Municipal Waste Water Treatment: ECC Report

HL Deb 22 October 1991 vol 531 cc1424-54

3.13 p.m.

Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Municipal Waste Water Treatment (10th Report, HL Paper 50).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the report of the Select Committee on municipal waste water treatment is long and the subject in plain English—sewage—is unattractive. Sewage and biodegradable waste from industry, which are the subjects of the directive, can severely impair the environment. Therefore any measure such as a directive whose objective is to effect improvements in treatment is to be welcomed. An original draft was published in November 1989. The final text was agreed surprisingly quickly at the Environment Council on 18th March last. That text is reproduced as Appendix 3 to our report.

While the directive is to be welcomed, the costs of implementation are such as to make it imperative that appropriate priorities are set and that cost-effective measures are taken to secure the benefits intended. I shall give some indication of those costs. The evidence we received indicated that expenditure of more than £8 billion may be required in the United Kingdom. That sum will be additional to the investment programme agreed on the privatisation of the water authorities in England and Wales, which amounted to £26 billion, of which £12.2 billion relates to the provision of sewage services, and the £1.4 billion allocated to the United Kingdom programme to improve bathing waters.

A higher percentage of households in the United Kingdom is connected to the main sewer than in any other member state. Therefore it comes as a surprise that such enormous expenditures should be required in this country. Eutrophication, or over enrichment of water caused by excessive quantities of nutrients, primarily phosphates, as regards inland waters, has not received much attention in the UK except in special areas such as the Norfolk Broads, Loch Leven and Lough Neagh. However, considerable concern has been expressed at Community level about the problem. That has resulted in provision in the directive for designation of such areas as sensitive areas requiring, in addition to primary and secondary treatment of sewage, tertiary treatment designed to eliminate or greatly reduce discharges of nutrients.

The evidence we received on the position in the United Kingdom demonstrated sharp differences of opinion on the proper definition of eutrophication and, consequently, on its extent and importance. While the Department of the Environment took a fairly relaxed view in that it did not consider very extensive areas to be affected, others, including the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor organisations, the NERC and the Anglers' Association regarded the problem as serious and extensive. Moreover, it appears that in areas such as the Norfolk Broads, which are undoubtedly affected by eutrophication, tertiary treatment of sewage discharges is unlikely by itself to have a major impact because nitrates and phosphates enter the water from other sources, notably agricultural run-off and by constant release from sediments impregnated over the years.

The cost of installing tertiary treatment will obviously depend on decisions regarding which areas are to be designated. I hope that in her reply the Minister will give the House some guidance on the Government's present thinking on this difficult subject, and in particular whether they will make public the information and research upon which designation of areas as eutrophic is based.

The other main head of expenditure that will be necessary to meet the requirements of the directive relates to discharges to coastal waters. The main concern is that of the total population of the United Kingdom, about 13 million people live around the coast. Sewage from such communities has been discharged to the sea, often untreated through short outfalls. Enormous expenditure is presently being incurred with a view to eliminating these short sea outfalls, bringing the sewage to a sewage works some way inland and then, after preliminary treatment, discharging it through long sea outfalls. Generally, neither primary nor secondary treatment is provided.

One instance of such works which the Select Committee visited at the invitation of Wessex Water plc is situated near Weymouth. The short sea outfalls from Weymouth which discharged into Weymouth bay had been eliminated. All the sewage, together with that from Portland Bill, is now brought inland to headworks from which it is discharged by a long sea outfall west of Portland Bill. By these substantial engineering works, discharges of sewage into Weymouth bay have been eliminated. The discharges have been subject to preliminary treatment but not to primary or secondary treatment. We were told that monitoring of beaches near the outfall revealed that the water there complies with the bathing water directive. Under the directive primary and secondary treatment are required for all significant coastal discharges except for those to areas designated as less sensitive which may be limited to primary treatment only.

Primary treatment, if introduced into the Weymouth scheme, would, it is estimated, cost about £30 million. Secondary treatment would cost a further £50 million.

The directive enables member states to designate coastal waters and estuaries as less sensitive areas if discharges subject only to primary treatment will not adversely affect the environment. The Department of the Environment estimates of the cost of compliance, which are quoted in the report, appear to indicate that it is the Government's intention that all coastal discharges will be subject only to primary treatment and therefore that all coastal waters will be designated as less sensitive areas. It would be of great assistance if the Minister could indicate what the policy of the Government is in relation to designation of less sensitive areas and whether information as to the basis of decisions will be made public.

It should be noted that the costs to which I referred, which derive directly from implementation of the directive, do not include additional costs arising from the increase in the volume of sewage sludge which has to be disposed of—estimated by the Water Services Association at between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of existing volumes. Elimination by 1998 of dumping of sewage at sea, as required by the directive and as agreed by the United Kingdom at the North Sea Conference in 1987, compounds the problems of funding alternative disposal routes. There are sharp differences in the impact that that will have in different areas. For instance, Thames Water will have to find alternative disposal routes for 40 per cent. of its sewage sludge; Northern Ireland, 60 per cent.; and Strathclyde and Lothian, 92 per cent.

We received interesting evidence about the development of new techniques for disposing of sewage sludge by recycling to produce soil conditioner and fertiliser acceptable for use in agriculture, horticulture and, indeed, in private gardens. Other Members of your Lordships' House who have made a deeper study will no doubt refer to such points. The urgent need for those developments prompted us to conclude that the Community itself should become involved. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister has anything to say as to the Government's policy.

Most of the costs to which I have referred will fall directly on the sewerage undertakings. In England and Wales those costs will be passed on to the householder through increased prices. Obviously costs will be heavier in some regions than in others. Water charges vary across the country, but the variations are likely to be far greater due to the directive. In some regions charges may need to increase by 25 per cent. We express concern in our report as to whether that is a desirable development. Have the Government a policy relating to variations in charges? In Scotland, where the cost of implementing the directive will be disproportionately high, councils will have to find the additional expenditure from increases in local taxation.

It is in the context of cost that we considered with particular care the provisions of the directive which set limit values which would always have to be respected to protect the environment. We are concerned that specifying the means to be used to protect the environment rather than the environmental quality to be achieved is insufficiently selective and therefore wasteful of resources and distorts priorities.

The application of limit values to sewage seems particularly inappropriate when the effects are on the whole localised and dependent on the nature of the effluent, the nature of the receiving water and the climate. It is perhaps worth noting that the dangerous substances directive which regulates the discharge of persistent toxic and bioaccumulable substances, the most dangerous of all, itself allows an environmental quality approach to be adopted. It is a pity that that example was not followed in the present case.

Under the Water Act 1989 water quality objectives are to be established for controlled waters and discharge consents will be set by the National Rivers Authority in conformity with them. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government concur with those views and whether they will seek amendments to incorporate environmental quality objectives as an alternative to limit values or perhaps promote change through the Committee of Adaptation which is provided for in the directive?

The report is a long and heavy one. The directive is extensive in its provisions and its implications; the costs in resources and money enormous. It represents a major contribution to environmental protection. The problems we have in this country and the expense of solving them must be small, however, compared with other member states, in some of which only 10 per cent. of households are connected to the main sewer. It is indeed remarkable that such major legislation has been adopted by the Community. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Municipal Waste Water Treatment (10th Report, H.L. Paper 50).—(Lord Nathan.)

3.26 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his very interesting speech introducing his report. It is a monumental report.

Sewage is not a subject which interests many people. Even noble Lords, with their strong intellectual background, do not stay in large numbers for such debates. It is a subject which is very seldom discussed over the dinner or lunch table. It is a rather esoteric subject. Yet, as the noble Lord rightly said, it is enormously important. First, the disposal of sewage is immensely costly. We are now embarked on a programme costing some £20 billion, as the noble Lord said, and the directive has implications which will cost anything between £10 billion and £20 billion. Secondly, the disposal of sewage touches almost every aspect of environmental conservation. Therefore it is an extremely important subject.

