News
and articlesNews
and articles
Fri 23rd Sep 2005
LONDON LIB DEMS LAUNCH ANNUAL REPORT BACK TO THE CAPITAL
Fri 16th Sep 2005
30 BILLION LITRES OF RAW SEWAGE DUMPED INTO THAMES IN A YEAR
Thu 15th Sep 2005
UP TO 10,000 PEOPLE WILL DIE EARLY FROM AIR POLLUTION IN
LONDON IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS
Wed 20th Jul 2005
ONE MILLION CUBIC METRES OF RAW SEWAGE DUMPED INTO THAMES IN A
WEEK
Tue 28th Jun 2005
LIVINGSTONE WATER THREATS WILL 'PEE OFF LONDONERS'
Wed 22nd Jun 2005
FAILURE TO TACKLE SMOG WILL COST THE LIVES OF LONDONERS
Mon 20th Jun 2005
LIVINGSTONE HAS GIVEN NEW CLIMATE CHANGE AGENCY LARGE IN-TRAY
OF WORK TO DO
Fri 10th Jun 2005
NEW LONDON MINISTER MUST TACKLE THAMES RAW SEWAGE
Tue 7th Jun 2005
LONDON ROADS TOP NITROGEN DIOXIDE POLLUTION LEVELS
Wed 25th May 2005
LIB DEMS LAUNCH 3-POINT PLAN TO TACKLE LIVINGSTONE'S
'MISERABLE' RECYCLING RECORD
Tue 19th Apr 2005
THAMES WATER MUST FIX LEAKY PIPES BEFORE CONSIDERING
DESALINATION PLANT
Thu 7th Apr 2005
HOMES IN THAMES GATEWAY SHOULD BE BUILT ON STILTS
Tue 15th Feb 2005
LIB DEM REPORT FINDS LONDON LOSING GUM LITTER BATTLE
Wed 2nd Feb 2005
LONDON BOTTOM OF THE LEAGUE FOR STREET CLEANLINESS
Press release: Fri 23rd Sep 2005
Mike Tuffrey today welcomed the launch of the Annual Report back to Londoners by the Lib Dem group, highlighting achievements at City Hall over the last year. Among his actions on the environment were:
The Report back can be found by clicking the link below.
London Assembly Report back 2005 to the capital
Press release: Fri 16th Sep 2005
The London Assembly Liberal Democrats today reveal shocking new figures showing that more than 30 billion litres of raw sewage was pumped into the Thames in the last year.
The new figures, uncovered by Lib Dem Mike Tuffrey, show that between the September 2004 and August 2005, 30,684,350,000 litres of untreated sewage were dumped into the river due to the inability of London's sewers to cope. On average, this is the equivalent of more than 33 Olympic size swimming pools of raw sewage being emptied into the Thames every day.
The volumes of sewage pumped into the Thames has become so serious that it has prompted an investigation by the European Union to find out whether the British government is breaching environmental rules.
After 12 months of investigation, Mike Tuffrey has put forward a three-point plan to start tackling the problem:-
Liberal Democrat London Assembly environment spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:-
"These figures are an absolute disgrace. Londoners are having to put up with huge amounts of sewage being pumped into the Thames every week. It is bad for the environment, bad for human health and bad for the image of our city.
"It is incredible that despite all the predictions that global warming would cause more violent storms and heavier downpours, London's sewer system is totally unprepared and unable to cope and pumping millions of tones of raw sewage into the Thames.
"The dumping of raw sewage into the Thames is something that happened in the Victorian era. It certainly should not be happening in the 21st century in one of the most developed capital city's in the world.
"There must be no more discussion, delay or dithering. The longer Ministers drag their feet the more this will ultimately cost the taxpayer to build and the more likely that these problems will damage the health of Londoners."
ENDS
Notes to editor
Figures have been obtained by the London Assembly Liberal Democrats from the Environment Agency and show that between September 2004 and August 2005, 30,684,350 million cubic metres of raw sewage was pumped into the Thames
One Cubic metre is equivalent to 1,000 litres. Therefore there was 30,684,350,000 litres of raw sewage pumped in to the Thames.
According to OfWat, an Olympic size swimming pool holds 2.5million litres of water.
Therefore 30,684,350,000/2,500,000=12,273.74 Olympic size swimming pools of raw sewage dumped into the Thames every year.
12,273.74/365=33.6 Olympic size swimming pools of raw sewage dumped in to the Thames every day
CUBIC METRES OF RAW SEWAGE DISCHARGE INTO THE THAMES FROM EACH PUMPING STATION IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
Month ABBEY MILLS CROSSNESS GREENWICH HAMMERSMITH LOTS ROAD MOGDEN WESTERN Total
Sep 04 327,630 62,734 12,000 9,000 6,770 90,600 508,734
Oct 04 1,476,048 2,047,607 190,932 983,600 346,680 649,290 643,450 6,337,607
Nov 04 135,820 1,812,431 77,000 28,980 36,000 26,200 2,116,431
Dec 04 2,533,342 1,110,030 520,668 486,000 468,900 69,040 429,050 5,617,030
Jan 05 738,000 7,000 20,500 59,100 824,600
Feb 05 201,600 480,521 127,224 172,800 982,145
Mar 05 1,561,293 2,722,446 226,080 23,400 24,000 140 217,325 4,774,684
Apr 05 774,515 3,003,203 371,844 21,000 8,720 36,600 4,215,882
May 05 -
Jun 05 854,820 49,032 74,448 207,000 144,900 172,200 1,502,400
Jul 05 453,600 570,978 120,000 31,500 139,000 1,315,078
Aug 05 1,028,420 782,957 469,782 64,000 59,000 37,800 47,800 2,489,759
Total 10,085,088 12,641,939 1,980,978 2,001,000 1,133,460 807,760 2,034,125 30,684,350
· The European Union are conducting investigations into whether the UK is failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and Annex IA and Articles 5(2), 5(3), 10 and Annex I.B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.
