Elevation of France as Major Arms Exporter in the World Causes and Implications

The global arms trade has long been a subject of scrutiny and debate, with its impacts reverberating across geopolitical landscapes.

BY SYED RAIYAN AMIR
APRIL 20, 2024

Rafale French Air Force. Image source: Wikipedia

The global arms trade has long been a subject of scrutiny and debate, with its impacts reverberating across geopolitical landscapes. In recent years, significant shifts have occurred within this sphere, notably with France’s ascension as a major arms exporter on the world stage. This transformation raises pertinent questions regarding the underlying causes driving France’s newfound position and the implications it carries for international security dynamics. Examining the factors behind France’s rise in arms exports and the potential ramifications of this development is crucial for understanding contemporary geopolitical trends.

Between the periods of 2014–18 and 2019–23, arms exports from the United States, the leading arms provider globally, experienced a notable increase of 17 percent. Conversely, during the same timeframe, arms exports from Russia saw a substantial decline, plummeting by over half at 53 percent. Meanwhile, France’s arms exports witnessed a significant surge, growing by 47 percent, consequently propelling it ahead of Russia to claim the position of the world’s second-largest arms supplier.

In the period of 2019–23, as mentioned earlier France surpassed Russia to claim the position of the world’s second-largest exporter of major arms. French arms exports constituted 11 percent of all arms transfers during this timeframe, marking a notable increase of 47 percent compared to the period of 2014–18. In 2019–23, France supplied major arms to 64 countries, with India emerging as the largest recipient, accounting for 29 percent of French arms exports. The majority of France’s arms exports during this period were directed towards countries in Asia and Oceania (42 percent) and the Middle East (34 percent). Despite ongoing efforts to expand arms sales to other European nations, France’s exports to European states accounted for only 9.1 percent of its total arms exports in 2019–23. Notably, over half of its European arms exports (53 percent) were directed to Greece, primarily comprising transfers of 17 Rafale combat aircraft.

The Surge in France’s Arms Exports: Why?

France’s proactive export policies, including government support, technological advancements, and strategic targeting of regions like the Middle East, fueled a rise in arms exports during the period. This positioned them to capitalize on Russia’s decline as a major exporter following the Ukraine war, allowing France to secure the number two spot with advanced weaponry like the Rafale fighter jet.

It’s noteworthy that India stands as the largest arms importer globally, with France and Russia supplying 33 percent and 36 percent of its imports, respectively. In July 2023, New Delhi granted preliminary approval for the acquisition of six Scorpène submarines and 26 Rafale jets for the Indian Navy. Shortly thereafter, on July 25, reports from France’s La Tribune newspaper indicated Qatar’s contemplation of adding an additional 24 Rafales to its arsenal. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report released in March 2023, France’s share of the global arms trade surged to 11 percent between 2018 and 2022, compared to 7.1 percent in the preceding four-year period. Conversely, Russia’s share of the international arms trade dwindled from 22 to 16 percent during the same period. So, this can be one of the indicators.

Figure 1: The 25 largest exporters of major arms and their main recipients, 2019–23

Source: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf

The imposition of multiple rounds of international sanctions on Russia may have hindered its ability to access the necessary materials for arms production, thereby hampering its export capabilities. Reports from Ukraine have cast doubt on the efficacy of Russia-built armaments, tarnishing their reputation on the global stage. Some importers have expressed dissatisfaction with Russian products in recent years. India, a longstanding importer of Russian arms suppliers, has raised concerns about the technical performance of Russian weaponry. As noted by Pieter Wezeman, the author of the SIPRI report 2023, India’s discontent has prompted a shift towards sourcing arms from France.

Furthermore, the United States wields significant influence over countries procuring weapons from Russia, a trend that predates the Ukraine conflict, according to Wezeman. For instance, Indonesia opted to abandon a planned purchase of Russian aircraft in 2021 in favor of options from the US and France.

A significant surge in the delivery of Rafale combat aircraft played a pivotal role in driving the growth of French arms exports during the period of 2019–23. In the preceding period of 2014–18, France exported 23 Rafales, a number that skyrocketed to 94 in the subsequent period of 2019–23. Remarkably, these exports accounted for nearly one third (31 percent) of French arms exports during this timeframe. Furthermore, the pipeline for Rafale exports remained robust, with an additional 193 Rafales on order for export by the end of 2023. However, it is noteworthy that the majority of the Rafale aircraft already delivered (96 out of 117) and those on order (178 out of 193) are destined for states outside Europe, including Egypt, India, Indonesia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. This underscores the persistent challenge France encounters in selling its major arms to European states, particularly amidst fierce competition from the United States. Notably, out of the 10 European states that preselected or ordered combat aircraft in the period of 2019–23, eight opted for US F-16s or F-35s, with only Croatia and Greece opting for the Rafale.

