Latest news with #SteveReed
The National
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
Steve Reed's water claims that of an incompetent charlatan
IN an article for The National, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Energy angrily responded to false statements made earlier this week by UK Environment minister Steve Reed. He attempted to defend his own Labour party's betrayal of its pre-election promise to nationalise England's failing, privately-owned water companies by claiming that nationalisation was not the solution to England's dirty and expensive water, stating that Scottish Water is publicly owned, yet "[water] pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England". This is categorically untrue. Either Reed knew it was untrue and said it anyway, knowing he'd be unlikely to be challenged – in which case he's a charlatan and a liar –, or he didn't know it was untrue – in which case he's an incompetent charlatan, who uncritically leaps on false statements to get himself out of politically tricky situations. Reed also warned that nationalisation would cost £100bn and would slow down efforts to cut pollution. This claim has also been disputed. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar urged to break silence on Labour's 'nuclear tax' for Scots Estimates of the cost of renationalising the water industry in England range from £14.7bn, a figure estimated by the public services international research unit (PSIRU) at the University of Greenwich, to £99bn if company debts are included, a figure estimated by a thinktank commissioned by the water companies themselves. By citing the figure of £100 billion, it's clear that Reed and the Labour Government are siding with the profiteers of the English private water companies. This figure is based on a calculation of the maximum dividends, which starts from the purchase cost of the companies in 1990 when they were privatised, adding capital investment per year and inflation, but it takes no account of the actual market value of the companies. Crucially, these figures are predicated on the assumption that directors and shareholders who have extracted vast profits from the water companies over the years while piling debts on the companies should be financially compensated for nationalisation and not be left liable for the debt. Some claim that the cost of nationalisation could be close to zero. Thames Water is currently in debt to the tune of some £20 billion – even though its directors and shareholders have continued to profit, so it could be argued that the true value of the company is next to nothing. Thames Water is not alone. England's water companies are bust. They would not be financially viable if they had to meet the required standards without taking on huge amounts of debt. According to the latest independent water commission report, Scotland has a far higher percentage of its waterways in 'good' ecological condition than England and Wales. The Independent Water Commission found that 66% of Scotland's water bodies were of good ecological status, compared with 16.1% in England and 29.9% in Wales. READ MORE: Labour panned for foreign aid cuts as women and children to be hit hardest It is also worth noting that Scotland has some 32% of the UK land mass, is the part of the UK with the highest annual rainfall and has many more water bodies than England and Wales. Loch Ness alone is popularly claimed to contain more fresh water than the combined total of the rivers and lakes of England and Wales, holding 7.4 cubic km of clean Scottish water. Yet Loch Ness is neither Scotland's largest loch by surface area (that's Loch Lomond), nor is it the deepest – that's Loch Morar, whose maximum depth is 310m (1017 ft). Scotland contains truly vast amounts of water, most of which is in good condition. 87% of Scotland's entire water environment is assessed by SEPA as having a high or good classification for water quality, up from 82% in 2014. The claim about Loch Ness (below) containing more fresh water than all of England's lakes and rivers may just be a popular myth. It's not easy to find reliable statistics on the amount of water in all of England's rivers and lakes, but since the English water companies abstract 4.6 cubic km of water annually and don't extract every last drop of water – otherwise there would be no lakes or rivers left in England – the popular boast about Loch Ness seems unlikely to be true. However, what is unquestionably true, is that Scottish Water must manage much more water than all the water companies of England combined. It does so successfully, without siphoning off large amounts of cash for directors and shareholders and invests back into Scotland's water infrastructure. Steve Reed and this Labour government are terrified of nationalisation, so Reed would rather lie about Scottish Water. For him, that serves two purposes: allowing him to stick the boot into the Scottish Government, while defending the interests of the profiteers of England's private water companies. He does know knowing that he's not going to be challenged by a London centric media, which is all too happy to propagate the Anglo-British nationalist myth that 'parochial' wee Scotland could not possibly make a better fist of things than the all-mighty Westminster. Westminster goes into summer recess this week, and just prior to MPs going off for the summer, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband sneaked in an announcement that the energy bills of everyone in the UK, Scotland included, will increase by around £1 per month in order to cover the estimated £38 billion cost of the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk. The SNP's Westminster energy spokesman, Graham Leadbitter, said nuclear power was 'extortionate, takes decades to build and the toxic waste is a risk to local communities'. He added: "To make matters worse, Scots will be left to foot the bill with a levy on energy bills – you simply couldn't make it up, yet Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour back this extortionate and wasteful plan that energy-rich Scotland will pay for through the nose. 'Meanwhile, Grangemouth has been shut down and Westminster's fiscal regime has ruined Scottish energy jobs – Scotland isn't just an afterthought, it's barely a thought at all.'