This report, with its penetrating review of these complex and important matters, is magnificent. Its marshalling and discussion of the evidence is a marvel of lucidity. Without doubt it is the best review of the problems of waste water disposal and the solutions to those problems that I have ever seen. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord and his committee on producing such a valuable document. I hope that it will be closely studied in Brussels.

The directive, in effect, proposes minimum quality standards for discharge to rivers which are less stringent than the BOD standards laid down in this country in 1912 by the Royal Commission, although it is true that those standards were by no means generally achieved in Britain until the Water Act 1973 established a national water industry with the necessary powers to clean up the black spots—which were many. I noted that the NRA forecasts virtually 100 per cent. compliance throughout the country by 1992.

Of course there will be problems with farm pollution due to accidents, storm water overflows, etc. However, those who have joined in the cry that Britain is the "dirty man of Europe" are off beam if one compares the achievements and general standards here with those of the rest of Europe.

The report takes issue—the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, mentioned this point—with the imposition of uniform limit values for discharges and argues convincingly for environmental quality objectives as the wiser approach. That rather technical term means in effect that discharge standards should be related to the quality of the receiving water. That does not appear to be much more than common sense.

I could claim to have been a pioneer of that argument, having introduced environmental water quality objectives for river discharges in 1977 when I was chairman of the National Water Council, although there were murmurs along those lines in the 1951 water Act, which most people appear to have forgotten. The 10 regional water authority chairmen were reluctant to accept my lead because of the heavy cost involved, but they accepted the logic and made a start. It was accompanied by the obligation to publish registers of all discharges in their regions, so that the spur of public opinion was permanently applied to their flanks. That has served well in the interim. M. Carpentier was the EC Environment Commissioner in 1977. He and I had some interesting discussions on the relative merits of EQOs and uniform limit values. We never quite convinced each other, but we were both quite sure that we were on the right track.

It is interesting to note—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made this point—that the Commission has now in principle accepted the validity of EQOs by differentiating between sensitive and non-sensitive tidal waters. I hope that the noble Lord's authoritative report may convince the Commission of the wisdom of accepting EQOs for general application. It would be a sensible thing to do. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in paragraph 146 of the report that Her Majesty's Government's intention to classify all tidal waters as non-sensitive is wrong. I believe that it is right. The implication that secondary treatment may be needed in some cases has unacceptable consequences: first, the heavy cost to which the noble Lord referred and, secondly, even more sludge to dispose of. The right solution for discharge to tidal water is long sea outfalls which give massive dilution round our coasts with their powerful tidal currents—a very different case from the Mediterranean. The addition of primary treatment plants at heavy expense has, as the noble Lord said, already added belt to braces. In addition, it is essential to have more stringent pre-testing, especially for metallurgical industries before they are allowed to discharge their effluent into the main sewer. The metallurgical element in the effluent causes the danger.

This brings me to a major consequence of the directive; namely, the increased quantity of sewage sludge to be disposed of. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made some cogent observations on that matter. The report rightly calls attention to the problems involved in a large increase in incineration plants, yet at present this is the only major practicable means of dealing with the problem. Agricultural spreading is already at a higher level in this country than in most countries and, for reasons of soil and climate, cannot be significantly increased. However, incineration has serious objections. First, it is expensive and, secondly, it involves heavy use of fossil fuel and so directly conflicts with the Commission's policy to penalise fossil fuel consumption in order to reduce the dangers of global warming. Is there anyone in the Commission who says to commissioners, "Will you please put your heads together and try to integrate your policies?" Thirdly, the fume outfall is objectionable in smell, making it difficult to locate, and toxic in deposit. The quantities may be small, but what predictions have been made to compute the accumulation over, say, a 10-year period and the relative balance of advantage to the environment over deep-sea disposal, especially if more stringent standards are applied to metallurgical industries over the toxic deposits resulting from incineration?

I suggest that the commissioner—I hope that he will read my speech, although I doubt it—should write an essay on the principle of the indestructibility of matter. It is completely futile to shift pollution from one medium of the environment to another. The NRA is right in its evidence—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will agree with this point—in advocating an integrated approach to pollution control with regard to sludge disposal with a view to finding the "best practicable environmental option". There is no simple answer. It requires deep thought. I have already mentioned the problems of the cost of implementation. The extra cost to this country would be very heavy. At this time, given the capital needed for reconstruction in Eastern European countries and at least some applicants for Community membership crying out for attention, it must be asked whether the Commission is getting its priorities right in obliging all member countries to commit huge capital sums to that purpose.

My final point concerns the implementation of the directive—something about which noble Lords have heard me speak previously. It is to be done by monitoring by individual member states and by annual publication of results. How reliable will that be? On page 11 of the report there is a table—Table 5—of basic statistics regarding municipal waste water treatment in member countries. The many blanks in many countries' returns indicate that treatment in those respects is either sporadic or non-existent. It follows that monitoring returns from those countries will be incomplete and unreliable.

The Commission proposes to establish a European environmental agency. That is a good idea. Will the agency monitor the monitors and insist on the laggard member states mounting adequate capital programmes to meet the directive's requirements? That is an important question. That would be a necessary measure to maintain the Commission's authority and integrity. The proposed committee of adaptation is welcome, but it will be meaningless unless effective implementation is achieved. That implementation in the environmental field is the Achilles' heel of Environment Commission policy. The Commission must make a determined attempt to cure it.

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee for their magnificent report and I hope that it will have the influence that it deserves.

3.37 p.m.

Lord McNair

My Lords, I should like to thank our Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his skilful piloting of our deliberations during the course of this inquiry. Never having previously been a member of such a committee I was a little doubtful that I would have anything to contribute. However, his relaxed but businesslike approach encouraged me to raise a point about which I feel very strongly. I am pleased to say that on page 33 of the report there is a reference to "Novel Techniques for Sludge Disposal".

Any business—and the water industry does now consist of businesses—makes a profit by adding a value to something that it purchases or otherwise acquires. Sewage has been regarded as a problem that must be "got rid of". It is so much better to regard it as a challenge of resource creation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, would have been intrigued to have been at a meeting yesterday at which we were told that Simon Engineering, at its Horsham treatment works, using the Simon-N-Viro composting process, has been able to sell its finished product as a combined lime and fertiliser to local farmers. I understand that five of the water plcs are installing new treatment plants incorporating that process.

During our discussion several members were keen that some financial assistance should be made available by the European Commission to stimulate and encourage the development of various new ideas. I still think that that is both important and necessary.

On page 155 of the evidence the Commission stated that in its view, the reuse and recycling of useful substances … should be encouraged". Some of the new ideas may not yet be at a sufficient stage of development to be sold in the market place and it would be unfortunate if only one of those approaches were fully evaluated. I hope that the Commission will back its words with some practical help.

Having said that, in this country we have the advantage in that several European countries have already had to develop advanced treatment processes and some German incineration plants are being installed in this country. However, incineration reduces but does not resolve several problems which occur in treating sewage sludge. If we approach the problem from the point of view of resource creation, we may find—I hope we shall—that not only have we improved the environment on land, in the air and in our rivers and estuaries but also possibly that the value of products thus created will slow the rise in our water charges.

I should like to make one further point. Under the waste water treatment directive the Government are charged with designating sensitive areas the criteria for which do not have to be set down until 1993. As treatment will only be carried out in designated areas the definition of such areas is a matter of considerable interest and importance. I hope that the Government were not among those who objected to the inclusion of all important areas of nature conservation as "sensitive areas" and to the qualification of only 1,000 people for phosphate stripping and other sewage treatment for discharge to fresh water and estuaries.

Finally, can the Minister tell me how many treatment works, together with the percentage of the population they serve, fall below the criteria for the size of treatment works?

3.42 p.m.