In addition to bolstering its sales of combat aircraft, France also witnessed a 14 percent increase in exports of military ships, along with the weaponry required to equip them, between the periods of 2014–18 and 2019–23.

Figure 2: Global share of exports of major arms by the 10 largest exporters, 2019–23

Therefore the Rafale fighter jet, manufactured by Dassault Aviation, has emerged as a cornerstone of France’s recent achievements in the realm of defense exports, according to Olivier Gras, the general secretary of EuroDéfense-France, an association based in Paris comprising civil and military officials. Despite entering service as early as 2002, it wasn’t until 2015 that the Rafale made its inaugural foray into the international market. Since then, these twin-engine jets have found homes in Greece, Qatar, India, and Egypt, with impending deployments to Croatia, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates, which placed an order for 80 Standard F4 Rafales in 2021. The global tally of Rafale deliveries and orders now stands at nearly 500, representing approximately half the volume of its primary American counterpart, Lockheed Martin’s F-35. Moreover, potential orders from additional countries are on the horizon, with Colombia nearing a deal for 16 aircraft while Serbia, historically aligned with Russia’s arms industry, contemplates acquiring 12 planes.

Global military expenditure experienced a significant increase of 9 percent from the previous year, reaching a historic high of $2.2 trillion in 2023. This surge was attributed to heightened insecurity worldwide, fueled by numerous conflicts, as indicated by a recent report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Meanwhile, NATO’s budget hike can influence other actors in two ways. First, it sets a precedent. By collectively investing more, NATO strengthens the message of shared security concerns. This can pressure members who haven’t met spending targets to step up.  Second, a larger NATO budget allows for more joint exercises and capabilities, potentially making individual militaries seem less essential. This might nudge some countries towards increasing their own budgets to maintain their national defense posture. And here France was an option to spend on.

Figure 3: Changes in volume of exports of major arms since 2014–18 by the 10 largest exporters in 2019–23

Who are the Importers?

In the period spanning 2019–23, the primary suppliers of major arms to Africa included Russia, constituting 24 percent of African imports, followed by the USA at 16 percent, China at 13 percent, and France at 10 percent. France emerged as the third-largest supplier to sub-Saharan Africa during this period, capturing an 11 percent share of subregional arms imports. Turning to South America, France assumed a prominent position as the leading supplier, contributing 23 percent of subregional imports. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the United States dominated arms imports, commanding a significant share of 52 percent. Following the USA, France emerged as the next significant supplier, accounting for 12 percent of Middle Eastern arms imports, alongside Italy at 10 percent and Germany at 7.1 percent.

Qatar’s arms imports during the same period predominantly came from the United States, representing 45 percent of Qatari arms imports, followed by France at 25 percent and Italy at 15 percent. Notably, Qatar’s acquisitions included 36 combat aircraft from France, 36 from the USA, and 25 from the UK, in addition to 4 frigates procured from Italy.

Implications of Rising Arms Exports

The surge in arms exports across the globe is poised to have far-reaching implications, reshaping geopolitical dynamics and fostering a climate of heightened tension and competition. As importing countries bolster their military capabilities, several key implications emerge.

Firstly, heightened arms imports are likely to exacerbate existing tensions in importing countries and their surrounding regions. The influx of sophisticated weaponry may fuel regional rivalries and increase the likelihood of conflict, raising concerns about stability and security.

Secondly, importing countries are expected to allocate a larger portion of their budgets towards defense expenditures, reflecting a shift in their strategic priorities. The growing defense budgets signal a commitment to enhancing military capabilities and preparedness in response to perceived threats and geopolitical uncertainties.

Thirdly, the influx of arms into different regions, driven by increased exports from major suppliers, is poised to contribute to a proliferation of armaments. This proliferation not only amplifies the potential for conflict but also complicates efforts towards disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives.

Fourthly,  Eastern Europe, already a region marked by geopolitical tensions and historical rivalries, is likely to experience further strain as arms imports increase. The influx of weaponry, coupled with ongoing political disputes, could exacerbate existing conflicts and raise the risk of escalation.

Fifthly, the surge in arms exports is expected to intensify competition among major exporters, particularly China, France, and Russia. As these countries vie for market share and influence, competition in the global arms trade is set to escalate, potentially leading to new marketing strategies and geopolitical maneuvering.

