Water Framework Directive

– in the House of Lords at 7:30 pm on 9 May 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Spokesperson in the Lords, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 7:30, 9 May 2006

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in implementing the water framework directive.

My Lords, we have one reason to be grateful for the drought that is currently hitting the south-east and one reason only: it has raised the issue of the importance of water and highlighted what a precious resource it is, thus moving the issue up the agenda. The number of speakers lined up to contribute to this debate shows that there is still far too much to do in this regard. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity of returning to this matter with the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Farrington. All three of us were involved in the debate on the Water Act when it went through this place.

The purpose of the debate is to explore what progress the Government have made since the Water Act went through, when they resisted putting the water framework directive into that Act so that it would be implemented by primary legislation. It is important for us to follow closely the progress of the water framework directive for a number of reasons.

I wish to return for a moment to the issues of just how precious a resource water is and what this directive will mean. The water framework directive will mean that all across Europe member states will change the situation whereby we treat water badly by polluting or wasting it and using it with scant regard to the ecosystem that depends upon it. The directive will require planning and action to protect lakes, rivers and other water bodies from pollution and, where they are polluted, to ensure that clean-up measures are undertaken. The first tranche of this work should be undertaken by 2015, by which time pollution of our inland and coastal waters should be diminishing dramatically, according to the directive.

This directive also rightly recognises that pressures on water as a resource will increase. Ever since the directive came into being that is something we are increasingly aware of, as climate change begins to make rainfall less predictable. Balancing conflicting demands on water will become increasingly important. Those demands should be resolved by getting water users together and thoroughly involved in the debate.

The water framework directive might seem to be aimed purely on an environmental basis but, as I shall demonstrate by developing my arguments in this debate, it is not purely environmental; it does have great benefits both for economic and social considerations in the use of water.

Besides exploring the progress that has been made in implementing the directive, the purpose of initiating this debate tonight is to test the level of the Government's commitment. If this new approach to the water environment is to succeed it is going to need a new level of involvement and commitment from government level right down to every single user of water—not just within Defra but also within ODPM, through its planning policy statements, the Department of Transport, the DTI and all departments whose policies are critical to the water environment. As I mentioned, the gains are not only environmental; cleaning up the water environment should have substantial economic benefits as well.

In your Lordships' House on 25 February 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made a very interesting and informed speech, pointing out that:

"A study arising from the European Union's water resources framework directive by the Department of the Environment concluded that the amenity benefits could total £1.9 billion in England and Wales alone from the improved water. In addition, there could be benefits to anglers of £706 million".—[Hansard, 25/2/04; col. 288.]

It is, therefore, quite wrong to see the water framework directive as simply a cost without economic benefits. Until now, of course, in terms of water use and the improvement of water, we have relied on regulation and pricing. The periodic review that Ofwat runs will continue to deal with pricing and involves a large number of stakeholders.

My first question to the Minister concerns how that will work. How will it fit in with the directive's measures? Inevitably, a large number of stakeholders involved will be the same people but there will be two processes running in parallel.

The Environment Agency is the competent body designated to take the directive forward and it will have to increase dramatically the level of public involvement for any success. When one talks to people about their river or lake, where they fish, walk or watch birds, they do have a very strong feeling about their body of water. But if one talks about water as a large amorphous regional body of water, they simply do not have the same commitment to it. Part of the problem is that, at the moment, the water framework directive is planned around river basins on a regional basis, which is far too big for people to relate to. Although the Defra consultation recognises that there will have to be work at catchment level, I would like the Minister to reassure me that the work will, indeed, take place at a really local level.

Another problem involves the title. To most people, the "Water Framework Directive Implementation Plan" or the "River Basin Management Plan", does not seem like something they want to get involved with. The plan will have to take on a very different emphasis in order to make the connection between the everyday decisions that local authorities, farmers, industry and households make on their water bills and the state of their rivers. They need hard facts and figures around which to make choices.

The Consumer Council for Water makes the reasonable point that it is very anxious about what effect the water framework directive's implementation will have on water prices. Defra has set up the collaborative research programme which will develop a methodology for assessing costs and benefits. But when it has assessed those costs and benefits, it must present them to the public in an understandable form so that the pubic can make real choices.

What worries me most about the Defra consultation on river planning guidance is the fact that it sounds as though the Government are intending to apply for substantial derogations from the directive because it is all too difficult. Parts of it read as an exercise where the Government, through the Environment Agency, will choose to do the minimum in order to comply with the directive. Perhaps I may quote an example for the Minister from the Defra consultation on river planning guidance. It states:

"Where new sustainable human development activities adversely affect a lake or river then we should claim that as a defence".

