Environment Agency criticised over Whittlesey pollution incidents
The incidents included two in Whittlesey, near Peterborough, one at Saxon Pit, seven years ago and another at King's Dyke in September.
In a parliamentary debate on Wednesday, Sir Stephen claimed the EA's lack of action could not be put down to resources, since its accounts showed an increase in staffing in the last Parliament by 21%, with expenditure increasing from £1.4bn to £2.2bn over the same period. An incident at the King's Dyke watercourse in September, which the EA declared as a category one, led to the death of about 900 fish.Anglian Water said its storm overflow had operated as permitted during heavy rainfall, but that it found evidence of an oil slick close to one outfall, and high levels of ammonia at a second.Speaking in the debate, the MP said: "We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category one, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year."I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability."The EA has not revealed the outcome of its findings or whether any prosecutions were likely, but has said they will publish findings in September.Anglian Water said it had no further comment to make since its response in October.
The Saxon Pit incident saw 122,000 tonnes of waste dumped between October 2017 and February 2018."The EA's initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped - but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act," said Sir Stephen."Seven years on the waste remains in situ."He added the EA said the dumping was a "priority" issue and promised prosecutions, neither of which have materialised.Responding to Sir Stephen's concerns, Emma Hardy, Labour's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, agreed constituents wanted action to pollution incidents. "I have been told that the situation at King's Dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the [EA] area director, given that they involve criminal investigations," she said.The EA has been contacted for comment.
Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What will happen to people arrested on Palestine Action demonstration?
The consequences of being arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action could be 'life-changing', one of those detained during Saturday's protests, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has admitted. While the former government adviser said that he had carefully deliberated over a decision to take part, the road ahead for the more than 500 people arrested on Saturday involves possible criminal charges, court cases and convictions. Ultimately, custodial sentences of as much as 14 years could be imposed. Those whose details could be confirmed were released on bail to appear at a police station at a future date. The police will be sending case files to the Crown Prosecution Service, as it has already done in the case of at least 26 others who were arrested at previous protests in support of Palestine Action. All those arrested have now been released under police bail, with the main condition being not to attend any future demonstrations aiming to overwhelm the criminal justice system in protest at the proscription of Palestine Action by the British government. They will be asked how they plead and if it is not guilty they can elect for a trial before a magistrate or, more likely, a district judge. The majority of the 522 people arrested in Parliament Square – in most cases after displaying pieces of cardboard saying 'I opposed genocide, I support Palestine Action' – were detained under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 'lower level' part of the act, which means those who are charged will be tried in a magistrates court rather than a crown court. Some have been charged under the more serious section 12, which means they could seek to have their case heard in front of a jury of their peers at a crown court. The prosecution could also seek to have the trial heard there. Defend Our Juries, the organising group behind the protest, has said it won't be recommending what people do, as they have already participated 'at huge personal cost' but it will be 'providing the information'. There is a scenario in which court trials do not happen, if the co-founder of Palestine Action is successful in a legal challenge against the home secretary's decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws. Given that most those arrested on Saturday will be investigated under section 13 of the terrorism act, they could well walk free from court. They face a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000 or both, while magistrates will also take into account factors such as good character. More than half of those arrested on Saturday were also aged 60 or over. Those arrested under the more serious section 12 of the Terrorism Act face a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison if convicted. However, such individuals could end up being tried before a jury in a crown court. In recent cases under section 13, people charged with supporting Hamas, including displaying pictures of hang gliders such as those used in the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, were given absolute or conditional discharges. Will a jury drawn from their peers be more likely to sympathise with those arrested on Saturday? Those involved in organising the protest are confident that the British public is on the same page as them. The impact of such a conviction would be felt in everything from employment to travel. Many of those arrested are retired and, while they do not have a job to lose, the possibility of being unable to get a visa to go abroad might weigh. However, the consequences are starker for others arrested on Saturday including health workers and doctors. There was an organised 'health block' of 13 medical professionals – including an obstetrician and gynaecologist, three other working doctors, a number of nurses, and retired doctors. Alice Clack, a senior obstetrician and gynaecologist in the NHS, said: 'If doctors are charged with a crime we have to self-report to the GMC [General Medical Council], who then have a look at the crime in question and decide whether to refer it to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. 'Then, someone could expect to be suspended or they could be erased from the register. That is the possibility.' As for seeking future employment, recent legislation largely reduced the period of time during which those convicted of most crimes must declare a conviction. However, while it reduced the period of time during which an individual must declare a conviction, it does not apply to terrorist offences – which never become spent.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action co-founder accuses ministers of making defamatory claims
