HL Deb 18 May 1995 vol 564 cc684-708

4.33 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to both Motions set down in my name on the Order Paper. The European Communities Committee C, of which I have the honour to be a member, examined the European Council's proposal in 1994 for a directive concerning the quality of bathing water, intended to supersede the current directive which was put in place in 1976.

The purpose of the directive is to ensure satisfactory common standards of health protection for bathers throughout the Community; to contribute to the solution of transboundary problems of water pollution; and to ensure that there is no distortion of competition in the tourist industry. The Commission argues for the replacement of the current directive to take account of scientific advances which may permit a reduction in the parameters to be tested. That is expected to reduce costs to member states while maintaining the level of health protection achieved. The committee considers the objective of the proposal to be admirable. However, it is concerned about its probable effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

The committee now presents two reports for the consideration of the House, dealing with the issues raised. The first—Bathing Water—published in 1994, deals with the directive generally. In that report we deplored the absence of a soundly based cost-effective analysis of the proposal and indicated that the committee would wish to report again to the House when we received Her Majesty's Government's own cost compliance assessment. It reached us in February of this year. Our second report—Bathing Water Revisited—is based on the evidence we subsequently received on the implications of the cost compliance assessment for the UK. Hence we are presenting the two reports together for debate.

I should explain that I am speaking as an inadequate substitute for my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for whose wise guidance we are much indebted; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who was to speak in his place. Unfortunately both are unable to take part in the debate this evening. But I am happy to be supported by three members of the committee and fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, can offer the special expertise needed to deal with the many esoteric, medical and scientific aspects of our report, which I shall find it difficult to do. Thus I shall confine myself largely to the other issues arising from the directive.

Although it is clearly highly desirable that there should be legally binding minimum standards for bathing water throughout the Community, we have found the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Commission's new proposals to be controversial if not doubtful. In formulating those proposals the Commission did not carry out open consultation with the scientific community, which we would regard as essential. Its scientific approach in the new directive is out of date, especially in relation to the analytical methods to be used, and its decision-making therefore is uninformed.

Lack of expert consultation and advice on the scientific issues was unfortunately accompanied by an equal failure to consult member states on cost benefit analysis. It is unacceptable that policy formulation could have reached the stage of formal proposals from the Commission for the revision of the existing directive without including a menu of individually accepted measures. In their response to our first report, HMG agreed the Commission's assertion that compliance with the proposal would not cost significantly more than compliance with the existing directive, which is "seriously flawed". They went on to agree that the Commission's misconception of the consequences of its proposal may have been due in large part to the lack of consultation with member states. The Government considered that the Commission should seek advice now and be prepared to amend the proposal accordingly. The committee is glad to learn that expert advice is now being sought by the Commission.

It is relevant that in order to comply with the requirement of Article 130R, a revised directive should make no charge which would either increase the net public cost of compliance without a proportionate increase in the level of public health protection, or reduce that level. Though there is a well-founded case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on grounds of subsidiarity, in our view it would probably be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of a directive which has been in place since 1976 and is in principle desirable. However, we consider that only microbiological parameters, which are good indicators of public health risks, should have to be monitored within the directive.

A number of complex inter-related issues confront the Government in deciding how to proceed and we shall be glad to hear from the Minister tonight on how it is proposed to confront them. The first is the need for a common approach to legislation on water: the bathing waters directive; the urban waste water treatment directive; and a directive on drinking water that is due for revision. All of these have important health implications for the public. They also have very large cost implications on which the committee took extensive evidence from the water companies, the Government and interested agencies in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom alone, the full proposals of the Commission for bathing water would entail significant capital expenditure of the order of £1.6 billion and £4.2 billion in addition to that required to comply in full with the existing Bathing Water Directive 1976 and the urban waste water directive. That amounts to about £9.5 billion over the next 10 years. Those figures do not take account of what may be required for drinking water.

These costs are very significant. They might be justified if they demonstrably brought gains in public health greater than those that could be achieved at smaller cost through other actions. They demonstrate that the responsible Commission directorate, DGXI, in formulating proposals and claiming cost neutrality, has not carried out adequate research and consultation with member states, or that it has understood the microbiology and engineering involved in sewage treatment.

The committee recognises that there are important political implications in the proposals. The need for the best possible measures to protect the health of the public must be balanced against the cost, which will fall largely upon the consumer. The committee also recognises that the bathing water directive can, with advantage, be updated in the light of modern scientific knowledge and methodologies. However, we consider the following points to be essential. First, the proposal must be viewed as part of the whole future strategy of water. Secondly, the importance of timing must be recognised. All of the engineering work should be integrated so that the water companies can operate from a stable base in planning and investing if the risk of unnecessary and wasteful expenditure is to be avoided. Thirdly, the Government must at once ensure that the Council and Commission get on with the necessary further consultation and make possible the adoption of a strategic approach to improve the quality of urban waste water and bathing water and take account of economic, public health and environmental issues, though in practice it may not be possible to include drinking water if that means significantly more delay. Not least, it is for national parliaments and the European Parliament to ensure that the data on costs and health risks are publicly available and debated. The Government can make a valuable and early contribution.

One of the biggest problems encountered by the committee was the lack of transparency that appeared to be a feature of the operations of the Council and Commission. For instance, Council negotiations normally lack openness on the scientific basis for directives that have been formulated. We have also found that the Government have been unable to answer our questions on the cost of compliance with existing directives by other states. They have sought that information but it has proved difficult to obtain. Fortunately, we understand that an early opportunity to start strategic thinking will be provided by a European Parliament seminar to be held in June of this year to look at water legislation in the round. The committee hopes to be represented at that seminar.

We strongly recommend that no detailed planning for the proposed bathing water directive takes place until a strategic overview has been carried out. We hope that this will be done without undue delay and agreed, but, as the Government have said, decisions need to be taken in the light of comparable information on health and cost implications from a representative number of member states. The Government have also said in their response to the Second Report that the future heavy investment under the urban waste water directive reinforces the need to ensure that a revised bathing water directive forms part of a coherent Community policy, and that the investment implications are properly understood. In the committee's view, that makes it all the more essential for the public to be fully consulted and informed.

Other members of the committee will address other important aspects of the two reports. It only remains for me to thank on behalf of the committee the two admirable specialist advisers: Professor David Kay (whose qualities have also led the Commission to seek his views) and Dr. Gareth Rees. I also wish to thank all those who gave evidence before the committee, not least Ministers and civil servants. Most of all, we thank our splendid clerk, John Goddard. As always, he has guided us with both patience and wisdom. We are pleased that the Government have responded constructively to many of our representations. We look forward to action from them. We welcome in the Minister one who should, as a former member of the committee, understand our concerns and thought processes particularly well. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Bathing Water (First Report, HL Paper 6).—(Baroness Park of Monmouth.)

