Introduce ‘practical solutions' to make rivers clean and safe, Lib Dems urge
The Liberal Democrats tabled a Commons motion calling on the Government to take 'urgent action to end the sewage scandal', including the introduction of a new 'Blue Flag status' for rivers and chalk streams.
The proposal is designed to give waterways greater protection against sewage dumping and ensure the public knows when rivers are clean and safe.
In response, Environment Secretary Steve Reed said the amount of sewage entering rivers, lakes and seas was a 'national disgrace'. He said it was wrong parents had to worry about the health of their children if they were playing in rivers or seas.
Mr Farron told the Commons: 'Our proposal today aims to highlight the scandal of the pollution of our waterways and it calls for some practical solutions that will make a difference.
'The Government's recent Water Act was a step in the right direction following the failure of the last Conservative government to take meaningful action.
'Yet that Act was surely also a missed opportunity for the radical transformation of regulation and of ownership that is essential if we're going to clean up our waterways and clean up the water industry as a whole.
'Sir Jon Cunliffe's review gives us the hope that a more ambitious second water Bill might be coming, but there is no guarantee of that so our job as the constructive opposition in this place is to hold the Government to account and urge them to make the big changes that Britain voted for last July.'
Mr Farron, whose constituency includes Lake Windermere in the Lake District, added: 'Politics is a great calling, it allows us in this case to establish the structures that will enable that stewardship of our waterways to be effective, to mean more than just words, but to mean practical change for the better.
'Our motion today gives the House the opportunity to do practical good, and to do so now without further dither or delay.'
Mr Reed said the current level of discharge into waterways was a 'toxic result of years of failure by the previous Conservative government'.
He said more than £25 million was paid to chief executives of water companies during the last parliament. MPs heard the Environment Agency had its funding cut by half between 2010 and 2019, which led to a fall in water bosses being prosecuted.
He said: 'Instead of fixing our sewage system before a problem turned into a crisis, the Conservatives stood back and let water companies divert millions of pounds of their customers' money into the pockets of their bosses and their shareholders.'
Labour tabled an amendment that rewrote the Liberal Democrat motion, instead making reference to the Government 'inheriting a broken water system,' and that ministers had taken 'tough special measures' to clear up rivers, lakes and seas.
Mr Reed highlighted new powers introduced by the Water (Special Measures) Bill, including water companies having to publish information on the frequency and duration of discharges from storm overflows, and action plans on how they will reduce them.
'These measures give the water regulators new powers to hold water companies to account and ensure customers and the environment always come first. We can, and we will turn the water sector around,' he said.
Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said: 'We all know and agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. A drainage and sewage system that was first built in the Victorian era does not meet the needs of the population that it must now serve, or the pressures of more frequent and severe weather events.'
Ms Atkins joked she was delighted to see Mr Reed in the Commons, adding 'normally he's running frit from farmers'.
She said: 'We have had an underwhelming trickle, a review, yet another talking shop forum that hasn't done anything other than have a meeting, and a Bill that has – as we described it during the passage of the Bill – set out much of what was already happening.
'And as with every other part of this Government, they had no plan and they are now trying to come up with one.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
Where is scrutiny of UK's nuclear submarine plans?