New Statesman
20 hours ago
- Climate
- New Statesman
The government's government problem
The Environment Secretary Steve Reed promised to revolutionise the water industry. But what has happened? Photo byThe heavy rain that arrived last week was, for the nation's gardeners, an encouraging sign after what had been the driest spring since 1893. But the sad truth is that relatively little of that water will have ended up in the country's reservoirs, the newest of which was completed in 1992. Most of it ran into our combined sewers, where rainwater is mixed with household waste. The untreated effluent then overflowed into our rivers and inshore waters, giving them a fresh coat of bleach, microplastics and faecal matter, just in time for the school holidays. Fortunately the government had prepared by adding this long-running disaster to the list of things it is planning to do something about, unless anyone has any strong objections. The public wants water companies to stop extracting tens of billions of pounds from a captive market of bill-payers while turning the country's waterways into open sewers. The Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, has promised them a 'revolution'. Will the system be renationalised? Are the most highly remunerated executives going to prison? Will they be forced to swim through the noxious gubbins while a gleeful public pelts them with toilet rolls? Not quite. Ofwat and the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be replaced by a new regulator, hopefully by 2027. Robespierre was not available for comment. On the same day, the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, revealed that she, too, had a revolutionary solution to one of Britain's deep, long-running problems: the fact that very few people of the current generation of workers are saving enough for retirement. Almost half of all working-age adults are putting nothing at all away for later life, and will spend the last 20 years of their lives wholly dependent on the state. This is a slow-moving disaster that can be seen happening from a long way off, and there is a set of options that have been discussed by economists and pension fund companies for decades. Employers could be told that they have to contribute to employees' pensions whether or not employees opt out of paying in (as many people on lower incomes do). Auto-enrolment could start at 16, or as soon as one starts working. The default rate of contributions could be bumped up to 12 per cent. We could make pension contributions mandatory, as they are in Switzerland and for some employees in Australia. But let's not be too hasty: the first step is to bring back the Pension Commission, which will also look at the options, really stare at them, like one of those magic 3D pictures, until the right one pops out. And then it will report to the government in 2027. Both these commitments to doing something, eventually, follow the hotly anticipated 'Leeds Reforms' announced by Rachel Reeves in her Mansion House speech on 15 July. In it, the Chancellor committed to probably doing something about the fact that British companies are underinvested in, and that many British savers are keeping their money in low-interest savings accounts rather than using them to Back British Businesses. Reeves had previously considered making significant changes to cash ISA allowances, but this was a bit contentious, so there will be an advertising campaign, reminiscent of the 1980s 'Tell Sid' adverts, which encouraged the public to buy shares in the newly privatised British Gas. The difference with Thatcher's ad campaign was that Thatcher was actually doing something for Sid to be told about. The thing that was being done (privatisation of state industries) was ideologically driven, inept and ultimately disastrous for the UK economy, but one thing we can say about it is that it did in fact happen. The problem that the Labour government has is that it is a group of very clever, well-intentioned people who do not seem to be able to get things done. The Employment Rights Bill and planning reform are other areas in which good plans are turning into insufficient compromises. The most immediate danger of this trend is that it creates a financial credibility problem. When investors decide how much they will pay for Britain's debt, they are to a great extent making a prediction about two things: the path of inflation (because higher inflation reduces the returns from buying bonds) and how much more debt the government is going to borrow (the more debt it sells, the lower the demand). When the UK is run by a government with a large majority, which is apparently unable to enforce its own policies to save money, a reasonable prediction is that it will have to borrow quite a lot more in the future. This means the market will pay less for our debt, which means our borrowing costs are higher. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Politically, this will combine with growing frustration among the government's own MPs, such as the 100-strong Labour Growth Group, which is increasingly resorting to blatant means of criticism, such as fulminating in the New Statesman about 'the exhausted politics of technocratic incrementalism'. Not all revolutionaries need to be Montagnards, determined to write history in blood. As Camille Desmoulins put it, having been sentenced to death on the order of his old pal Robespierre, 'a little ink would have sufficed'. But in times that demand change, withholding it begins to look less like prudence, and more like the narcissism of people whose political project does not extend beyond holding on to power. [See also: Who is an acceptable migrant?] Related
The National
21 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
Labour are creating uncertainty and acting against democratic freedom
Firstly, those charged with offences under that law are immediately subject to a judicial system compromised and discredited by those individualistic interpretations from arresting officers – onwards and upwards. Secondly, as the number of people charged with offences under interpretations of that law increases, the unclear 'catch-all' nature of the law becomes more firmly established; random arrests and charges are more firmly associated with individual enforcement officers; and outcomes are subject to further interpretations by the various courts. READ MORE: Daily Express front page piles pressure on Labour to act on Gaza Thirdly, in consequence, general fear of such a law, the uncertainty of how it will be enforced in any particular situation, destroys trust between civilians and law-enforcement officers. Fourthly, also in consequence, law-enforcement officers are burdened with the grotesque responsibility of unravelling such a bad law, often to the level of semantics, in each situation. Fifthly, since stable democracy and social cohesion are both absolutely dependent on governance by consent of the electorate, and since the dangers from unclear legislation are well-known and understood throughout the world, to proceed – as the current Westminster government has just done – to impose a dangerously vague and wide-ranging law against protesters campaigning against genocide and war criminals is a very frightening act against UK democracy. Therefore, I believe this current Labour administration should face an urgent, exceptional, vote of no-confidence within Westminster. This is because it is creating widespread fear and uncertainty; it is acting against democratic freedom within the United Kingdom, against the basic assumptions of rights within the UK constitution and endangering social and political stability – especially government by consent. Each Member of Parliament and each political party will be judged, sooner than later, on how they dealt with their awful responsibilities at this time. A General Election is urgently needed. Frances McKie Evanton, Ross-shire AS if it wasn't bad enough that the Labour Party is effectively running down Scotland economically by focusing tens of billions of pounds of UK Government investment in carbon capture and storage projects, steel-making and oil-refining in England, and by maintaining a disadvantageous energy pricing mechanism (in spite of zonal pricing proposals from Octopus Energy and Scotland's considerable contribution to the UK's renewable energy supply), Labour are now talking down Scottish Water. On Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Labour's [[UK Government]] Environment Secretary, London MP Steve Reed, stated of [[Scottish Water]] that 'their nationalised pollution in rivers in Scotland is worse than in England'. Unsurprisingly this grossly misleading statement went unchallenged by the BBC host. READ MORE: Gillian Martin: Steve Reed is leading a campaign of disinformation on Scottish water The facts are that the Scottish [[Environment]] Protection Agency reports that 87% of Scotland's rivers are in good health (as stated by Stephen Flynn on the Kuenssberg show) while only 15% of England's rivers are rated at that level, with The Rivers Trust reporting that not a single waterway in England is in overall good health. It is of course understood that with England being more densely populated there is a greater level of monitoring in England, but most sensible people would rather be taking a shower, never mind drinking the water, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, rather than in London. Stan Grodynski Longniddry, East Lothian REGARDING your piece on high-value