Teddington Thames Water treated wastewater scheme plans go on show
A public consultation has begun into a water recycling scheme that would see treated wastewater pumped into the River Thames in south-west London. The Teddington Direct River Abstraction project is designed to provide 75 million litres of water each day for London during droughts. Under the plans, water would be transferred from the river to a reservoir to be added to the drinking water supply. The Thames would then be topped up with treated wastewater pumped in through an underground pipeline from a nearby sewage treatment works.The plan has been criticised due to safety concerns, but Thames Water said the project was "essential to prevent taps from running dry" in future dry spells.
The provider said the scheme was based on a "tried and tested" method and that the water would get an additional level of cleaning before it went back into the river.Over the coming weeks, Thames Water is to hold a series of local events to exhibit plans for the scheme as part of the consultation process.The firm, which is the UK's largest water supplier, says it is encouraging customers and local communities to view the proposals and have a say on them.The consultation comes weeks after the water company was fined a record £122.7m for breaching rules over sewage spills and shareholder payouts.
'Critical water security challenge'
The stretch of the Thames is popular with swimmers, rowers and kayakers.Twickenham's Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson previously said she was concerned by the plans and believed the scheme could damage the environment and human health. "Lots of people are very worried about the amount of sewage that is already going into the river," she told the BBC.A spokesperson for Thames Water said no untreated sewage would be added to the river under these plans.The provider's head of engagement, Leonie Dubois, said the project was necessary, as London faced a "critical water security challenge"."This spring has already broken records as the warmest and sunniest in over a century and has also been extremely dry, increasing the risk of drought."Our London drought resilience project is therefore essential to prevent the taps from running dry during increasingly frequent droughts."The public consultation will remain open until Tuesday 26 August.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Unless you see it, you can't believe how bad it is': the peer demanding a minister for porn
When the Conservative peer Gabby Bertin arrived for a meeting with the the science and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, earlier this year she startled him by laying out an array of pornographic images across his desk. 'They were screengrabs showing little girls, their hair in bunches, and massive, grown men grabbing little girls' throats,' she says. She had selected images which appeared to depict child abuse, and yet were easily and legally available on a popular website. 'Unless you see it, you can't quite believe how bad it is.' The minister appeared shocked and upset by the images, she recalls, so she quickly tidied them away and later shredded them. Bertin has noticed that her desire to talk frequently and openly about extreme pornography is not shared by all her Westminster colleagues. 'I've definitely seen people swerve at lunch, not wanting to sit next to me for fear of what they're going to hear coming from my mouth,' she told fellow delegates at the launch meeting of her pornography taskforce this week, prompting a flutter of sympathetic laughter. Since being appointed by the former prime minister Rishi Sunak to lead an independent review into the regulation of online pornography in December 2023, Bertin has observed how a double taboo has made most politicians extremely reluctant to engage. Some simply find the subject hugely embarrassing; others stay silent because they do not wish to appear prudish by criticising the proliferation of extreme and often illegal pornographic material online. She is frustrated by this reticence. 'You can't leave the pitch on this stuff just because you're worried about being accused of being too strait-laced,' she says. The government needs urgently to appoint a minister for porn, she recommends, to ensure that the issue gets the attention it deserves, rather than being passed reluctantly between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A former adviser to David Cameron, Bertin has gathered cross-party support for her work and says she emails Keir Starmer so regularly about the issue that she has 'practically become his pen pal' (if you can have a pen pal who delegates to officials the responsibility of replying). 'We're really British about it so we don't want to have a graphic conversation about sex and porn,' she says, in an interview in the Westminster office she shares with several other peers. 