Frankly, I think that that would be a gross failure of the planning system. Given the technical ability that now exists, there would be no excuse except a failure to invest in proper infrastructure or working methods, yet such a failure is suggested by that document. The document is so full of suggestions of "alternative objectives and defences" to achieving good status for water, that parts of it read as though the Government have already thrown in the towel, saying: "Well, we just won't try then". I hope the Minister will be able to say that I am wrong about this.

Very few water bodies are included in the framework's programmes. From Parliamentary Questions tabled in January this year, it emerged that only 7 per cent of lakes and 31 per cent of rivers have so far been identified as eligible for inclusion. Not all SSSIs are included, which is incredible because they would benefit most from the measures to bring our waters up to a good ecological status.

At the end of this exercise there will be the question of who decides what is a reasonable price to pay. Will that price be decided by river basin or nationally, and how will it be funded? I have not heard a voice dissent from the "polluter pays" principle but for very diffuse pollution—from transport, for example—that price might have to come from general taxation.

Finally, there is the question of who is the polluter. I return to the example of washing powder, which pollutes with phosphates. Is the polluter the consumer who uses washing powder? If so, the water bill is the right place to charge for clean-up. Is it the water companies, which are not investing in enough phosphate-stripping technology at sewage plants? Or is it the washing powder manufacturers that choose to use phosphates in the first place? The one certainty is that the polluter must be tackled. But the Government must give the public a clear steer so that, together with all the other players in this field, they can start to decide who should pay for what and who will benefit from what. As I said, there are substantial benefits.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, in concluding the debate in your Lordships' House on 30 March, said:

"The Government are committed to promoting measures to help improve sustainable water resources management in England and Wales".—[Hansard, 30/3/06; col. 883.]

If that is the case, they must use this directive as a tool to further that commitment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply on exactly how they mean to do that.

Photo of Baroness Byford Baroness Byford Shadow Minister (Food & Rural Affairs), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 7:41, 9 May 2006

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for being able to respond to it.

The water framework directive is the most substantial piece of EC water legislation to date. It requires all inland and coastal waters to achieve "good status" by 2015. That seems a long way off but we have an awful lot of work to do in the meantime. That will be done by establishing a river basin district structure within which demanding environmental objectives will be set, including ecological targets for surface water. The directive's main objectives are: to enhance the status and prevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands; to promote the sustainable use of water; to reduce pollution of water, especially by "priority" and "priority hazardous" substances; to lessen the effects of floods and droughts, which we face as a result of climate change and big swings in climate; and to rationalise and update existing water legislation and introduce a co-ordinated approach to water management based on the concept of river basin planning, on which the noble Baroness has spoken. You could add to that list: water scarcity, the implications of climate change, the threat of flood and water scarcity, and the effect on water prices, to which the noble Baroness referred.

In an article published in November 2005, Dr Andrée Carter, the head of science and environment at ADAS, looked at what the water framework directive would mean for agriculture. He said:

"It requires EU members to improve the ecological and chemical quality of rivers, lakes and estuaries, coastal waters and groundwaters by 2015".

I shall return to groundwater shortly. He continued:

"The Government is providing insufficient information to land managers on how the WFD will affect them. The EA has insufficient resources to fully implement the WFD in all catchments, in particular when it comes to engaging water stakeholders—especially farmers—and the public".

Perhaps the Minister will reflect on those comments in her response.

In another article, published on Tuesday 18 April 2006—it was only a one-off, although I was waiting for others to pick up on it—Charles Clover claimed:

"Half the arable farmland in the east of the country must be converted to grass within six years to avoid huge fines for pollution from the European Court, the Government has been told".

Again, I would like to hear the Government's position on, and understanding of, that. The article continued:

"Prof Roger Sylvester-Bradley, who is responsible for fertiliser research at Adas, said: 'We have reached a point where good water and good farming do not match in a large tract of land down the east side of the country'".

As someone who represents and has a farm in East Anglia, which I should formally declare yet again, I find that worrying. Again, I seek clarification from the Minister.

My understanding is that 70 per cent of water in the south-east is from groundwater supplies; however, half the UK's groundwater supplies are now contaminated enough to require treatment or to be closed off entirely. That statistic was taken from Ofwat's International Comparison of Water and Sewerage Service 2005. On 4 April 2006 the UK received its final warning from the EU on the state of our waste water. The first warning had been made three years ago. How have the Government responded to that query?

