---

Water Framework Directive

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””.—[Official Report, 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.