Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Campaign groups call on Home Office to stop ‘steady erosion’ of protest rights

News Feed
Monday, July 29, 2024

Environmental groups are among 92 civil society organisations who have warned Yvette Cooper against “the steady erosion of the right to protest” in the UK, and called on her to reverse the previous government’s crackdown on peaceful protest.“The right to protest is a vital safety valve for our democracy and an engine of social progress,” the letter, delivered on Friday, said. “The achievements of peaceful protest are written on the labour movement’s own birth certificate.”“[We] urge this government to intervene to reverse the crackdown on peaceful protest set in motion under the last government,” the letter continues.“The responsibility for it lies firmly with the previous administration – but the current government now faces a clear choice between allowing its dire consequences to play out under its watch, or do something to prevent it.”Signatories include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Wildlife and Countryside Link and a host of other environmental campaigning organisations, alongside Amnesty International UK, Liberty and dozens of human rights, free speech and social justice groups.The letter has been prompted in part by the jailing of five Just Stop Oil activists for a total of 21 years after they appeared on a Zoom call recruiting volunteers for non-violent disruptive protests that blocked the M25 over four days in 2022.But it also notes that the stiff sentences “are not an isolated incident”. Anti-protest legislation passed in 2022 and 2023, and successful efforts by attorneys general to remove legal defences in protest cases, constituted “a deliberate strategy by previous governments to criminalise and shrink the space for peaceful protest,” the letter said.The groups call on Cooper to join them in roundtable discussions “to hear directly from a selection of key groups across civil society about these issues”.“We can’t afford to become a country that routinely sends peaceful protesters to jail for years,” said Areeba Hamid, the co-executive director of Greenpeace UK. “Protest can be annoying and inconvenient, but it’s annoying and inconvenient protest that has led to the end of slavery, votes for women, basic workers’ rights and the bans on nuclear testing and commercial whaling.”A Home Office spokesperson said: “We recognise the democratic right that people must be free to peacefully express their views, but they should do so within the bounds of the law. Protest organisers should engage fully with the police. The letter has been received and we will respond in due course.”

Civil society organisations demand home secretary protects the ‘safety valve’ of democracyEnvironmental groups are among 92 civil society organisations who have warned Yvette Cooper against “the steady erosion of the right to protest” in the UK, and called on her to reverse the previous government’s crackdown on peaceful protest.“The right to protest is a vital safety valve for our democracy and an engine of social progress,” the letter, delivered on Friday, said. “The achievements of peaceful protest are written on the labour movement’s own birth certificate.” Continue reading...

Environmental groups are among 92 civil society organisations who have warned Yvette Cooper against “the steady erosion of the right to protest” in the UK, and called on her to reverse the previous government’s crackdown on peaceful protest.

“The right to protest is a vital safety valve for our democracy and an engine of social progress,” the letter, delivered on Friday, said. “The achievements of peaceful protest are written on the labour movement’s own birth certificate.”

“[We] urge this government to intervene to reverse the crackdown on peaceful protest set in motion under the last government,” the letter continues.

“The responsibility for it lies firmly with the previous administration – but the current government now faces a clear choice between allowing its dire consequences to play out under its watch, or do something to prevent it.”

Signatories include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Wildlife and Countryside Link and a host of other environmental campaigning organisations, alongside Amnesty International UK, Liberty and dozens of human rights, free speech and social justice groups.

The letter has been prompted in part by the jailing of five Just Stop Oil activists for a total of 21 years after they appeared on a Zoom call recruiting volunteers for non-violent disruptive protests that blocked the M25 over four days in 2022.

But it also notes that the stiff sentences “are not an isolated incident”. Anti-protest legislation passed in 2022 and 2023, and successful efforts by attorneys general to remove legal defences in protest cases, constituted “a deliberate strategy by previous governments to criminalise and shrink the space for peaceful protest,” the letter said.

The groups call on Cooper to join them in roundtable discussions “to hear directly from a selection of key groups across civil society about these issues”.

