Thames sewage campaign update!

5.11.24pm UTC (GMT +0000) Mon 16th Oct 2006

Sarah Ludford has just received a reply from European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas to her recent Parliamentary question. The question and answer are copied below, as is a previous question and answer exchange in the House of Lords. Sarah will continue to pursue this matter.

Question to European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas:

The UK government (DEFRA) has 'identified two clear options as the front runners to further improve the environmental quality of the River Thames and River Lee by reducing intermittent sewage discharges'.

Could the Commission seriously envisage accepting that the 'two shorter tunnels' which would only intercept raw sewage discharges in West and East London could be adequate to ensure compliance with the Urban Waste Water Directive, given that it leaves around a dozen combined sewage overflows unaffected and still discharging? Is it not the case that this sticking-plaster proposal is a false economy which will not ensure UWWT-compliance but deliver only 40% of the cost-related benefits for 75% of the cost of a fully effective solution (the 30+ km interceptor tunnel which would intercept such discharges from unsatisfactory overflows along the whole length of the tidal Thames and convey all that waste water for treatment at the estuary mouth in east London)?

Answer from Commissioner Dimas:

As referred to in Petition No 851/2005 presented by the Honourable Member concerning the water quality of the Thames, the Commission has received a reply from the United Kingdom (UK) Government to the reasoned opinion sent under Article 226 of the Treaty concerning the latter's failure to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive). A summary of the grounds for issue of the reasoned opinion is contained in the Commission's communication of 24 May 2006 to the Committee on Petitions concerning Petition No 851/2005.

Furthermore, the Commission has been informed by the UK Government that, on 27 July 2006, it published its two shortlisted options for improving the environmental quality of the River Thames by reducing intermittent sewage discharges. In advance of taking a final decision, the UK has requested a meeting with Commission officials to discuss these options so as to ensure that the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will be met. The Commission intends to agree to this request, and it is envisaged that such a meeting will take place in late autumn 2006.

The Commission would emphasise that, whilst it is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of Community environmental law - and in this particular case, of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, are complied with - it is for Member States themselves to decide on the appropriate means of ensuring such compliance.

Question to the British government:

Baroness Ludford asks Her Majesty's Government whether since the year 2000 DEFRA obtained or received a legal opinion concerning the discharge of raw sewage into the River Thames and compliance with the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, and whether they will place a copy of any such opinion in the library of the house?

Answer from Lord Rooker:

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Disclosure of information about whether legal advice has been obtained and, if so, what that advice is, would adversely affect the confidentiality of proceedings of government and the course of justice. This is because the request relates to the obtaining and (if obtained) substance of confidential legal advice, and the matter at issue—discharge of sewage to the River Thames and compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive—is subject to open infraction proceedings.

We consider that in the circumstances, the public interest in allowing the department to consult lawyers in confidence is great, and outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information requested.