4.45 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for the admirable and concise way in which she introduced the debate. I intend to highlight some elements of the report and suggest possible action. Before doing so, I should declare a vested interest. I take great delight in swimming in the sea and in lakes and rivers throughout the United Kingdom. At some point or other I have swum in almost every coastal water around the British Isles. I also have children who swim.

Having read the reports and considered the subject in the past, I sometimes wonder how many of those involved in the drawing up of such reports are themselves swimmers who take delight in swimming in our bathing waters. I suspect that there are very few, given some of the things that can be read in these reports.

The matters to which I speak are referred to in the Bathing Water Revisited Report, which also includes a summary of the original report. The first matter I wish to highlight arises at the bottom of page 7: Mr. Byatt said he had not looked at the possible consequences for the local economy if bathing waters were not improved. He did not appear to consider these factors relevant to his considerations of the interests of water charge payers in his period reviews of price limits". I suggest that that encapsulates one of the problems of the current regulatory regime of public utilities. The regulator has to work within a framework that is set effectively by the Government. Matters have to be examined within that framework. In the real world, if we think of ourselves as politicians we have to consider far wider implications than just the precise matters that the regulator is empowered to consider. That creates a real problem in trying to deal with the actions of public utilities.

Paragraph 4 on page 14 of the report states: In most British bathing waters, including those complying with the present directive, bathing brings a higher risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms than the public meet in normal daily life". I had always thought that swimming, particularly in the sea, was a healthy activity, not something that increased the risk of gastro-intestinal symptoms.

Paragraph 5 says, there is increased risk of gastro-intestinal illness where the concentration of streptococci, measured at chest depth, exceeds about 40/100 ml.". If one thinks that the Commission directive talked in terms of 400 per 100 millilitres, one can see that in practice there is a factor of 10 difference between the two figures. That suggests to me that the European directive is not very relevant to the prevention of problems that we seek to achieve.

Paragraph 7 of Appendix 3 states: For children the risks from persistent diarrhoea are likely to be of greater significance". I have children and I believe that we have a responsibility as a Parliament not just to think in terms of adults but to think in terms of the special risks that children run.

I shall not quote all the evidence in the report but the evidence from Surfers Against Sewage is quite interesting. It made the point that people can now spend far longer in the water because of the cheapness and availability of wetsuits. As a child I used to spend hours in the water. We may think of today's children being less hardy than we were as children but I am sure there are occasions nowadays when children spend hours playing in the water.

We must also take into account the fact that people go bathing all the year round and not just at particular times of the year. I was shocked to hear that the sampling is carried out only at particular times of the bathing season. Because the sampling is not done outside that season the water companies feel they have carte blanche to shovel almost anything into the water. That is a sad reflection on the water companies in terms of the responsibilities they should have but apparently do not have.

I have highlighted a number of areas in the report which I consider to be of concern. I should like now to talk about suggested actions. I am glad to echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that we need a rigorous scientific basis for the consideration of action. We are gradually getting there but we have not got there yet. We need to engage in more scientific research, monitoring and analysis of the results. From that, it is to be hoped, we can determine what are sensible limits.

I mentioned the discrepancy between the limit of risk of 40 per 100 millilitres and the directive figure of 400. We need to set sensible limits that will prevent risks to health. It is not acceptable to say that we can accept a certain degree of risk to health. We need to recognise that when people go swimming they are entitled to think of that as being a healthy activity and not something that subjects them to increased risk.

In this context it may be that we need to start driving the European Union rather than appear to be driven by it. Perhaps, in Britain, we should set sensible limits that will protect our swimmers and bathers from risk of ill health and then take them to the European Union and say that we want those limits to be applied throughout Europe. We should start leading rather than allow ourselves to be led in the wrong direction.

Information should be available to the public. There is some talk in the report about the possible closure of beaches. I would not go down that road. However, it is important that we should make available information about the risks of bathing in particular waters. Then, to a certain extent, it becomes a matter for individual judgment as to whether someone is likely to engage in those risks.

The reference in the report to the "Jaws" syndrome is very interesting. In the film "Jaws" the mayor of the town refused to tell the public that a great white shark was roaming off the beach because it would frighten off the tourists and the town would lose its source of revenue. We have to be honest with the public. We have to tell them that the bathing waters in particular areas—unfortunately, this appears to be so in most areas around our coast—are liable to lead to an increased risk of infection. An informed public will demand action to deal with the problem.

My final point concerns the action that needs to be taken. There is general agreement about the need for a large amount of capital investment. It is unfair and wrong that capital investment should be sought on the short-term money markets and that the premium which that demands must be paid by current consumers. This is a classic case of long-term public investment being required. The only way to achieve that is by the Government and perhaps the European Union borrowing the money on a long-term basis at low rates of interest—there would be virtually no risk attached to the borrowing—and making it available to the water authorities to invest in cleaning up the effluents from the sewage works which seem to be the primary problem. Until we are prepared to do that, we will not achieve the results which I am sure we all want.

4.57 p.m.

Lord Butterfield

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I shall do my best to fulfil the trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has placed in me to deal with the medical side. Like the noble Baroness, I am sorry that our chairman could not dazzle the House this afternoon with his own erudition in the whole range of these matters. I strongly support the noble Baroness's remarks about our Clerk, John Goddard. As an aside, it remains a deep mystery to me that no constituency has seen in him a possible candidate for membership of the European Parliament. His grasp of Europe seems to me to be exactly what might be wanted. I echo, too, the thanks that we all owe to David Kay and Gareth Rees. It was a most agreeable committee on which to serve.

Perhaps I may say how splendidly the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, reminded us all that this House has had an interest in bathing since the days of Lord Byron, who smiles on us while we have our lunch. As a young man he bathed at Southwell and he went to Brighton when it was very much the place and swam far out to sea, as the noble Lord does.

I wish to make two points clear. First, the question of water is far-reaching and complex. It goes all the way from the tap into the sink, down the drains, through the sewers, and, sadly in this country, very often out to sea. There is also the point, as the noble Lord showed so well, that we have a new state of affairs which was not the case when I was doing my national service or serving in Australia for a time. I refer to the arrival of the suits which allow people to swim for a long time and at great depth. Wet suits have changed the picture. The directive we have been wrestling with and the proposed new directive will not, I fear, please the noble Lord because to date there has been concern for the bathers and not the surfers, dinghy sailers and people swimming far out to sea. Much more concern has been shown for beach bathing.

I give personal support to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, which derive from the committee's activities, and by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about the need for some standards for the quality of the water in which we bathe. I know a young man who survived after bathing on a beach associated with a very splendid hotel in Norway. I was called to see him one morning because he had a splitting headache. He was covered with a rash—the rose spots which, in the old days, was the dreaded typhoid. Thank God he had been injected against typhoid, but he did have a very bad attack of para-typhoid fever. That was in Norway and we may draw what conclusions we like from that. It reminded me how important it is to check up on the quality of the bathing water in which my children, for example, submerge themselves.

