HL Deb 03 February 1992 vol 535 cc5-7

2.48 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:

How much they estimate it will cost to give effect within the United Kingdom to the European Community regulation due to come into force in 1993 that lavatories should have a maximum flushing capacity of 1.6 gallons; and what proportion of the cost incurred they propose to pay or re-imburse from public funds.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I am not aware of any European Community legislation of the kind the noble Lord describes. However, water by-laws in England, Scotland and Wales and regulations in Northern Ireland already include a requirement for single flush WC cisterns installed in domestic properties to deliver not more than 7.5 litres, which is approximately 1.6 gallons. On 1st January 1993 this requirement will be extended to any WC cistern installed in any property, with only limited exceptions. However, any existing WC cisterns lawfully installed before the by-laws or regulations came into force can continue in use.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am not at all surprised that Her Majesty's Government lack the information that is already available to The Times, with whom I have checked this matter? An article on this subject appeared in The Times on 9th December last. Does he agree that the date of 1st January 1993 has a certain familiarity in relation to the EC itself, in view of the coming into operation of the single market? Will the noble Earl please instruct the representatives of his ministry or of COREPER to make themselves aware of the existence of certain EC regulations which, as the noble Earl knows, come into operation automatically as part of English law automatically under the European Communities Act 1972?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am aware of the newspaper article to which he referred. It is erroneous in so far as it refers to a current EC regulation. There is no current EC regulation; nor is such a regulation immediately in prospect. Any future EC standard governing the capacity of a cistern will almost certainly need to be linked to a corresponding standard for the design of the WC pan. The Government will do all they can to ensure that standards set do not conflict with present UK practice as defined under the by-laws.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, for those who have not yet touched base on this particular matter, following his interesting original Answer, will my noble friend tell the House what is or will be the legal status of dual flush lavatories?

Earl Howe

My Lords, at present a cistern giving a single flush of 7.5 litres or a dual flush not exceeding 9.5 litres can be installed in a domestic property. In a non-domestic property a cistern giving a single flush of 7.5 litres or 9.5 litres or a dual flush exceeding 9.5 litres can be installed. From 1st January 1993 only cisterns giving a flush of 7.5 litres may be installed, except that where cisterns giving a larger or dual flush are replaced the replacement cistern may be of similar capacity to the original.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, when will this nonsense stop? So far as I am concerned the regulations would not touch the sides. Are the Government aware that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has frequently stated that we should all put a brick into our cisterns in order to save water? Will the Government throw their full resources behind His Royal Highness in the future should some crackpot take him to the European Court?

Earl Howe

My Lords, we must all be in sympathy with the spirit of His Royal Highness's stated opinion. However, to put a brick in the cistern is not always the most efficient way of saving water as it might very well result in having to flush the cistern twice.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is a standard test for the efficiency of a loo flush beyond the normal one which we practice each morning?

Earl Howe

My Lords, the British Standard test for the flushability of WC pans incorporates three elements. The first is the paper ball test under which 12 sheets of soft paper of a type and size specified are loosely screwed up and placed into the pan. They must be cleared four out of five times. The second is the sawdust test whereby a damp WC pan is coated with sawdust. After flushing, the area still covered with sawdust must be no more than 5,000 square millimetres. Thirdly, there is a resin ball test in which a ball of specified relative density must be cleared four times out of five. All three tests must be passed.

Lord Annan

My Lords, this is a gross smear upon M. Delors and the European Community. In questions of bureaucracy the European Community has nothing on this country.

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his opinion. I would simply point out that the draft treaty signed at Maastricht inserts an article on subsidiarity into the Treaty of Rome for the first time. The text is designed to prevent unnecessary new Community activity on policies best left to member states. It is up to us how we give effect to our own regulations.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, would the Minister like to institute a search in the Palace of Westminster? Is he aware that the ladies' lavatories, which he has probably not visited, would not conform to the test?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I cannot personally deal with the problem to which the noble Baroness referred, but I shall bring her remarks to the attention of the appropriate person.

Lord Monson

My Lords, to follow up the noble Earl's reply to my noble friend Lord Annan, does he not agree that the mere prospect of European Community regulations in this matter, even if they are not yet in force, demonstrates that the promises made at Maastricht to the effect that henceforth subsidiarity will apply and there will be an end to petty interference in the internal affairs of member states was a fraudulent promise?

Earl Howe

My Lords, "fraudulent" is a very strong word. The important aspect of the Maastricht treaty is that for the first time an article on subsidiarity has been inserted. That is a very serious matter for all member states.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us are now totally confused about the issue, particularly since it appears that in relation to cistern capacity it is in order for the Duke of Edinburgh to drop a brick? Can he confirm that the flush capacity of 1.6 gallons has been arrived at as a result of proper scientific research? If that is not the right quantity and does not do the job properly, will people not be inclined to flush the toilet twice and thereby waste water instead of conserving it?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. The efficacy of a flush is governed by two principal factors: the volume of water in the cistern and the design of the WC pan. I am pleased to say that in the matter of the syphonic apparatus Britain leads the world.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, in appreciation of the Government's acceptance of full responsibility for this grave national matter may we have the noble Earl's assurance that in pursuit of these sanitary experiences Her Majesty's Government will not go further round the bend?

Earl Howe

Yes, my Lords.