Sewage in our rivers.

[Wakou]

We are now 'free' and have the sovereignty to dump raw sewage into rivers and the sea.
The amendment to stop this is up for debate and a vote in the House of Commons again on Wednesday, 27/10/21
Whichever way you voted in the election or referendum, please write to your MP, TODAY and tell him or her to vote for the amendment.
(Amendment 45)
Here is a list of how they voted last time (Weds 20/10/21)

How they voted​

If you have not written to your MP before, go to the website "They work for You" and enter your postcode, this will show you who your MP is and their address (along with other info, voting records etc)

Who is my MP?​

 

[mikench]

My Tory MP actually voted to stop this practice last time and I am assured will do so again.

 

[Hugh Bailey]

Done. Thank you for the heads up!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Does this now mean that Britannia stools the waves?

(I’ll get my coat)

 

[bullet]

Thanks, Wakou, I emailed mine for the vote last week.
Fat lot of good it did.
Also, looking at "They work for you" and how he votes generally, it appears he is a complete W**ker, but there you go!

 

[dorsetsteve]

Certainly a concern.

Down to Brexit? Well I mean fines have been being issued for the practice for over a decade to the usual suspects, a cost of doing business in their eyes.
From my understanding. The companies in charge are permitted under the previous/current law to discharge under exceptional circumstances, the point of contention being the circumstances rather than the act. To my understanding this practice was perfectly legal under EU law.

I suppose raw sewage is never discharged into the rivers and seas of EU member states.

Addition:
Nice to see a piece on Radio4 this morning on the main morning news with Fergal Sharky about the position we find ourselves with 30 years plus of neglect.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Certainly a concern.

Down to Brexit? Well I mean fines have been being issued for the practice for over a decade to the usual suspects, a cost of doing business in their eyes.
From my understanding. The companies in charge are permitted under the previous/current law to discharge under exceptional circumstances, the point of contention being the circumstances rather than the act. To my understanding this practice was perfectly legal under EU law.

I suppose raw sewage is never discharged into the rivers and seas of EU member

The European Union legislation concerning the disposal of sewage waste is included in the Council Directive 86/278/EEC on environmental protection of 12 June 1986 (the so-called Sludge Directive) ( Directive, 1986 ) and it permts (only under severe circumstamces) the release of treated waste. The uk (when a member country) defined those circumstances as beng more general than the rest of the EU . . . . .

Currently the major problem here in the uk is that, (due to the self-imposed brexit import restrictions ad the ack of HGV drivers) the main chemicals used in treating sweage are in very short supply . . . . That being the main reason why the government have taken this envronmetally suicidal approach to polluting our seas and rivers.

 

[dorsetsteve]

Thank you for further detail Peter, there was also action on the subject taken 30 years ago in 1991, (as I’m sure your fully aware) sadly it didn’t appear to achieve much as little has changed in that time. Perhaps it was insufficient, perhaps stronger legislation would of had an impact.

Regarding chemicals in supply, the main issue as far as I’m aware is the supply of Ferric Sulphate. (I’m aware of your feeling on the subject of supply) It’s been widely reported that not using this chemical will result is untreated sewage being discharged. The chemical, is a polishing product, a flocculant and phosphate binder. It’s use is the final stage of multi stage process of treatment and whilst I would not dream of saying it’s lack of use is insignificant, I feel it’s involvement in the process has been a little over stated by some corners of the press. The suggestion that the lack of this product causes raw discharge, in a way that is it is the primary function is sewage treatment is misleading and I would say down plays the fact that actual raw discharge is legal and does occur.

In my opinion, a focus and ban on raw discharge, holding those companies responsible directly accountable is the very least that needs to occur. Which proper investment in our waste water treatment so that there are not reasonable circumstances where it can happen. Our infrastructure should be able to cope with rain and toilets being flushed.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Steve, the quesrion of sewage discharge and the lack of the right chemicals to treat it is rather a chicken and egg dilemma . . . imasmuch as which came first? Factually we enver experienced snything liek the rate or volume of these discharge while we were covered my EU regulations . . . .

It seems that once free of EU oversight that this government have gone from the Party of the afluent, to the Party of the EFFLUENT . . . .


It is worth noting that since the privatisation of the Water companies (in 1991) they have ammassed in excess of £57 billions in profits with very little being reinvested in new plant and infrastructure . . . that equates to roughly £2 billions in profits annually . . . .

 

[no-one in particular]

I have emailed my MP, not expecting anything back except a load of waffle but at least my concern has gone out. I will wait for the waffle and then give it full blast. At least we can now more directly take on our own decision makers, that's one good thing that this thread has thrown up.

 

[no-one in particular]

It is worth noting that since the privatisation of the Water companies (in 1991) they have ammassed in excess of £57 billions in profits with very little being reinvested in new plant and infrastructure . . . that eqates to roughly £2 billions in profits annually . . . .

