|
Column Number: 002
European Standing
Committee A
Wednesday 4 June 2003
[Derek Conway in the Chair]
Quality of Bathing Water
2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Welcome to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Conway.
I will say a few words to outline the directive and be as brief as one can be when outlining a European directive. The bathing water directive goes back some years. Initially there were difficulties with compliance, but I am pleased to say that England now achieves compliance above the European Union average after a sustained effort over almost two decades.
The current directive is now 27 years old. The Commission produced a proposal for revision in 1994 and an amended proposal in 1997, but both failed to gain the support of successive presidencies and were later withdrawn. The Commission produced a communication in 2000 setting out new thinking on the revision, which was the basis for consultation leading to new proposal in October 2002, but the new proposal is broadly similar to previous ones. The United Kingdom is supportive of the revision but concerned that the proposal does not reflect past experience with the current directive. I will touch on two examples: the difficulties in meeting the standards and the definition of bathing water. I know that that concerns the European Scrutiny Committee, which is why it asked for the debate.
First, on the difficulties of meeting the standards, the main feature is tighter standards that are even more difficult to comply with. No member state achieves 100 per cent. compliance with the current directive and infraction action has been taken against most member states for failures. The Commission's tighter standards are based largely on draft World Health Organisation guidelines for recreational waters, which were derived from limited UK research and subject to many caveats. This is a complex scientific area and the evidence is inconclusive.
Evidence from the real world of the sustained popularity of bathing suggests that the risk of illness is low, but we are not complacent. Our regulatory impact assessment shows that UK compliance with the new directive will drop initially to about 70 per cent. from the current rate of 98 per cent., which is one of the highest in Europe. Compliance is expected to improve with further planned work on the sewerage infrastructure, but problems will remain with about 15 per cent. of bathing waters affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture or wildlife, such as bird flocks, especially in wet weather when there is run-off.
Cost-benefit analysis shows that the cost of achieving compliance is almost three times the likely benefits. Estimates of the cost over 25 years are
Column Number: 003
£3.2 billion to £4.9 billion in England and Wales and about £1 billion in Scotland. I stress that our concern is not cost but whether a range of other benefits can be obtained from such spending.
There are other ways of obtaining improvements, such as management, which we shall touch on during our discussion of the directive. The bulk of the costs apply to bathing waters affected by diffuse agricultural pollution. The costs are uncertain because the effectiveness of measures to tackle diffuse pollution is unknown; a lot of work is being done to deal with that. Measures under the water framework directive and other EU water legislation will help, but they are unlikely to be sufficient or to come early enough.
We are keen to have a more flexible approach in the directive to manage those problems. A management action approach would allow member states to manage the risk to bathers by, for example, providing advisory notices to the public when the water quality is below par. Many groups have asked for that. Advisory notices are common overseas—for example, in the United States—but new to the UK.
In summary, we are concerned that the directive is disproportionate in setting rigid standards with heavy financial penalties for non-compliance when the consequences for public health are so small.
The definition of ''bathing water'' in the current directive is unclear and has led to problems. Initially, the UK identified only 27 bathing waters and was taken to the European Court of Justice by the Commission for not including Blackpool. However, there has been a failure to learn from experience. The new definition retains the vague concept in the current definition of a ''large number of bathers''. The UK is keen to have a clearer definition incorporated into the directive.
The Commission has not extended the scope of the directive to cover recreational waters, and we recognise that it does not go as far as some users of recreational water want. We are sympathetic to their concerns. I recently held a discussion with the leading campaigners Surfers Against Sewage in which we discussed ways in which we could work together to build a picture of the extent of the areas used for recreational activities and the number of participants in those activities. I am willing to use that information to explore the possibility of extending some of the provisions of the directive to sites where there is intensive use for certain recreational activities. My meeting with Surfers Against Sewage was constructive. Mr. and Mrs. Dent, who are members of Surfers Against Sewage, came to my surgery last weekend. I went through the points with them and they were generally supportive of proportionate ways in which we can improve the situation.
In contrast, I am pleased to see proposals to ensure that the revised directive is applied in an even-handed manner across the EU. I am keen to see that happen. There are many complaints that we in the UK apply standards and other European countries do not. Such complaints are often exaggerated, but the issue is important and we are keen to ensure that the proposals are applied in the same way. The
Column Number: 004
proposals include harmonisation of standards on monitoring, which is important, and on the handling, storage and analysis of samples. Experience of the current directive has exposed loopholes and a lack of harmonised standards. We need a common approach.
The UK supports the revision of the bathing water standards. However, the proposal ignores important lessons from the past and there is little justification for the higher costs associated with it. Similar improvements can be achieved with an approach that is a bit more flexible. I stress that the UK is not alone in having reservations about the way in which the proposal is drafted.
I recommend that the Committee supports the Government's objective of having effective, practical and proportionate measures applied across the EU to monitor and regulate the quality of bathing waters. We should take a flexible approach to the shared objective of having a higher bathing water and ecological standards. There has been investment over the past few years in ensuring that standards have been raised.
On a final note, in relation to the blue flag designation, the latest figures will come out tomorrow and I am confident that the news for the UK will be good.
The Chairman: Order. We have until 3 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that the questions should be brief and put one at a time. If the questions are exhausted before 3 o'clock, we can move on to debate the main motion.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): According to the pamphlet—the documents—there are three and a half choices. Which is the Minister's preferred choice?
Mr. Morley: That is an interesting question. The choices, which I think are labelled 1, 2a and 2b, range from doing nothing to full compliance. My preferred choice would be to apply aspects of the directive, particularly in relation to the beach surveys, beach management, better information in relation to water samples, and information for water users. I am not arguing for doing nothing—there are suggestions in the directive that we could apply. I ask only that we approach the matter flexibly in terms of a management regime, so that we achieve better results without the proposed straitjacket of regulations.
Mr. Wiggin: Is it possible to do only parts of an EU directive?
Mr. Morley: No, I think one would have to get agreement in the Council about the way in which it was applied. I prefer option 2a or 2b,which cover the points that I outlined.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): The Minister has not mentioned the word ''subsidiarity''. Although the word appears in the documents, the directive is not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. Surely our beaches are our problem and do not affect any other country in the European Union directly or the common market. Why is there a European directive on the subject at all?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is a legitimate case for subsidiarity on this
Column Number: 005
directive. However, there are certain advantages in a common approach, because we all want to aim for a high standard across European coastal waters and bathing beaches. If we in the UK apply high standards, it is not unreasonable to expect that that our citizens who go on holiday abroad may be confident that similar high standards apply in other EU countries. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a case for a common approach.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): The Minister is being rather self-effacing on behalf of the human race. Is it not a fact that faecal material is the primary cause of concern? The 1976 directive required 17 parameters, including tests for heavy metals, whereas the new proposal requires only two parameters to be monitored—intestinal enterococii and escherichia coli. Is the Minister satisfied that those two tests are sufficient?
Mr. Morley: I have not checked the details, but the directive does not diverge from the standards of the original directive. There is also a third test in relation to algal bloom in fresh water bathing waters. I believe that the standards are fairly well understood, but our principal concern is that they are being applied rigidly.
| 