Lord Bridges

My Lords, speaking as a member of the sub-committee responsible for this report, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nathan for his guidance of our discussions and for the admirable presentation of the report to the House this afternoon. Having said that, I feel that the House deserves an apology in that the Select Committee has inflicted on your Lordships a long and very closely argued report on a subject which is not of immediate allure. However, there are strong reasons to believe that it is a subject of great importance. I want briefly to explain some of my reasons for believing that.

The first is the importance of the condition of the aquatic environment into which the waste waters are discharged. After all, we drink water taken from the rivers; fish is still a very important part of our diet; and we bathe in the sea, which in itself is a key regulator and perhaps the key regulator of the world's climate.

A second consideration, which has already been mentioned, is the enormous size of the investment required under both this directive and other EC directives and because of commitments made in this country at the time of privatisation of the water industry. In paragraph 186 of the report there is a calculation which shows that that investment is well over £20 billion. As has already been mentioned—I underline the point as I believe it to be important—those who use water may have to pay a 25 per cent. increase in their charges in order to pay for those essential improvements.

So for those reasons and no doubt others, it seemed very desirable to members of the sub-committee to produce a thorough report. We tried to produce not just a comment on one or two points in the directive but a basic reference document for future use. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, refer to the 1912 report of the Royal Commission. I believe that our report is perhaps the most thorough document that has been prepared for parliamentary use since that time.

Before commenting on some aspects of the report I should like to emphasise one specific matter which has not been spoken to so far. The directive has already been approved by the Council of Ministers and is now in force. Therefore the improvements that we suggest could not, as is customarily the case, be made at a meeting of the Council of Ministers before its adoption. Instead, we hope that changes to the directive can be introduced at a later stage as a result of experience.

That does not seem to be an ideal situation. Clearly as a general rule it is better for reports submitted to the House to be available in time for the Government and others to consider before the text of a directive or regulation is finally approved. Unfortunately, that did not prove possible in the present case and the sub-committee was faced with an awkward decision: whether to hurry forward the inquiry to a conclusion in time before the council met—and there was some uncertainty about when the council would meet and which meeting would prove conclusive—or whether to press forward the inquiry in a more deliberate and considered way so that we should have a more thorough and definite opinion to offer to the House. The sub-committee chose the second alternative and I believe that there were strong reasons for doing so.

However, the point is of wider interest since similar problems are likely to occur in the future with the acceleration in the tempo of Community business, which we have already noticed as a consequence of the Single European Act. It may become even more marked after the inter-governmental conferences have agreed to further changes to the European treaties.

I should like briefly to call attention to a few issues in the report which seem to me to be of special importance. The first is the directive's reliance on uniform limit values rather than on the condition of the receiving waters. The Commission is rightly determined to improve to an acceptable level the condition of Europe's rivers, estuaries and the waters around our shores. I believe that it would not be too difficult to define in scientific terms what that standard should be. But the nature of the waters varies widely, from the turbulent seas of the North Atlantic and the North Sea to the less tidal, more enclosed waters of the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean. Instead of specifying different effluent limits for those quite different conditions so as to achieve a common result, the Co emission preferred to adopt uniform waste water standards for all. That may be easier to enforce and to present as an even-handed solution, but it must also mean that if satisfactory standards are to be reached for the more enclosed seas, discharges to the more open and disturbed seas will be specified to a more exacting standard than is often necessary.

That is the position in the directive and the consequences, I expect, will prove to be expensive, although the discretion available to the Government to classify waters as less sensitive areas may perhaps mitigate the cost. Nevertheless it looks to me as though that approach is open to that basic criticism and that by adopting equality of treatment for all, applied in the manner that I have described, we shall end up with overshoot. It is perhaps not for the first time that the application of the principle of equality has produced that result.

A second difficulty with the directive, which has not been mentioned, is that it does not deal with the problem of storm waters. As is explained in the report, the effect of heavy rain is to cause large volumes of untreated sewage to be discharged into the sea or rivers. In many cases the systems are not designed to cope with such sudden increases in load. That is the situation in much of this country and there is reason to think that the situation elsewhere in the Community is no different. If we want to make a major and permanent improvement in the problem of waste water effluent, the whole question of storm waters needs to be addressed. The present directive does not do so.

The third issue that I should like to raise concerns the cut-off points below which no controls or limits are required by the directive. Two separate limits apply: one for smaller treatment works, the other for industrial discharges. For smaller treatment works—and these deal with relatively small communities—the limit below which controls do not apply is set at a capacity measured in population terms of 10,000 population equivalent. The sub-committee thought that that was an uncomfortably large exemption since local conditions vary considerably. Some smaller works will definitely require modification if we are to tackle the question of eutrophication in fresh waters.

The second limit concerns direct discharges by industries which are exempt from control—that is, plants with below 4,000 population equivalent. But we have reason to believe that discharges from particular industrial sources can be a significant cause of pollution. The sub-committee took the view that all industrial discharges should be subject to control regardless of size.

Finally, I should like to draw attention to Article 17 of the directive which requires all member states to draw up a programme for the implementation of the directive by the end of 1993. That will clearly be a most important task and the document will need to specify on a national basis the investments made and planned and the progress recorded to date. I hope that the Government, in fulfilment of those obligations, will prepare a thorough document. The subject is of real importance to the citizens of this country and to all concerned with the wider objectives of Community environmental policy.

3.51 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I certainly echo the final words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. With my noble friend Lord Nugent I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee on producing a report which, while it may be long and detailed, is nonetheless remarkably clear and will be a valuable source of reference for some years to come.

I should like to pick up two topics that have been touched upon by previous speakers today. The first is the requirement to remove phosphates and/or nitrates from effluent affecting "sensitive" areas, as defined in the directive, from works serving more than 10,000 population equivalent. That has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

Enrichment by dissolved nutrients is a major pollution problem in the inland waters of England. The process, which is generally known as eutrophication—the term is defined in Article 2 of the directive on page 60 of the report—is well described in the report and in the evidence that was provided by witnesses. Nitrates are an essential component in the mix but it is generally the concentration of dissolved phosphate that is the limiting factor. Sewage effluent is the main source of phosphate.

Among the well known casualties to eutrophication in England are the Broads, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. Within living memory clear waters and rich and beautiful communities of water lilies and other water plants have given way to clouded and murky river channels and to barren open broads. Too late was the culprit, phosphate, identified and steps taken to treat or divert inputs from sewage treatment works. It is part of the environment policy of the Broads Authority, of which I am a member, to strive to restore water quality and to regain the former plant communities that decorated the Broads in the past. The Broads Authority, Anglian Water plc, of which I am a non-executive director, and the National Rivers Authority are working together on research to find the right procedures.

Unfortunately, phosphate has accumulated in the sediments and, despite phosphate stripping from current sewage treatment work effluents, algal blooms continue. Other measures taken have included pumping out of sediments, isolation of selected broads from the main waters of the system and manipulation of fish populations. Some of those measures are also hugely expensive and themselves have environmental repercussions. In this instance it seems clear enough to me that prevention of pollution would be more effective and, in the long term, probably less expensive than all those difficult attempts to restore the collapsed ecosystem of the Broads. For those reasons I believe that the measures for nutrient reduction from sewage treatment plant effluents, in particular phosphate reduction, in the directive must be welcomed.

In the report noble Lords will see the preliminary views of the Nature Conservancy Council on the numbers of "sensitive waters" as defined in the directive. English Nature, its successor—of which I am chairman—in September submitted to the Department of the Environment a list of 112 inland waters and six coastal estuarine waters that meet the definition of sensitive. Those are all SSSIs or in some cases prospective SSSIs. They include some famous locations such as Derwent Water, Esthwaite Water, Windermere and Ullswater in the Lake District, and Rostherne Mere and Tatton Mere in Cheshire—those marvellous, mysterious water bodies in North-West England. All those that I have mentioned are affected by effluent from sewage treatment works.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, noted, and as the committee in its report on page 137 notes, it is a serious failing of the directive that the size limit set for sewage works where phosphate stripping should be installed would not protect those waters. English Nature has estimated that none of those inland SSSI waters on its list of 112 is affected by sewage works serving more than 10,000 people or 10,000 population equivalent. The potential benefit of this directive for nature conservation is therefore removed. Fortunately, action has already been taken. For instance, Anglian Water and North-West Water are operating phosphate stripping at relevant works that affect the Broads, Esthwaite Water and Windermere. But the situation needs to be watched very carefully indeed.