“We can’t afford to become a country that routinely sends peaceful protesters to jail for years,” said Areeba Hamid, the co-executive director of Greenpeace UK. “Protest can be annoying and inconvenient, but it’s annoying and inconvenient protest that has led to the end of slavery, votes for women, basic workers’ rights and the bans on nuclear testing and commercial whaling.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We recognise the democratic right that people must be free to peacefully express their views, but they should do so within the bounds of the law. Protest organisers should engage fully with the police. The letter has been received and we will respond in due course.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Federal judge is 'inclined' to order Trump to restore $500 million in UCLA research grants

A San Francisco-based U.S. district judge, Rita F. Lin, said she was "inclined" to order the Trump administration to restore $500 million in National Institutes of Health grants to UCLA that the government froze in late July.

A federal judge Thursday said she was “inclined to extend” an earlier ruling and order the Trump administration to restore an additional $500 million in UCLA medical research grants that were frozen in response to the university’s alleged campus antisemitism violations.Although she did not issue a formal ruling late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin indicated she is leaning toward reversing — for now — the vast majority of funding freezes that University of California leaders say have endangered the future of the 10-campus, multi-hospital system.Lin, a judge in the Northern District of California, said she was prepared to add UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grant recipients to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that has already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to UC campuses.The judge’s reasoning: The UCLA grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking.Though Lin said she had a “lot of homework to do” on the matter, she indicated that reversing the grant cuts was “likely where I will land” and she would issue an order “shortly.”Lin said the Trump administration had undertaken a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of the grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.”The possible preliminary injunction would be in place as the case proceeds through the courts. But in saying she leaned toward broadening the case, Lin suggested she believed there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.The suit was filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. The University of California is not a party in the case.A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, Jason Altabet, said Thursday that instead of a federal district court lawsuit filed by professors, the proper venue would be the U.S. Court of Federal Claims filed by UC. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not properly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court.Altabet said the administration was “fully embracing the principles in the Supreme Court’s recent opinions.”The hundreds of NIH grants on hold at UCLA look into Parkinson’s disease treatment, cancer recovery, cell regeneration in nerves and other areas that campus leaders argue are pivotal for improving the health of Americans.The Trump administration has proposed a roughly $1.2-billion fine and demanded campus changes over admission of international students and protest rules. Federal officials have also called for UCLA to release detailed admission data, ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors and give the government deep access to UCLA internal campus data, among other demands, in exchange for restoring $584 million in funding to the university.In addition to allegations that the university has not seriously dealt with complaints of antisemitism on campus, the government also said it slashed UCLA funding in response to its findings that the campus illegally considers race in admissions and “discriminates against and endangers women” by recognizing the identities of transgender people.UCLA has said it has made changes to improve campus climate for Jewish communities and does not use race in admissions. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said that defunding medical research “does nothing” to address discrimination allegations. The university displays websites and policies that recognize different gender identities and maintains services for LGBTQ+ communities.UC leaders said they will not pay the $1.2-billion fine and are negotiating with the Trump administration over its other demands. They have told The Times that many settlement proposals cross the university’s red lines.“Recent federal cuts to research funding threaten lifesaving biomedical research, hobble U.S. economic competitiveness and jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation,” a UC spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While the University of California is not a party to this suit, the UC system is engaged in numerous legal and advocacy efforts to restore funding to vital research programs across the humanities, social sciences and STEM fields.”A ruling Lin issued in the case last month resulted in $81 million in NSF grants restored to UCLA. If the UCLA NIH grants are reinstated, it would leave about $3 million from the July suspensions — all Department of Energy grants — still frozen at UCLA.Lin also said she leaned toward adding Transportation and Defense department grants to the case, which run in the millions of dollars but are small compared with UC’s NIH grants.The hearing was closely watched by researchers at the Westwood campus, who have cut back on lab hours, reduced operations and considered layoffs as the crisis at UCLA moves toward the two-month mark.In interviews, they said they were hopeful grants would be reinstated but remain concerned over the instability of their work under the recent federal actions.Lydia Daboussi, a UCLA assistant professor of neurobiology whose $1-million grant researching nerve injury is suspended, observed the hearing online.Aftewards, Daboussi said she was “cautiously optimistic” about her grant being reinstated.“I would really like this to be the relief that my lab needs to get our research back online,” said Daboussi, who is employed at the David Geffen School of Medicine. “If the preliminary injunction is granted, that is a wonderful step in the right direction.”Grant funding, she said, “was how we bought the antibodies we needed for experiments, how we purchased our reagents and our consumable supplies.” The lab consists of nine other people, including two PhD students and one senior scientist.So far, none of Daboussi’s lab members have departed. But, she said, if “this goes on for too much longer, at some point, people’s hours will have to be reduced.”“I do find myself having to pay more attention to volatilities outside of our lab space,” she said. “I’ve now become acquainted with our legal system in ways that I didn’t know would be necessary for my job.”Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year neuroscience PhD candidate at UCLA, lost a roughly $160,000 NIH grant that funded her study of stroke recovery treatment.“If there is a chance that these suspensions are lifted, that is phenomenal news,” said Rathbun, who presented at UCLA’s “Science Fair for Suspended Research” this month. “Lifting these suspensions would then allow us to continue these really critical projects that have already been determined to be important for American health and the future of American health,” she said.Rathbun’s research is focused on a potential treatment that would be injected into the brain to help rebuild it after a stroke. Since the suspension of her grant, Rathbun, who works out of a lab at UCLA’s neurology department, has been seeking other funding sources.“Applying to grants takes a lot of time,” she said. “So that really slowed down my progress in my project.”