As an aside, perhaps I may tell noble Lords that in North America on Cape Cod, at a place called Wellfleet, there is a splendid, large pond—as the Americans call it, but which we would call a lake—large enough for rowing and other activities. It is called, rightly, Gull Pond. I do not know what the right word is to describe gulls at rest in the evening. Do they roost? Anyway, they all alight on Gull Pond and spend the night talking to each other having a fine old time and, I fear, contaminating the water because occasionally Gull Pond is closed to our use. Certainly, my children have got sore throats from bathing in it and trouble with their eyes.

Personally, I go along with the committee of which I was a member, believing that we do need standards. Some of us have recently been in eastern Europe where there may not be much bathing in the sea, but there is inland bathing. I suspect that those countries are going to join us and so we would be wise to have some good regulations in preparation and in line.

Speaking as an elderly medical student, the problems as regards the quality of water are not new to the medical profession. At about the time I was doing National Service there were a great number of complaints. Many years ago there was great concern about something called "traveller's diarrhoea". The Royal Army Medical Corps and the Department of Health at the time did a lot of studies to try to find out where and why, when young men were sent abroad, they had diarrhoea. In many cases they could not find an explanation. There was a general feeling that people get nervous and nerves can upset the bowel and therefore a lot of the diarrohea was probably of nervous origin.

Again, in 1959, there was a great report from the Public Health Laboratory Service. It studied bathing water at about 40 beaches throughout the country. What it said essentially was, "Well, our bathing beaches may be a bit of a mess so far as the bacteriology is concerned, but if we search the records we do not find any cases of poliomyelitis which can be attributed to our bathing beaches. We find only two or three cases where gastroenteritis is really a classifiable disease". That continues the sort of spartan attitude about bathers which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, himself supported. They are tough, hardy people and do not suffer many serious diseases that lead them to hospital. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, will nod when I say that we noticed the same spartan attitude towards the people who bathe on our beaches when we interviewed people from the department. The Minister was probably there.

That is understandable. There have been so many important changes about bathing since 1959 and I should like to touch on a few of them. Without doubt, one of the wonderful things about the health service is that people are now more conscious of ill health than they were. They are more conscious of symptoms. So the threshold has moved from having cholera to having diarrhoea lasting four days, which is the kind of thing we have been studying in the committee and some of the reports we have received.

We also have to remember that four or five days out of a holiday is quite expensive for someone taking the family to Europe. We have to bear in mind that the European beaches, which seem to be so wonderful—to my mind, they very often are—are drenched with ultraviolet light from the sun and do not have the problem of tides. Very often they are protected by the kind of septic tanks which go with villas beside the sea all over the world.

Lastly, we have to bear in mind—thanks be to successive governments in this country and elsewhere— that more and more people are affluent enough to have beach holidays. It is the mode to bathe. The noble Lord is a leader of fashion and much to be respected for that. But there is increasing evidence since 1959 that there is an association between counts of organisms in bathing water and the amount of ill health created.

In 1994 representatives of the Public Health Laboratory Service came to see us. They said: Appropriate value should be applied to all recreational waters at all sites"— which will please the noble Lord— but we lack scientific evidence to get and set the standards". Important surveys have been carried out on beaches and on cohorts of people in resorts over the past few years. We are very fortunate that while we were sitting our specialist adviser, Professor Kay, reported a very interesting study that he had conducted from his headquarters in Leeds. It was published in that very reputable journal, The Lancet. He showed a continuous drift in the number of symptoms created against the count of bacteria in the water.

So we have a rather awkward situation which I point out to all noble Lords. We cannot say, "The water is definitely safe on any beach that we know of as yet". There is always likely to be an organism that will give something. So it is healthy but, like crossing the road, there are always risks. There is this continuous relationship between bathing risks and the levels of indicators.

In future, the United Kingdom hopes to reduce the risks, not least by having more treatment of waste water. The waste water which goes into our sewage farms so often passes out as sewage into the sea. If we can improve the quality of treatment of our waste water we shall be taking a step. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a very important point which I am sure other Members will be referring to; that is to say, all these things are inter-digitated and integrated. One cannot worry about bathing water without worrying about waste water; one cannot worry about that without having to think about tap water and drinking water.

The committee, on which I was proud to sit, accepts the opinions that have arisen about the need for indicators. It has set out in the report the kinds of values it is concerned with. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, it is concerned about the high values that seem to be in the present directive and the much lower ones which are expected to arise from what we hope will appear in future.

Basically, what we want to see in future is much more consultation by the law-givers, not only with the people who actually swim, but with the bacteriologists who actually know. Those are the people we have to encourage to come together. I was going to read some short sections from the new report but I shall not bore your Lordships with them because those are the messages.

There are problems for the scientist in future which I shall just touch on. We know that when they are consulted they are going to be asked awkward questions about the regulations. Where should the sampling be done? We believe that it should be about a foot below the surface; a metre high or chest height for a fully grown adult—perhaps one should say, a fully grown man. Where, and how often, should the sampling be done? At the moment it is done every fortnight. Those are snapshots. We do not know what happens when there is a storm which brings water out of the meadows where there may be farm animals feeding bacteria into the river, which go into the bathing water down in the estuary.

We must ensure much greater reliability of the tests that are introduced. That is one of the things about which I feel most strongly. It is very much my hope that the European Environment Agency will take close to its heart the question of the reliability of the bacteriological tests and the differences between techniques used in different countries and try to ensure that we have uniformity of quality.

The way it is done is that the equivalent of 100 millilitres of water is taken and passed through a filter paper. The filter paper is then turned over. It is grown in a medium which produces the growth of the germs, so that individual germs are not looked for, which would be tedious to do down any microscope. The germs are allowed to grow into little cultures so that the number of cultures can be counted. I am sure that your Lordships can see that there are great possibilities for differences in the culture medium between, let us say, the French and the Germans and so on. We must try to get those things sorted out. They run for a time at 37 degrees and then they are switched up to 44 degrees to pep up the growth so that it is more recognisable. Are those the right temperatures?

We shall undoubtedly be looking at the possibility of the application of the wonderful new science—molecular biology—to bathing water problems. Your Lordships should know that there are things called bacteriophages which are viruses which infect bacteria. Those are the bacterial invasions which allow our sewage farms to work. It is hoped that eventually such indicators will be possible, although when we talked to our expert he said that it would take seven to 10 years. However, that is down the line, and we must ensure that our friends in Brussels keep their eyes open to what is in the future.

I have no doubt that we must ensure that the public are properly informed and educated about these problems in water. We want further information. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell noble Lords tonight that the Government will fund further research and analysis to provide, soon I trust, a well-founded new bathing water directive.