18 Jul 2005 : Column 1289W—continued
Water Resources
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 20 June 2005, Official Report, column 674W, on the Water Resources Treatment and Action Programme, if she will place in the Library her Department's response to the European Commission investigation into UK compliance with the provisions under Article 3(1) and Annex 1A and Articles 5(2), 5(3), 10 and Annex 1B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment. [7663]
Mr. Morley: Following careful consideration, I regret to inform you that we have decided not to place a copy of the response in the Library of the House.
The information is being withheld as the Department considers its disclosure would have an adverse effect on international relations between the UK and the Commission and on the course of justice. This is because the information relates to open infraction proceedings and ongoing investigations. For the same reasons disclosure would not be in the public interest at this stage of the proceedings.
Thames Water spent £4million on a study, which revealed that the establishment of the interceptor tunnel would take about ten years to build and cost £1.5billion.
On Monday 4th October 2004, DEFRA published its final water pricing review and guidance and concluded:-
"2.6. With respect to intermittent discharges from combined sewer overflows to the Thames Tideway, the Principal Guidance noted that work was being carried out by Thames Water and the Environment Agency to inform decisions. While the proposed interceptor tunnel might still emerge as the most appropriate long-term solution, the Government has since decided that, bearing in mind the scale, the costs and the long implementation timescale, further consideration is necessary before decisions are reached. The Government has therefore asked Thames Water and the Environment Agency to undertake further work on the interceptor tunnel proposal and on other measures that might be alternative or additional. This further work is to include smaller-scale measures and those that could bring earlier improvements on intermittent discharges. Robustness of the system and emergencies"
Press release: Thu 15th Sep 2005
New figures revealed by London Assembly Liberal Democrats today revealed that more than 10,000 people will die early, and another 10,000 admitted to hospital, due to air pollution in London.
The figures show that more than 1,000 people will die prematurely in 2005 from poor air quality, particularly from PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide levels in the capital with almost another 1,100 admitted to hospital.
The figures came as Mayor Livingstone admitted today that European Union Air Quality standards would continue not to be met until at least the year 2015 - leading to thousands more people dying prematurely.
London Assembly Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:-
"With a thousand people are dying early each year because of pollution, all the Mayor's talk about improving air quality and being a champion of the environment is wearing a little thin.
"This toxic soup of chemicals is having a devastating effect on Londoners' health. The air pollution in the capital is causing thousands of people to suffer from lung damage.
"The spate of unusually hot summers is taking its toll on air quality in the capital. If global warming and the rise in dangerous vehicle emissions are allowed to continue unchallenged, the situation will only get worse.
"The capital must urgently clean up its act. Instead of dithering and delaying the Mayor needs to get his act together to declare the whole of London a low emissions zone so that Londoners can regain confidence in the air that they breathe."
ENDS
Notes to editor
The answers were from questions put to the Mayor in July and answered in September
Air Quality
Question No: 1455 / 2005
Do you agree with the statement that "even in ten years time, the air quality in some areas, particularly those close to major roads and in the centre of London, is still not likely to meet the EU's air quality targets"? Will you be reviewing your Air Quality Strategy to ensure that this is not the case? Do you agree that traffic reduction will have to be an essential part of any additional measures to improve air quality to meet the EU limits?
Most of the EU air quality targets are already met in London. The exceptions are the targets for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10). Our predictions indicate that concentrations of these may still exceed the EU standards in 2015 at some locations in London.
I will be reviewing my Air Quality Strategy as part of the implementation of the London Low Emission Zone. A more detailed review of my Air Quality Strategy will be carried out in the future. This will update policies and proposals to improve air quality, taking into consideration changes to national and European air quality policy, which are predicted to be finalised within 12 months
Road transport is responsible for an estimated 63% of NOx emissions and 57% of PM10 emissions in London. We are working hard to reduce traffic and are the only major city to have achieved a modal shift away from the private car. We will continue to reduce emissions from transport, including through traffic reduction, as an essential part of improving air quality to meet the EU limits.
Air quality
Question No: 1476 / 2005
Have the official figures on the number of premature deaths and hospital admissions in the capital as a result of poor air quality altered significantly since the publication of your Air Quality Strategy?
My Air Quality Strategy stated that 1,600 premature deaths and an additional 1,500 hospital admissions were caused by air pollution every year in London.
Current estimates suggest that there will be 1,031 deaths brought forward and 1,088 respiratory hospital admissions from PM10 pollution in London in 2005.
In addition, my officers are looking into the impact of air pollution on average life expectancy in London.
Air Pollution Levels
Question No: 1550 / 2005
Mike Tuffrey
Have PM10 air concentrations breached the 50 micrograms per cubic metre at any of London's monitoring stations in the past month? If so, which ones and how many?
As you are aware, several monitoring stations in London have measured 24-hour average concentrations of particulate matter PM10 higher than 50 mg m-3 within the last month. The EU short term limit value for PM10 (50 mg m-3 as a 24-hour average concentration) can be exceeded up to 35 times a year, before the directive is breached.
Some of London's monitoring sites are used for Local Air Quality Management and are not relevant to the EU directive (as they are not part of the Government's submission to the EU and may not meet the legal requirements for inclusion, such as siting criteria). So far, Marylebone Road is the only EU-compliance site which has breached the EU Directive.