assets being sold to keep local government afloat, this is not new (Council sell hundreds of public assets as they feel pinch from constrained budgets, Jul 13). All that started big time in the 80s and before, lest we forget – and it seems we have. We need major reform of local government with a local income tax to suit regional/local economies, with policies and service delivery to suit, instead of centralised policy and service delivery, where the centre should be oversight and enforcement. READ MORE: Scottish community-owned island announces boycott of Israel So what are the SNP waiting for? Better weather? Get in with it, before the local elections in 2027. Halve the number of councillors, and pay them a full-time wage of £45k with no outside business interests (if so, to be put in trust until and unless unelected.) Community councils, again with half the members, can be given funding or the ability to raise funding, paid a stipend of £5k per annum or a percentage of local income tax depending on population. Yes, in many ways back to pre-1974/75, but it worked, and worked much better. Local responsibility, local accountability – this is the road to a much improved democracy and interest in it. James J Paton SAAT – Shetland Autonomy Action Team
The National
a day ago
- Politics
- The National
Steve Reed is leading a campaign of disinformation on Scottish water
I'm proud to live in a country with a publicly-owned water company that is demonstrably delivering for the people who live here. Our water is cheaper – we pay much less for our water than people in England and Wales. And our water is cleaner – 87% is judged to be either 'high' or 'good' quality by our environmental regulator, Sepa. READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim Any profit that Scottish Water makes off our bills is invested in making improvements to its infrastructure – rather than lining the pockets of shareholders. The benefits of Scotland's approach were outlined this week in the Independent Water Commission's recent report into the water industry in England and Wales. It gave special mention to the way we manage our water sector – specifically highlighting the way the Scottish Government works as good practice. The report also draws attention to our long-term vision, the ongoing flexibility in our investment programme, our approach to sharing costs across generations and our ethical-based regulation model – which ensures we deliver the best outcomes possible for the public. But you wouldn't have heard of this if you listened to the UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed talking about it. Instead, he has taken to the airwaves with a campaign of disinformation about Scotland, designed to undermine the idea of public ownership of water. You might expect this from a Tory politician, but the last time I checked, this UK Government was meant to be a Labour government. Mr Reed's repeated assertion that pollution in Scotland's rivers is worse than England is simply wrong. The independent report commissioned by his own department clearly shows that is not the case, noting that 66% of Scotland's water bodies are of good ecological status as compared with 16.1% in England. Even allowing for differences in the timeframe for those figures, it is clear that Scotland has far higher water quality. Much of the improvement is due to significant investment in the water industry and efforts made by Sepa to address pollution from other sources In fact, we take the issue of pollution so seriously that we have already committed up to £500 million to further improve water quality, specifically to increase monitoring of the highest priority waters and tackle debris and spills. While companies in Labour-run England aren't delivering for anybody except shareholders, Scottish Water has been labelled the UK's top-performing water company and as the most trusted utility in the UK according to the Customer Service Institute. READ MORE: SNP minister calls on UK counterpart to retract 'misleading' Scottish water comments There is much we have to be proud of when it comes to our water. There is also a lot that others can learn from the Scottish Government's approach to managing the sector. However, we are not complacent. Like the rest of the UK, Scotland shares pressures relating to ageing assets and climate change and we will need to do more and more to manage this. But if we're going to make progress and deliver the best outcome for households and businesses, that has to start with an understanding of the facts. So we'll leave Labour to explain to people in England and Wales why they can't have what people have in SNP-run Scotland – and we'll get on with ensuring that our natural resources truly benefit the people of Scotland.