Where does the phosphate come from? At least 50 per cent. of the phosphate content of sewage effluent comes from human wastes. It is ultimately the output from what we eat. It cannot reasonably be reduced. But a large residual proportion comes from detergents which contain phosphate. There has been and will continue to be much concern about that input. In other countries in areas of sensitive waters such as the North American Great Lakes Basin phosphatic detergents are not used. In the European Community much research has been conducted especially in Germany. There are obviously fears about adverse impacts of substitutes for phosphates, but I believe that all options must be evaluated. I hope that the Minister will be able to state the Government's position on the possibility of reduction of phosphate loading to the waste water stream by alternative detergent formulations.

Meanwhile, for the protection of our sensitive lake, river and estuary SSSIs we shall depend upon the statutory water quality objectives that are to be set by the Government shortly. I very much look forward to the careful matching of the water quality objectives with SSSI management needs. Where eutrophication has already damaged the aquatic ecosystem, there should also be an accompanying commitment to the restoration of those important natural waters.

The second topic about which I wish to speak briefly is the effect of this directive in bringing about a requirement to treat sewage discharges from works that are serving more than 2,000 population equivalent to minimum standards, in particular, of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids, unless they are discharging, as we have heard already, to defined "less sensitive" areas. With some latitude which will be based on the designation of these less sensitive areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, emphasised, implementation of this directive will inevitably increase the quantity of sewage sludge that is required to be disposed of. That increase will arise from, first, the requirement to provide treatment where it does not exist at present, and, secondly, the requirement to improve existing treatment.

Estimates provided to me by Anglian Water match those given to the committee. If I take the committee's figure for the current annual arising of 1.2 million tonnes of dry matter of sewage sludge, some 25 to 30 per cent. will be added; that is, an additional 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes per annum. I have not had the opportunity to apply to anyone to check my mathematics but if I am right, and if the sewage sludge at its normal concentration is approximately 95 to 97 per cent. liquid, about 30 million cubic metres of sludge must be dealt with per annum. The crux of the current anxiety has already been brought to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. It is that there is no national strategy for the disposal of this amount of sewage sludge.

By comparison with resources devoted to feeding the nation, the level of cogitation, planning and policy formulation devoted to the inevitable consequences of this food intake is almost derisory. I venture to say that we should be seriously worried about the lack of an integrated national policy on sewage sludge disposal and even more worried about the lack of an integrated EC policy.

A variety of future scenarios exists once the directive is implemented. There is no doubt that marine disposal will end. As was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for some sewage undertakers an important outlet has been cut off. What are the alternatives? I shall deal first with landfill. During a recent visit to Germany I was intrigued to find that some municipal waste disposal sites take between 25 and 35 per cent. of sewage sludge. But the bulk use of landfill for such a purpose is extravagant when we are concerned with an increasingly scarce and expensive resource represented by landfill void.

There may be other non-agricultural uses; for instance, land reclamation has been mentioned and forestry uses may be available. We may look forward to sewage sludge used as a composting agent with other organic wastes such as straw or sawdust. However, the main options open in the future are, first, increased agricultural use and, secondly, incineration. Agricultural use is a re-use in terms of Article 14 of the directive and therefore is favoured. It has its problems, however; there are restrictions on the timing and the rate of disposal for land and inevitable local anxiety about nuisance, traffic, smells and hygiene. I venture to suggest that consultation with almost any rural parish council will produce a loud, "No", if it is offered sewage sludge for its fields.

On the other hand, there is valid anxiety about long-term uncertainty in respect of accumulations of non-degradable contaminants, in particular the heavy metals mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. There must also be considered the new restrictions in respect of nitrate sensitive zones. However, there are many favourable features. The use of sewage sludge on land reduces the need for artificial fertilizer, the manufacture of which has high energy demands. To that extent it reduces the overall energy demand of the nation. Secondly, it is good for soil structure and for sustainability in ecological terms of the agricultural environment.

In general, incinerators are unpopular wherever they are placed. The incineration process is expensive and requires dewatering to some extent. For instance, in the Severn-Trent area I visited an elaborate sewage sludge press which produces an almost solid although still wet cake which burns of its own accord. Therefore, the process is not necessarily wasteful of energy In terms of additional fuel, although some boost may be needed for start up. However, incineration contributes to aerial pollution, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded the House. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is directly released into the atmosphere with no beneficial intermediate use.

The future agenda for Sub-Committee F would appear likely to include the European Community proposed directives on landfill and incineration. No doubt sewage sludge will fall into both categories. At present sewage sludge when incinerated is classified as a hazardous waste which creates a wrong impression. If sewage sludge is to be incinerated for operational reasons it should be treated as a matter of simple disposal. Any available energy that exists should be recovered. There is no need to classify sewage sludge as a hazardous waste; that merely creates a complication.

Above all, given the European Community interest and these future directives hovering on the horizon, I urge the Minister to take the lead during the forthcoming presidency to create a co-ordinated European Community policy for the management of what may be a distasteful matter but which nonetheless is an inevitable waste.

4.6 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, during the past two days I have observed worried frowns on the faces of some of my colleagues on the Environmental Sub-Committee. I judged them to be wrestling with the problem of how to make a stimulating speech on sewage and sludge to your Lordships.

When I joined your Lordships' House I little thought that I should be plunged so soon into the problem of sewage. When I introduced a debate on peat I tried to persuade some of my sceptical gardening friends that sewage sludge mixed with straw might in certain circumstances be a useful alternative. I then found myself as a member of Sub-Committee F, visiting Norfolk and seeing the problems of activated sludge and long-sea outfalls. The study was surprisingly interesting and I have no doubt about the enormous importance of the subject. I am glad that I took part in the study and I express warm thanks to my noble friend Lord Nathan, the chairman, to our specialist adviser Mr. Morlais Owens and to our clerk Mr. Ollard. To those three should go the credit for the excellence of the report. I am sorry that my time as a member has expired and that I must leave the sub-committee on which I have enjoyed being a member under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nathan and his predecessor the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.

I share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Bridges about the unfortunate timing of the report in relation to the adoption of the directive. It was adopted in March whereas our report was not available until June. The point made by my noble friend Lord Bridges is important. I hope that the Select Committee on the European Communities may be able to work with the Government and the Commission to try to ensure that when such a major study is undertaken the results are available to the Government, to the Commission and to other member states before final decisions are taken. I am sure that our recommendations were right, for example, about the use of environmental quality objectives rather than limit values; about sensitive areas mentioned in paragraphs 140 and 141; and about the need to include all discharges, not only large ones, as mentioned in paragraph 45. All those recommendations should have been taken into account before the directive went to press.

I agree with almost everything contained in the report. There is no doubt that there is a public demand in this country and increasingly throughout Europe as a whole for cleaner rivers, beaches, estuaries and coastal waters. There is a new realisation of the importance of the problem of eutrophication because people have observed in the third dry summer which we have had in succession problems of blanket weed and algal blooms in rivers as well as lakes. We now know too about the quite serious problem of blue green algae, mostly in still waters.

We have tended to neglect the whole problem in the past. Tables three and four on page 10 of the report show that a quarter of discharges to estuaries and 42 per cent. of coastal discharges at present receive no treatment at all in this country. However, as your Lordships know, we are undertaking a substantial programme to remedy past neglect and in the next 10 years, quite apart from this directive, we shall be spending three times the past level of annual expenditure to improve water quality. That was certainly badly needed.

I regret only that some of the plcs are not devoting themselves exclusively to that problem. In Wales, where I live, Welsh Water, which is a private monopoly, has invested in electricity companies, hotels and stretches of fishing. It would be more sensible, in my judgment, for it to concentrate on the enormous problems covered in our report.