Details of sites, and their associated pollution levels, can be found on the London Air Quality Network website http://www.londonair.org.uk.
Press release: Wed 20th Jul 2005
Ahead of Mayor's Question Time later today (Wednesday), the London Assembly Liberal Democrats today reveal shocking new figures showing that more than 1 million cubic metres of raw sewage was pumped into the Thames during the storms at the end of June.
The new figures, revealed to Lib Dem Mike Tuffrey, show that between the 24th June and the 29th June 2005, 1,033,000 cubic metres of untreated sewage was dumped into the river due to the inability of London's sewers to cope with the storms that hit the capital in the last week in June.
Mike Tuffrey will call on the Mayor to lobby Ministers at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to stop stalling and reverse their decision to postpone the 'interceptor' tunnel, which would prevent the regular deluges of raw sewage into the Thames. The delay in building the tunnel has already increased estimated costs from £600m to £1.5bn.
The pumping of the sewage into the Thames led to a massive reduction in the oxygen levels in the river, which according to the Environment Agency, led to the death of some aquatic wildlife.
Mike Tuffrey said:-
"These figures are an absolute disgrace. Londoners are having to put up with huge amounts of sewage being pumped into the Thames every week. It is bad for the environment, bad for human health and bad for the image of our city.
"It is incredible that despite all the predictions that global warming would cause more violent storms and heavier downpours, London's sewer system is totally unprepared and unable to cope and pumping millions of tones of raw sewage into the Thames.
"The dumping of raw sewage into the Thames is something that happened in the Victorian era. It certainly should not be happening in the 21st century in one of the most developed capital city's in the world.
"There must be no more discussion, delay or dithering on building this interceptor tunnel. The longer Ministers drag their feet in making the inevitable decision to build the tunnel, the more this will ultimately cost the taxpayer to build."
ENDS
Notes to editor
Figures have been obtained from the Environment Agency and show that on the 24 June 2005 approximately 390,000 cubic metres of storm sewage was discharged into the Thames and a further 740,000 cubic metres of storm sewage into the river on the 28 June and 29 June. This makes a total of 1.033million cubic metres in a week.
Total discharge is for only 5 of the largest outfalls (Abbey Mills, Western, Lots Road, Hammersmith and Greenwich Pumping Stations)
On Monday 4th October 2004, DEFRA published its final water pricing review and guidance and concluded:-
"2.5. The Government recognised in the Principal Guidance that the Thames Tideway needs further measures to address discharges. In the medium term, improvements to continuous waste water discharges from three sewage treatment works which discharge to the Thames to ensure compliance with statutory requirements under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are to go ahead. In addition, there will be further schemes to improve water quality in the river and protect fish under the local schemes programme in the RIA (see paragraph 3.20).
2.6. With respect to intermittent discharges from combined sewer overflows to the Thames Tideway, the Principal Guidance noted that work was being carried out by Thames Water and the Environment Agency to inform decisions. While the proposed interceptor tunnel might still emerge as the most appropriate long-term solution, the Government has since decided that, bearing in mind the scale, the costs and the long implementation timescale, further consideration is necessary before decisions are reached. The Government has therefore asked Thames Water and the Environment Agency to undertake further work on the interceptor tunnel proposal and on other measures that might be alternative or additional. This further work is to include smaller-scale measures and those that could bring earlier improvements on intermittent discharges. Robustness of the system and emergencies"
Thames Water spent £4million on a study, which revealed that the establishment of the interceptor tunnel would take about ten years to build and cost £1.5billion.
Press release: Tue 28th Jun 2005
Commenting on the dire predictions by Ken Livingstone that London could see standpipes on the streets of the capital next summer unless people conserve water, Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said: -
"The Mayor has demanded Londoners change their ways but has ignored the fact that the equivalent of almost 1,000 Olympic size swimming pools of water are lost through leaky pipes in London every day.
"It is staggering that the Mayor has only now decided to start making predictions about chronic water shortages that could be facing London when these problems have been known for months.
"While steps to reduce demand for water, such as compulsory water meters, are welcome the approach to solving this problem must be led by the water companies.
"Serious questions must be asked about why Thames Water has failed to tackle the rebuilding of our leaking and crumbling water system, and why it is only Londoners and not the water companies who are being told to make adjustments to their way of life."
Commenting on the Mayor calling for people not to flush the toilet after they have urinated, Mike Tuffrey continued:-
"Advising people to put bricks in their toilets to save water is one thing, but to tell people not to flush the toilet after spending a penny will just pee off Londoners."
ENDS
Notes to editor
Detail of water leakage rates for 2003/04 for each water company can be found below and are taken from Hansard 9th June 2005, Column 623W
One megalitre is approximately the amount of water it takes to fill an Olympic size swimming pool
Megalitres %age of water leaked
Thames 946 0.26
Severn Trent 512 0.14
United Utilities 479 0.13
Yorkshire 295 0.08
Dwr Cymru 231 0.06
Anglian 216 0.06
Northumbrian North 160 0.04
Three Valleys 152 0.04
Southern 92 0.03
South West 84 0.02
Wessex 75 0.02
South Staffordshire 71 0.02
Northumbrian South 70 0.02
South East 69 0.02
Bristol 53 0.01
Mid Kent 30 0.01
Portsmouth 30 0.01
Sutton and East Surrey 24 0.01
Bournemouth and W Hants 22 0.01
Cambridge 14 0.00
Dee Valley 10 0.00
Folkestone and Dover 8 0.00
Tendring Hundred 5 0.00
Total 3648 100
Press release: Wed 22nd Jun 2005
Commenting on the issuing of the first smog warning of the summer for London and parts of the South East, Liberal Democrat London Assembly environment spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:-
"After six years of rhetoric all the talk on reducing congestion, improving air quality and being a champion of the environment, wears thin when the problems are getting worse.
