House of Commons - European Scrutiny

Select Committee on European Scrutiny Fifth Report

FIFTH REPORT

The European Scrutiny Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

13789/02

COM(02) 581

Draft Directive concerning the quality of bathing water.

Legal base:	Article 175(1) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting

Document originated:	24 October 2002
Deposited in Parliament:	8 November 2002
Department:	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Basis of consideration:	EM of 25 November 2002
Previous Committee Report:	None; but see footnotes
To be discussed in Council:	No date set
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	For debate in European Standing Committee A

Background

1.1 Because of the link between illnesses such as gastroenteritis and infections of the ear and respiratory tract, and the presence of microbiological pollution caused by sewage and agricultural runoff in bathing water, the Council adopted Directive 76/160/EEC[1] governing bathing water quality. This establishes various physical, chemical and microbiological parameters within which Member States are required to set standards for particular bathing areas, and which they were required to meet within ten years. The Directive also lays down a more stringent, but non-mandatory Guideline standard.

1.2 In 1994, the Commission put forward a proposal[2] to amend the Directive by providing for the more regular sampling of a more clearly focussed set of parameters, and by clarifying the obligations of Member States — including the prohibition of bathing — when water fails to conform to the required standards. However, this was widely seen within the Council as imposing significant additional costs without adequate safety justification, and there were also concerns on grounds of both subsidiarity and practicality. Similar criticisms were made of an amended proposal[3] which was put forward towards the end of 1997 to take into account amendments proposed by the European Parliament.

1.3 Both documents were debated in European Standing Committee A on 29 April 1998, but were subsequently withdrawn by the Commission which had by then proposed a number of other measures dealing with water quality. The most significant of these led to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC),[4] which extends protection to all waters, encourages integrated river basin management, and sets limits to emissions and discharges, aimed at achieving good ecological status. However, other measures, such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive[5] (which addresses key point sources of pollution) and the Nitrates Directive[6] (aimed at reducing pollution from agricultural sources) are also relevant. This in turn has led the Commission to review its approach to bathing water quality, and it outlined its latest thinking in the Communication[7] in December 2000, which it saw as setting in train a process of consultation which would lead to it putting forward a proposal for a new directive.

1.4 The Communication said that the 1976 Directive had created "unprecedented" public awareness, and had encouraged Member States to tackle waste water discharges to the aquatic environment, even prior to the development of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It added that annual reports had shown a "constant and significant" improvement in bathing water quality, at least as regards coastal areas (though the improvement of inland, fresh bathing water quality, which was influenced by diffuse sources of pollution, had proved more difficult). It also pointed out that the rate of improvement had declined in recent years, but it suggested that, by new measures building on the experience of existing legislation, further improvements could be achieved. In particular, it highlighted the main scientific criticisms of the present Directive, namely that some of its parameters were outdated (and others no longer relevant); that monitoring was carried out for compliance checking rather than in order to gain better understanding; that, because of the failure to specify methods of analysis, results from different laboratories were not fully comparable; and that the time needed for microbiological analysis meant that bathers were often exposed to pollution before it was possible to react to a non-compliant sample.

1.5 The Commission therefore called for (a) ambitious and legally binding water quality standards, (b) bathing water quality management to extend beyond monitoring in the bathing area itself, and into tackling pollution sources (in particular waste water discharges and agricultural run-off) in terms of land use and upstream emissions, and (c) the provision of good quality information in "near-real" time, so as to enable the public to make informed choices about if, and where, to bathe.

1.6 It also outlined its thinking on a number of specific issues. These include:

the placing of greater emphasis on suitable and prompt management actions (such as beach closure) whenever quality standards are breached, coupled with long-term action for "structural" non-compliance;

the need to develop a continuous and more flexible "beach profile", identifying all potential sources of pollution and looking, not just at particular results, but at quality trends for individual bathing areas over a three to five year period;

the adoption of health standards,[8] linked to levels of faecal contamination, and based both on draft World Health Organisation guidelines on intestinal enterococci, and on levels of E. coli;

an obligation within a limited time-frame to take remedial action, such as the improvement of waste water collection and treatment, when water quality is bad or deteriorates;

the widest possible dissemination of updated information, with use being made of the internet as well as more conventional media.

The current proposal

1.7 The current proposal would replace the present Directive by a measure which would require Member States:

to ensure that all bathing waters meet a "Good quality" status, based on their observing over the three preceding seasons the standards laid down for two key microbiological parameters[9] and assessed and calculated according to the methods specified in the Directive, and complemented by visual inspection for algal blooms and oil and the measurement of acidity (see Annex);

to promote the achievement of "Excellent Quality" status, based upon more demanding microbiological standards, and management measures which have taken into account the range of recreational water uses in the area;

to establish a monitoring programme in order to ensure that these parameters are observed, and as a means of establishing sets of data needed to assess bathing water quality;

to establish within two years a list of waters meeting the required standards, and to notify the Commission and the public before the start of each bathing season, including the reasons for any changes;

to ensure that a profile setting out the physical, geographical and hydrological characteristics of bathing water, and identifying sources of pollution, is established;

to update these profiles at least once a year for waters classified as "poor", bi-annually for those classified as "good", and tri-annually for those classified as excellent;

to establish emergency plans for events such as floods, accidents and infrastructure breakdowns which may have an adverse impact on bathing water quality, together with surveillance and early warning systems;

to ensure that the relevant authorities and the public are alerted to any risks, and that the capacity needed to respond to them is available.