5.12 p.m.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Park for introducing the debate and pay tribute to our Clerk and two specialist advisers who were of such invaluable help to the committee. As a member of the sub-committee, I was interviewed on Westcountry Television and asked what my reaction would be if, when bathing, I found solids passing me by. That was not an easy question to answer, but it illustrates the public perception of water purity. It has nothing to do with either of the two directives. Filtration of course is the responsibility of any sewerage authority. It is not even primary treatment; it is pre-primary treatment.

We have two directives, one which works broadly well and upon which there has been considerable expenditure, and another which is seriously flawed on two counts. The first is that of cost. My noble friend Lady Park referred to that. The Commission has given its opinion that the directive is cost-neutral. That has not been backed up with a detailed cost analysis by the Commission and, in the words of the sub-committee's report, it does not survive scrutiny. Our estimate is that the cost of compliance with the directive and the waste water directive could be up to £9 billion. I shall have more to say about that expenditure later. It may be a ballpark figure, but it is considerably more than cost-neutral. It has also to be said that the Government advise us that they have had difficulty finding comparable data from other member states. The cost of implementation would fall unevenly over the country, with places like the West Country being affected particularly badly. That is in addition to the rise in water charges, to which I shall speak in a moment.

Possibly no less serious, since it strikes at the whole plausibility of the directive, are our worries that the Commission has not engaged the scientific community in open discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to that point in some detail, as did my noble friend Lady Park. There has been a lack of transparency in the Community's deliberations in this respect. Having on the committee my noble friend Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and, as chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, your Lordships will appreciate that the committee speaks with some authority.

We have a report which has not been sufficiently technically researched and which would involve expenditure of, quite frankly, massive proportions. But at the end of the day it is a case of, "You gets what you pays for". More contamination means higher risk of illness. Less contamination means higher expenditure on sewage disposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, referred to worries about diarrhoea, whereas in the past the worries would have been about much more serious illnesses. The present directive is no doubt in need of updating in the light of scientific progress, but there is no evidence to suggest— the committee found this—that it does not afford a satisfactory level of protection from serious illness. The more important point is that it was the sub-committee's opinion that neither the present nor the proposed directive would provide complete protection from the gastro-intestinal symptoms or respiratory illnesses which are essentially self-limiting to four days, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said, and which have always been a risk in sea bathing—the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to this—and which are basically acceptable to the public.

Perhaps I may return to the subject of costs. We have this potentially massive cost in addition to the costs already incurred which have resulted in such large rises in water charges. Sewage works are expensive engineering projects which have to be planned and built over a period of years before improved water quality is achieved.

Changes in policy on water quality standards need to be taken well in advance if wasted expenditure is to be avoided. In 1990 the UK Government's sharp change in policy on sewage treatment had a major impact on costs incurred by water companies and, therefore, on water charges borne by consumers. This causes real concern, particularly to holiday areas in the South West.

In 1990 the Government announced policy changes which effectively increased the capital investment required over a 10-year period from £1.4 billion to £2 billion. We must bear that in mind in relation to the £9 billion cost of the proposed directive. Water bills in the South West had to increase not, as had been planned, by the 6.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation but by 11.5 per cent, above the rate of inflation.

The committee is concerned that there should not be money wasted by another sharp shift in policy, causing expensive new engineering works to be undertaken and making unnecessary some works already completed and in the process of being built.

We are therefore concerned that engineering decisions by the water companies should be able to be taken against the background of a stable policy for water quality. The committee sees a need for decisions on the water quality standards in any new bathing water directive to be taken with all speed so that the water companies can take a strategic approach to the treatment of urban waste water and to the quality of bathing water. If decisions on the mandatory standards of bathing water quality and on the engineering and treatment programmes they require are delayed, there must be a risk of considerable wasted expenditure. We hope the Government will press the Commission and the Council for the necessary speedy decisions.

5.19 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I, too, echo the tribute paid to our chairman on his handling of what has been an extremely difficult investigation. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who dealt adequately with the technical, financial, medical, and policy issues contained in the report.

I came to the sub-committee somewhat late in the day and I have approached the problem from a slightly different perspective. I hope that the House will bear with me if I present a slightly idiosyncratic view. I have had only one friend of whom it was said, "If he fell into a septic tank he would come up with a diamond ring". Ordinary mortals such as myself, who become involved in the subject of wastes, sewage and water quality, usually finish up thoroughly mired in it.

It is interesting to note that as the committee was studying the possible new bathing water directive from the European Commission two newspaper reports threw a sharp light on the problems of our maritime location. First, much was made of some intrepid plastic ducks which, if my memory is correct, had been frozen into the Arctic in the Baring Straits as a result of a sea disaster and were washed ashore in the United Kingdom some four or five years later. The second was a survey which revealed that a surprising proportion of the flotsam washed ashore on our westerly coasts originates in North America.

The oceans are restless. Ocean currents flow round the British Isles in a generally clockwise direction. The North Sea is a large eddy with the Gulf Stream feeding in from the north and an outflow through the Dover Straits. Pity the poor water companies which have responsibility for bathing water quality and which know that, with few local exceptions, every time they test, the water that they are testing is travelling steadily down the coast. Unless everyone applies the same meticulously high standards, their task is impossible.

The second problem involved in dealing with bathing water quality is historical in its origin. When sewage systems were first constructed for seaside towns in the 19th century it was not at all unusual for them to use short sea-outfalls for disposal rather than install the expensive filtration and treatment plants which were necessary inland. Smaller populations, fewer visitors and an absence of some of the modern materials that are now in regular household use meant that coastal communities could dispose of their sewage quickly and cheaply. Now a century later we see the consequence of such a past.

In paragraph 11 of the second report, Bathing Water Revisited, we see that South West Water believes that the cost of compliance with the proposed new directive in their region was disproportionately high because the region has almost one-third of the designated beaches in the United Kingdom while having only 3 per cent, of the population.

The cost of compliance is not exclusively a factor of the number of designated beaches in a region; it is also due to the number of communities which have had the advantage—if advantage it be—of disposing of their sewage directly into the sea. Of course, that problem is exacerbated by high seasonal numbers of tourists who, while contributing to the problem, at the same time expect—and rightly, in my view—that beaches should be clean and hygienic.

That brings me to the issue of costs and benefits. The first European Council Directive on Bathing Water (76/160/EEC) dated December 1975 contains the following statement: Whereas"— the Commission seems to love "whereas" and "having regard to" because there are many of them. I have chosen the essential one. Whereas, in order to protect the environment and public health, it is necessary to reduce the pollution of bathing water and to protect such water against further deterioration". That was the motivation for the first report.