We had a very interesting debate recently on water. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, the three speakers in this debate took part in lengthy discussions during the passage of the Water Bill. At the time, we were concerned that the directive was not included in that legislation. Some of the questions that we should be asking arise as a result of that. In reading some of the debates and the Questions and Answers about the water directive from the past four years, I am struck by the concentration on clean water provision. In 2001 Ofwat published figures showing that, from 1991 to 2000, in England and Wales the average annual length of water supply mains that were replaced or relined was some 5,000 km. The comparable figures for sewers was some 222 km. At this level, Thames Water will replace its sewers every 435 years and Southern Water will take 1,653 years. That cannot be allowed to continue. Our sewerage and water pipes were built many years ago and many are becoming very fractured.

Broken sewers result in foul water entering the ground and percolating to groundwater sources. The Government consider the responsibility to lie with water companies. If that is still true, what view do the Government take of Ofwat? Should it be allowed to raise cash to use for reinvestment on these water pipes? Clearly, there is a limit at present. Clean water means that water is free of unnatural additives, silt or excessive nutrients. There is general agreement nowadays that it is necessary for healthy humans, livestock, wildlife and plants. There is, however, no point in demanding that farmers and industrialists refrain from activities that decrease water quality only for the clean water to run away through faulty pipes or be contaminated by sewage.

I am also concerned about run-off, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred. Such contamination is due not just to agriculture but also to the amount of traffic on our roads. Aircraft exhaust gases contain a variety of particles that are returned to earth ready to be carried away by rain. Can the Minister tell me whether the filtering of aircraft exhausts is as rigorous as possible? Is there any impetus for the Government to tighten those requirements?

Run-off from roads is a problem that, I fear, will worsen. As EU enlargement proceeds, this country is on the receiving end of more commercial and private vehicles from countries not yet as advanced as we are in some of the newer technology. Those vehicles travel where they will without being subject to an emissions test. Will the Minister clarify whether that is correct?

Road drains are a strong feature of our motorways and A roads. Many B roads have them, at least in places where flooding is likely and where connection to a storm main is practical. But our C roads and country lanes do not boast of anything other than ditches, with channels cut through the verges to reach them. Those ditches feed streams which in turn feed rivers. The more that we allow vehicles to crowd our minor roads, the more heavy metals and other forms of pollution from run off will contaminate our rivers. We face an enormous problem.

It is a shame that we cannot debate this matter for longer when there are only three speakers, but that is the normal procedure of the House. On 30 March, my noble friend the Duke of Montrose tabled two Written Questions. The first asked:

"How many hydrologists will be required in the administration of the European Union Water Framework Directive".

The second asked:

"Whether they have made an assessment of the availability of sufficient trained hydrologists to administer the European Union Water Framework Directive".—[Hansard, 30/3/06; col. WA 144-45.]

The answer was that there was "a strategic review". Can the Minister update us? At that time, the Minister said that the exact number of hydrologists was not known. Is there any further information on that?

In this very short time I have not been able to do justice to this important part of the issue. Although 2015 seems a long way off, if we are to meet the regulations before us, there are many aspects on which we need to act now to ensure that our timetable is kept up to date.

Photo of Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Government Whip 7:51, 9 May 2006

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford, for this important and stimulating debate. I welcome the opportunity to brief the House on the progress being made in the implementation of the water framework directive. I will seek as quickly as I can to answer the points that have been raised, but I will write to both noble Baronesses answering all points in full if I fail to cover them.

The WFD is the most substantial EU water legislation to date and the main mechanism for improving water quality in the future. It sets demanding new ecological and chemical objectives for rivers, estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater across the EU. Both noble Baronesses recognise that it requires management plans for river basins to be drawn up by 2009 and programmes of measures to be operational by 2012 with the aim of achieving the environmental objectives by 2015. I agree with both noble Baronesses that 2015 will come more quickly than people realise. The analysis of the objectives offers some unique opportunities, on which I will draw in a moment.

We are working in partnership on the integration of policies, which is the only way in which implementation can be successful. We are taking an active approach to working with other member states in specific working groups within the framework of the EU Common Implementation Strategy. The UK co-leads several of these working groups, including those on the water framework directive, agriculture and ecological status.

At the domestic level we are working to the strict timetable set out in the directive, working closely with the devolved administrations, as well as with government departments, and with the respective environment agencies as competent authorities to deliver implementation across the UK. As noble Baronesses have acknowledged, that requires extensive linkages with other policy areas, including agriculture, fisheries, biodiversity, land use planning, tourism and recreation. It is not a simple process, but we must work through the strategy in this way.

We are working with a wide range of stakeholders. A national WFD forum has met at regular intervals since 2001 to discuss implementation issues. The Environment Agency is currently establishing liaison panels comprising representatives of key regulators and deliverers in each river basin district. I will come back to the importance of that later. We continue to consult publicly; for example, the department has recently undertaken a consultation exercise on its draft guidance to the Environment Agency on the principles and key steps of the river basin planning process.