I have one or two specific points to raise on the report. I have given the noble Baroness notice of those points which concern the Government but I am afraid that it was rather short notice.

I believe that the directive demonstrates once again the absence of an integrated approach to pollution in the Community. That applies not only to this directive but to many others. It seems to me to be very important that this issue, which is being addressed by our Government, should be addressed also by the Community.

Secondly, we should apply more stringent standards than those defined in the directive where we judge it to be necessary to protect the environment. I hope that there will be an assurance from the Minister today that we shall do so.

Thirdly, as other noble Lords have said, the costs of the implementation of the directive will be enormous and in some instances may result in little real environmental improvement. I should like the Minister to give an assurance on behalf of the Government that that will not be allowed to detract from the level of expenditure at present targeted at real environmental problems.

The directive's effluent standards are not at present expressed in such a way as to safeguard the environment and provide a basis for enforcement. Again, I ask the Minister whether future consents will incorporate both the consent conditions under the directive and standards which are suitable for enforcement and regulatory purposes.

We have already spoken to some extent about the question of sensitive areas. That is clearly of great importance. I should like to ask the Minister whether future United Kingdom policy will seek to avoid producing new sensitive areas wherever possible. Clearly that has implications, for example, for barrage developments, some of which have already been considered in your Lordships' House.

There is one point on the directive on which I seek clarification. Annex II, paragraph A(a) (i), appears to allow for no nutrient removal where, it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication". I ask the Minister whether that is the correct interpretation of that phrase.

We have spoken already about stormwaters. In our report at paragraph 163 we suggested that there should be another directive on that. However, if so, it would be important that the Commission should not again go down the road of fixed emission standards regardless of the real need of receiving waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, so eloquently explained to us.

The whole question of the authorisation of trade discharges is of the first importance. I hope that the National Rivers Authority can be given an increased role in reviewing and agreeing trade effluent consents issued by sewage undertakers. I am told that the present arrangements are not satisfactory.

Paragraphs 179 to 181 of the report set out the need for the proper phasing of reviews of investment programmes. There is, I think, a need for the formal review period for statutory quality objectives to be phased in with all the other reviews in order to arrive at a single co-ordinated investment programme. I ask the Minister whether that will be done.

I believe that some of your Lordships may have received, as I have, a letter from the Association of Consulting Engineers which gave evidence to the committee. One point made in that letter seems to me very important. It states: It should be an objective of Government policy that there be British industrial representatives on the regulatory committee set up to advise the Commission on waste water treatment". That is a very important point because there is a real need for technical expertise on the Committee of Adaptation. We have a great deal of expertise in this country and it is important that that should be properly deployed by the Commission. It is also important on committees which draft directives; for example, I believe that the UK member of the committee which drafted this directive had no experience of sewage treatment works. The Government should address that matter.

Having said that, although it came rather late I believe that this is a useful report. I hope that it will be possible to adapt the directive in future to take account of what we said.

4.19 p.m.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, as a member of the committee I too am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words in support of some of our recommendations. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, understandably we tend to view sewage as an unattractive problem of disposal—a process in which we are all inextricably involved but about which we would rather not talk. Once the committee started an in-depth investigation it soon became apparent that sewage could be seen as a potential resource rather than a waste. If we start from that premise I believe we will look more favourably at a number of new, imaginative techniques and processes for dealing with sewage in a more environmentally acceptable way.

This new directive should not be seen as presenting just more costs but as presenting opportunities—opportunities which may force us to look at making more efficient use of this potential resource in two main ways. The first is that new treatment requirements for many coastal sewage effluent discharges may mean that for the first time some of that effluent could be effectively re-used and recycled. For in stance, it can be piped upstream for re-abstraction again or perhaps with additional treatment be used for artificially recharging under-ground aquifers.

In Kent many of the major centres of population are sited on the coast—towns such as Margate, Ramsgate, Dover and Folkestone. Their sewage effluent goes straight out to sea. Compare that with the many towns and villages along the length of the River Thames, where one town discharges into the river, only for that effluent to be re-abstracted and re-used further downstream. The result is that only about 18 per cent. of the effective rainfall in the Southern Water Company region (which includes much of Kent) is licensed for abstraction, whereas in the Thames region about 55 per cent. of effective rainfall is licensed. That is enabled by a high degree of recycling along its entire length. Now that many coastal discharges will have to be treated as a result of the directive we should see this opportunity for recycling effluent as one way in which we can help to meet the, ever-rising demand for water and in the process make much better use of our existing water resources. It would help also to maintain rivers and water courses, many of which increasingly suffer from low flows or over-abstraction. Many are rapidly being impoverished by the loss of wildlife habitats and landscape features.

That is the first opportunity. The second relates to sewage sludge. Incinerating sewage sludge seems to me to be wasting a product which could often be used more usefully. Given that incineration costs are high, and the fact that it produces toxic ash for landfill disposal, its use, in my view, should be limited and more effort should be put into looking at environmentally beneficial solutions. That was a point made forcibly by my noble friend Lord Nugent.

As we recommended in our committee report, we believe that substantial resources should be devoted to developing novel techniques for sewage sludge recycling. The problem often raised is that of heavy metal contamination. Again that was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Cranbrook. That problem, however, should not be an excuse for not going forward with environmentally sound solutions; it is an obstacle which must be overcome if we are not to waste a valuable resource. That may involve changes in the ways in which industrial effluents enter the sewerage system if sludge disposal to agricultural and horticultural uses is not to be prevented.

In view of the recent trend of hot summers in this country, maybe we should give serious consideration to the re-use of the liquid effluent stream for irrigation purposes. In the US it is common practice. Often two pipelines are laid in parallel—one for drinking water, the other for non-drinking water.

As a committee we were impressed by some of the new techniques coming forward, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. Five water companies—Anglian, Severn Trent, South West, Southern and Thames—have chosen the Simon-N-Viro process for dealing with sewage. Others such as Wessex have chosen a sludge-drying and pelletisation process. By producing effective peat alternatives or soil conditioners it kills two birds with one stone by dealing with sludge and by helping to prevent the continued destruction of peatlands. That is clearly a process favoured by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. All those processes appear to be highly cost-effective. Since the directive rules out sea dumping of sewage sludge, and because additional new treatment works will produce yet more sludge, there seems to be enormous scope for utilising them.

The US has already set the scene. There are over 20 N-Viro plants in operation there. But it is also true to say that a number of states in the US have classified N-Viro soil as a non-sludge product, allowing its wider application to the land. That re-classification is made possible by the acceptance of a standard leachate test, similar to the US Environmental Protection Agency's toxicity test, which sets limits for heavy metal concentration in leachates. As an example, it is interesting to note that in order to prevent soil erosion a strengthened form of N-Viro soil has been used on the steep banks of the River Delaware. This demonstrates the American confidence in the product and that the fear of heavy metal contamination in this drinking water river can be eliminated. The solution in the UK, therefore, must be to prevent heavy metal contamination of sewage sludge in the first place or to prevent heavy metals in sludge from becoming soluble. Though the current trials have not yet been completed, it appears that the Simon N-Viro process virtually achieves that objective.

Thus incineration is not the only solution to sludge disposal. There are already a number of innovations available that allow us to benefit from the re-use of this valuable resource. The US experience has shown that over the past five years numerous applications in agriculture, landfill cover and land reclamation have been used. However, its wider application would be greatly assisted in EC legislation by the adoption of a standard leachate test and I believe that that should remain a high priority on the political agenda.

4.26 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I share the admiration and gratitude widely expressed for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues on the committee. It is clearly an extremely valuable report, and no less valuable because it took me some time to understand from the title what it was about. I am notorious, I am told, among those who treat the proceedings of this House with some levity for having first used the phrase "dog shit" in the House. Mutatis mutandis, that is what the report is about. When I realised that it was not about municipal waste water treatment it made a good deal more sense to me. I was then able to read it with more understanding and gratitude.

