny committee's report, and to points raised in this debate, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the current stage of negotiations on this proposal. The debate is well timed to provide the views of the House in advance of the first substantive consideration of the Commission's proposal by environment Ministers at the Council in November. We do not expect there to be a final agreement on the detailed terms of the directive at this Council; rather that Ministers will give guidance for the coming negotiations.

The committee's report highlighted a number of points about the directive. I should like to deal first with the question of nitrate in sources that may be used for the supply of drinking water. As the committee has pointed out, there is an upward trend in nitrate levels in many ground water sources, and this trend will probably continue unless action is taken to prevent nitrate pollution at source. We need to ensure that there is appropriate protection for water sources in this country.

It is for this reason that the Government are currently taking action to designate a number of pilot nitrate sensitive areas. A range of agriculture measures, involving voluntary but substantial agricultural restrictions, will be tested in these areas. In other areas we shall be undertaking an intensive advisory campaign. I am pleased that the committee has welcomed our approach and our decision that payments should be made where farmers undertake substantial agricultural restrictions. Independently of progress in negotiations on the directive, the UK will continue to take action to reduce nitrate levels in this country. This national scheme could be subsumed into measures to comply with the nitrate directive if this directive is adopted.

The committee drew a number of conclusions about the effectiveness of various ways of controlling nitrate levels and has given detailed consideration to the role of nitrogen fertilisers. Although we do not have evidence of widespread, excessive or ill-timed use of nitrogen fertiliser, continuing ADAS advice is important in ensuring an intelligent use of fertilisers. Farmers now receive increasingly sophisticated advice from ADAS and we believe that this has played a part in the 60 per cent. reduction in autumn nitrogen applications since 1979.

We agree that it is questionable whether restrictions on fertiliser use below a level in line with the best farming practice will generally produce commensurate reductions in nitrate leaching. However, there are a number of circumstances, such as late applications of nitrogen to milling wheat, where restrictions may have a valuable effect on nitrate leaching. In its latest textual clarifications the Commission has confirmed its intention that the restrictions on chemical fertiliser applications in vulnerable zones should be in line with good agricultural practice. The Commission's proposal would, however, allow member states to place more severe restrictions on fertiliser use where appropriate.

With regard to farmyard manure, the committee has stated that member states should be able to determine maximum rates of application nationally. During negotiations on this point the Commission has suggested a 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare limit as an alternative to the original limits proposed in terms of number of livestock. We shall need to consider whether this approach is satisfactory.

So far I have concentrated on nitrate in drinking water sources. However, the Commission's proposal also tackles the problem of nitrate limited eutrophication. In the UK this is not a major problem. However, as the committee has rightly pointed out, the causes of eutrophication are complex and other factors, such as phosphate, may also be limiting agents. We understand that the Commission is likely to bring forward separate proposals to control discharges of waste water and these may involve controls on phosphate.

Turning to the problem of research, we recognise the need for sound research into this complex problem. Both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are funding a large number of research projects into various aspects of nitrate leaching. Our primary objective is to quantify the amount of nitrate leached under different cropping and land management practices.

Taking a broad view on the problem confronting governments in all member states in respect of nitrate, which this directive is intended to address, the position is summed up extremely well in the first paragraph of the report Nitrate in Water. My noble friend Lord Middleton read the contents of the first paragraph. I shall not repeat it but believe that it is a balanced view of the way in which the problem must be faced.

The report recognises that the problem of controlling nitrate pollution of water sources is a complex issue. Of course farmers should follow good practice in respect of nitrate. But the problem goes deeper and also depends on local factors, such as the rainfall and hydrogeology, and on the existing balance of land use. However, as most nitrate found in water comes from agriculture it is essential that agriculture contributes, where appropriate, action to reduce high nitrate concentrations in water sources. In some cases this may require measures that go beyond good agricultural practice, including changes in land use.

The EC nitrate directive is unusual in a number of respects. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out, it is the first proposal from the Commission that proposes controls on diffuse sources of pollution; that is, pollution from large numbers of very small sources of pollution. This is a welcome development but it means that in these negotiations we are breaking new ground, and this directive may come to be seen as a precedent. The directive raises potential difficulties for member states in establishing the programmes necessary for implementation. A further complication is the time that it may take in some areas to determine whether measures are indeed having the desired effect. In some cases the water quality in the underlying aquifer may not be affected until up to 50 years after measures were introduced on the land.

The Government have welcomed the Commission's initiative in proposing a directive to control nitrate pollution. However, we see the need for a number of changes to be made to the detailed proposals.