Interestingly, the next directive in the field (91/271/EEC), relating to urban waste water treatment and dated 21st May 1991, does not mention public health as a motive but contains the following statement: Whereas [again] to prevent the environment from being adversely affected by the disposal of insufficiently treated urban waste water, there is a general need for secondary treatment of urban waste water". The waste water of seaside towns is urban waste water.

The second committee report that we are considering, Bathing Water Revisited, establishes at Table 1 on page 6 the different costs of meeting the various standards that might be set over and above the £9.5 billion, which appears in paragraph 7, required to comply with the urban waste water directive. In trying to calculate whether those costs are justifiable, your Lordships' committee has a problem. The public health cost of sickness as a result of sea bathing is quite small. There is a very small number of acute cases where the consequence of a dip in the sea is tragic for the individual concerned. Beyond that, diarrhoea and nausea are the main problems and they soon pass. That is as may be, but I have never heard or believed that savings in public health costs were the sole determinant for cleaning up our sewerage and industrial waste disposal problems. If that had been the case, many of the rivers in industrial areas which used to be so offensive would never have been tackled. In those cases, the public health cost was marginal because no sensible person would go anywhere near them, still less would anyone use them as a source of water supply.

The issue of trying to cost environmental benefits or disbenefits presents an even greater problem. I intend to approach that aspect in a different way by reverting to the problems faced by South West Water. In that part of the country the tourist industry succeeds because of a belief in clean sea bathing, clean rivers and clean countryside. Can the West Country afford to put that industry, which is vital to its economy, at risk by allowing the reduction of one of the assurances of environmental quality? I suggest not. Mr. Byatt of Ofwat may be right to be concerned about the impact of high costs on water customers. But unless the communities in the South West arc prepared to put the tourist industry in jeopardy in their region they have little option but to shoulder their share of what is a much wider problem. Perhaps some form of tourist levy can be considered to assist in financing but that runs the risk of persuading people to go elsewhere, possibly abroad.

There are no easy answers. These problems are not exclusively national; they are international. One has only to consider the problems of the Baltic or the northern Adriatic to appreciate the need for the establishment of a common, acceptable standard and its enforcement. What is certain is that the privatisation of the water industry has helped. Examination of the water companies' capital construction programmes reveals that since privatisation there has been a great expansion of expenditure on capital works in sewage disposal because government financial control totals no longer apply and the industry now has access to the money markets. The proposal for a new directive is in tune with public demands for high standards and these two reports should help the Commission towards an appropriate decision.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, as always, we are immensely indebted to noble Lords and others who have given their efforts to producing these reports; to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate so far; to the noble Baroness for filling in at rather short notice; and to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, for an extremely interesting and illuminating speech on the health situation.

In particular, I wish to follow the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Dixon-Smith. In spite of our gratitude to the people who have produced the report, I believe that there is a general unease in relation to the results. There was a time when bathing water was not a problem. Apart from anything else, our climate saw to that. But if for no other reason than the use of wetsuits for various water sports, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the number of bathers and other people using the sea has increased dramatically. And so it is a problem that so many of our beaches and much of our bathing water are frankly disgusting. They are a major turn-off for tourists and a source of crippling disease, although I accept not for great numbers of people, and cause a great deal of discomfort and unease.

We spend a great deal of money on the problem, the costs of which seem to fall rather inequitably—or at least the people of the South West seem to think so. We should probably look again at the whole problem of financing what needs to be done.

We accept that Brussels has not done its homework properly on this matter and that should be rectified. But that is no reason for us not to take such precautions as we can. Paragraph 58 of the report states that: Some of us are attracted by the idea that if sufficient effective resources were devoted to reducing pathogenic content of sewage discharges there would be no need for a bathing water directive". However, it goes on: on reflection … the Committee concluded that 'belt and braces' were both desirable". I am informed that it is extremely unusual for a Select Committee to report even initial disagreements in that way. I conclude that that paragraph masks a considerable unease on the part of at least some members of the committee.

I would argue that end-of-pipe solutions are the best way forward for public health. Certainly there are plenty of examples of the inadequacy of long sea outfalls. The Eastleigh pipes blew within seven months of installation and the Worthing ones all failed. Yorkshire Water spent £32 million on a system which produced water of an appalling quality and now will have to spend another £35 million to meet the urban waste water directive requirements. That is £67 million spent on long sea outfalls, whereas an effective end-of-pipe solution would have cost only £45 million.

This is not a very pleasant subject, made more unpleasant by what has been referred to as the "Jaws" syndrome, to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred. Your Lordships will remember that in "Jaws" people continued to be eaten by sharks because the local authority was afraid that, if it admitted that anyone had been even sniffed at by a shark, tourists would not come and the local resorts would be ruined. Likewise, inhabitants and authorities in resorts are afraid to mention the problem that we are discussing this evening, and the fact that they do not like, do not want and are afraid of mentioning it militates against its solution.

With others of your Lordships, I am reaching the end of the sittings of your Lordships' Select Committee on sustainable development. Therefore, I am well apprised of the necessity of value for money and not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have heard all those arguments and I accept them. Nevertheless, I accept that the problem at which we are looking today must be tackled radically or it will both continue and cost much more in the long run.

Today, we are making both "Jaws" and "The Return of Jaws". In spite of all the work undertaken, I am no more happy with the results than I was with the original work of Brussels. Unless we take a truly radical approach in the next few years, however expensive that may be, in a few years time we shall be here in this Chamber debating "Jaws III".

5.35 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who are not members of the Select Committee, I begin by echoing their thoughts that this has been a work of considerable diligence and skill. I commend also the noble Baroness who opened the debate on doing that with characteristic thoroughness.

I support a great deal of what is in the report but I should also like to make some criticisms of it. I shall not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who preceded me. There must be some anxiety about costs. A balance must be drawn. One has also to apply a cost benefit analysis to this form of legislation. However, I am not so sure that that is as easy to apply as has been suggested by some of your Lordships in this debate.

The background to our considerations starts with the bathing water directive of 1976. Perhaps I may add the thought that that was adopted by unanimity. It was adopted because there was a considerable fear that polluted bathing waters, especially those polluted as a result of sewage, represented a serious health hazard. Of course, it provided also a very generous period for compliance.

In this report, the extent and seriousness of such hazards is questioned to a considerable degree. Certainly during the period for which I was responsible for environmental affairs in the European Commission a good deal of thought was given, even i n those days—up to the beginning of 1989—to a revision of that bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and, indeed, to endorsing that which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asserted; namely, that this should be seen in the context of a water policy as a whole. There is much to commend that. However, I am not sure that we have the time to be able to develop a policy of that coherence and have it enacted within a reasonable period of time.