Pentagon plan pits U.S. Marines against California off-roaders and civilian pilots

A proposal by the U.S. Marines to restrict civilian flight traffic above Johnson Valley OHV Area has drawn outrage from off-roaders and civilian pilots.

LUCERNE VALLEY, Calif. — The U.S. Marine Corps tried once to occupy this remote stretch of California desert beloved by off-roaders — but officials managed eventually to broker a deal that allowed both leathernecks and dirt riders to share the same rocky canyons and wrinkled mountains of Johnson Valley.Now, more than a decade later, the Marines are back — and this time, they want the skies.The Pentagon has proposed restricting civilian air traffic above much of the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area to expand and support training exercises. But those who frequent the area just west of the Twentynine Palms Marine base say the proposal would severely limit recreational access and reduce safety.They say the airspace restrictions could prevent rescue helicopters from evacuating injured motorists, and threaten the famed King of the Hammers off-road race that’s held there each year.And perhaps most crucially, they fear the proposal — which must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration — is just the first step toward the Marines ending public access to an area that was set aside by Congress for public use.“It feels like it’s literally just another way for them to take the land, but from above,” said Shannon Welch, vice president of the off-road group Blue Ribbon Coalition.The proposal has also drawn criticism from aviation officials, who say the restrictions could affect the operations of small local airports and add time and cost to commercial flights.The military says such fears are overblown.Recently, base officials said that the proposal would restrict the airspace for only up to 60 days per year. Project documents say the Marines are hoping the FAA will consider adding more days after the first year, but the base officials told The Times they would not seek additional days of activation over the portion of Johnson Valley that’s shared with the public. They are also working on mitigation measures that would enable them to share the skies even when the restrictions are active, they said.“There is no intention to restrict public access to Johnson Valley,” said Cindy Smith, land management specialist with the base’s government and external affairs. King of the Hammers founder Dave Cole walks along sand dunes in the Johnson Valley OHV Area where the military wants to impose restrictions on civilian aircraft. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) Johnson Valley devotee Dave Cole lives on 15 acres that back up onto the OHV area. From his front door, he can hop in a side-by-side and traverse miles of rolling sand dunes and rugged boulder piles. The vastness reminds him of the ocean, where constantly shifting tides mean that no two trips yield the same experience. And in the world of motorized recreation, the 96,000-acre riding area simply has no peer.“Going off-roading and those kinds of things, that’s surfing for me, and this is like Oahu. It’s beachfront,” Cole said.One recent afternoon, he stood on a ridge above a sprawling dry lakebed. There, in a few months, a temporary city called Hammertown would arise from the sun-baked sand. Some 80,000 people were expected to watch rock-crawling competitions and races, camp out and hear vendors pitch the latest in automotive technology. The King of the Hammers off-road vehicle competition is held each year in February. (Dennis Utt) Cole co-founded King of the Hammers in 2007 — in part to fend off a westward expansion by the Marine Corps. He thought an off-roading competition would draw attention to the Bureau of Land Management-maintained area and demonstrate the importance of keeping it open to the public.The two-week festival has since grown into one of the largest events on public land outside of Burning Man and a report commissioned by San Bernardino County estimated the race’s economic impact to be $34 million in 2023.As for the Marines’ expansion ambitions, they were addressed by a compromise in the 2014 defense bill. The legislation set aside about 43,000 acres of Johnson Valley for recreational use, 79,000 acres for the Marines and 53,000 to be shared. The Marines are permitted to close that shared-use area for two 30-day periods each year.The proposed airspace restrictions would stretch above much of the recreational area, including the entire shared-use area.King of the Hammers relies on helicopters and drones to respond to emergencies and to livestream the event worldwide. Welch, of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, described a potential loss of air support as “catastrophic.” King of the Hammers is an off-road race that combines desert racing and rock crawling. This race is held in February on Means Dry Lake at Johnson Valley. (Dennis Utt) Cole isn’t as worried about King of the Hammers. He believes a compromise to accommodate the event is possible and even likely. He’s more concerned that the proposal may mark the start of a broader takeover of the same area the Marines sought to annex years ago. “It’s a different bite; same apple,” he said.Military airspace restrictions above other public lands often result in ground closures with little notice, Welch said. Such areas include BLM-managed lands in the vicinity of the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, as well as the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona, she said.