Government must clean up rivers
A Labour politician has said it is "time we had a government that stood up for people" by addressing high water bills, river pollution and the water companies.
Norwich South MP Clive Lewis has introduced a Private Members' Bill on water to Parliament, exploring different ownership models.
He spoke at an event in Norwich alongside singer-turned-clean-water campaigner Feargal Sharkey.
The government said a full review of the sector was already under way and pointed out that it had introduced tougher legislation last year.
Lewis said private companies were using the water sector as a "cash cow" and said: "I personally think it's time we had a government that stood up for people."
Anglian Water has been approached for comment.
Most water companies in England and Wales are privately owned and regulated by the government.
The Norwich MP said he wanted his bill to set government targets for water quality
A keen fly fisherman, Sharkey described how he had stood in rivers and watched them "die a slow, agonising death" due to pollution.
He claimed that after 35 years of privatisation, customers were waking up to large bills while rivers were still being polluted.
"What we can all agree on is this version of privatisation has utterly, utterly failed," he said.
The amount of raw sewage entering England's rivers and seas doubled year-on-year in 2023 to 3.6 million hours of spills, according to the Environment Agency.
The public, environment groups and investors are being asked for their views about how the water sector can be changed by the government.
A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson pointed out it had introduced powers to ban bonuses for bosses of polluting companies, and had brought in tougher criminal charges for breaches.
"For too long, water companies have pumped record levels of sewage into our waterways," they said.
"We have delivered on our promise to put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act."
They continued: "A full review of the water sector is under way to shape further legislation that will transform how our water system works and clean up our waterways for good."
Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Public asked for views on how to fix the water industry
Anglian Water bosses warned bonuses may be blocked
Anti-pollution law to threaten water bosses with jail
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer focused on grooming victims not ‘grandstanding', says Reeves
Sir Keir Starmer has been focused on the 'victims' of grooming gangs and not 'grandstanding', Rachel Reeves has suggested, after the Prime Minister committed to a national inquiry. The Chancellor said that Sir Keir has been looking at 'actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again'. After initially resisting pressure to implement a full probe, the Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to address Parliament on Monday about the findings of the review. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while Kemi Badenoch called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. Asked whether the Prime Minister had changed his mind about the idea of a national inquiry, the Chancellor told the Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme: 'I think Keir Starmer, our Prime Minister, has always been really focused, as he was when he was director of public prosecutions, on the victims and not grandstanding. 'But actually doing the practical things to ensure that something like this never happens again, but also to ensure that the victims of this horrific abuse over many, many years is got to grips with and that people have answers to their questions.' Earlier this year, the Government dismissed calls for a public inquiry, saying its focus was on putting in place the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay. Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride criticised the Government's 'very late' decision to launch the inquiry, and claimed it had only come after pressure from the Tories. Sir Mel told BBC One's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'It's a very late decision – it should have happened far, far earlier. 'We've been calling for this for many, many months.' He accused Sir Keir of previously dismissing concerns from senior Tory figures. 'Kemi Badenoch, Chris Philp and others have been derided by the Prime Minister for hopping on some kind of far-right bandwagon, dog-whistle politics and the rest of it,' Sir Mel said. 'That was the wrong response. This is just another example of the Prime Minister being pressurised by us into U-turning.' The inquiry will be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and it is understood that it will be national in scope, co-ordinating a series of targeted local investigations. Speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada on Saturday, the Prime Minister said: 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. 'I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. 'That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. 'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. 'That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trade bill could trigger 'race to the bottom' in health standards, health groups warn