'But you've got to shout about it as loudly as possible. The reason why we've got into this mess is because nobody has really wanted to talk about it.' By mess she means a situation whereby online pornography (which is viewed by an estimated 13.8 million UK adults every month) is not regulated to the same degree as pornography watched in cinemas or videos, despite the fact that videos have been redundant for decades and vanishingly few people now visit cinemas to watch porn. The absence of scrutiny has created an environment where much of the content created is, she says, 'violent, degrading, abusive, and misogynistic'. She also means a situation where a member of her own party had to resign after twice watching porn (perplexingly tractor-themed) on his phone, as he whiled away time on the green benches in the House of Commons. 'People have slightly lost the plot on porn. Would someone 20 years ago have just taken Playboy into the Commons, and had it lying on their lap? It just shows what an extraordinary place we've got to,' she says. 'You can do what you like in your private life – I don't have a problem with that – but you can't watch porn in the House of Commons, and you shouldn't be watching porn at your desk. There's a place for these things and it's not in the office.' Her review, published in February, made 32 recommendations. Last week the first of these became government policy, when officials announced that pornography depicting strangulation would be made illegal. Her new taskforce of 17 people, bringing together representatives from the police, the advertising industry, anti-trafficking organisations and violence against women charities, will focus on how to ensure harmful online content is better regulated, trying to bring parity between the scrutiny of offline and online content. She pays tribute to the 'hugely innovative side' of the porn industry, which has long driven technological advances in webcams and internet speeds, fuelled by the sector's enormous capacity to turn profit, but she has not invited any representatives on to the taskforce, wary of anything that might let the industry 'mark their own homework'. This week Ofcom announced that major online providers, including the UK's most popular pornography site, Pornhub, had agreed to implement stronger age-verification measures in compliance with the Online Safety Act, to prevent under-18s from accessing adult material. Those platforms that do not comply with the measures face being fined 10% of global turnover or being blocked in the UK. Ofcom is also responsible for monitoring whether sites distributing user-generated pornography are protecting UK viewers from encountering illegal material involving child sexual abuse and extreme content (showing rape, bestiality and necrophilia, for example). However, other forms of harmful pornography that are regulated in physical formats are not subject to similar restrictions online. It is this grey, unscrutinised area that Bertin's panel will focus on, as well as calling for better processes to respond to stolen content, working out how people depicted in pornographic videos can request that the clips be removed from sites, and how to build safety mechanisms into AI tools that create sexually explicit content. Officials at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) guided her through short clips of extreme material to help her understand the nature of easily available harmful content. She remains disturbed by the material she saw – content designed to appear to be child sexual abuse, set in children's bedrooms – roles played by young girls, who may be over 18 but are acting as children. 'The titles are very problematic, things like: 'Daddy's going to come home and give his daughter a good seeing to' or 'Oops I've gone too far and now she's dead' or 'Kidnap and kill a hooker.'' This content would be prohibited by the BBFC in the offline world, but is unregulated online. During research for her review, she met representatives from global tech companies, and told them how when Volvo invented the three-point safety belt they gifted the patent to the rest of the industry because staff realised the innovation was so vital to raising safety standards. 'My pitch was that they have a duty and responsibility to double down on trying to get technology that can clean up these situations, and they should share that technology,' she says. 'Taylor Swift can whip a song off a website as soon as anyone tries to pirate it. There's no reason why the firms can't come up with technology to sort this out.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Posing for photographs, she edges away from a watercolour of Margaret Thatcher hung on the wall by one of her colleagues. 'Let's do it without Thatcher in the background. That's not my doing by the way – I share the office,' she says semi-apologetically, before rapidly adding: 'I mean I love Thatcher, obviously.' But she may be making an important distinction. In a 1970 Woman's Hour interview, Thatcher said the rise of pornography was a 'frightening' manifestation of a newly permissive society that she believed was undermining family life. Bertin describes herself as a liberal conservative and wants to be clear she is neither anti-porn nor running a moral crusade. 'Consenting adults should be able to do what they want; I have no desire to stop any kind of sexual freedom. But restricting people from seeing a woman being choked, called a whore, and having several men stamp on her – for example – is not ending someone's sexual freedom. This is the kind of content we want to end.'
