COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS' MEETING (Hansard, 26 June 1979)

§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)

This was a successful meeting, at which four directives were agreed, and preliminary conclusions reached on a fifth. This result was due to the positive and constructive attitudes adopted by the chairman and a number of delegations, and the United Kingdom delegation, which was led by my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, made a significant contribution.

1480WA

The proposals agreed were:

(a) 6th Amendment to the directive on Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances.
(b) draft directive on the protection of groundwater against pollution by certain dangerous substances.
(c) draft directive on the quality required for shellfish water.
(d) draft directive on methods of measurement and analysis of surface water for abstraction as drinking water.

Agreement on the Sixth Amendment in which the United Kingdom played an important role, represents an important step forward. It provides for the setting up of a Community-wide system for the notification of new chemical substances being brought on to the market. This system is very much on the lines of the proposals for a national notification scheme published by the Health and Safety Commission in June 1977. The other three directives which were agreed develop further the Community's policy with regard to water quality.

In February the Select Committee in another place criticised various aspects of the draft directive, as has the Committee from this House. A debate in another place on 18th June also expressed serious reservations. Among the points criticised were the inappropriateness of reference methods; the frequency of reporting to the Commission; the need to have Commission authority to reduce sampling frequencies; the ability of the Technical Progress Committee substantially to alter the effect of the directive; and the frequency of sampling of supplies to small communities. However, the text presented to the Council dealt with all these items—some were eliminated, others were made non-mandatory—and the draft, which had the strong support of other member States, was closely related to achieving the objectives envisaged for it in the present directive and the Second Environment Action Programme, without adversely affecting United Kingdom interests. In discussion my right honourable friend emphasised the United Kingdom's continuing disquiet about the scientific basis of the draft and the appropriateness of a directive on this subject; and strongly urged our partners to avoid such detailed directives in future. The Council took 1481WA note of our position and acknowledged that our ultimate acceptance of this draft directive was subject to these reservations. Officials will be pursuing this with the Commission.

The Council discussed also the draft directive on health protection standards for sulphur dioixde and suspended particulates. These are important unresolved issues on this draft directive, especially concerning matters of measurement, and those are to be the subject of further consideration. However, the Council accepted the general structure of the proposal, including the principles that the guideline figures in Annex II should, like the mandatory figures in Annex I, be based on World Health Organisation 1482WA recommendations, and that use of the Annex II figures should be at the discretion of member States; this agreement meets points to which the United Kingdom have attached great importance. Our concern about some of the implications of the directive were also met by an agreement that the text should reflect the need to take account of economic and energy constraints.

The Council also received a report from the Commission on the progress of the EEC action programme on marine oil pollution.

House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.