1.8 In presenting its proposal, the Commission discusses the case for seeking to address the health not just of those bathing, but also those engaging in other water-based activities, such as surfing, wind surfing and kayaking, which face similar risks. However, it concludes that this would not be appropriate, since these often take place considerably further from the shore, in separate locations, and over far longer periods of the year than traditional bathing, thus requiring a significantly greater degree of protection. Member States would, however, have to ensure that information is provided to the public, identifying clearly whether water quality monitoring and other management practices ensure an equal level of protection for these sports.

The Government's view

1.9 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 25 November 2002, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons) at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) says that, although the Government will examine whether the proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, bathing water quality is already regulated at European level, and that the UK favours bringing the existing Directive up to date with scientific knowledge and technological developments. Consequently, it agreed in March 2001 to the adoption of Environment Council conclusions welcoming the review, but calling for a cost-benefit study to be carried out and for a sound scientific basis to be established.

1.10 He points out that the "good" standard proposed is approximately equivalent to the non-mandatory Guideline standard in the existing Directive, and that the tightening of the minimum water quality requirement this represents could entail a fall in UK compliance from 98.5% in 2002 to around 70%, if additional measures are not taken. He adds that the main sources of contamination causing non-compliance in the past have been sewage discharges, but that considerable infrastructure improvements have been made in the last decade. Consequently, whilst there is scope for some further action, for example by raising treatment levels, future improvements will depend largely upon reducing the impact of diffuse contamination sources, especially from agriculture during rainfall, by means such as preventing animal access to watercourses, improvements to farm drainage systems, changes to manure spreading and grazing practices, and a reduction in livestock numbers.

1.11 The Minister also points out that the Commission's decision not to extend the scope of the measure to recreational waters represents a less comprehensive regime than that advocated by some water sports user groups. He says that the UK is already committed to finding ways to increase access to water for sport and informal recreation, and will consider whether additional measures are required for such waters.

1.12 The Minister has provided with his Explanatory Memorandum a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment, based on studies commissioned by his department in England and Wales, but whose conclusions he suggests would (with proportionate adjustments to the figures) also apply to the UK as a whole. The main findings are:

that the benefits of reducing the risk of gastroenteritis through tighter bathing water quality standards and providing information would be in the range £1.1 - 1.9 billion over 25 years, though there may also be other, unquantifiable benefits, such as a reduction in other bathing-related illnesses, and environmental improvements, though "these are unlikely to be substantial";

that the costs of achieving the proposed standards would be between £3.2 - 4.8 billion over 25 years, with the bulk of these arising from reductions in agricultural diffuse pollution of a minority of bathing waters; in addition, the costs arising over this same period from further work on sewerage infrastructure would be between £80 - 131 million;

that savings of 20-50% of these costs would be possible if, instead of enforcing microbiological standards in every situation, the revised Directive permitted full use of management measures, such as the provision of advisory notices, to protect public health during short-term pollution events (for example, increased agricultural run off following heavy rainfall);

that, although monitoring, management and administration costs would increase for a system of active management, these are likely to be insignificant compared with the potential savings in investment costs.

1.13 The Assessment does, however, enter a strong note of caution over both the cost and benefit estimates. It says that the level of agricultural costs is uncertain, and that, whilst action required under the Nitrates and Water Framework Directives will help to reduce the problem, the Government does not consider that this will be sufficient to solve the problem everywhere. Consequently, additional action will be needed on diffuse pollution, which may be disproportionate to the risks involved, and that in any case the costs may change once more information on the effectiveness of measures in this area becomes available. DEFRA's studies also suggest that achieving the more stringent "Excellent" standard — currently met by only just over half of the UK's bathing waters — would significantly add to the areas where action would be needed to reduce diffuse microbiogical pollution.

1.14 As regards the benefits, the Minister says that the figures in the Assessment assume that the reduction in health risks associated with the proposed water quality standard is correct. He points out that the Commission's assertion that the proposal will produce significant health benefits is based on methodology developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) which is itself based on very limited epidemiological evidence, and that (though they are the best available) the UK regards these as inconclusive. In particular, the Minister expresses concern at the emphasis placed by the Commission on microbiological quality standards, and at the relative lack of regard for other aspects of the WHO approach, such as the role of management action. He also says that epidemiological studies show that bathing-related illness is generally mild and does not cause increased visits to doctors or days off work. Consequently, the UK is continuing to assess whether protecting the public from bathing-related illness should be a high public health priority, bearing in mind that bathing is but one of many factors leading to gastroenteritis, and that the risk of serious disease from bathing in UK waters is said to be negligible.

Conclusion

1.15 Although this document replaces the earlier, now defunct proposals, it does appear to be on broadly similar lines. Not surprisingly, therefore, it raises similar (and important) issues relating to both the nature and cost of the measures which would have to be taken, and, more particularly, the perceived benefits, where the UK at least appears to have reservations about the assumptions underlying the Commission's own appraisal. In view of this, and notwithstanding the debate held previously, we think it would be right for the House to have a further look at this subject. We are therefore recommending the present document for debate in European Standing Committee A.

ANNEX

PARAMETERS FOR BATHING WATER QUALITY

Parameters	Excellent	Good
Microbiological (units/100 ml)
Intestinal Enterococci	100	250
Escherischia coli	250	500
Phytoplankton blooms/ macro-algae proliferation		Negative result on test
Physico-chemical
Mineral oils		No film visible on the surface and no odour
Tarry residues and floating materials, such as wood, plastic etc		Absence
pH		6 - 9 No unexplainable variations