There are a number of challenging issues that we need to address if we are to meet WFD objectives, including, as the noble Baronesses recognise, tackling diffuse pollution from both agricultural and non-agricultural sources, and addressing hydro-morphological impacts. Those issues were highlighted in the Article 5 reports that the UK sent to the Commission in 2005. Perhaps I should point out that they are issues which we have in common with many other member states. Working across Europe we should be able to develop and learn initiatives and strategies from each other.

We are considering the full range of possible approaches, including voluntary, regulatory, economic and information-based instruments, and intend to consult on the most cost-effective options for tackling this issue in the latter part of this year. We are also working at EU level to look at possible solutions—I know that this will be of particular interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—including the use of rural development programmes and CAP cross compliance measures to address diffuse water pollution from agriculture. We will also take this opportunity to apply the principles of better regulation.

Compared with previous water directives, member states have greater flexibility in the choice of measures. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, economic analysis is central to the directive in selecting the most appropriate measures to achieve good status. In many cases there will be more than one measure or group of measures that could be used. In such cases, the relative cost-effectiveness will be compared as part—and, I stress, as part—of the decision-making process.

The directive is realistic in allowing some balance between social, economic and environmental objectives. It sets out circumstances in which member states may set alternative objectives—extended deadlines, or less stringent objectives—if meeting default objectives would be "disproportionately costly" or "technically infeasible". I will look further into this as the noble Baroness explored that area in her introduction. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the UK has played an active role in negotiating the new groundwater directive. The Council of Ministers reached a satisfactory common position in June 2005 and the next stage is the European Parliament's Second Reading next month. We will continue to work for an effective outcome.

I was asked about the strategic review of hydrological resources. That review has not yet reported on the question, but I will ensure that I write to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as soon as some information is available. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would also like to be kept informed. On the ADAS story of the massive damage to agricultural land, if we are to meet the water framework objectives the targets for nutrients such as nitrates under the WFD have not been established—except for those under the nitrates directive. The avoidance of disproportionate costs to agriculture is possible through the setting of alternative objectives, but I stress the importance of ensuring that, wherever possible, there is strong public support for meeting the objective of reducing the nitrates. It has to be carefully balanced.

Action is already planned to improve sewage treatment in the Thames tributary and other locations. The Government are considering the reasoned opinion and will respond to the Commission within two months as required. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date with information as that process goes forward. Exhaust gases from transport and their filtering and diffuse pollution from aircraft and other transport sources will need to be tackled as part of the directional aims of the river basin districts. If there is more information about how that is to be done, the technical issues and the monitoring, I will write to both noble Baronesses.

The water framework directive introduces a new strategic planning process and requirements for stakeholders' engagement in that. However, many of the requirements are not new but tasks which the Environment Agency already carries out as part of its brief. There is potential for the agency to make savings as a result of implementing this directive; for example, by integrating and streamlining its existing range of planning and stakeholder engagement processes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the polluter-pays principle. The use of economics is central to the water framework directive. It requires that member states have regard to that principle, that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for the efficient use of water resources, and that account is taken of the principle of recovering the costs of water services. We at Defra will be examining the use of the polluter-pays principle in the collaborative research programme ahead.

Although catchment-level planning is not the primary focus of river basin planning, it will make a significant contribution to that. The Environment Agency will work with existing stakeholder groups such as those already contributing to catchment abstraction management strategies. We may also work with other stakeholders whose objectives are aligned with those of the water framework directive, and where no forum exists we may seek to create a new one. As a passing aside, with a keen angler in the family, I doubt that we will have to wait long for anglers to form themselves into a group to look after their interests—and quite rightly too.

The directive is realistic in allowing for the use of alternative objectives; for example, the extension of objective deadlines or lower objectives where the improvements are disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right that we will stick to the application, but the points which she raised must be taken into account during the process of analysing whether such changes in objectives are valid and supportable.

The directive is important, but it is not the only tool for delivering the Government's biodiversity targets. As both noble Baronesses know, English Nature and the Environment Agency have piloted a framework for meeting the objective.

I apologise to noble Lords in wishing to correct something I said earlier. When I said "Thames tributary", I should have said "tideway".

The noble Baroness spoke about involvement and local networks organisations. I do not have time to go into the way in which river pilot projects have been set up. I have detailed information about the Ribble river pilot project, which will not surprise both noble Baronesses. I am assured that the public are involved at all levels. I am grateful for the Question. I, too, am sorry that I cannot answer all the points that were raised. I have done my best. I thank the noble Baroness.

Photo of Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley Government Whip, Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.06 to 8.30 pm.]