Sixthly, the rise in arms exports is likely to contribute to heightened polarization among nations, as countries align themselves with different suppliers based on strategic interests and geopolitical considerations. This polarization may further exacerbate regional tensions and complicate efforts towards diplomatic resolution of conflicts.

Finally, India’s increased arms imports from France, despite its longstanding relationship with Russia, signal a significant shift in procurement patterns. This shift underscores India’s strategic diversification efforts and reflects evolving geopolitical dynamics in the region.

The surge in arms exports has profound implications for global security and stability, with tensions likely to rise in importing countries and their respective regions. The growing competition among arms exporters, coupled with increased defense budgets and regional rivalries, underscores the need for concerted efforts towards arms control, disarmament, and diplomatic dialogue to mitigate the risk of conflict and promote peace and security on a global scale.

The elevation of France as a major arms exporter in the world marks a significant juncture in the evolving dynamics of the global arms trade. While driven by various factors such as strategic partnerships, technological advancements, and evolving defense policies, France’s newfound position underscores its growing influence in international security affairs. However, amidst the shifting landscape of arms proliferation, it becomes imperative for policymakers and stakeholders to carefully assess the implications of this trend on regional stability, conflict dynamics, and the broader geopolitical landscape. Through informed analysis and proactive engagement, efforts can be directed towards fostering a more secure and stable global environment.

Syed Raiyan Amir
Research Associate The Center for Bangladesh and Global Affairs (CBGA)

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

THE LAW IS NOT FOR ALL!

Northern Ireland prosecutor says UK soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday won’t face perjury charges



By — Associated Press

Apr 19, 2024 

LONDON (AP) — Fifteen British soldiers who allegedly lied to an inquiry into Bloody Sunday, one of the deadliest days of the decades-long Northern Ireland conflict, will not face perjury charges, prosecutors said Friday.

There was insufficient evidence to convict the soldiers or a former alleged member of the Irish Republican Army about their testimony before an inquiry into the 1972 killings of 13 civilians by Britain’s Parachute Regiment in Derry, also known as Londonderry, the Public Prosecution Service said.

An initial investigation into the slayings on Jan. 30, 1972 concluded the soldiers were defending themselves from a mob of IRA bombers and gunmen. But a 12-year-long inquiry concluded in 2010 that soldiers unjustifiably opened fire on unarmed and fleeing civilians and then lied about it for decades.

Families of the victims were outraged by the decision. John Kelly, whose brother Michael was killed by paratroopers, spoke for the group and called it an “affront to the rule of law.”

“Why is it that the people of Derry cannot forget the events of Bloody Sunday, yet the Parachute Regiment, who caused all of the deaths and injury on that day, apparently cannot recall it?” Kelly said. “The answer to this question is quite simple but painfully obvious: The British Army lied its way through the conflict in the north.”

Although a quarter century has passed since the Good Friday peace accord in 1998 largely put to rest three decades of violence involving Irish republican and British loyalist militants and U.K. soldiers, “the Troubles″ still reverberate. Some 3,600 people were killed — most in Northern Ireland, though the IRA also set off bombs in England.

Only one ex-paratrooper from Bloody Sunday, known as Soldier F, faces prosecution for two murders and five attempted murders. He was among the 15 soldiers who could have faced a perjury charge.

While victims continue to seek justice for past carnage, the possibility of a criminal prosecution could soon vanish.

The British government passed a Legacy and Reconciliation Bill last year that would have given immunity from prosecution for most offenses by militant groups and British soldiers after May 1. But a Belfast judge ruled in February that the bill does not comply with human rights law. The government is appealing the ruling.

READ MORE: How pop culture has reflected Northern Ireland’s ‘troubles’

Attorney Ciaran Shiels, who represents some of the Bloody Sunday families, said they would not rule out further legal action.

“It is of course regrettable that this decision has been communicated to us only today, some 14 years after the inquiry’s unequivocal findings, but less than two weeks before the effective enactment date of the morally bankrupt legacy legislation designed specifically to allow British Army veterans to escape justice for its criminal actions in the north of Ireland,” Shiels said.

Senior Public Prosecutor John O’Neill said the decision not to bring criminal charges was based on three things: accounts given by soldiers in 1972 were not admissible; much of the evidence the inquiry relied on is not available today; and the inquiry’s conclusion that testimony was false did not always meet the criminal standard of proof.

“I wish to make clear that these decisions not to prosecute in no way undermine the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry that those killed or injured were not posing a threat to any of the soldiers,” O’Neill said.

Bloody Sunday families say PPS perjury decision an ‘affront to rule of law’

Jonathan McCambridge, PA
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Families of Bloody Sunday victims have said a decision not to prosecute 15 soldiers over perjury is an “affront to the rule of law”.

