Hurd resisted on EC water laws

Stephen Castle,Political Correspondent
Saturday 12 September 1992 23:02
Comments

The Department of the Environment is fighting Whitehall pressure to repeal European directives that lay down minimum standards for British drinking and bathing water.

The directives, identified with the former European environment commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana, fall into one of the areas where the Government wants to restrict Commission power.

Pressure for a review of the directives has come from Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, who believes that water standards should not be dictated by Brussels. As part of Britain's presidency of the European Community, Mr Hurd has asked government departments to examine areas in which the Commission's powers should be restrained.

With continuing political difficulties over Maastricht, ministers are keen to show Conservative backbenchers that they are taking firm action to ensure that the EC devolves more decision-taking to national level.

Mr Hurd believes there is some scope for cross-border EC environment policy, for example on pollution, but he has been angered before by the Commission's desire to take a more active role in British environment policy. When Mr Ripa di Meana called for a halt to some road-building projects, including the M3 extension, in 1991, Mr Hurd accused him of meddling in the 'nooks and crannies' of British life.

Although Michael Howard, Secretary of State for the Environment, is regarded as a Eurosceptic, his department is cautioning against a move on the directives. It argues that a repeal would present major technical problems because the directives have been enshrined in British legislation.

Britain has one of the highest proportions of dirty beaches in Europe, with nearly a quarter failing to meet EC standards on pollution. Only Germany has a higher percentage - partly explained by the former East Germany being in the figures.

The water quality and bathing directives came into force in 1985, but in Britain the standards will not be met until at least 1995.

Ministerial sources said last week that the problem had not been resolved and could figure at the Edinburgh European Council meeting at the end of the year. However, the Foreign Office is being urged to concentrate on closer scrutiny of directives still in the pipeline, or those implemented in Britain by regulation rather than by statute.

Officals at the FO have produced a list of possible directives for repeal, but a decision on which ones to single out will be taken by the Cabinet committee on defence and overseas policy, chaired by the Prime Minister.

Many of the candidates are described as arcane, technical or uncontroversial.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in