---

Water Framework Directive

rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the water framework directive. The noble Baroness said: 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. Even 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””.—[Official Report, 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””.—[Official Report, 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.