I have browsed through the report but I believe that, unless I am mistaken, the Select Committee did not consider in relation to the 1976 bathing water directive—and I confess that I only knew yesterday that I was to speak in the debate—the dilemma which confronts the Commission in relation to the enforcement of any law. The Commission is the guardian of the treaty. Even though there were strong arguments to suggest, even in 1985, that the bathing water directive had some serious defects attaching to it, that did not remove from the Commission and the Commissioner responsible the duty to ensure that the law was properly enforced. There appears to be no mention of that in the report.

The fact that the background to the whole matter had been that the original draft directive—which, presumably, had been negotiated over a period of two or three years— had been subjected to all the scrutiny of the Council of Permanent Representatives before it reached the Council of Ministers, must have given governments the opportunity (and at that time it was a Labour Government) to investigate any doubts before the directive became law.

However—and I am being a little anecdotal here—when I came to study such matters and the way in which the question of identifying bathing waters was being applied (which was a requisite under the draft directive) I found that a number of governments were seriously deficient in their recognition of fulfilling obligations which fell upon them and that they failed to recognise the duty of the Commission in enforcing the law. In my judgment, the United Kingdom Government sought to sabotage the directive; indeed, there is some reference to that in the first report that we are considering today. The Government took an attitude which, essentially, was, "We don't like this directive and we hope that it will go away"; and they did nothing about it.

As is pointed out in the report, in carrying out the duty of identifying bathing waters, I believe—although I am speaking now from memory—that France identified something like 1,100, Italy about 1,000 and then, in lovely little landlocked Luxembourg, 39 were identified. But the United Kingdom, which has the longest coastline of all, identified only 27.1 believe that that shows a scant regard for carrying out their duties in that respect. That caused the Select Committee to say that there had been a sluggish British response.

It was for that reason that I authorised the commencement of infraction proceedings. The Government failed to recognise that Blackpool, Southport, Bournemouth and Great Yarmouth actually had beaches. But, happily, there was a subsequent U-turn; or, at least, a partial U-turn. In 1987–88 the compliance rate improved. Then there was another U-turn represented by the adoption of the urban waste water directive which is designed to stop the dumping of sewage sludge at sea by the end of 1998. All towns with a population of more than 10,000 will have to apply secondary treatment before discharge. I believe that that is unquestionably an advance. Whatever one may say about the efficacy of the Commission in producing those proposals, there has, undeniably, been some considerable improvement in standards over those years. That is to be commended. Of course, it is not something that is due simply to the Commission; it is due to member states improving the way in which they are working in that regard.

Doubtless the latter will involve very substantial capital investment in the future. One of the problems has been a great deal of not duplicity but certainly misinformation about the costing of the programmes. An enormous estimate was given by the Treasury and a different estimate given by the Department of the Environment. That hardly leads to a recognition of the credibility of the Government. I entirely endorse the views of the Select Committee in saying that it is important that we should have a proper assessment of the capital cost involved. In relation to the draft directive proposed, it is right to say that there should be a better assessment, if at all possible, of the cost involved.

In relation to the latter, I saw that Mr. Henningsen of DGXI said in evidence to the Select Committee that there was considerable difficulty in building such assessments into a draft directive. He said that, cost estimates always depend on information that we get from the Member States". The burden of his argument was that that information is sometimes difficult to procure and, at other times, unreliable. If, as a country, we are to play a more important role than we have done in the past in producing a meaningful policy in that regard, I believe that we should look at some of our own warts while being ready to criticise the work of the Commission. But is there anything in the argument of Mr. Henningsen? Has the Select Committee properly addressed those points?

Doubt has been cast on the environmental credentials of the Government over a long period of time. Indeed, it is interesting that the Minister for Agriculture said only recently, that he regretted the posture of the Government in earlier days when he had been a junior Minister because it had not helped Britain's reputation in the field. Of course, I am only offering a resume of what he said. I respect Mr. Waldegrave who played a notable part in the discussions that we had, although he did not always seem to have the backing of his colleagues. I believe that the arguments about nooks and crannies, the arguments that took place in Edinburgh, the assertions that environmental policy was always going too far, and even the suggestion that it ought to be repatriated, hardly led to an enhancement of the Government's credibility.

I turn now to the argument that the Commission had not consulted the scientific community. If the Commission has failed in that regard, it is a serious fault on its part. But before a draft directive reaches the Council of Ministers and while it is being considered by the Council of Permanent Representatives, are not those points vigorously argued by the Government? So what did the Government say in that respect? Did they take the view that the scientific community was not consulted and did they not say, as they ought to have said, "Well it's not too late to do it now"? I think that it is uncharacteristic of the Commission. In my experience of the Commission, its members did consult very widely and as best they could. I find it surprising, but it may well be a correct assessment of the position.

I turn now to the question of subsidiarity. I believe that the case has very clearly been made out for action in the sphere of bathing; and, indeed, as regards bathing water. It is important to establish common standards for the protection of bathers' health throughout the European Union and, at the same time, to recognise the trans-boundary dimension of water pollution. It is right that the Select Committee should have drawn attention to the effects on tourism.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Monkswell made some very pertinent points regarding the interests of ordinary people who are, perhaps, not quite so knowledgeable of the complex scientific arguments involved in the presentation of the report. They are entitled to have clean water when they bathe; they are entitled not to have to confront faeces even if treated; and they are entitled to expect higher standards than they have been getting hitherto. Whether, of course, that justifies the enormous amount of expenditure involved is a matter of balance and requires a further assessment.

The question of local decision-making was also referred to on page 10 of the seventh report. I am a little dubious about that. At paragraph 20 the report states: We think there is a need for a more serious attempt than appears to have been made hitherto to assess the economic benefits which might flow from a reduction in the minor illnesses associated with bathing". The report further stated: It might appear after investigation that the higher standards to be achieved should not be made mandatory under Community legislation or, perhaps, even under domestic legislation, but should be left to local decision within each water company area after full consultation with water charge payers and other groups concerned". I must say I find that a somewhat extraordinary proposition to advance. It virtually means that one accepts ultimately the total bona fides of the water companies in carrying out their consultations with the local people concerned. I have found in dealing in the past, not only with water companies but also with governmental organisations, that there is a great deal of special pleading involved in the public relations exercises that they undertake. I am not totally convinced that they are prepared, because of the special position they are in, to provide that totally balanced and objective view as a result of consultations. Are they able to carry out the consultations anyway? What would be the nature of the consultations that they would be prepared to carry out? How reliable would it all be?

I have mentioned a few of the criticisms that I have but that does not in any sense mean that I do not believe this report is other than an excellent one. It has been well presented and it is coherent. I will not say that it is without complexity. When I was reading it last night I found some of it rather difficult to absorb and it did not manage to keep me awake. But having said that, I commend all those who participated in this extremely difficult work.