The development of Community-wide action to control nitrate is to be welcomed. Most member states have a nitrate problem and need to take action to protect water. In the UK and in several other member states action is being taken domestically to control nitrate reaching water sources. The new directive will ensure a commonality of approach to preventive measures.

This directive is concerned wholly with preventive measures to control nitrate pollution. However, from the research already undertaken in this country, the Government recognise that there is no single, best solution for reducing nitrate concentrations that can be used in all circumstances. It is important to select solutions, or combinations of solutions, that are appropriate to local conditions. In some cases blending before supply with another source low in nitrate or treatment of the water to remove nitrate will be the most cost-effective option. This approach is used already and will have a continuing role to play in ensuring that water supplies contain no more than the permitted level of nitrate.

The directive must strike an appropriate balance between the environmental benefits of measures to protect sources and the economic effect of the measures on the area in question. The Treaty of Rome requires all environmental proposals to take account of the economic effect of proposed measures. We are concerned that this point is not addressed in the Commission's proposals and we have suggested ways in which it could be included.

The requirements of the directive must also be clear. It would be quite wrong for the UK or any other member state to agree to a Community directive without being fully aware of the responsibilities it places on them and the steps necessary to implement the proposal. The Commission proposals are very far reaching and the requirements in the initial draft were not wholly clear. We are pressing in the negotiations to remove ambiguities from the text of the directive. That is particularly important in relation to the circumstances in which far-reaching land use measures should be introduced. It is also important to establish our responsibilities under the trans-boundary pollution provisions in respect of the North Sea.

The effect of the directive will to a large extent depend on the areas of the country that will be designated as vulnerable zones under the proposals. The size of the zones will depend on the way in which any numerical limits in the criteria are interpreted. The initial proposal from the Commission for surface water zones was for these to be required whenever the nitrate concentraion of water in a river exceeded 50 mg per litre. This is a very strict test, particularly in view of the natural variability of nitrate in river water. It would require that at all times river water is maintained at the same quality as drinking water regardless of whether or not a water undertaker intends to use that river source.

In its memorandum to the scrutiny committee the Government indicated that they would prefer an average level of 50 mg per litre to be used for designation of a surface water source rather than an absolute level. We have represented to the Commission that the effect of an absolute level would be disproportionate provided that drinking water is maintained at the appropriate quality. I believe that the Commission accepts our arguments on this point. It has proposed an alternative, if rather technical, approach which is set out in the updating memorandum that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recently presented to Parliament. We are still studying the Commission's new proposals.

I now move to some of the points raised in the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I very much agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell who, as the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, will have the major responsibility for implementing the proposals in the draft directive. The NRA's role is to tackle pollution from all sources, including agricultural practices, to safeguard our water resources and to ensure that quality standards are met. The NRA has already advised the Government on the selection of the pilot nitrate-sensitive areas which were the subject of announcement by my honourable friend the Minister for agriculture at the end of July. I know that we can continue to look to the NRA for constructive and measured advice in considering the possible impact of proposals contained in the draft directive.

The noble Lords, Lord Nugent, Lord Bridges and Lord Northbourne, referred to the 50 mg per litre limit and the question of the validity of the 50 mg limit standard for nitrate in water and whether the health risks justify such a stringent measure. We told the committee that that is an issue on which we would consult the Chief Medical Officer. He has confirmed that that is the level, at the present standard, which he feels is correct for drinking water. However, he points out that an average rather than an absolute standard would be preferable but subject to an absolute limit of 100 milligrammes.

The noble Lord, Lord Walston, suggested a levy on all nitrogenous fertiliser. We have already looked at that proposal but we do not believe that such a levy, unless very large, would reduce the amount of fertiliser used, nor would it necessarily be fair to existing farmers because if it was not implemented on a Community-wide basis, British farmers would be at a substantial disadvantage.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew your Lordships' attention to organic farming, as did many other noble Lords. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are in no way opposed to the development of organic farming. On the contrary, they are keen that consumers should be able to purchase food produced by organic methods. With respect to nitrate leaching, the Government are funding research into nitrate leaching under the organic farming regimes. However, the evidence to date is that organic farming in itself does not necessarily cause less leaching than conventional farming, a point brought to the attention of your Lordships' House by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me about cost benefit and whether any research had been done. We believe that we cannot undertake a full cost benefit assessment of the proposed directive at this stage when we do not know which areas will need to be designated as vulnerable zones nor do we know the detailed measures required to apply to those areas. Without that information, it would be difficult to provide the information required by the noble Lord.