I have no doubt about the locus of the European Commission in the matter. To say that is not in any sense to suggest, as did the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that we are accusing Britain of being the "dirty man" of Europe. It is valuable for the European Community to set standards for environmental quality in this as in many other matters. That does not mean that Britain is necessarily worse; it means that many parts of Europe have defective environmental quality standards in many respects and it requires a concerted effort on the part of the European Community to put those matters right, as those of us who travel in Europe know to our cost and from our experience.

I am unnerved by the revelation of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the directive is already in force, and indeed was already in force before the committee's report was published. That raises questions in regard to the timescale allowed to the European Communities Committee for the matters it chooses to consider, and perhaps that is something the committee may wish to look at further. I suggest that it also raises questions for the usual channels; that the debate should have taken place in May when the committee's report was first published, and not now, in October. In those two respects it appears to be a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I am sure that the fundamental thrust of the committee's report is correct. The committee is saying that the true test of environmental quality should not be the process of achieving environmental quality but the product, the result. In my own trade of market research I have carried on a long and unavailing battle with the powers-that-be regarding the quality of interviewing work. The Market Research Society, of which I had the honour to be chairman many years ago, believes that you can guarantee the quality of interviewing work in surveys by ensuring that you have good training; that you follow up a certain proportion of the interviews carried out and that interviewers are accompanied on their training sessions and so forth. In other words, it is looking at the process.

What I am concerned about, and what I believe all of us should also be concerned about, is the product and the quality of the work completed. In the directive the EC does not seem to be paying attention to that. I am certainly not qualified to make any judgment about the very profound scientific matters referred to in the report. As a layman, it seems to me that the case has been made out for the environmental quality objective, as opposed to the uniform limit which is proposed by the EC in its directive. I feel sure that the years to come will show that there has to be continuing improvement and variation in the uniform limits set down if the directive is going to have the desired effect of improving environmental quality.

A number of factors affect the environmental quality of ordinary rivers in this country. Some of them will be the responsibilities of local authorities; some will be the responsibilities of the privatised sewage undertakings and some of the industrial undertakings in the private sector. Some will be the responsibilities of agriculture. We are concerned to get clean rivers. In seeking that objective we should be looking at the reasons why we do not have them. We should assign the blame and decide what has to be done in order to reach a predetermined standard of cleanliness. Then one has to make sure that when a river is not clean the various people responsible pay to put it right. That is the right way, rather than to set uniform limits of effluent from all the different sources which may or may not ultimately add up to a clean river. That is why I believe that it is clean rivers rather than the process which should be the concern.

But that does not solve the problem raised by the classic phrase "the polluter pays". In that sense we are all polluters. It is no good for some of the more romantic environmentalists to believe that, by asserting the principle that the polluter pays, somehow the cost of it will go away. If the polluter is each and every one of us, as it is for much of the subject matter of the report, then we shall all have to pay for it. That will be done either through the cost of our water, of the sewerage provision or in the cost of the products that we buy from the businesses which are engaged in polluting activities. There is no way around that. We have to consider the additional cost besides the £28 billion of environmental improvement which is already imposed on the water companies as a result of the Water Act 1989.

I believe that Ian Byatt, the Director General of the Office of Water Services, put the position very clearly in his evidence to the committee. He said, mildly, that we do not want too many Concordes around. We have to consider to what extent we are prepared to pay in the reduction of the rest of our quality of life and standard of living in order to achieve what are perhaps ideal effluent conditions. I agree with what noble Lords have already said; namely, that in considering these matters the EC should look at all the demands that it is making in the light of the ability of ordinary people to pay for the improvements which it declares necessary.

I was puzzled by the word "municipal" in the title of the report. In this country the water companies are no longer municipal. They ceased to be municipal in 1974, but at least they were still in the public sector. However, in the past two years they have become very firmly in the private sector. The onus is strongly on the regulatory bodies for the water and sewerage industries. It is a matter of considerable regret that the objection that we raised two or more years ago on the fragmented nature of the environmental protection as proposed by the Government was not recognised at the time. We now have a very useful Green Paper produced by the Department of the Environment. The Government propose a version of what we proposed some years ago; in other words, the creation of an over-arching environmental protection agency, in whatever form it might finally take. It will be able to take responsibility for the implementation of this and other directives in EC legislation in this country.

However, it must be a matter of regret that the Government have taken so long to come round to our point of view. Although the consultation process is still going on, and should continue to the end of January 1992, there is no prospect of legislation to implement what could easily have been accepted when we were considering the Environmental Protection Bill and the Water Bill some years ago.

As always, it is the public policy issues rather than the scientific ones which concern me. I believe that the former have not been resolved by the way in which this matter has been dealt with. It has not been helpful to have the committee reporting after the decisions had already been taken. I should very much like to hear from the Minister what the Government propose to ensure that the very sensible recommendations of the committee are brought to the attention of the EC in an effective way.

4.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, this has been deemed an unmentionable subject. However, I have to agree with all noble Lords who have spoken, not simply about how important it is but how interesting and challenging is the work of seeking solutions to what was described by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook as inevitable waste.

I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his colleagues on an excellent report. I wish also to pay tribute to the quality of the speeches. Your Lordships invariably bring an expertise and insight to discussion of environmental issues which is without parallel. Today has been no exception. As your Lordships will be aware, the directive, has changed its name to the urban waste water treatment directive. I have no intention of converting that into plainer English, as used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The directive was agreed by environment Ministers on 18th March before your Lordships' report was published.

I appreciate that the task of noble Lords was made difficult by the continuing nature of the negotiations during the scrutiny process. Nevertheless many points made by witnesses were of use to us in the negotiations in Brussels, and, of course, having agreed a text does not mean the job has finished. The directive leaves a number of issues to member states and here, in particular, the report will be invaluable.

I believe that it would be useful to look at the context within which this directive is set. Back in 1988 the EC took the unusual step of calling together environment Ministers in Frankfurt to seek their views on the priorities for water protection measures for the 1990s. Not surprisingly, waste water treatment was at the top of the list. I say "not surprisingly" because, as we all know, some of Europe's major towns and cities are without any form of sewage treatment. Brussels, the so called capital of Europe, is a case in point.

Reducing nutrient inputs was also regarded as a priority by the Ministers. This led to the drafting of the nitrate directive which was debated by this House and was agreed by the Environment Council last June. The Frankfurt meeting also identified the need to bring a bout overall improvements in the ecological quality of the EC waters. A proposal is expected from the Commission shortly. My purpose in explaining all this is to show that there is a continuity running through the latest batch of EC proposals for protecting the aquatic environment.

This point is clearly demonstrated if we look at the criteria for identifying "sensitive areas" in the urban waste water directive and the criteria for designating "vulnerable zones" in the nitrate directive. Although the wording is slightly different the effect is the same. That is to say, if you have to treat the relevant sewage discharges in a particular area to remove nitrate under the urban waste water directive, in most circumstances it will also be necessary to reduce nitrates of agricultural origin under the nitrate directive; and of course the reverse applies. This conformity of approach is very much welcomed as it would be inadequate and inequitable to deal with individual polluting sources in isolation.

We must not forget the background at home. In England and Wales privatisation of the water industry has released enormous resources: £28 billion is being ploughed into improving standards during the 1990s. More than £5.3 billion will be going on sewage treatment alone. Notwithstanding this enormous injection of capital we have also established one of the toughest environmental watchdogs anywhere in Europe. Armed with the Water Act and the Environmental Protection Act our regulators are able to ensure that the water environment is given the level of protection that the public clearly desire. In Scotland also the Control of Pollution Act has been strengthened to provide the same degree of protection for the water environment.