5.52 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I ought first to declare what is perhaps an historical interest, having had the opportunity to participate as a member of the sub-committee in the deliberations leading to its first report on bathing waters. But setting aside my own earlier involvement, I wish on behalf of the Government to congratulate the committee, under the exceptionally able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, who I regret is not able to be here today, on the two excellent reports on the proposed revision of the bathing water directive. It is with my inside knowledge that I can endorse the tributes which have been paid by various committee members both to the special advisers who were involved and also to the clerk, who was invaluable throughout. I would also like to pay tribute to the quality and expertise of some of the speeches today, not least that of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, who gave us a lucid presentation of the two reports.

Your Lordships invariably bring great expertise and insight to discussion of proposed Community legislation both in the Committee Corridor and here in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is an example of the experience and expertise that are available to this House in debates on European affairs. I should at the same time express the Government's wish that it had been possible to reply earlier to the committee's second report, Bathing Water Revisited, to give more time for the response to be considered before this debate.

The existing bathing water directive was adopted as long ago as 1975. Many would say that it has had a chequered history in the UK—the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed this out—and this has contributed to the comparatively high level of public interest in its revision. I shall not dwell on the past, which perhaps continues to influence public perception of the quality of our bathing waters. But in looking to the future and the proposed revision we would be wise not to forget the lessons that can be gleaned from the history of the existing directive.

It is clear to me from your Lordships' reports that these lessons have not been forgotten. This scrutiny and debate have identified weaknesses in the proposed revision that require a positive response from the European Commission. I want to put on record that the Government consider that the need for revision is unquestionable and that there is merit in some of the Commission's proposals. However, we share the committee's concerns on some important aspects. Revision is the opportunity for thorough updating and correction of the shortcomings of the current directive. It is not the time to replace one set of shortcomings with another.

I understand that your Lordships' reports have been studied in Brussels and that the conclusions and recommendations, together with criticism from other quarters, have caused the Commission to re-examine its proposal. The result is not yet known, but it may become clearer before long, when the Commission explains its proposals for water legislation to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and to a wider audience. I hope that the results of your Lordships' deliberations will be influential. I say this because the Select Committee has carried out a thorough and independent scrutiny of the proposal. This scrutiny deserves a proper response. It is, of course, reassuring to us that so many of the committee's views accord with those of the Government. Our response to the first report, Bathing Water, shows the extent of the agreement. There is a similar convergence of views in our recent response to Bathing Water Revisited.

A dominant theme of both reports (and indeed of the debate today) is the need for greater openness and wider public debate on bathing water standards. There can be little doubt that a better exchange of information and views during the formulation of the Commission's proposal would have helped to improve its quality and may have saved time in the long run. I believe that, although the committee's criticism of lack of consultation has been taken to heart, there is still a lack of information in the public domain on the implications of the proposal for other member states. The Commission itself has only recently started a study to collect basic information about levels of faecal streptococci, which is a parameter with greatly enhanced significance in the proposed revision.

In the UK the Government have commissioned extensive research, and published the results, to shed light on the complex issues of water quality and health. Many noble Lords today have pointed out just how complex issues of water quality and public health are. We have also carefully assessed likely compliance costs. We have made this information widely available—

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Earl continues, may I ask, dealing with the question of scientific assessment, what is the role of the European Environment Agency in relation to this? Is it doing any work in this regard, and what is its relationship in connection with any such work with the work going on in DGXI, and indeed in the member states?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I was going to mention the European Environment Agency a little later but, as the noble Lord will know as well as any of us, it is only just now properly in action. It has distributed various specific studies to various topic centres. The topic centre based in the UK will be dealing with water. It may be a little too soon to say exactly what will be the extent of the agency's contribution, but I think everyone who has an interest in the agency hopes that it will provide authoritative information across all environmental media.

As I was saying, we have made the information that we commissioned on both costs and the health quality parameters widely available in order to inform the debate and it is apparent that it has been a significant part of the evidence considered by the committee. But we have still to see comparable information from other member states. EC legislation should be developed in the light of comprehensive, Europe-wide knowledge of the consequences. Armed with the committee's conclusions we shall try to ensure that standards of information are improved. I stress that point to my noble friend Lady Park.

Your Lordships, and especially my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, have drawn attention to the need for a public debate on acceptable levels of health protection. While the principle must be welcome, given the complexity of the issues, a meaningful and informed debate presents a considerable challenge. The effects on health at the standards under consideration are not so great as to be immediately obvious—except perhaps in some cases to those intent on sensationalism. The effects cannot be distinguished by looking at the number of people who go to their GP or the chemist following bathing. So research has to be based on the results of questionnaires which seek bathers' and non-bathers' views on their perception of their state of health. Moreover, the results of the different surveys which have been carried out do not show agreement on the effects on health associated with particular levels of indicators of sewage contamination. There are difficulties, too, in knowing the precise water quality to which bathers have been exposed.

These problems make establishing relationships between water quality and the chances of suffering minor illnesses difficult to quantify other than in rather broad terms. However, on the basis of the evidence which is currently available, the Government share the committee's views that there is no justification for imposing on the public significantly higher costs in order to reduce the present level of risks.

The Government have made considerable efforts to ensure that the public has information about any risks associated with bathing. We funded the Water Research Centre study, which is probably the most comprehensive study of its kind undertaken anywhere in the world.

It looked at a large number of bathers, a spectrum of different bathing water qualities and a variety of different bathing activities. This research concluded that the existing standards provide adequate health protection. But any risks must be seen in their proper context—for example, against the background of risks associated with the other activities in which people participate on their holidays. Also relevant is the finding from the WRC research that bathing in clean, cold, salt water can itself cause certain health effects. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was astonished that a healthy activity such as swimming could possibly lead to any form of ill health. However, I believe that he confused the difference between the exercise and the environment in which that exercise is taken, as do joggers when they jog along a busy road.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, as someone who suffers from raynaud's phenomenon—I should explain that that is gangrene of the extremities—I know the risks associated with cold water bathing. They are recognised and acceptable. I take issue with the Government on the fact that contamination from sewage causes extra health risk to people and they seem to think that that is acceptable. I do not think that the British public would recognise that risk as acceptable.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient, I believe that he will find his assertion to be absolutely untrue.

With some sympathy, I turn to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made. I have more than a few children who, like the noble Lord's children, like to be in and out of the sea. The Government take very seriously the likely effect of sea water quality on children who are swimming off beaches. The Government plan further detailed analysis of the data on children specifically.

Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out that closing beaches or prohibiting bathing—one of the suggestions in the proposed revision of the bathing directive—would be difficult. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the committee and feel that it would be disproportionate, inappropriate and hugely impractical. Not only would preventing people from swimming cause problems for those seeking to enforce the ban, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, knows, the time taken to undertake microbiological analysis is such that by the time one decides to close the beach the problem may no longer exist. The Government feel strongly that, if for some reason health factors within the water tested cause concern, appropriate action should be taken.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, stressed that information and advice must be given to the public. Two or three noble Lords referred to the "Jaws" syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, got as far as "Jaws III" before he sat down. That scenario is very much not the case. The Government recognise that the provision of information is the only sensible response to bathing water problems.

