Government ‘could miss chance to tackle chemical pollutants from wastewater'
The organisation said the cost of cleaning up chemicals from the environment could be left to taxpayers in future unless the UK follows the EU and France to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle.
This requires industries responsible for producing or using harmful contaminants to contribute to the cost of their removal or remediation.
Wastewater treatment plants in the UK are currently not equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CCs) – pollutants that may harm human health and nature but for which there is little restriction, legislation or monitoring data.
CCs include pharmaceuticals, pesticides, illicit drugs and PFAs – known as 'forever chemicals' because they take centuries to break down – that can enter the environment in many ways, including through effluent streams.
It comes amid ongoing public outrage at the state of England's waterways, where no river has reported a 'good' status for chemical pollution under current the current monitoring programme.
The Government's planned water sector reforms focus on measures to tackle sewage pollution, after utilities have been increasingly dumping untreated wastewater into seas, lakes and rivers during periods of wet or stormy weather.
The RSC argued that ministers should use the opportunity of upcoming reforms to introduce measures that help to remove CCs from wastewater as well.
Natalie Sims, policy adviser at the RSC, said: 'With so much attention right now on tackling sewage overflows and upgrading wastewater treatment plants, this is a crucial opportunity to address chemical pollutants at the same time.
'If we're already making major changes, we should be ambitious – focusing solely on sewage risks missing the chance to protect our waters more fully and for the long term.'
As the UK and EU Summit takes place in London on Monday, the RSC also said the Government should align more closely with Europe on wastewater rules.
The EU recently revised its laws to introduce a 'polluter pays' principle, which levies money from industries such as cosmetics or pharmaceuticals that cause chemical pollution to fund their removal at wastewater treatment plants.
France also passed a bill to tax firms that emit PFAs to the environment.
Ms Sims said: 'Unlike recent French and EU initiatives that apply a 'polluter pays' levy to fund the removal of these hazardous substances, UK industry faces no such requirement.
'As a result, taxpayers may ultimately shoulder the costs of tackling contaminants, which we believe is unfair.'
An RSC survey of more than 4,000 UK adults, carried out by YouGov in August, found that nine in 10 think it is 'very important' to effectively control levels of the group of chemicals in food, drinking water and the environment.
When asked to rank who should be held most responsible for reducing PFAs levels, 74% and 73% of respondents said manufacturers of chemicals and products respectively.
This was followed by 58% saying the UK Government was next highest ranked as bearing significant responsibility.
However, overall trust that action would to be taken was found to be low, with the UK Government being trusted by 29% of respondents while just 14% said they trusted product or chemical manufacturers to change.
Stephanie Metzger, RSC policy adviser, said: 'People were overwhelmingly supportive of stronger controls on PFAs use, making sure that it doesn't get into our water, food or the environment.'
She argued that without investing in treatment technology and infrastructure now, the cost to clean up these chemicals later will be a lot higher.
'Once they're in the environment – they're diffuse, they're dispersed throughout water, land, air in all these different areas – it's so much harder to put them back in the jar once you've let them out.
'So from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, you're going to be avoiding a lot more costs by investing in treatment now.'
PA has contacted the Environment Department (Defra) for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Mainstreaming of far-right ideas in UK politics shows why John Swinney was right to raise alarm
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Received wisdom at Westminster has it that the far-right has never made it into UK politics. Coupled with that theory is then the debate by the same commentators around what constitutes the 'far-right'. However using the measurement of policies pursued, which is, after all, the very essence of a political movement or party, the far-right has most certainly arrived in UK politics. UK parties, across the political spectrum, now embrace the hardest of hard Brexit, unthinkable even in the aftermath of the referendum in June 2016, and a policy that has done untold damage to the economy and our rights. We also had a government that promoted the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda and MPs who openly campaign on leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has underpinned our rights since the end of the Second World War. Were the UK to leave, it would be joining Russia and Belarus in doing so, hardly polite company. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Brexit, leaving the ECHR, and the Rwanda scheme are or were mainstream policy proposals in the UK yet they are policies that far-right parties elsewhere in Europe would baulk at. Even the hardest of hard-right parties in other parts of Europe such as the National Rally in France, the Vlaams Belaang in Belgium or Alternative fur Deutschland in Germany have abandoned plans to leave the EU, given the UK's Brexit debacle. John Swinney's stances on the EU, Donald Trump and migration, among others, have won plaudits (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images An attack on justice Yet despite these policy failures, the mainstreaming of the far-right has become all too common in our politics along with their tactics. Over the past few days alone, Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, attacked the Labour Attorney General for doing his job and defending his clients. His remarks were described by former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve 'as a direct attack on our principles of justice'. As we saw in this week's Hamilton by-election, we in Scotland are certainly not immune. Nigel Farage's attack on Anas Sarwar, which he doubled down on when challenged by the press, should act as a warning to us all. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Such remarks are unacceptable and whereas I may have legitimate policy differences with the Scottish Labour leader, they should have no place in our political discourse. For all the heat of the campaign in the run-up to what was a hard-fought by-election, it was good to see SNP and Labour leaders call out these disgraceful comments. Zia Yusuf's resignation as chair of Reform on Thursday and his concerns around Reform in the Commons should also act as a warning. Calling out bigotry That is why the First Minister was right to bring together colleagues from across the political spectrum in a summit seeking to 'lock out' Reform from Holyrood earlier this year. John Swinney is right to call out their policies and the 'bigotry' that they represent and to call out Farage as 'an accomplice of the Russian agenda'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Fair play to the politicians and representatives of civil society who put any political differences aside and joined the First Minister. That meeting was criticised at the time by the Conservatives and a range of commentators. Given Reform's tactics and language over the course of the by-election campaign, we have seen just how badly needed that stance was and remains. Labour will be pleased with Thursday's win, and I congratulate them on it, however, no party can afford to be complacent about Reform. One of the lessons from Hamilton must be that the key to taking on the far-right is to challenge them on their ideas. Nigel Farage's track record is not a particularly good one. He has been a driving force campaigning to leave the EU for decades. That was a decision that has exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis, removed rights from UK citizens, damaged business, especially small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and ultimately made us all poorer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He backed Donald Trump whose presidency has destabilised the world, seen tariffs introduced that have damaged the global economy, and undermined efforts to support Ukraine against Russian aggression. 'Island of Strangers' The Reform policy platform is weak. For their opponents, that should provide ample targets. Yet, in the Westminster bubble their policies are given far too much credibility. There is an omertà around discussing the glaring failure of the Brexit experiment and the less said about Keir Starmer's 'Island of Strangers' speech on migration frankly the better. John Swinney would be the first to admit that the Scottish Government haven't got everything right. However, on the big calls around our relationship with the EU, the impact of Donald Trump's presidency, migration, child poverty and the rights we should enjoy as citizens, the SNP leader has maintained credibility for his stances, winning plaudits at Westminster and further afield. Politics is about ideas and Reform's are simply not good ones. The Conservatives and Reform are increasingly aligning on a range of policies and a pact or even merger is not out of the question. This is to be expected, given that Reform draws its politicians and many voters from the Conservatives. They have, in turn, turned their backs on One Nation conservatism, and instead the party is dominated by the Johnson/Truss populist wing, which is not so different from Farage and Reform. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This week's by-election and the preceding campaign must act as a wake-up call. During the run-up to the Holyrood elections, there is an opportunity for all parties to set out their vision for Scotland. On the one hand, there is an inclusive, outward-looking and internationalist vision represented by John Swinney, on the other is Reform's inward and exclusive offering. I know which one I'm backing.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Indonesia expects to conclude free trade talks with EU by end of June
JAKARTA, June 7 (Reuters) - Indonesia said on Saturday that free trade negotiations with the European Union, which have been going on for nine years, are expected to finish by the end of June. Airlangga Hartarto, the chief economic minister for Southeast Asia's biggest economy, met with EU Commissioner for Trade Maros Sefcovic in Brussels on Friday. "Indonesia and the European Union have agreed to conclude outstanding issues and we are ready to announce a conclusion of substantial negotiations by the end of June 2025," Airlangga Hartarto said in a statement. He did not disclose details about what agreements may have been reached. Representatives for the EU in Jakarta did not respond to a request for comment. The EU is Indonesia's fifth biggest trade partner, with total trade between the two reaching $30.1 billion last year. Indonesia had a $4.5 billion trade surplus, Airlangga said. Indonesia and the EU have previously disagreed on the EU's trade rules for products with potential links to deforestation which could affect Indonesian palm oil, as well as Jakarta's ban on exports of raw minerals. Indonesian officials have been motivated to accelerate talks on free trade agreements, keen to diversify the country's export destinations as they deal with U.S. tariff challenges. Seeking to end U.S. trade deficits worldwide, U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs that have since been paused until July. Indonesia is facing a 32% tariff rate.
Wales Online
5 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