I turn now to some of the more specific issues raised in your Lordships' report and in the debate. There has been considerable discussion over the approach in the directive to controlling sewage discharges which many regard as a uniform emissions approach. In my view the directive has managed to strike the right balance, retaining a degree of flexibility while requiring a minimum level of provision of treatment. Before the first Commission proposal was published the UK Government had already reviewed their policy in this area and decided that all significant sewage discharges to coastal and other waters should be treated. The decision received considerable acclaim. Once it is accepted as the first building block, I believe that many of the directive's requirements follow as a natural consequence.

Improvement of sewage treatment is not a linear process; rather it is incremental, involving a series of step-up improvements as one adds on the equipment necessary to go from primary through secondary to tertiary treatment. I therefore feel that the approach of the directive which allows for the application of the appropriate step or level of treatment according to the sensitivity of the receiving waters is a sensible one.

The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has questioned whether we could incorporate an option to apply environmental quality objectives rather than limit values. In a very real sense that option already exists. The directive sets minimum standards for treatment works which are not dissimilar to the standards proposed by our Royal Commission in 1912. But where our regulatory bodies consider that these standards are insufficient to safeguard the environment they will impose higher standards based on the requirements to meet water quality objectives. The directive thus incorporates both approaches.

There has been some criticism of the way the various limits in the directive have been expressed. We share some of those concerns, particularly about limits expressed as percentage removal. The NRA has just completed a review of the approach adopted in England and Wales. This was subject to wide consultation. On the basis of the review a system of consent setting will be established which will satisfy the requirements of the directive and the needs of our regulators. The directive requires that consents should be set to ensure that the discharge quality does not in normal circumstances pass an absolute threshold. The NRA has recently announced in response to the consultation exercise that it intends to introduce such absolute limits in all sewage consents.

One area where the directive's approach is somewhat new is in the requirement to identify sensitive areas. We are required to examine all the receiving waters for sewage discharges and ascertain whether the waters are suffering from eutrophication or have nitrate levels which interfere with their use as drinking water supplies. A parallel exercise is required by the nitrate directive. So we will be taking both exercises together.

As your Lordships' report states, the definition of eutrophication in the directive is somewhat subjective. In order to carry out the task, we have asked the regulatory authorities to advise us on the symptoms associated with the eutrophication process and to identify those areas which, on the basis of an appraisal of the symptoms, they consider to be eutrophic or close to becoming eutrophic. The identification of eutrophic waters has to be completed in time to enable the sewerage undertakers to draw up investment programmes by the end of 1993. But this is not a one-off classification. Identification of eutrophic waters will be a continuing exercise with full reviews at least every four years. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, expressed concern about this matter. We hope that preventive measures and the nitrate directive mean that it will prove unnecessary in the longer term to designate new sensitive areas.

I welcome the committee's endorsement of the requirement to install phosphate removal equipment at sewage works discharging into eutrophic freshwaters. There is of course need for an integrated strategy and it will be for the regulators to decide whether further action is required such as the dredging out of phosphate-rich sediments. There has been some concern that the directive would require phosphate removal plants to be installed with little or no effect on the eutrophication problem. I am satisfied that the provisions of the directive give us some flexibility in this area and would not force us into such an absurd situation.

On less sensitive areas, the Government have again asked the regulators to draw up criteria for their identification. We are only at the initial stages in this area but I can reassure the House that the identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas will be based on the needs of the environment and will take account of the best scientific and technical information available.

There has been some concern expressed that small works will slip through the control net or will be subject to a less stringent form of treatment. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, was concerned about how many treatment works fall below the level at which treatment work is required. I do not have the figures to hand. They are, however, included in a report of a survey of sewage treatment works undertaken by consultants in environmental sciences. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

The directive makes a distinction between large and smaller works. The emphasis is on controlling those discharges which are likely to be more polluting. The directive specifies precise standards for all discharges to freshwaters from populations of 2,000 or more, and for discharges to coastal waters from populations of 10,000 or more. The directive rightly requires the larger, more polluting discharges to be tackled first. For discharges from smaller communities, no specific form of treatment is prescribed. Rather, it is for member state to identify the appropriate form of treatment within the context of the overall objective of the directive, which is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of waste water discharges. I believe that this is the right approach and will provide the necessary flexibility for dealing with small or remote communities in the very wide range of conditions to be found across the Community. I believe also that we in the UK are extremely well placed to fulfil this requirement. Our control framework, underpinned by water quality objectives, will ensure that any discharge, no matter how small, is adequately controlled and our waters fully protected.

The directive requires certain controls over discharges to sewer. We in the UK have had such controls for a long time. The control over such discharges is a shared responsibility. For England and Wales, for discharges of the really hazardous chemicals—the prescribed substances—control is invested in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. It is able to assess the effects of releases of prescribed substances, including those released as a consequence of discharge to sewer, to the environment as a whole. It is able to impose a system of control which either prevents the release of such substances or minimises their release so as to render them harmless. In Scotland, parallel controls over prescribed processes will be introduced next April. In Northern Ireland discharges to sewer are controlled by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) under the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.

For the other substances discharged to sewer, the sewerage undertakers have control. Generally the discharger pays the undertaker to accept his effluent for treatment as an alternative to providing treatment at the factory site.

It is in the interest of the sewerage undertaker to ensure these are adequately controlled. In addition to these controls the NRA and river purification boards in Scotland ensure that the quality of the discharge from the sewage works meets the prescribed limits. Similar arrangements are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, where a soon to be formed government company will be subject to the consent provisions of the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. A works which received an excess of industrial discharge or unsuitable effluent would not be able to meet these limits. I therefore feel that controls over industrial discharges to sewers are adequate to protect the environment.

But, as your Lordships are aware, we have recently sought views on the setting up of an environment agency for England and Wales which will improve further the co-ordination between HMIP and the NRA. The Secretary of State for Scotland has announced similar proposals and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be considering whether it is necessary to propose any change in the present institutional arrangements for the care of the environment in the Province.

A number of comments have been made concerning the treatment of sewage sludge. The directive does not specifically deal with the matter, but I recognise that it has significant implications for sludge treatment facilities as it will result in a considerable expansion of the amount of sludge produced and it bans sea disposal of sludge. This opens up a major new market opportunity for waste treatment suppliers. I am pleased to report that many businesses are showing interest in this market and bringing forward new ideas. Support for such developments is available through government schemes such as ETIS, and European schemes such as NORSPA.

My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred specifically to hazardous sewage sludge. We are also anxious that clean sewage sludge could be classified as hazardous. The hazardous waste directive sets up a committee to define the term "hazardous". The committee will leave no stone unturned in working to ensure a sensible and workable definition and criteria for that definition. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook was also anxious about after-uses for sewage sludge. Again, it is government policy to encourage sewage sludge recycling wherever possible. We shall promote such a policy within Europe where this proves to be a low hazardous operation.

One encouraging development, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Norrie, is the N-Viro process developed by Simon Engineering. I have had the opportunity to see this for myself at the sewage treatment works at Horsham and I have to say that I came away extremely impressed. Officials in my department have also had extensive discussions with representatives of the firm. As noble Lords will know, the disposal of sewage sludge on agricultural land is controlled by the 1986 EC directive which sets limits on the concentrations of heavy metals. This is given effect in England and Wales through the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 and is enforced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Simon Engineering has argued that this measure is inappropriate for sludge treated by its process, which it claims locks up heavy metals. Simon Engineering has told us that it is carrying out research to demonstrate this. We in turn have encouraged Simon Engineering in this work and have said that if the results demonstrate that its process does not have adverse environmental effects, then we are prepared to raise the matter with the European Commission with a view to amending the directive. We are still awaiting the results of that work. As to the question of a leachate test, we have also informed Simon Engineering of the work being carried out in the context of the draft EC directive on landfill which will set a European-wide leachate test.