"The damage to Londoners health from smog is not something that just happened in the bygone post war days, it is having terrible effects on individual health today as well. Air pollution is causing thousands of deaths and hospital admissions each year.
"The spate of unusually hot summers is taking its toll on air quality in the capital. If global warming and the rise in dangerous vehicle emissions are allowed to continue unchallenged, the situation will only get worse.
"The health of thousands of Londoners is already at severe risk from smog and pollution and the capital must urgently cleans up its act.
"High smog levels can cause lung damage and increase respiratory infections in young children. Long-term exposure may lead to increases in asthma and may cause alterations in the lung.
"A mayor for Greater London must make sure that improvements in our quality of life happen across the whole of the capital and not just within the Zone 1. Instead of dithering and delaying he needs to get his act together to declare the whole of London a low emissions zone as a matter of urgency so that Londoners can regain confidence in the air that they breathe."
ENDS
Ben Bradshaw, minister for local environmental quality announced the smog warning on Wednesday 22nd June 2005
Press release: Mon 20th Jun 2005
Commenting on the launch of the new Climate Change Agency later today, Liberal Democrats warned the new organisation will have a lot of work to do after five years of disappointment.
The Liberal Democrats will highlight the Transport for London Business Plan 2005/6-2009/10 that shows London are set to miss specific climate change targets including: -
London Assembly Liberal Democrat environment Spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:-
"The Mayor has left the Climate Change Agency with a lot of work to do in its in-tray. For all his talk, London is now spewing out more pollution than when he took office."
"With London the powerhouse of Britain's economy, the failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will hit the UK's chances of meeting the Kyoto Protocol and reduce the threat of global warming."
"The new Agency must hit the ground running from day one to deliver with simple practical solutions to help Londoners make a real difference on tackling climate change to benefit the rest of the world."
ENDS
Notes to editor
Table 9 on pages 35-36 of the TfL Business Plan 2005/06 - 2009/10 sets out the targets and the expected achievements of London:-
Description of target or indicator Change National Target Projection for London Pass/fail
Traffic congestion Change between 2000 and 2010 Awaiting shared delivery targets agreement 8% more congestion Fail
Local public transport (bus and light rail) usage Change between 2000 and 2010 12% 50% Pass
LU journey times Cut journey times over duration of plan Cut journey times over duration of plan 13% improvement Pass
Number of adults and children killed or seriously injured in road accidents Change between average for 1994-1998 and 2010 40% reduction for adults, and 50% reduction for children 40% reduction for adults, and 50% reduction for children Pass
Air quality Meet National Air Quality strategy objectives for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1,2-butadiene Various targets reductions in concentration Expected to meet targets for carbon monoxide, lead, sulphur dioxide, benzene, and 1,2 butadiene. Reductions in PM10 and NO2 but unlikely to meet target Fail
Greenhouse gases Change between 2000 and 2010 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% from 1990 levels, and move towards a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010 Unlikely to meet target Fail
Cycling trips Change between 2000 and 2010 No target in 2004 PSAs 72% increase Pass
Bus reliability Change between 2000 and 2010 99.5% of scheduled mileage, except where this is beyond their control Projected to meet 98.8% Fail
Bus fleet Change between 2000 and 2010 Reduce to average 8 years Projected to exceed target Pass
Bus accessibility Change between 2000 and 2010 50% of full size bus fleet to be fully accessible 100% of the bus fleet to be fully accessible by 2005 Pass
Maintain strategic road network Change between 2000 and 2010 Proportion of network in need of maintenance between 7% and 8% Substantial improvement Fail
Halt deterioration of local road network Change between 2000 and 2010 Halt deterioration by 2004 and end backlog by 2010 Substantial improvement Fail
Bus passenger information New target introduced in April 2002, specifically for information at bus stops Year on year improvements in information at bus stops Customer Satisfaction Survey information projected to rise from 75 in 2003/04 to 77 in 2009/10 Pass
Press release: Fri 10th Jun 2005
On the day that the new Minister for London, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, takes part in a photo opportunity to help clean up the Thames of rubbish, Liberal Democrats at the London Assembly have today renewed their call for the Government to build an 'interceptor tunnel' to stop the millions of litres of raw sewage being pumped in to the river.
Figures revealed earlier this year by London Assembly Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the environment, Mike Tuffrey, shows that more than 240 million cubic metres of raw sewage were pumped into the Thames in the last four years.
The European Union is also investigating whether the pumping of raw sewage into the Thames breaches urban waste water treatment directives.
Mike Tuffrey today called on the new Minister for London to lobby his colleagues at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse their decision to postpone the 'interceptor' tunnel that would prevent the need for raw sewage to be regularly pumped into the Thames. Over the last fifteen years Thames clear up costs have cost more than £1billion.
Mike Tuffrey said:-
"I very much hope that the new London Minister commitment to cleaning up the Thames extends beyond just a photo opportunity. Rather than just demonstrating his commitment by taking part in a quick media stunt, Mr Fitzpatrick should tell his Government colleagues of the need to build the interceptor tunnel to stop the billions of litres of raw sewage being pumped into the Thames.
"So much sewage being pumped into the Thames is bad for the environment, bad for human health and bad for the image of both the Thames and London.
