From: martin.baines@uk.sun.com (Martin Baines - Sun UK - SE Manager Cambridge)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Water quality - a new money-saver?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 10:45:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd
Distribution: world
Reply-To: martin.baines@uk.sun.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: bottomdog.uk.sun.com

In article 8988@bristol.ac.uk, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>According to several newspapers, the Government is now about to
>drastically weaken the Government agency which has been responsible for
>monitoring water quality and industrial discharges.  Under the new
>scheme, companies will be responsible for monitoring their own
>discharges, and will be expected to report themselves as in violation
>if they breach their maximum-allowed-pollutant limits.  Good one, yeah?

What goes around, comes around. This is exactly what used to happen
*before* the old water authorities were privatised: they combined
the roles of water supply, sewage collection *and* pollution control,
hence they had the job of prosecuting themselves! (And there was
no OFWAT to regulate their price structure)

My understanding of the proposal is that the powers of the NRA
(National Rivers Authority) were not going to be reduced
in the area of pollution control (i.e. they would remain the
authority that was tasked with controlling river pollution),
but rather the Water Companies were going to be *required* to
monitor their own pollution output. As it stands today,
a Water Company, can just dump whatever it can get away with:
the new proposals would ensure they knew what they were dumping
*and* make it an offense to continue dumping pollutants if
their tests were positive. I.e. the end effect should be
tougher controls not weaker. The cynic in me says the Newspaper
in question was probably the Grauniad!

There *are* proposals to separate the navigation authority
for NRA waterways from the NRA, but again that is likely to
result in a removal of conflict of interest.

>Seems to me like this could be a useful first foot in the door.  Maybe
>we could get them to extend this style of law-enforcement.  (Pollution
>limits ARE generally the subject of law, after all.)  How about
>eliminating traffic wardens and motorway patrols, for example?
>'Motorists will be expected to turn themselves in if they park
>illegally or drive over the speed limits.'
>
>More conveniently, we could get rid of Customs and Immigration, which
>provide tediously boring ends to holidays.  'Persons entering the
>country will be expected to arrest themselves if they are entering
>illegally, importing illegal goods, or in excess of their duty-free
>limits.'  

Isn't that more or less the proposal from the treaty on European Union?

Martin

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone: +44 223 420421                 Fax: +44 223 420257
JANET:     Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun    Other UK:  Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk
Internet:  Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com
X.400:     g=martin s=baines prmd=sunir admd=mci c=us

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british