Implementation of this directive is a long term task with compliance dates stretching out into the next century. That does not mean we can put our feet up and wait for something to happen. Member states have to establish implementation programmes by the end of 1993. These will be updated every two years and regular reports will be published on the progress achieved. The public will no doubt be watching with keen interest the headway being made in achieving the directive's deadlines. The building of any new sewage works will, of course, be subject to the normal planning controls. I take on board the warnings made by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. It is vital that the planning applications are dealt with as speedily as possible. In considering the applications local authorities and potential objectors need to weigh up the general benefit that will ensue from the building of a sewage works in a particular location versus the local disturbance that will be caused in and around the site. I hope that all involved will carry out their tasks responsibly and that there will be no unnecessary delays to the programme.

As I mentioned earlier there are still a number of important issues to be resolved at member state level. Identification of sensitive areas is one such task; monitoring requirements is another. To help us develop sensible strategies on these problems we have set up an implementation group made up of representatives of the regulators, the water companies and their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland and other interested parties such as the Office of Water Services. The report from your Lordships will be an essential guide to this group. In response to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, we have submitted the list of areas from English Nature to our implementation group for consideration for designation as sensitive areas.

It is also important that the directive be kept under review within the Community. On this the urban waste water directive has provisions for setting up a regulatory committee. This will allow for updating some of the technical aspects of the directive so as to reflect progress in these areas. It will provide a forum for discussion with the Commission and the other member states of some of the problems encountered with implementation. Again, this is to be welcomed as it gets us away from the sterile confrontation with the Commission which has marred and even hindered implementation of directives in the past. I am pleased to inform the House that the first meeting of that regulatory committee has already taken place. At that meeting initial discussions took place as to how the Commission could ensure that all member states would be implementing the directive. We shall be pressing in this committee to ensure that all member states do implement the directive.

Implementation will of course cost a great deal of money. The estimate we provided to the committee was of the order of £2.2 billion over and above the sums already included in investment programmes for improving sewage treatment works and bathing waters. Our estimate was only one of several which were spread over a wide range. Precise estimates cannot be made until the work on identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas and the standards to be applied has been completed. Only then will we know the type of treatment which is required for individual areas.

One thing over which there is no doubt is who will foot the bill, as was addressed quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In this case we are all the polluter and we will have to pay through higher charges for sewerage services. Of course various European structural funds are available for particular areas and we hope the sewerage undertakers will, where appropriate, be making full use of the loan facilities provided by the European Bank.

There will be other calls on sewerage undertakers' resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has pointed out. The Secretary of State will be setting water quality objectives after the necessary extensive consultation. In setting those objectives he will take into account the investment requirements and timetable and the obligations facing the dischargers from this and other directives.

Even though they will have to rise substantially, water charges in the United Kingdom—and it needs to be noted—are and will remain among the lowest in Europe. The Director General of Water Services will ensure that any increase in charges above those already provided for is limited only to that which is necessary to enable the companies to meet their commitments.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised a query with my noble friend Lord Astor about whether the report had been placed before the Council of Ministers. The answer is that it has not been laid before the Council of Ministers.

I believe there is a growing realisation in the public's mind that environmental improvement does not come cheap. In the case of sewage treatment the UK starts from the first line of the grid. Nevertheless there is more to be done to bring our sewerage system up to the standards of the 21st century and beyond. The municipal waste water treatment directive provides us with the vehicle which will get us, and the rest of Europe, to this goal. The formulation and implementation of this directive will be regarded as an achievement worthy of the same praise that we currently give to the Victorian engineers who laid down the foundations of our sewerage system. I am sure that when our grandchildren look back they will thank us for taking that bold step forward. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee, for a valuable report and one which will help us on our way.

5 p.m.

Lord Nathan

My Lords, my first task must be—it is a great pleasure—to thank the Minister for a full and interesting reply. I should not dream of commenting upon the various matters to which she has referred. I would first like to study what she has said. It is not easy to take it all in as she is speaking. It is interesting to note that the Minister said, as we did in our report, that the introduction, as well as the uniform limits, of sensitive and less sensitive areas goes a long way towards the philosophy that we have established in this country of having environmental quality objectives. Of course the minimum standards are high. One has, as she so rightly says, to balance the cost against the environmental benefit. That is the problem with which we are confronted all the time.

One matter to which I shall pay particular attention when I read the Minister's remarks is whether the scientific basis upon which sensitive and less sensitive areas are designated will be in the public domain. It gives the public great confidence if they know the basis upon which such a decision is made. It does not involve an enormous amount of work because the scientific inquiry has already had to be made.

Monitoring is important. It is interesting to know about the establishment of the implementation group. Implementation is a perennial problem, especially perhaps in relation to EC legislation and, as your Lordships know, the sub-committee which I chair is presently studying the implementation and enforcement of EC environment legislation. It is a difficult subject. I shall be interested to read what the Minister has told us about monitoring and implementation and the new arrangements with the Commission in Brussels.

It does not fall to me to summarise or repeat the speeches that have been made but I should like to refer to one or two points that were mentioned, perhaps incidentally. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was of particular interest to all of us. He is, I suppose, the authority in your Lordships' House on the subject of water and so what he had to say carried great force, certainly with me. I was interested in his concern with regard to implementation and monitoring in this country and also—a point to which the Minister referred—monitoring in other member states where the matter may not be as well organised as here.

The noble Lord, Lord McNair, is, as he said, a new member of the sub-committee. He is obviously interested in and knowledgeable about recycling. That was a matter to which he paid attention. We were grateful to him for his contribution in that respect which was reflected in his speech. The experience of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was very helpful to us. He mentioned, among other things, the problem of storm waters. That topic troubled us a good deal. It is a matter that does not seem to be adequately dealt with in the directive as it stands. While amendment of the directive, which is now in force, is not easy, I should have thought that with a certain amount of good will the Committee of Adaptation might be mobilised to see whether that matter does not fall within the technical purview of its competence. It would be interesting to see whether appropriate provisions could be incorporated in the directive.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was my predecessor as chairman of the committee, and he has been a member of the committee for many years. It was a shock and a sorrow to us to lose him due to his appointment while he was chairman. It was interesting to hear from him as an expert on phosphates the lists of sensitive areas which he and his organisation are in the process of defining. They will affect not just the effect of the directive but the cost of implementing it.

We are sorry to lose the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He ha s been a member of the committee for the maximum period permitted by your Lordships. I hope that be may return to us in due course. He has made a special contribution not just in relation to Wales but to water and the barrages to which he referred, about which many of us were previously rather ignorant. He referred—this is important and will become increasingly so—to the need to consider in the context of this directive, as in others, integrated pollution control. It is easy to split ourselves into defined sectors and not to look at the environment overall, which, as everyone recognises, is becoming increasingly important.

I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for making a great contribution to the study. He again paid special attention to the recycling of sewage sludge and took a great part in investigating the process to which he referred. I was interested and gratified to find that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt that the report had served a useful purpose. I hope that it has.

That brings me to a point which has been mentioned a number of times: the time at which we reported in relation to the finalisation of the directive. Evidence was first taken by us on 16th October last year. We knew at the time, or thought that we knew, that t Here was a likelihood of the directive being adopted by the Council of Ministers in December 1990; but, nevertheless, conscious of that fact, we decided that it would be worth our while, and I hope worth the while of your Lordships' House, to spend time on the investigation that we undertook. That was became we felt that there were so many great issues involved, not least the enormous expenditures, that it would be of benefit to the House to have the report, notwithstanding that it was presented after the directive had been adopted.

The directive was adopted some three months later than we had anticipated, and our studies had been more or less completed when that happened. The report was published a month or two later. It is a problem with which the Select Committee as a whole and our sub-committee in particular are confronted, and will be increasingly so, as the volume and speed of the adoption of legislation in Brussels increase. One of the difficulties is how any number of sub-committees, working however hard, can produce conscientious and substantial reports on all matters of importance within the time available. That matter will have a broader effect than just on our sub-committee.

I thank noble Lords for participating in the debate and for their kind remarks about the report. I hope that it will be a useful and reliable source of reference for some time for those concerned with these areas. Finally, once again I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and I look forward to studying it when I have the opportunity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.