OTTAWA — Anti-smoking groups are warning the Carney government that its legislation to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers could undermine health standards unless it's amended to add new safeguards. The legislation, which the governing Liberals intend to push quickly through the House of Commons next week, looks to do two things — break down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility and speed up approvals for major industrial projects, such as mines, ports and pipelines. The bill would allow provincial standards to displace federal ones to make it easier to sell Canadian-made goods within the country. But Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst at the Canadian Cancer Society, said the current wording could lead to unintended consequences since provincial rules are sometimes weaker. He warns that, for example, it could prompt the return of products banned by federal regulation, such as those containing asbestos. "There's a federal measure banning asbestos in products, but provinces allow up to a certain per cent of asbestos in products," he said. "So that would mean that despite asbestos being banned in products for some years now, you could have asbestos return to products. That's not good." He also suggested the legislation could give tobacco companies space to bring back menthol or flavoured cigarettes, something that "shouldn't be happening." Cunningham said the bill should be changed to exempt federal health and environment standards and noted multilateral trade agreements typically contain such clauses. 'We are worried the tobacco (and) vape industry could take advantage of a less strict provincial standard to erode a stronger federal regulation that is protecting the health of Canadians across the country,' said Manuel Arango, vice-president of policy and advocacy at the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Ottawa could still create an exception for health through regulations after the bill is passed. It has not yet indicated it will do so. Cynthia Callard, head of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, said she worries about the bill being rushed through Parliament since the devil "will likely be in the details in the regulations." "If these are not well constructed, there is a decided risk of health protection becoming collateral damage of a push for greater economic activity," she said. "Provincial and federal governments share jurisdiction for (health and environmental) issues, which is why it is important that there is a legal shield against a race to the bottom when it comes to protective regulations. I do not see this in the bill." The Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party are accusing Prime Minister Mark Carney's government of trying to ram the bill through Parliament too quickly without sufficient study. Carney promised to eliminate federal policies that act as a barrier to interprovincial trade by Canada Day. The Liberal government has not yet responded to requests for comment. On Friday, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc laid out the economic case for the trade aspects of the bill during debate in the House of Commons. He said the bill will remove "useless costs" and "regulatory confusion" that "hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country." 'If a good is produced in compliance with provincial standards, it can move throughout the entire country without again having to go up against federal standards,' he said. He pointed to various levels of energy efficiency requirements that can stop products from being sold across provincial lines. He said an Ontario-made product that meets the province's "stringent energy efficiency requirements" could still be blocked from being sold in Quebec or Manitoba if it also does not meet federal standards. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
How the fight against Labour's cruel child VAT raid continues
Those hoping for immediate relief from the courts in relation to the Government's imposition of VAT on school fees yesterday had their short-term hopes dashed. But if you read the judgment and examine what is going on in schools, the Government now has a right mess on its hands. The High Court rightly found that, for the 100,000 or so children in private schools with special education needs who are forced to move into the state sector because they have closed or their parents can no longer afford the fees, their fundamental rights have indeed been interfered with. However, it said that Parliament was entitled to do this because it has very broad powers when it comes to raising new taxes. In this case, what was being sought by the claimants was a 'declaratory remedy' which would have sent the legislation back to Parliament to resolve. So, what happens now? The Chancellor Rachel Reeves and beleaguered Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson are no doubt delighted that they have apparently won. But the truth is, like special needs children themselves, they are not out of the woods. They won by a nose and could yet lose in subsequent contests. The first thing to say is that the special needs system is in total chaos. Since the pandemic, there is a huge backlog of children who do not have 'statements', in other words official education health and care plans, who are in a queue or appealing at tribunals hoping to get one. Local authorities are understandably reluctant to award them, in part because of a questionable previous court ruling, which said they have to pay for taxis for special needs children to get to their school. If you talk to a taxi driver, many of them make a fortune providing this service which, in general terms, seems excessive and incredibly costly. Yet now, parents who previously were paying for their own children's school fees and indeed transport, have had it confirmed that their children have a fundamental right to an appropriate education and their legal claims against local education authorities have now been given additional force. It would have been cheaper and simpler if VAT had not been imposed on school fees and they stayed where they were. Second, thousands of parents were waiting for this judgement, having either given provisional notice to leave private schools or waiting to decide whether to embark on that costly journey in the first place next term. So far, 11,000 children have left private schools because of this measure. My guess is that twice that number, will now not turn up next term. Put all this together and the new taxes on education will raise very little money and might even lose revenue. The reality is that Labour have created a giant and costly mess. An appeal is likely. There is no tax on education in any civilised country and, sooner or later, we must hope that a future government will reverse this cruel and costly measure. George Trefgarne is a parent and supporter of the 'Education Not Discrimination' group Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