"The dumping of raw sewage into the Thames is something that happened in the Victorian era. It certainly should not be happening in the 21st century in one of the most developed capital cities in the world.
"There must be no more discussion, delay or dithering on building this interceptor tunnel. The longer Ministers drag their feet in making the inevitable decision to build the tunnel, the more this will ultimately cost the taxpayer to build and more raw sewage will be pumped into the Thames."
ENDS
Notes to editor
· The new Minister for London, Jim Fitzpatrick will join 50 volunteers from the Government Office for London on Friday morning at the Thames foreshore, near Vauxhall, south London.
· The EU is currently investigating whether the UK is failing to fulfill its obligations under Article 3(1) and Annex IA and Articles 5(2), 5(3), 10 and Annex I.B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment.
The quote and table below is taken from Hansard 15 Dec 2004 : Column 1112W
"The Table below sets out the monthly calculated volumes of untreated sewage discharged to the Thames from the five largest pumping stations during wet weather. As no data is available for the other overflows along the Thames Tideway, it is estimated that on average these volumes represent 60 per cent. of the total discharge from London's combined drainage system at these times. "
Month 2001 2002 2003 2004
January 3,471,000 3,009,000 12,954,000 9,281,000
February 9,279,000 4,746,000 3,759,000 3,240,000
March 8,118,000 2,761,000 743,000 44,000
April 2,688,000 2,662,000 395,000 3,665,000
May 2,322,000 2,007,000 543,000 3,268,000
June 1,757,000 3,353,000 950,000 3,047,000
July 1,742,000 1,962,000 1,124,000 1,260,000
August 4,490,000 4,017,000 438,000 4,945,000
September 2,261,000 563,000 577,000 446,000
October 6,312,000 3,961,000 2,600,000 4,290,000
November 2,400,000 12,144,000 11,072,000 304,000
December 1,096,000 11,755,000 6,064,000 n/a
This gives a total for the 5 largest pumping of 173,885,000 cubic metres discharged between Jan '01 - Nov '04. Ministers estimate this makes up 60% of untreated sewage going into the Thames and comes from the 5 largest pumping stations at Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach, Mogden and Riverside. Therefore the total raw sewage discharge for the Thames equals 243,439,000 cubic metres. A cubic metre is equal to 1,000 litres. Therefore 243,439,000,000 litres of raw sewage has been discharged into the Thames since January 2001
On Monday 4th October DEFRA published its final water pricing review and guidance and concluded:-
"2.5. The Government recognised in the Principal Guidance that the Thames Tideway needs further measures to address discharges. In the medium term, improvements to continuous waste water discharges from three sewage treatment works which discharge to the Thames to ensure compliance with statutory requirements under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are to go ahead. In addition, there will be further schemes to improve water quality in the river and protect fish under the local schemes programme in the RIA (see paragraph 3.20).
2.6. With respect to intermittent discharges from combined sewer overflows to the Thames Tideway, the Principal Guidance noted that work was being carried out by Thames Water and the Environment Agency to inform decisions. While the proposed interceptor tunnel might still emerge as the most appropriate long-term solution, the Government has since decided that, bearing in mind the scale, the costs and the long implementation timescale, further consideration is necessary before decisions are reached. The Government has therefore asked Thames Water and the Environment Agency to undertake further work on the interceptor tunnel proposal and on other measures that might be alternative or additional. This further work is to include smaller-scale measures and those that could bring earlier improvements on intermittent discharges, robustness of the system and emergencies"
Thames Water spent £4million on a study, which revealed that the establishment of the interceptor tunnel would take about ten years to build and cost £1.5billion.
Press release: Tue 7th Jun 2005
Commenting on the findings by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists that half of the places with the highest Nitrogen Dioxide pollution levels in the UK were in London, London Assembly Liberal Democrat Environment Spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey said:-
"High nitrogen dioxide levels can cause lung damage and increased respiratory infections in young children. Long-term exposure may lead to increases in asthma and may cause alterations in the lung.
"London is now in breach of European law over the amount of pollutants that have been belched out across some parts of London. Mr Livingstone has succeeded in combating some of central London's pollution, but he has failed to tackle the pollution in the air Londoners who live outside the Congestion Charge zone breath."
ENDS
Notes to editor
· In 2004, the Liberal Democrats revealed that Nitrogen Dioxide levels in London had risen 15% between 2002 and 2003. Approximately 50% of nitrogen dioxide emissions come from cars and 25% from power stations. In addition to causing acid rain and producing low-level ozone, they irritate the respiratory tract, impair lung function and have been linked to lung cancer. They particularly affect people with asthma.
· European rules state that PM10 emissions (fine particles, mostly from vehicle exhausts, which are to blame for causing respiratory diseases, asthma attacks and up to 10,000 premature deaths nationwide each year) must not exceed the permitted maximum levels more than 35 times per year. However a monitoring station in Marylebone Road has already recorded 36 breaches of emission levels.
· The Government's target under the Air Quality Strategy is that by 2005 the amount of nitrogen dioxide should be below 40ìg/m³ for the yearly average.
· Figures below have been taken from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists
Here are the 10 monitoring points in the UK with the highest PM10
levels (figures are all mcg/m3):
Jan-May 2005 2004 mean
London Marylebone Road 41 43
Camden Kerbside 36 35
Glasgow Kerbside 34 27
Bradford Centre 29 27
Leeds Centre 29 22
London A3 Roadside 29 27
Bury Roadside 27 30
London Hillingdon 27 27
London Bloomsbury 27 26
Stockton-on-Tees Yarm 27 27
Press release: Wed 25th May 2005
At Mayor's Question Time later today, London Assembly Liberal Democrats will put forward a 3-point plan for Ken Livingstone to immediately implement to improve recycling in London.