Perhaps I may point out that in the UK a scheme is in operation whereby the results of monitoring by the NRA are displayed on notices at bathing waters. An associated leaflet explains in simple terms the significance of the monitoring results.

The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, also referred to the challenge of sampling and the difficulties associated with it. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wanted sampling conducted over a much longer period outside the traditional bathing season. However, it is during the traditional bathing season that the directive requires water to be sampled. The UK season, from mid-May until the end of September, is longer than that of some other member states. If the National Rivers Authority carried out monitoring for longer periods, there would be a significant increase in costs without any commensurate benefits.

Perhaps I may refer again to the European Environment Agency, which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned. Sampling comparability and techniques could be one area in which the European Environment Agency takes an interest and on which it seeks greater conformity across the community. Comparability of data is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned. Concerns have been expressed that the directive and the proposed revision allow too much scope for different interpretations of the monitoring requirements so that, for example, the UK's diligent approach places us possibly at an unfair advantage. I have some sympathy with those views. I believe that the Commission is aware of the concerns and has taken some steps in its proposal to reduce potential discrepancies.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, highlighted two important issues from his own experience in this area: first, the extent of comparability of enforcement or the application of the directive's obligations; and the duty of the Commission to enforce the law. The Government recognise the importance of both issues.

The public's concern about bathing water quality is likely to continue, despite the massive investment being made in sewerage infrastructure. Some £9.5 billion is already earmarked for the completion of the first bathing water directive and the urban waste water treatment directive. I believe that it is not possible to shift the costs either on to central government or to the European Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell suggested, because, first, that would defy the polluter pays principle, and, secondly, one is in effect still charging the public at the end of the day. It goes round in a circle and is not an endless corridor, as the noble Lord might wish. It is the responsibility of us all to seek to ensure that the debate about costs and benefits is as constructive as possible given the sheer volumes of investment which are required.

A number of shortcomings of the present directive which need to be addressed concern the bathing water quality parameters to be monitored and for which mandatory standards are set. The committee has focused most attention on the microbiological parameters because it is these, rather than for example transparency or dissolved oxygen, which are most closely related to the directive's fundamental objective of health protection. The committee has quite rightly endorsed the Commission's proposed deletion of total coliforms and salmonella as not adding useful information. Fine tuning of the faecal coliform parameter by changing it to E. coli is a further useful improvement. The Government noted the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on bacteriophage. Indeed, we believe that it could well be a promising and good indicator. But clearly more work has to be undertaken first.

There is a view that deletion of any particular parameter represents a weakening of the standards of protection. I am pleased that the committee has rejected that line of argument by recommending that monitoring for enterovirus should no longer be required on the grounds that the test methods are too unreliable. They are also very expensive. In other words, it is an unsuitable indicator for routine monitoring under the directive. There is unchallengeable logic to this recommendation which I hope the Commission will accept.

Your Lordships' reports have given great emphasis to the proposed mandatory standard for faecal streptococci. There is common ground that this is a good indicator, with a simple and reliable test. The debate concerns the numerical value of the standard to be set. The committee has exposed the lack of scientific justification for the proposed standard of 400/100 ml and has called for further analysis of the evidence. We are planning further work but, because of the complexity and limitations of the research, and the difficulty of measuring actual health effects related to water quality, which I mentioned earlier, it would be unwise to expect unequivocal evidence in support of a particular numerical standard in the near future. And, unfortunately, the same difficulties in deriving reliable quantification of effects would arise in meeting the committee's suggestions in Bathing Water Revisited for more serious attempts to assess the economic benefits of more stringent water quality standards.

I point out that the Government are participating with the NRA, the water industry and others in the development of methods to evaluate the economic benefits arising from improvements in water policy. We are not sluggish on the subject but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, measuring cost benefit analysis in this area is not straightforward. It will take further work. I know that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith had quite a lot to say on the subject.

There is a lack of hard evidence from other member states. This reinforces the need for fuller debate and the sharing of information from as many sources as possible. I commend the committee's contribution to encouraging this fuller debate both in this House and elsewhere.

Finally, my reply would be incomplete without covering the important matter of costs. Much of Bathing Water Revisited concerns the committee's analysis of the compliance cost assessment carried out for the Government. Indeed, costs have been fundamental to many of the points raised in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bridge-man gave us a great deal of thought on the subject.

We have recently responded to specific points in Bathing Water Revisited, including such matters as the need for a coherent Community water policy which recognises relative priorities and the implications of legislation for investment. One of the most fundamental points made both by the report and by my noble friend Lady Park was the need for coherent strategic policy-making and investment in the whole water area. The Government are not being led. They are leading, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested. We are keen that the various strands of Community water policy should integrate properly and interrelate where they have to overlap and that the timing is sensible. Given that resources are not infinite, we are keen that priorities are properly set on cost benefit analysis, where it can be achieved, and on proper scientific evidence, where it is available. The Government are fully aware of the need for a coherent strategy throughout the area. When we consider the extraordinary sums of money involved in the investment, that factor is vital.

However, I should like to draw attention once again to perhaps the committee's most important opinion: it was unconvinced that there was justification for imposing on the general public significantly higher costs in order somewhat to reduce the present risks of self-limiting illness associated with bathing. Through the debate today, the House has, I believe, endorsed that view. Furthermore, there is no question but that the UK cost study shows that the proposed provision would mean the imposition of significant additional costs. Avoidance of unjustified additional costs is a principle which the Government can readily support.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to today's debate. I believe it has been a useful opportunity for us all to exchange ideas on some of the very complex technical issues arising from the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. I have noted the many issues raised here today and I hope that I have managed to respond to most, if not all, of them. Above all, I have been reminded of the widespread consensus on the fundamental issues which must shape the UK's objectives for the revision of the directive.

6.13 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken for the interesting contributions. I was particularly glad to hear from the Minister that the Commission is reconsidering the proposal in the light of our comments. I was pleased to hear that the Government are working closely with the NRA and that there are many convergences of views between us. I am glad that the Government are leading, not following.

I agree on the need for more information on the position in other states. We can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on that. He is particularly well placed to comment on the issue. His argument that the Government should be pushing for it is one which we wholly support.

Finally, I wish to pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Paragraph 58 did not conceal a sinister rift. It simply recorded a discussion and a difference of view.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I know that the paragraph did exactly that, but I understand that it is unusual for a committee report to record a discussion in that way. The fact that it was done and that the powers that be allowed it to be recorded must surely show that there was an unusual reason for the matter to be recorded like that.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which naturally exceeds mine on the usual habits of committees. I can only make my comments from the view of one who was there. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.