“These two areas are cautionary tales for what happens when the military gains control of the skies — even if the land underneath remains technically public,” she wrote in an email.Marine Corps officials said they are committed to honoring the shared-use agreement, but that they need additional restricted airspace for training involving both piloted aircraft and drones.Col. Benjamin Adams, assistant chief of staff for the base’s training directorate, pointed to a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that every squad must be armed with small drones by the end of fiscal year 2026. The Twentynine Palms base, with its 1,200 square miles of rugged training area, is one of the only places the Marines can perform large-scale combined-arms exercises, Adams said.“This is the golden jewel of the Marine Corps,” he said. “The training we complete here cannot be conducted anywhere else in the Marine Corps, period.”The Marines published a description of the airspace proposal in 2019, but multiple recreation advocates and local officials said they didn’t hear about it until the Marines released a draft environmental assessment last month.San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe questions whether federal officials have a full understanding of how the restrictions would affect local residents. At least 36 medical helicopters responded to the Johnson Valley area last year, according to statistics provided to Rowe by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.“Nobody really looks up to say, ‘what are we sacrificing on the other end of it?’ Is it public safety? Access to public lands and recreation? Private property rights of inholders?” she said. “That falls to us on the outside who want to coexist with the Marines, who we respect, but also want to preserve the areas we have known and enjoyed for years.”Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the proposal. Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the Marine air restriction proposal. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) An increase in military flights through the Yucca Valley Airport’s traffic pattern would raise public safety and noise concerns, wrote board director Tim Lewis. He noted the military already has 31 special use airspaces within a 100 nautical-mile range of the Twentynine Palms base, with restrictions running almost continually from Barstow to Prescott, Ariz.The addition of even more restrictions is likely to impact commercial air travel, potentially reducing the number of flights through a heavily-used corridor, he wrote. And it would restrict the use of multiple small airports, including the Yucca Valley Airport, Twentynine Palms Airport, Big Bear City Airport, Needles Airport, Barstow-Daggett Airport and Apple Valley Airport, he wrote.“I think ultimately the Marines will find that the public opposition they’ve encountered will require them to make some compromises,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), who is also a pilot.When it comes to Big Bear, the proposed restrictions overlap with a line of approach for pilots using instrument flight rules, said Obernolte, who previously served on the Big Bear City Airport board. If the proposal is approved, those pilots would not be able to land at the airport under current procedures, he said.Obernolte is seeking to have a provision added to this year’s defense bill that would condition any expansion on the Marines complying with a previous law that requires them to work with the FAA to better alert pilots to the status of restricted airspace. “This is a real sore issue,” pilot Jim Bagley said recently as he flew a small airplane through skies the U.S. Marine Corps is seeking to restrict. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) “This is a real sore issue,” said Jim Bagley from the cockpit of his 1955 Cessna 172 as it roared through the airspace that would be subject to restriction. Thousands of feet below, a smattering of old homesteads spread out like playing cards on a poker table.The former three-time mayor of Twentynine Palms, Bagley is now a recreational pilot and flight instructor who sits on the county Airport Commission. For him, backcountry flying is just another mode of sightseeing, like hiking through Yosemite or boating beneath Niagara Falls.Open areas like Johnson Valley — where you can race your side-by-side as fast as you want or land an ultralight on a dry lake bed — are unique American experiences that are growing rarer, he said.Yet even Bagley, a close watcher of the project who had given the draft environmental assessment a careful read, did not initially realize some of the restrictions would be limited to 60 days. That is explained in an appendix more than halfway through the 394-page document. The rest repeatedly frames the proposal as the establishment of permanent restricted areas. Smith said that notice of the project was published in local newspapers and sent to various stakeholders. Public feedback will be incorporated in both the final environmental assessment and a letter of procedure specifying how the proposal will be carried out, she said. The Marines are already working with the FAA on that letter, which will enable the public to use the airspace above the shared-use area for low-level flights, including rescue helicopters, even when the restrictions are active, provided the ground is open, she said. The letter will also accommodate all aircraft approaching Big Bear, said Andy Chatelin, director of the base’s range management and development division. Chatelin pointed out that the proposal has already gone through an FAA aeronautical study and safety risk management panel to determine its impacts on the National Airspace System. A final decision is expected in the fall of 2026, he said.Had the Marine Corps held public meetings on the proposal and publicized the 60-day cap, some of the backlash against it could likely have been avoided, Bagley said. He has no issue with the military using portions of the airspace for training when they need it, he said.“What I object to is taking away public access to the public lands — and those public lands include the airspace above them.”