The most recent figures show that London households recycle only 11% of their waste, the lowest rate of all English regions. The Lib Dems will demand that it is time for the Mayor to lead by example and set a proper standard for Londoners to follow.
London Assembly Liberal Democrat Environment Spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey will call for:
Lib Dems will today also reveal that although up to 80% of the rubbish collected on the Tube in the morning peak is recyclable, London Underground's present recycling rate stands at only 27%.
Mike Tuffrey said:
"When it comes to recycling, London is lagging behind. Ken Livingstone has set targets for London Councils to improve their recycling rates but has done very little to get his own house in order. It must be a question of 'do as I do', not, 'do as I say' when it comes to recycling.
"With newspapers making up the vast majority of waste on the Tube, it is an outrage that there is no safe paper recycling scheme in operation already. With the Mayor set to roll out another free newspaper at Underground stations, the situation looks set to get worse.
"Unless recycling is made easier and more convenient, then London will remain at the bottom of the recycling pile. It is time that the Mayor threw down the gauntlet to other organisations by setting the lead.
"Providing recycling facilities on the Tubes, buses and public places would promote recycling and encourage both public and private sector to raise their environmental game."
ENDS
Notes to editor:
Mayor's Questions Time will be held from 10am on Wednesday 25th May 2005 at City Hall.
· Liberal Democrats are calling for separate newspaper collection points to be added at all Tube stations where bins are currently provided. At stations where bins have been removed as a security precaution Lib Dem call for the separation of newspapers during collections by station waste operatives.
In answer to Mayoral questions on recycling rates on the underground, Ken Livingstone said that of the 80% of Underground waste that could be recycled, only 27% actually was:-
London Underground Recycling Rates
Question No: 605 / 2005
Mike Tuffrey
What proportion of the total waste collected by Metronet and Tube Lines is recycled?
The LU Environment Report (which is publicly available on the Tube website) shows that 27% of solid waste was recycled in 2003/04. This includes LU, Metronet and Tube Lines. It should be noted that Tube Lines undertakes waste management on behalf of the whole LU Group.
London Underground Newspaper Recycling
Question No: 606 / 2005
Mike Tuffrey
Can you provide figures on the amount of newspapers collected as waste by Metronet and Tube Lines and the proportion of the entire waste collected that this represents? What proportion of these newspapers are recycled?
In the morning peak, newspapers form a very high percentage of the waste recovered from trains and stations. Recent studies show that this can be up to 80% of items recovered. Tube Lines are responsible for waste collection on the whole LU system and have been exploring mechanisms for the segregation and recycling of this material. A pilot scheme has been running for a couple of months and the data is being collected and reviewed. However, the detailed figures you request are not available, though one outcome from the pilot may be the collection of more information.
· In London, the Mayor is responsible for municipal waste strategy and sets recycling targets. The boroughs are the collection and (since GLC abolition) the disposal authorities.
The Table below was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster in March 2005.
It shows that:-
· London is the worst performing and worst improving region out of the nine regions of England for recycling and composting. In terms of improvement its rate has only improved by 3% since 2001/02 whereas all other regions have improved by at least 5%.
· The average recycling and composting rate in England in 2003/04 was 19%. The average recycling rate in London in 2003/04 was 11%
Full details can be found in Table 2:-
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/bulletin/mwb-intbull-20032004.xls
Management of municipal waste 2001/02 to 2003/04
Recycling/Composting Figures
Region 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 % increase since 2000/01
South West 19% 22% 25% 6%
East Midlands 18% 20% 24% 6%
South East 19% 21% 24% 5%
East Midlands 15% 16% 20% 5%
North West 11% 13% 18% 7%
West Midlands 11% 14% 17% 6%
North East 7% 10% 16% 9%
Yorkshire / Humberside 11% 13% 16% 5%
London 8% 9% 11% 3%
England 14% 16% 19% 5%
Source: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Source publication: Municipal Waste Management Survey, Published March 2005
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/index.htm
Press release: Tue 19th Apr 2005
Commenting on Ken Livingstone's decision to refuse permission to Thames Water to build a desalination plant, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Environment Spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:
"Before Thames Water embarks on such an ambitious project they need to reduce leakages and reduce demand for piped water or we are just storing up problems for the future. The desalination plant would require enormous amounts of energy to convert salt water to pure water and this could leave lasting damage on the environment.
"Simply increasing the supply of water, whether through flooding parts of the countryside for new reservoirs or through building energy intensive desalination plants, has significant environmental impacts."
Press release: Thu 7th Apr 2005
Ahead of the London Assembly Environment Committee's investigation of the flood risk in the Thames Gateway later today (7th April 2005), Liberal Democrat London Assembly Environment Spokesman, Mike Tuffrey, has called for some of the new homes and businesses in the area to be built on stilts to prevent flood damage and make sure they get flood insurance.
Mike Tuffrey proposes that residential and commercial development on high flood risk sites should be built several feet above ground level to reduce the potential damage from flooding and enable owners to get adequate insurance.
A report published earlier this year by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) highlighted that the flooding risks caused by new developments Thames Gateway could add over £47million to the annual bill. An extreme flood in the Gateway could lead to damages in excess of £16 billion.