Times
a day ago
- Business
- Times
Times letters: Regulation and funding of water companies
Write to letters@ Sir, I am left unsure what will change in the water industry after the publication of the report by Sir Jon Cunliffe and the response by the government (news, Jul 21 & 22). One regulator is to be replaced by another and water bills will rise by an average of 36 per cent over the next five years, which means that the public will in effect pay a second time for any improvements that should have been made by now, had water companies spent more investing in infrastructure instead of lining executive and shareholder pockets. As to the claim by Steve Reed, the environment secretary, that sewage pollution in England will be halved by 2030, please forgive my TiffenAspatria, Cumbria Sir, Your editorial ('Water Torture', Jul 21) rightly castigates the regulatory system as well as the operating companies. You say that regulatory responsibilities are split between three bodies: Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. But even this is an understatement. Natural England also has some responsibilities, although how these fit with those of the EA is anyone's guess. And to complete the chaos there is also the Consumer Council for Water, which supposedly exists to look after consumers' interests. A single regulator with appropriate powers will be welcome, even if its creation is more than 30 years GaneLondon SE21 Sir, Feargal Sharkey says corporate greed is at the heart of the water scandal (Jul 22). I disagree: it is the broken tax system that creates the incentive for financial engineering. As long as there is an imbalance between the tax treatment of debt and equity, financiers will continue to load up low-risk enterprises with debt to generate higher returns to their investors, all at the expense of KokinisSheffield Sir, May I dare to express a little sympathy for the water companies? The unfettered concreting over and tarring of front gardens, and seemingly endless acres of further urbanisation and development, have led to flash flooding and the overwhelming of sewage facilities. Local authorities should have separate drainage for surface RennieKintore, Aberdeenshire Sir, The Thames Tideway project to upgrade waste-water treatment systems in London to enable them to cope with storm-water surges was completed in May. It has effectively eliminated the problem of unwanted releases into the Thames. The question now is: when will this technology be introduced in the rest of the UK?Dale FittesChartered engineer, Warwick Sir, If every new house was required to have a large rainwater tank the amount of drinking water needed could be substantially reduced. Rainwater could then be used to flush toilets, wash cars and water FreelandBristol Sir, In 1955, when I was 12, my mother and I had a holiday at Hove and were surprised, while swimming in the sea, to find ourselves surrounded by lavatory paper. Plus ça WillettLondon SW19 Sir, William Hague ('Welfare reform is a moral and financial must', Jul 22) is right that unless we rethink our welfare system we face economic crisis. The tragedy is that this has been staring us in the face since at least the early 2000s. Successive welfare ministers have recognised that but each has put the issue in the 'too difficult' box, to be left for their successor. If we wait for one finally to have the courage to tackle it we will wait another generation. We need to break the mould: we should establish a cross-party royal commission with a remit to report within one year — the issues and the facts are clear so a year will be ample — to recommend the measures that need to be taken to tackle this crisis. Then we should ask all our political parties to have the courage to implement its Leigh LewisPermanent secretary, Department for Work and Pensions 2005-10; Watford Sir, It is inevitable that Rachel Reeves will struggle to persuade Labour MPs to back legislation that has to be considerably tougher than the recent attempts at welfare reform. The solution is to raise income tax by, say, 2 per cent, with the promise of bringing it down again when welfare reforms have improved the government's ScottEast Knoyle, Wilts Sir, I am horrified to admit that I agree with Reform UK about something: in this case the need for more 'big strapping male police officers' (report, Jul 22). The episode that made me agree is as follows. A few years ago I was returning home in my car, through my local town centre, late on a weekday evening. While at a red light I saw a street brawl erupt around me involving about ten adult males. One man was struck and fell to the floor beside my car; his attacker then began to kick his unconscious body. Before too many head kicks were delivered I got out of the car and pushed the assailant away. When threatened I didn't move, so got punched a fair bit. Other passers-by then intervened to break it all up and we called an ambulance for the chap on the floor. When the dust had fully settled, a slight WPC and a male constable no bigger than me (I am 5ft 7in and 63kg) nervously