Thirsty future: Australia’s green hydrogen targets could require vastly more water than the government hopes

To make green hydrogen, take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen. It sounds simple – but the government’s water-use figures may be a drastic underestimate.

totajla/ShutterstockGreen hydrogen is touted by some as the future – a way for Australia to slowly replace its reliance on fossil fuel exports. The energy-dense gas has the potential to reduce emissions in sectors challenging to decarbonise, such as steelmaking and fertiliser manufacturing. The Albanese government wants it to be a massive new export industry and has laid out a pathway through its National Hydrogen Strategy. Unfortunately, there’s a real gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite ambitious plans, no green hydrogen project has yet succeeded in Australia. The technology’s most prominent local backer, billionaire miner Twiggy Forrest, has dialled down his ambition. Globally, just 7% of announced green hydrogen projects are up and running. Economic viability is one problem. But there’s a much larger issue flying under the radar: water. Hitting the 2050 target of 15 million to 30 million tonnes of hydrogen a year would use 7–15% of the amount Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants use annually. That’s simply not sustainable. Splitting water Green hydrogen uses renewable energy to power electrolyser machines, which split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. On the surface, this is an appealing use of clean energy, especially during solar peak periods. But what the government hasn’t properly accounted for is the water cost for green hydrogen. The strategy states water use is likely to be “considerable but not prohibitive”. This is questionable. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced through electrolysis, nine litres of water are directly consumed. That’s not all. The water needed to make hydrogen has to be extremely pure. Salt water has to be desalinated, and even fresh water needs purification. Equipment also needs cooling, which consumes even more water. All these processes incur substantial indirect water losses, such as the water used for industrial processes and cooling. The volumes used are highly uncertain. They can be up to 20 times greater than the direct water use. A key input value for the government’s hydrogen strategy modelling is taken from a 2015 report by the Argonne National Energy Laboratory in the United States, which assumes each kilogram of green hydrogen produced requires just over 30 litres of water. The Australian hydrogen strategy suggests 30 litres per kilogram of hydrogen would cover “all system losses including purification processes and cooling water required”. But it’s not clear if this figure covers other uses of water in making hydrogen, such as water treatment. Green hydrogen could help industrial sectors transition from fossil fuels. The problem is the water use. Audio und werbung/Shutterstock How much water would this use? According to the government’s modelling, making 15 million tonnes would require 740 billion litres of water. That would be about 7% of the 10,450 billion litres used by all of Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants. The government’s National Hydrogen Strategy shows the water use by major industries. Their total water use is 10,450 gigalitres annually. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water That’s substantial. One and a half Sydney Harbours worth, every year. But it might be a major underestimate. After all, estimates on indirect water use differ widely. The government’s figures are at the very bottom of the range. For instance, the latest research gives water consumption figures of about 66 litres per kilogram – more than twice as large. Other sources give values between 90 and 300 litres per kilogram of hydrogen – three to ten times higher. Uncertainty in modelling is normal. But the wide research suggesting much higher water use should give rise to real concern. If we take a middle-of-the-range figure of 95 litres per kilogram, this would mean that making 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen would use up 22% of the 10,450 billion litres used by households, farms, mines and black coal power plants annually by 2050. If hydrogen was even thirstier at 310 litres per kilogram, that would translate to 72% of that figure. These estimates are enormous. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the draw on Australia’s scarce freshwater resources would simply be too much. Where would this water come from? Farmers? Groundwater? Environmental flows from rivers? As the Queensland Farmers Federation pointed out in its response to the hydrogen strategy, the figures on water use “beg the question if they are in fact sustainable”. The Water Services Association of Australia has called for much greater attention to the water demands of green hydrogen, which it says are “often seriously underestimated”. What about saltwater? Australia has no shortage of oceans. The problem here becomes energy and wastewater. Desalination is still very energy intensive. Converting saltwater to fresh also produces large volumes of super-salty brine, which must then be managed as waste. Which way forward? Does this mean green hydrogen is a non-starter? Not necessarily. Improved electrolyser technology might offer ways to slash water use, while circular economy approaches such as resource recovery from brine could also reduce losses. But these concerns about water must be front and centre in future discussions about the shape and size of the industry in Australia. Madoc Sheehan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Only three people prosecuted for covering up illegal sewage spills