Mike Tuffrey said:-
"Climate change is bringing higher sea-levels and increasing the risk of flooding in areas like the Thames Gateway. With over 85,000 homes in total planned for the Gateway's floodplains and £19billion worth of assets at stake, it is vital that new and innovative ways are put forward in the Gateway area to reduce the threat from flooding.
"While building properties on stilts may seem novel to people in London, this sort of development is commonplace in places such as Atlanta and Zanzibar. People know that to avoid the threat of flooding, their houses need to be built above water level.
"It is vital that the Mayor, insurance companies, developers, Ministers, and local authorities get round the table to establish responsible, innovative planning measures and secure reliable funding to protect homes in the Thames Gateway from flooding. Without sustained co-operation and financial backing, some new buildings in the Gateway will be in danger of turning into an uninsurable and uninhabitable white elephants."
ENDS
Notes to editor
On the 7th April 2005, the London Assembly Environment Committee will be investigating the flood risk to new homes and businesses in the Thames Gateway. The Committee will also look at the insurability of properties in the new development.
Press release: Tue 15th Feb 2005
London Assembly Liberal Democrats today unveiled a new report showing that over £4 million a year is spent by London Councils and transport organisations on trying to stem the tide of discarded chewing gum that litters the capital's streets and street furniture.
The Lib Dems surveyed all 33 local authorities in the capital to discover the extent of the problem. Key findings include:-
The report, Getting to Grips with Gum, puts forward a five-point plan of new proposals to combat the growing menace of used chewing gum including:-
London Assembly Liberal Democrat Environment Spokesman, Mike Tuffrey, said:
"London is slowly losing the battle to clean the streets of chewing gum. Chewing gum that is irresponsibly spat on to the street is a nuisance, an eyesore and is costing taxpayers millions each year to clean up. With sales rocketing, and as a result, chewing gum spat on to the streets increasing, Ministers and the Mayor must look at new ways of tackling the problem before it spirals out of control.
"Chewing gum is a unique form of litter as it is almost impossible to remove. Gum manufacturers have been promising for years that they are working on an environmentally friendly gum, but nothing has happened. It is time that Government took a carrot and stick approach with manufacturers to stop our roads becoming one long litterbin.
"The year long consultation recently carried out by the government has been a shallow sham that has failed to produce any concrete ideas on how to tackle the blight of gum spat on to our streets. Unless urgent action is taken soon, London will lose the fight against gum."
ENDS
Notes to editor
The full report can be found at:
Presently the Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill is progressing though Parliament, in which the Government makes a passing reference to the chewing gum nuisance. Clause 27 of the Bill suggests that it should be officially reclassified as 'litter', which hitherto it hasn't been. This would place more responsibility on to local authorities to eradicate the problem.
A copy of the report is attached. The Executive Summary, results of the survey and recommendations are below
Executive Summary
1.1 Since 1998 it is estimated that chewing gum sales have increased by 33%. The entire UK chewing market is now worth £258 million per year . However, this growth has brought with it an unfortunate side effect. Millions of pounds are being spent to rid our pavements public property of the huge amount of gum that is poorly disposed of.
1.2 The Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly recognise that chewing gum is a unique product which is much harder, indeed sometimes impossible, to remove than other types of litter and, therefore, needs a unique set of solutions. Unfortunately the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs has not woken up to this reality and has failed to tackle the problem.
1.3 The manufacturer Wrigley's maintains that it has invested around £5million into research to find biodegradable gum. They claim no success to date. However, Liberal Democrats have uncovered research undertaken by a US University showing that environmentally friendly gum is a definite possibility and could meet the demands of the consumer market.
1.4 To investigate the exact extent of the chewing gum nuisance in London the Liberal Democrat Group surveyed all Boroughs in the capital. This revealed that, already, local Councils are spending £2.3 million per annum on dealing with gum pollution. Further research by the Lib Dems also uncovered that £2million is spent purely on removing chewing gum from London Underground trains and stations.
1.5 The London Assembly Liberal Democrats have put forward a number of recommendations to tackle the problem. Action is sought for the government to impose a 'penny per pack' contribution from manufacturers, which would be given directly to Councils and public authorities to deal with the massive clean-up costs. The Group proposes to give manufacturers an incentive to produce biodegradable gum by offering an abatement on these contributions if the company has an active research programme underway and suggests lifting the levy once an alternative environmentally friendly product has been developed. Liberal Democrats are also calling for much larger messages on chewing gum wrappers to encourage correct disposal.
Liberal Democrat Investigation
5.1 So what exactly is the extent of the chewing gum problem in London at present? To find out and, as importantly, develop some ideas about how to eradicate London's streets of this sticky, unsightly mess, the Assembly's Liberal Democrat Group has conducted its own investigation.
5.2 The Group contacted each of the Borough Councils, who are commissioned with the job of removing chewing gum from pavements, to discover whether they perceived chewing gum as a hazard. The survey also asked them about the measures being employed to address it, the costs being incurred and their view on possible solutions.
5.3 17 out of 33 Boroughs replied to the request for information between 1st and 29th October 2004, giving a response rate of 52%.
5.4 Interestingly, the answers that were received showed an unusual degree of uniformity. There were no perceived political differences in the views expressed; respondents were unanimously of the opinion that discarded chewing gum represents is an environmental nuisance.
5.5 Seven of the 17, 41%, revealed that they had established dedicated teams tasked exclusively with the removal of chewing gum from streets and street furniture. Indeed, five of the seven had to employ more than one team with the actual methods used to dislodge gum varying. Seven boroughs reported that they use high-pressure jet sprays, four use scraping, and 2 use chemical treatments.
