Public Access to Pollution Data Under Threat

[tenchboy]

This just in from Fish Legal (the legal arm of the Angling Trust, who fight water pollution cases through the civil courts to claim damages for restoration of polluted watercourses from the polluter rather than their just being fined by the courts and the money going to the treasury)
If anyone wants to sign ther's a linky to follow.
(I looked for a water pollution thread, I know we've discussed it at some length; but I think it was maybe as part of another thread: feel free to merge if you find it)

Public’s ‘right to know’ about water company pollution under threat – Fish Legal needs YOU!

Sewage pollution has become a national scandal

In 2015, Fish Legal won a landmark legal case that secured a right for the public to access environmental information directly from privatised water companies in England and Wales.

It took a 6-year battle through the Courts against United Utilities, Yorkshire Water, the Government and its information waterdog.

The right has been critical in exposing water company abuses.

But it is under threat.

What is happening?

The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are on a list of legislation that Defra is considering scrapping as part of a Government Bill currently progressing through Parliament.

If the regulations and the case law disappear, privatised water companies can go back to polluting under a veil of secrecy.

We are not going to let that happen without a fight.

How can YOU help?

We need to show how many anglers want to stop the right being taken away.

Please ADD YOUR NAME to the growing call to protect the right to know what damage water companies are doing to our rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

LINKY

[jimbob]

Signed

[Sciolus]

The UK has long flouted its obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which is supposed to ensure public access to environmental information and environmental justice. So it would hardly be out of character.

The Retained EU Law bill is the most extraordinarily bad piece of legislation I can think of. It is born of Rees-Mogg's pure blinding hatred of anything EU-related, with no rational justification whatsoever. It gives ministers huge powers to repeal, retain or alter vast amounts of legislation with no oversight, parliamentary scrutiny or accountability. And no-one is sure what it applies to (there is a list of several thousand bits of legislation, but new stuff gets added regularly (or not very regularly in fact) and no-one believes that there isn't a load that has been missed), how it will work, and what effect it will have on the numerous laws which have not been identified. Most of the affected legislation comes under Defra's remit, so their civil servants (slashed over the years of austerity and still trying to sort out the fallout from Defra and the country's sundry environmental problems) now have to figure out what the hell to do with thousands of pieces of legislation whose status is now entirely up in the air.

Defra has said that there will be a presumption to retain legislation, which is contrary to the bill and would seem to render the thing moot. If you believe them.

[jimbob]

The UK has long flouted its obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which is supposed to ensure public access to environmental information and environmental justice. So it would hardly be out of character.

The Retained EU Law bill is the most extraordinarily bad piece of legislation I can think of. It is born of Rees-Mogg's pure blinding hatred of anything EU-related, with no rational justification whatsoever. It gives ministers huge powers to repeal, retain or alter vast amounts of legislation with no oversight, parliamentary scrutiny or accountability. And no-one is sure what it applies to (there is a list of several thousand bits of legislation, but new stuff gets added regularly (or not very regularly in fact) and no-one believes that there isn't a load that has been missed), how it will work, and what effect it will have on the numerous laws which have not been identified. Most of the affected legislation comes under Defra's remit, so their civil servants (slashed over the years of austerity and still trying to sort out the fallout from Defra and the country's sundry environmental problems) now have to figure out what the hell to do with thousands of pieces of legislation whose status is now entirely up in the air.

Defra has said that there will be a presumption to retain legislation, which is contrary to the bill and would seem to render the thing moot. If you believe them.

That was what I was referring to, because that only applies to England.

[JQH]

Signed and shared on FB.

[IvanV]

It is born of Rees-Mogg's pure blinding hatred of anything EU-related, with no rational justification whatsoever.

It was interesting to be reminded recently that it was his father who was the named applicant for (very unsuccessful) judicial review of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, which was backed by James Goldsmith.

He seems to gains political influence through being a wrecking ball of our institutions. There could be some individual rationality in that, even if it is not rational for the nation to pursue such policies.

[Grumble]

Signed and shared on FB.

Likewise

[tenchboy]

(I looked for a water pollution thread, I know we've discussed it at some length; but I think it was maybe as part of another thread: feel free to merge if you find it)

T'were the the sh.t In Rivers thread

On page 3 of which Fishnut has already mentioned a news story regarding this work by Fish Legal.

(And thanks to everybody for signing)