We fully endorse the proposition that full account of the costs and benefits of the measures proposed should be taken when the directive is produced. That was a point brought to the attention of your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Walston.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a very useful and important point about the need for a clear definition of what is meant by good agricultural practice. Of course, one could ask: how long is a piece of string? I assure your Lordships that we shall discuss with the Commission how that is to be defined, because we agree that it is essential that there should be a clear definition within the directive.

My noble friend Lord Radnor asked whether the Government have had an opportunity to advise the Commission on suitable sources of information before the directive is prepared. The short answer is that the Commission does not seek such advice. However, when we become aware that the Commission is proposing a directive we normally try to draw its attention to major bodies available to provide advice in this country.

I was not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Government's position on the introduction of the drinking water directive. The Government are wholeheartedly committed to complying with the provisions of the directive as quickly as possible having regard to the practicalities. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that that compliance is part of a £17.3 billion programme over the next 10 years and the proof that deeds speak louder than words is that we know of no other member state within the European Community which has prepared comparable proposals for improving water services or for raising the quality of drinking water.

Perhaps I may return briefly to organic farming, manure and bag fertiliser, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other Members of your Lordships' House drew to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly pointed out that natural manure could be just as destructive as bag fertiliser. Of course, if one goes to Holland one can see the reverse of the problem we are talking about with bag fertiliser. Referring to Holland, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly pointed out that the differences in Holland and Denmark result in a perception of the problem which is very different from our perception in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also drew your Lordships' attention to the great endeavours of Mr. Barry Wookey, the well-known organic farmer, and the figures and data which he has produced. Again, those figures do not provide instant salvation for the organic route. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also produced the interesting example of the tenant farmer who had finally been approached by the agent who was willing to offer to sell him the farm once the farm was in an NSA.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, drew attention to his friend in West Lothian who tips his cap every time he passes a muck heap. I am an old-fashioned country man and I tend to tip my cap when I go past an old-fashioned muck heap.

I hope that I have answered most of the questions and points raised during the debate this afternoon. I felt, in a way, that I was rather superfluous to it, such was its quality. However, if I have not answered any questions or missed a point, I shall of course write to noble Lords.

The control of nitrate is a difficult and complex problem and this Community directive makes a contribution to finding solutions. We recognise that the directive would have a very extensive effect and we shall need to be sure that it allows us to strike the appropriate balance between land used for agriculture and the use of the land as water catchments.

6.7 p.m.

Lord Middleton

My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken have been most kind in the reception which they have given this report. If it has merit, then it is in great part due to the extremely able and conscientious work of our clerk and to the invaluable help of our specialist adviser, Professor Syers.

I am grateful to those noble Lords who have so ably contributed to the debate on this Motion. I listened with much interest to the speech of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, showed a very fair appreciation of the issues. I thought he might refer to paragraph 181 and he did. He drew attention to what might be a very easy, facile reaction to our recommendation in the report by someone who simply was not thinking and had not read it properly. He quoted from the passage which states: Solving the problem of agricultural surpluses at a stroke through restrictions in land use would be an attractive side-effect of environmental protection". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not a simple person but a very fair person. He quite rightly referred to the following paragraph, 182.

The committee feels very strongly that the superficial approach is wrong. Perhaps I may be allowed, even at this late hour, to quote this because we feel it is so important. The report states: The disadvantages of the Common Agricultural Policy result from the excessive use of protectionist and sometimes ill-thought out mechanisms for market support rather than from the inherent undesirability of food production per se. The most practical means of reforming the agricultural sector is by dismantling these mechanisms in an orderly fashion. Any other policy would run the risk of endangering the security of food supplies and would have severe consequences on rural economy and society". I thank the Government also for replying in so painstaking and informative a manner to this Motion. Many governments, keenly aware of growing public concern about the wholesomeness of their food and drink, and of a wider concern about the natural environment, are beginning to formulate plans of action. Our own Government are no exception. The policy-making body of the European Community is likewise engaged.

However, sound policy-making depends on good information. My own sub-committee—I believe I speak for many members of your Lordships' Select Committee—are beginning to feel uneasy that some of the proposals that emanate from Brussels—the draft directive we are debating is certainly one of them—fail to some respects to be soundly based in science. If we did not say so forcefully enough in this instance to please the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that is not to say that we are not very worried because a directive, once adopted, affects all our lives for better or worse. I am in full agreement with my noble friend Lord Nugent and his strictures on the Commission in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, too, deplored the fact that our own UK experts in this field were not consulted by the Commission. My noble friend Lord Radnor had similar doubts.

I believe that this debate has indicated to the House that this is one example of a proposal whose objectives are excellent but whose effects, if they were to be agreed, could have an impact on our own UK economy and, no doubt, on that of many other member states such as was never intended when it was written.

On Question, Motion agreed to.