5.6 Most alarming was the amount of money being spent by local authorities trying to eradicate gum from the streets. Ten boroughs provided estimated costs, the smallest estimated being £12,500 and the largest sum as much as £200,000 per annum. The total sum for all ten boroughs who provided a figure was £686,500. Projecting this across all 33 Boroughs would indicate that over two and a quarter million spent in London each year on trying to remove chewing gum from the capital's pavements.
5.7 In addition, numerous Councils had tried some alternative and complimentary approaches to combat gum littering. Four boroughs (23%) had adopted public awareness campaigns highlighting the nuisance and damage that chewing gum can have on the local environment. Two boroughs (12%) were trialing 'chewing gum targets', whilst another two have experimented with chewing gum bins.
5.8 A key section of the Liberal Democrat survey was used to identify Boroughs' views on possible solutions. It was interesting to note that a majority (53%) of Boroughs did not believe that imposing fines would prevent individuals from discarding chewing gum on the street, with the key concern that this would be difficult to police and enforce.
5.9 The graph that illustrates what measures respondents would like to see introduced by central Government or the powers they would like to have at their disposal to deal tackle the problem of discarded chewing gum, can be found in the main pdf report:
5.10 In addition, the Boroughs were asked whether they would like to see manufacturers themselves take a more proactive role in tackling the problem of chewing gum littering the streets. Thirteen of the sixteen who responded to the question, a resounding 81% believed that gum companies should be concentrating more effort on developing less sticky or biodegradable chewing gum. Two other respondents argued that the manufacturers should be partly funding an awareness campaign to highlight the nuisance that discarded chewing gum can cause the environment.
5.11 Further research by the Liberal Democrats also discovered that around £2million was spent by London Underground alone on removing chewing gum from stations and trains. In answer to Liberal Democrats the Mayor admitted: -
"London Underground estimates that its suppliers spend some £2m per annum removing gum from its stations and trains. As an example - cleaning the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Line trains and stations costs some £20m per year. We estimate that around 2% of that (£400k) is on removing gum."
Recommendations
6.2 There are several solutions to this sticky problem, which the London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group argue should be progressed immediately:
- Requiring chewing gum manufacturers to contribute one penny from each packet they sell to go towards gum clean up costs. This 'penny per pack' payment, which would yield over £1.8million in London alone , would go direct to local Councils and public authorities to deal with their massive clean-up costs.
- Giving an incentive to gum manufacturers to research and develop an alternative biodegradable product to replace the current stubbornly sticky consistency, by phasing in reduced gum contributions dependent on research spend and success.
- Insist that chewing gum manufacturers print larger messages about correct disposal so that, as with health warnings on cigarette packets, 25% of a packet dedicated to this message.
- Requiring a minimum budgetary spend from manufacturers on involvement in and sponsorship of local authority campaigns to deter people dropping chewing gum.
- Launching a Londonwide publicity campaign to highlight the damage and costs of chewing gum being dropped irresponsibly and making people more aware of the consequences of gum dropping.
- Rolling out more chewing gum bins and targets outside major transport hubs, schools and in High Streets to give people more ways to discard of gum responsibly. These could be financed through the gum levies and penny per pack payment.
Press release: Wed 2nd Feb 2005
Commenting on the new Keep Britain Tidy, Local Environmental Quality Survey of England, that found London scored bottom of the league for cleanliness in the country with a score of 43 out of 100, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Environment Spokesperson, Mike Tuffrey, said:-
"It is a sad state of affairs that London finishes up bottom of the league for clean streets. It is vital that Councils, the Mayor and Ministers work together the cut the grime from our roads.
"Tackling the menace of litter would improve the quality of life for millions of people and make London feel a healthier, safer and cleaner place to live and work."
ENDS
Please contact Peter Gibson/Laura Eastham/Emma Brennan, Keep Britain Tidy on 01942 612617/612634 or 07768 880016 or Eibhlin O'Somachain, British Cleaning Council on 01942 612616. Note we have ISDN facilities available for radio interviews. For more on ENCAMS and the Keep Britain Tidy campaign and to see a full copy of the LEQSE report, go to http://www.encams.org.uk
Notes to Editors
Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS) is an independent national charity working for the improvement of local environments. ENCAMS runs the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign and co-ordinates the People & Places programme.
Regional table, facts and stats
Having scoured sites across England's regions, our surveyors gave each a score out of 100. Here's how they finished...
Position Region Score
1 East of England 72
2 South East 63
3 West Midlands 62
4 South West 60
4 East Midlands 60
4 North West 60
7 Yorkshire 58
8 North East 57
9 London 43
· Each site examined was given a Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Poor grade. With 33% of their areas rated as Good, the West Midlands led the way, with the East of England second on 31%. The North West managed just 24% leaving them next to last - while London came bottom of the heap with 20%.
· Some 28% of sites in the East Of England scored a Satisfactory Grade - meaning the region came top, just one point ahead of the South East who racked up 27%.
· The North West had the most Unsatisfactory sites - at 62%. Next came London (60%) followed by Yorkshire and Humberside (58%).
· London also scored the most Poor grades, with 7% of sites given the thumbs-down. The North West meanwhile, had none.
· All regions scored top marks for dealing with flyposting, graffiti and fly-tipping (big items of dumped junk). Bar the West Midlands and South East, all councils received maximum marks for clearing away leaves, too.
· All of our regions were rated Good at emptying public bins - with the South East, East of England, Yorkshire and the North East receiving maximum marks.
· The East of England, East Midlands, South West and South East shared top spot for clearing up litter (all rated Satisfactory). Less impressive was London and Yorkshire's performance - they shared the wooden spoon.