Employees of water firms who obstruct investigations into spills could face jail, as new rules come into force on FridayWater company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine. Continue reading...

Water company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine.Officials said the data shows why the water regulator has found it so difficult to stop illegal spills, which happen when companies dump raw sewage during dry weather. The Environment Agency has identified hundreds of such cases since 2020.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, said: “Bosses must face consequences if they commit crimes – there must be accountability. From today, there will be no more hiding places.“Water companies must now focus on cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”Water companies dumped a record amount of sewage into rivers and coastal waters last year, mostly because wet weather threatened to wash sewage back into people’s homes.Data released last month by the Environment Agency revealed companies had discharged untreated effluent for nearly 4m hours during 2024, a slight increase on the previous year.But companies have also illegally dumped sewage during dry weather. Data released to the Telegraph last year under freedom of information rules shows regulators had identified 465 illegal sewage spills since 2020, with a further 154 under investigation as potentially illegal spills.Britain’s polluted waterways became a major issue at last year’s election, with Labour promising to end what it called the “Tory sewage scandal”.Government sources say one reason illegal spills have been allowed to continue is that regulators have faced obstruction when investigating them.In 2019, three employees at Southern Water were convicted of hampering the Environment Agency when it was trying to collect data as part of an investigation into raw sewage spilled into rivers and on beaches in south-east England.The maximum punishment available in that case was a fine, but none of the individuals were fined. Several of the employees said at the time they were told by the company solicitor not to give data to the regulator.Two years later, Southern was given a £90m fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage over a five-year period.New rules coming into force on Friday will give legal agencies the power to bring prosecutions in the crown court against employees for obstructing regulatory investigations, with a maximum sanction of imprisonment.Directors and executives can be prosecuted if they have consented to or connived with that obstruction, or allowed it to happen through neglect.The rules were included in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which came into law in February. The act also gives the regulator new powers to ban bonuses if environmental standards are not met and requires companies to install real-time monitors at every emergency sewage outlet.Philip Duffy, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, said: “The act was a crucial step in making sure water companies take full responsibility for their impact on the environment.“The tougher powers we have gained through this legislation will allow us, as the regulator, to close the justice gap, deliver swifter enforcement action and ultimately deter illegal activity.“Alongside this, we’re modernising and expanding our approach to water company inspections – and it’s working. More people, powers, better data and inspections are yielding vital evidence so that we can reduce sewage pollution, hold water companies to account and protect the environment.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.