The co-founder of Palestine Action has accused ministers of making false and defamatory allegations about the banned group and contradicting their own intelligence assessments in an attempt to justify the arrest of more than 500 people. The government has come under pressure to justify the detention of 532 people arrested over the weekend under the Terrorism Act – half of whom were 60 or older – on suspicion of showing support for Palestine Action. The number of people arrested for peaceful protests, together with the images of older people being led away and the demands placed on the criminal justice system have led many to call into question the criminalisation of so many people. On Monday, a Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying that Palestine Action, which last month became the first direct action protest group to be banned, was 'a violent organisation that has committed violence, significant injury, extensive criminal damage'. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the BBC that Palestine Action 'is not a non-violent organisation' and claimed that court restrictions meant people 'don't know the full nature of this organisation'. But Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, said: 'Yvette Cooper and No 10's claim that Palestine Action is a violent organisation is false and defamatory and even disproven by the government's own intelligence assessment of Palestine Action's activities … 'It was revealed in court during my ongoing legal challenge to the ban that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's (JTAC'S) assessment acknowledges that 'Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons' and that the 'majority' of its activities 'would not be classified as terrorism'. 'Spraying red paint on war planes is not terrorism. Disrupting Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, by trespassing on their sites in Britain is not terrorism. It is the Israeli Defense Forces and all those who arm and enable their war crimes who are the terrorists.' JTAC, a government body based within MI5, produced a secret report on 7 March which was disclosed in the high court. While recommending banning Palestine Action, JTAC said the group 'primarily uses direct action tactics', which typically resulted in minor damage to property. 'Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,' it added. Defend Our Juries, which has organised multiple demonstrations, including Saturday's, in support of Palestine Action, also highlighted Whitehall officials' description – again in documents revealed in court – of a ban as 'relatively novel' as 'there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property'. A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'It is despicable that under political pressure, Yvette Cooper is now actively misleading the British public about the nature of Palestine Action, knowing that if people come to their defence to counter her disinformation, she can have them jailed for 14 years [because they could be deemed to supporting a proscribed group].' The group said many hundreds of people had already committed to the next protest, which is likely to take place in early September and will be on an even larger scale. Uncertainty remains over the status of charges and prosecutions. Tom Franklin, chief executive of the Magistrates' Association, said: 'Based on the information that we currently have, and the statement put out by the Metropolitan Police yesterday, it could take days and possibly weeks for decisions to be made on whether or not to charge any of those arrested over the weekend. Many of these cases may also be heard in the crown courts, rather than magistrates courts.' Magistrates courts hear less serious cases although some charges under section 13 of the Terrorism Act are 'either way', meaning the defendant can choose whether to be tried before magistrates or a jury in the crown court. The Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: 'Personally I would go to the crown court because I know where the British public is, both on the genocide in Gaza and secondly on the British government's support for it, and thirdly on people not being allowed to express their opinions.' However, they added that they expected most charges to be laid under section 13, which are all heard in the magistrates courts, as the criminal justice system would not be able to cope with so many jury trials.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Minister vows to fix broken nuclear regulation
Ministers have vowed to speed up crucial nuclear projects as part of a plan to transform Britain into a green energy superpower. A new independent taskforce commissioned by the Government called for a 'radical reset' of nuclear regulations this week, taking aim at the current system which it said was 'unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly'. In its first report, the taskforce said overly complex and expensive red tape was holding up crucial infrastructure projects and increasing the cost of the UK's nuclear deterrent. John Fingleton, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading who is leading the taskforce, said: 'Nuclear energy is safe and reliable and can contribute to net zero goals. It is also vital to the UK's strategic deterrent. 'However, over recent decades, nuclear regulation has become more complex and costly without always delivering commensurate safety and environmental benefits.' He said the current system was 'not fit for purpose'. Miatta Fahnbulleh, the minister for energy consumers, said: 'For too long, big British infrastructure projects have been held back by needless bureaucracy. 'It's time for a new approach to getting nuclear projects off the ground more quickly, and at a lower cost. 'We look forward to working with the expert taskforce to modernise outdated regulations so we can unlock growth, jobs and energy security for the British people.' It comes after ministers were forced to admit that the Sizewell C nuclear power plant could end up costing £48bn to build – £10bn more than they estimated when final approval was given last month. The cost of the new plant in Suffolk had already more than doubled from about £16bn in 2016. Meanwhile, a sister project at Hinkley Point C in Somerset is six years late and £28bn over budget. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, recently heralded a new 'golden age' of nuclear amid concerns that the rapid shift to wind and solar has left Britain exposed to blackouts. However, the ballooning cost of nuclear projects has fuelled concerns about rising energy bills for consumers. A new levy to help fund Sizewell C is due to kick in this autumn, adding an average of £12 per year to household bills. In its report, the taskforce attacked 'risk-averse cultures that prioritise bureaucracy over proportionate safety measures', which it said led to higher costs and delayed projects. It also criticised complex and inconsistent rules, with processes often duplicated across overlapping regulators, as well as outdated planning rules. The Government said it would work with the taskforce to develop a new strategic direction for the nuclear industry to ensure projects are completed quickly and safely. A final report and recommendation will be published in the autumn. Mike Finnerty, the chief executive of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, said: 'Our discussions with the taskforce have been extremely productive. We will continue to work with the team, providing further requested regulatory expertise, to help inform the final report in a way that supports innovation.'