appeared. I was absolutely disgusted. Two 100kg male PCs might have had a calming effect on the mayhem but these two lightweights certainly wouldn't. It is possible that the officers knew this and had kept out of the way until things had settled CoeWinterton, Lincs Sir, Nigel Farage misses the point when he states he wants to recruit 'beefy bobbies' to strike fear into criminals. The police have no need of beefy bobbies — most officers are more than capable of arresting criminals. What they need is a justice system that allows them to do their duty without fear of being accused of racism, Islamophobia and lack of impartiality, and inquiries into alleged wrongdoing that take years to complete. Further, if the courts imposed appropriate sentences (assuming, of course, that the craven CPS allowed prosecution in the first place), this would act as a deterrent to wrongdoing, which is sadly absent at present and is empowering lawlessness. Only a complete overhaul of the justice system will address this imbalance, not bigger MolloyMetropolitan Police 1976-2006; Chart Sutton, Kent Sir, The chief executive of NHS England, Sir Jim Mackey, advocates a 'different approach' to the 'Christmas Day' acute care service provided during previous industrial action by doctors, but offers little detail about how this might be achieved ('Patients at risk during walkouts, warns BMA', Jul 22). How can productivity remain constant when capacity is reduced without increasing pressure in the system past the point of irreversible damage? Without a clear and funded 'surge' plan, Mackey's mandate is no more than SoodSouthend-on-Sea, Essex Sir, The impending loss of the Lord Ashcroft VC and GC collection in the Imperial War Museum is to be regretted (Thunderer, Jul 22). Anyone who has visited the display, the largest of its kind, cannot help but be humbled by the gallantry of those who received these awards. The removal of the collection serves the interests of no one. The museum should be made to justify its irrational Prescott (Lt-Col, ret'd)Southsea, Hants Sir, While awaiting the arrival of the Bayeux Tapestry and after enjoying the impressive replica at Reading Museum (letters, Jul 21 & 22), Times readers should venture west to Fishguard and visit the tapestry commemorating the last invasion of Britain in 1797. It is beautifully and colourfully designed, and was stitched by local people. Moreover, it celebrates an invasion that was BattleLondon SW18 Sir, It seems ridiculous that local councils are still unable to levy a tourism tax on hotel stays ('Tourist tax plan rejected by Treasury', Jul 22). I travel frequently to the US and Europe, where these taxes are accepted as a standard element of any hotel bill. They reflect the tourist's/business visitor's use of local infrastructure (roads and public transport etc) that, without such a tax, becomes solely the responsibility of local taxpayers. Enabling councils to collect a tourism tax, without any of the money going to central government, would not only help to relieve pressure on local government finances but would also help to reduce further demand on government Anthony HarrisCambridge Sir, Libby Purves makes powerful points about the damage done to the starter job opportunities for young people ('Bar, café and retail jobs are society's heartbeat', Jul 21). It brought to mind the contrast my wife and I found on a recent visit to Australia. Shops, restaurants and bars were well staffed by bright, smiling young people who oozed enthusiasm for their role and their customers. Many were young Europeans and clearly motivated by their travel experience, and had been brightly trained by their bosses. Our government, through its policies, is denying our own children the chance to experience life beyond the screen. As Purves implies, the government needs to change R SmithSouthport, Merseyside Sir, Although I admire the creativity of the various top-level chefs in their quest for the perfect mashed potato (report, Jul 22), sometimes simplicity is the best approach. My late mother made the most delicious mash, following the teaching of her own mother. She used old, floury potatoes, gently boiled them until tender then mashed them with a traditional hand-masher. She would add a large knob of butter and a good splash of milk, but the true secret was in the beating: my sister and I competed to beat the mash vigorously with a large tablespoon. The result was CarvellWhitby, N Yorks Sir, Your leader writer is clearly a person of absolute taste ('Brewing Storm', Jul 22). Tea leaves are for brewing: tea bags are for puffy CullenArmagh Sir, Having read James Marriott's excellent comment article (Jul 22) discussing the film Barry Lyndon, I am reminded of another film set in the 18th century: the wonderful 1963 film Tom Jones, with Albert Finley in the title role. The two films couldn't be more different in texture and storytelling but both give a vivid view of life in the middle of that century. I would thoroughly recommend watching both and if stamina permits, one after the GodfreyArborfield Cross, Berks