And 70% of that goes abroad. Our pollution does not affect them so they don't care about it, they are probably quite happy about it. That 70% hopefully might come back to us one day and then we will have plenty of money to invest in our sewage problem.
I am not holding my breathe on it but, this country will change a lot over the next few years and I am hopeful that may be one of them.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm an uncertain mark just how your hopes would marry with "global Britain . . . however . . .

Here is the map shwing the latest discharges . . . . it seems that England has truly become a "turd world country"

 

[steve2]

I have written to my MP asking her to explain why she voted for keep on dumping while say she supports green issues.

 

[dorsetsteve]

Steve, the quesrion of sewage discharge and the lack of the right chemicals to treat it is rather a chicken and egg dilemma . . . imasmuch as which came first? Factually we enver experienced snything liek the rate or volume of these discharge while we were covered my EU regulations . . . .

It seems that once free of EU oversight that this government have gone from the Party of the afluent, to the Party of the EFFLUENT . . . .


It is worth noting that since the privatisation of the Water companies (in 1991) they have ammassed in excess of £57 billions in profits with very little being reinvested in new plant and infrastructure . . . that eqates to roughly £2 billions in profits annually . . . .

I’m trying to make sure I fully understand your position. Where we align and where we differ.

You are aware that EU legislation permits discharge of raw sewage into rivers “under exceptional circumstances” that the interpretation of that term between the U.K. and the EU was of significant a difference that the EU took the U.K. to account on this 30 years ago. The behaviour has continued by private companies, evidenced by the fines applied over that time period without stopping the practice. Since the U.K. left the EU you believe this decades old practice has increased, increased by a sufficient factor that it’s clearly attributable to the UKs choice to no longer be an EU member. That’s what I read as your position.

My position it that this practice is unacceptable and that successive governments for decades have failed to get a handle on the issue and that the situation has occurred irrespective of EU membership. If we were still members, I have no doubt that this poor practice would still be occurring. In short neither national nor supra national governments have managed to apply appropriate legislation on these private companies to control their poor practice and protect our environment.

What I propose is that we as a public put weight on our democratically elected government to answer what we the public wish. That tide of public awareness and tolerance for this practice is turning quite fast as it becomes a mainstream story. Hopefully increased public pressure will force government to take appropriate action for the first time after decades of neglect on the issue.

 

[seth49]

Recreational Water Quality Standards | Water Treatment Services

Monitor recreational water quality standards for open water swimming & bathing. Learn about E coli, Coliforms, Streptococci with recreational water testing.

watertreatmentservices.co.uk

Worth a look.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

My position Steve is quite simple, whle I agree with you that it is totally unacceptable it has to be noted that this practice was far less frequesnt while the uk were still full members of the EU and yes, I was well aware of the controversy 30 years ago.

As for bringing pressure to bear on our MP's, well, that was far easier to do before they had an unassailabe 80 seat majority. Today we even have the (former ukip candidate) and now Minister for the Environment voting to release untreated sewage into the rivers . . .

As for the public turning against this practice?

This was taken yesterday off the coast of Devon and Cornwall . . . . .

 

[dorsetsteve]

Glad I understand you Peter.

I think my only bone of contention is that you believe that this has in your own words “ this practice was far less frequesnt while the uk were still full members of the EU”, seeings as the U.K. left the EU less than 2 years ago I’m not sure where the evidence for this is. I’m not even sure 2 years be 40+ years would be considered an evidence set.
The issue has become much more of a mainstream issue and that’s good but I don’t believe this bad practice has increased significantly, merely continued at its pace of poor practice on a slippery slope of decay over the last 30+ years. There I believe we are at odds.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

From my own experience the beaches and rivers of the uk were far cleaner prior to Brexit. With EU oversight we had that insurance in place.
Since the turn of last year this government have had nothing to hold them back and with the majority they have things will get far worse before any betterment will be apparent if it ever does.

 

[no-one in particular]

Governments will not be able to get away with polluting policies, this thread is a testament to that but, it is just a beginning. They wanted sovereignty, they got it but it also means they are now directly responsible for their decisions, no hiding place under the EU's skirts anymore. And with a more environmentally, internet savvy population they just won't. This piece of legislation will be a wake up call to them. It is not only anglers, water boarders, canoeists, wild water swimmers, they are going to have a lot to deal with and a widening green vote. I think once the lowest election participation was just 36% of the electorate, that will change as well, the people of this country are going to become far more political, the politicians will have to up their game now. They are responsible directly to us more than they have been for 50 years and they are going to know it, and legislation will improve because of it, less apathy and more action.

 

[mikench]

Tory MPs defend votes after uproar over sewage proposals

Conservative MPs are facing a backlash on social media after rejecting tougher sewage protections in the Environment Bill.

www.bbc.co.uk