In particular, there has yet to be any serious scrutiny of the proposal to build 12 nuclear-propelled submarines under the Aukus agreement, the military co-operation agreement between the US, UK and Australia. This scrutiny is especially necessary given that the Pentagon this week announced a review of its commitment to the agreement, raising questions about whether the billions of pounds committed by the UK Government are destined for the drain. The Aukus agreement's main aim is the material support of the Australian Navy in the Indo-Pacific, primarily by providing it with eight nuclear-powered submarines of the kind announced in the SDR. This means several of the 12 nuclear submarines will probably end up lurking around in the South China Sea, contributing nothing to the defence of the UK and raising regional tensions. READ MORE: Jeremy Corbyn says police 'picked on him' as Gaza protest case dropped No mainstream journalist or news organisation has questioned the Government over whether this is a sensible use of public resources or even a rational 'defence' strategy in any meaningful sense of the word. There has been no coverage of the fact the Government's watchdog the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) recently declared the manufacture of nuclear reactors to power the new Dreadnought submarines 'unachievable'. It gave the nuclear reactor project its lowest rating of 'red' in January of this year, as reported by The Ferret in February. While the IPA assessment rated the delivery of the new Aukus-class submarines as 'amber' ('facing significant issues requiring management attention'), it is widely assumed that the same nuclear reactors will power both the prospective nuclear-armed Dreadnought and Aukus submarines. In short, the Government's own infrastructure office just this year assessed that an indispensable component of all these submarines is not deliverable. This was hardly given a moment's airtime during the media furore on the SDR. (Image: PA) This alone is a serious indictment of Britain's elite journalists and indicates that their role has not been to question the Government's obscene military spending plans but rather to promote them. It therefore falls to citizens and civil society to raise the questions over serious doubts about the Government's costly nuclear plans. The Pentagon's review of its commitment to Aukus to determine if it aligns with the new administration's 'America First' agenda carries a weight of irony. Less than two weeks ago, UK Defence Secretary John Healey was espousing the supposed great benefits of the 'special relationship' with the US in terms of military co-operation and trade. Wednesday's development highlights just how little the UK gains from obsequiously aligning with US geopolitical interests, such as attempting to corral China in the Indo-Pacific. The unreliability of this relationship should compel a total reassessment of the predominant ideology about UK security, which currently prioritises being an arm of the US military in far-flung corners of the world over genuine domestic security. UK CND recently published an Alternative Defence, focusing on strengthening domestic social investment and a programme for common international security. The full report is on the UK CND website. The UK Government's irrational and incoherent military spending plans come at a time when the current generation of submarines based at Faslane are in an increasingly atrocious state of disrepair. Serious radioactive risk incidents at the naval base are increasing. The Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines are going on record-long assignments while their substitutes sit rusting in the repair docks. Crew are likely enduring awful conditions during six-month stints underwater, with some reports saying they ran out of food during the last assignment. Meanwhile, the Dreadnoughts that will supposedly replace these ailing vessels are unlikely to enter service for 10 years at least – if the reactors to power them can be built at all. The UK's nuclear superpower farce is unsustainable and a disaster waiting to happen. Those of us who understand this in Scotland must support the parties which oppose nuclear weapons in the run-up to the 2026 election, and keep up the pressure on Scottish parliamentarians to support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Samuel Rafanell-Williams is Scottish CND's communications officer
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Industry leader writes to SNP minister over new nuclear ban
The long term commitment includes a major new plant in the south of England that will create 10,000 jobs, as well as small modular reactors. Louise Gilmour, the GMB Scotland secretary has written to Gillian Martin, MSP and Scottish energy secretary, 'to urge the Scottish Government to review its stance on blocking new nuclear'. She said the new investment 'includes £14.2 billion for an entirely new nuclear site at Sizewell, and also £2.5bn in cutting edge small modular reactor (SMR) technologies'. Louise Gilmour, GMB Scotland secretary. (Image: Andrew Cawley) Ms Gilmour wrote: 'Both of these investments will not just protect our energy security, but create thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs in their construction, and in the long term, hundreds of well-paid jobs in operations and research. 'A total of 10,000 jobs will be created at Sizewell alone. Where in Scotland are jobs being created at such a scale? Scotland's manufacturing base – in construction and energy – is dying.' She continued: 'We have experienced the closure of Grangemouth in Falkirk, of Aggregate Industries in North Lanarkshire, the slashing of jobs at Tarmac in East Lothian, the trickle of job losses from the North Sea, and the yards at Methil and Arnish being brought back from the brink yet again and still there are no major renewable works in those yards 'We are now contending with the planned closure of Alexander Dennis which would be yet another blow to the Falkirk area. This is not sustainable.' READ MORE: 'Amidst broken promises on a green jobs revolution, the Scottish Government cannot afford to scoff at the offering of nuclear energy on the table. An offer that would in large part be funded by the UK Government. The ban against new nuclear – especially SMRs – must be lifted.' Gillian Martin, Scottish energy secretary. (Image: Getty Images) The union said green-lighting new mini reactors in Scotland could create thousands of skilled jobs generating hundreds of millions of pounds for surrounding communities. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the government is 'investing in Britain's renewal, with the biggest nuclear building programme in a generation ... this landmark decision is our Plan for Change in action', adding: 'We are creating thousands of jobs, kickstarting economic growth and putting more money people's pockets.' The Scottish Government declined to answer in direct response but a spokesperson said to this and earlier questions from The Herald: 'The Scottish Government is focussed on supporting growth and creating jobs by capitalising on Scotland's immense renewable energy capacity rather than expensive new nuclear energy which takes decades to build, creates toxic waste which is difficult and costly to dispose of and does not generate power at a cost that will bring down energy bills.' The union said the nuclear industry supports around 3,700 jobs in Scotland and contributes about £400 million to the Scottish economy.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
As politicians bicker, Scotland faces losing Alexander Dennis
This is all the more so when it comes to manufacturing job losses in Scotland, perhaps because of the extent to which this sector has dwindled over the decades. The news that up to 400 jobs are at risk at Falkirk bus manufacturing firm Alexander Dennis is first and foremost a massive blow to the people directly affected. It means there is a very real prospect of hundreds more people joining the ranks of the unemployed in an area hit hard by the closure of Scotland's only oil refinery at Grangemouth, with the loss of around 400 job losses. It is always disheartening when concerns over widespread job cuts come a distant second in the minds of those seeking to score political points from corporate decisions taken to reduce workforces. Yet, coming so soon after further job cuts were announced by oil and gas giant Harbour Energy in Aberdeen, a move blamed by the company on the UK Government's energy profits levy, the proposed cuts at Alexander Dennis have led to an impression of decline in Scottish industry. Opponents of the Scottish Government have been quick to assert that events at Alexander Dennis are yet more evidence of the administration's flawed strategy and failure to protect industry and jobs. These critics repeatedly point to the delays and cost over-runs in the delivery by the nationalised Ferguson Marine shipyard of two ferries to serve the west coast and the time it has taken to find a buyer for Prestwick Airport, which was taken into state ownership in 2013, in justification of these claims (even though Prestwick is now regularly making profits and beginning to build a lucrative air freight operation). The Scottish Government has also come under for fire failing to deliver the amount of "green" jobs in the transition from oil and gas production to renewable energy that ministers forecast. Read more: But in the matter of Alexander Dennis, which has been part of NFI Group since the North American company acquired the firm for £320 million in 2019, any culpability on the part of the Scottish Government seems hard to discern. Winnipeg-based NFI, which is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, looks simply to have assessed its costs and concluded that it can save money by consolidating its UK bus body building operations into a single site. Unfortunately for Scotland, the site selected for this work is in Scarborough, not Falkirk. Euan Stainbank, the Scottish Labour MP for Falkirk, said the Scottish Government should have done more to support Alexander Dennis by ordering more buses from domestic manufacturers to serve local networks. He said Greater Manchester had bought more than five times the amount of buses from Alexander Dennis than had been purchased to serve the industry in Scotland. But ultimately in Scotland it is down to private bus companies to decide which manufacturers they wish to buy their vehicles from – not the Scottish Government. Naturally, those fighting to prevent the proposed cuts in Falkirk are urging Scottish ministers to do all they can to stop or limit the amount of redundancies during the consultation period that is now under way. Perhaps there is some financial incentive that can be offered to entice NFI to change its mind, but it is hard to be optimistic. Paul Davies, president and managing director of Alexander Dennis, hinted at the limitations of UK policy when the proposed cuts were announced on Wednesday. 'While stakeholders have been sympathetic of the situation, the stark reality is that current UK policy does not allow for the incentivisation or reward of local content, job retention and creation, nor does it encourage any domestic economic benefit,' he said. 'We have warned of the competitive imbalance for some time and would like to see policy and legislative changes that incentivise the delivery of local benefit where taxpayer money is invested. We strongly believe funding that supports public transport should lead to investment in local jobs, domestic supply chains, technology creation and a recurrent tax base.' There is a certain, painful irony to the situation too. While the Grangemouth refinery was declared by Petroineos to be no longer financially viable in the face of global competition and the drive to net zero, the Alexander Dennis site in Falkirk has been involved in the production of buses powered by electrical batteries and hydrogen, in other words at the cutting edge of modern transport technology. As veteran Scottish politician Kenny MacAskill, leader of the Alba Party, noted, it is 'perverse when Scotland is awash with renewable energy and is the base for the UK's green hydrogen that a company specialising in hydrogen buses is forced to relocate elsewhere'. Sadly, past experience in Scotland suggests that once a company decides to close operations, there is no going back. Petroineos could not be persuaded to change course at Grangemouth, and back in 2009 Diageo proceeded to shut down its Johnnie Walker plant in Kilmarnock despite significant protests at the time. It looks for all the world that the proposed cuts at Alexander Dennis are destined to become another sad chapter in Scottish industrial history, and one that will be especially poignant given the company's proud and long manufacturing legacy.