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has announced 16 people will not be prosecuted over allegations of giving false evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

The decisions relate to 15 former soldiers and one former alleged member of the Official IRA.

The PPS has said there was no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction in the cases.

Bloody Sunday is regarded as one of the darkest days of the Northern Ireland Troubles (PA)

Regarded as one of the darkest days of the Troubles, 13 people were killed when paratroopers opened fire on a crowd taking part in a civil rights march in Londonderry on January 30 1972.

The Bloody Sunday Inquiry, headed by judge Lord Saville, was announced by former prime minister Tony Blair in 1998 and delivered its findings in 2010 that there was no justification for shooting any of those killed or wounded.

Following the inquiry, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) submitted an investigation file to the PPS in relation to allegations of murder and attempted murder against a number of people.

One soldier, known as Soldier F, is facing prosecution accused of two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday.

The PPS had previously said consideration would also be given as to whether the test for prosecution was met in respect of allegations that those reported had given false evidence in connection with the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

It said its prosecution team has now determined that the available evidence is insufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction of any suspect considered.

John Kelly’s 17-year-old brother Michael was shot dead on Bloody Sunday.

Speaking on behalf of the victims’ families, he said: “We consider that today’s ruling by the PPS is an affront to the rule of law and a continuation of the injustice that was perpetrated on Bloody Sunday.”

Solicitor Ciaran Shiels, of Madden and Finucane, who represents a number of the Bloody Sunday families, said: “We will carefully consider the reasons we have received today and do not rule out the prospect of further legal action.”

Philip Barden, partner at law firm Devonshires, acts for several soldiers who gave evidence to the inquiry.

He said: “My clients have always maintained they did not lie.

“Having a mistaken belief as to what was being seen and heard whilst wearing a gas mask is very different to lying.”

He added: “What this legal process shows is that the obsession with seeking prosecutions achieves nothing.

“Money that could be better be spent on healthcare and education is wasted in legal processes that end like this has after many years with no outcome.”

PPS senior public prosecutor John O’Neill said: “All decisions on whether or not to prosecute are taken by independently and impartially applying the test for prosecution.

“The standard of proof needed for a criminal prosecution is high.

“For a conviction, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt, through available and admissible evidence, the commission of a criminal offence by the suspect.

“After careful consideration, it has been concluded that the available evidence in this case is insufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction of any suspect for offences in relation to the giving of false evidence.”

Mr O’Neill added: “The decision making involved the consideration of a vast amount of material.

“Consideration of the allegations of false evidence presented particularly complex evidential and legal issues, all of which were thoroughly analysed by the prosecution team.”

The PPS said three particular issues arose during its considerations:

– While the Bloody Sunday Inquiry may have rejected the evidence of some individuals, the PPS said it did not always express those findings in terms amounting to criminal standard of proof.

John Kelly, whose 17-year-old brother Michael was killed on Bloody Sunday (Liam McBurney/PA)

– The PPS concluded that accounts of events given by soldiers in 1972, which were rejected by the inquiry, would not be admissible in criminal proceedings today.

– The full amount of evidence upon which the Bloody Sunday Inquiry based its findings is not available to prosecutors.

Mr O’Neill said: “I wish to make clear that these decisions not to prosecute in no way undermine the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry that those killed or injured were not posing a threat to any of the soldiers.

“We acknowledge that these prosecutorial decisions will be disappointing to the victims and families involved, and that this may be another difficult day for them.

“We have written to them to explain in detail the reasons for the decisions.

“We would like to provide assurance that these decisions were taken impartially, independently and only after the most thorough and careful consideration of all available evidence and the relevant legal issues.”

Thirteen people were killed on Bloody Sunday and another man shot by paratroopers died four months later.

Many consider him the 14th victim of Bloody Sunday, but his death was formally attributed to an inoperable brain tumour.

Defiant squatters will NOT leave Gordon Ramsay's £13million London pub as anarchists set to 'wait for the bailiff to come'

By ED HOLT

DAILY MAIL

 19 April 2024


Squatters will stay inside a Gordon Ramsay pub in London until they are evicted, according to a friend of those locked inside the building.

The group shut themselves in the York & Albany near Regent's Park, north London, last week.

Lawyers for Gordon Ramsay Holdings International Limited (GRHI) have since got a High Court order securing possession of the premises.

The ruling paves the way for High Court enforcement officers to retake the Grade II listed building in the coming days.

Some of the squatters initially said they would comply with the ruling and four people left the premises yesterday.


The York & Albany pub near Regent's Park, London - a Gordon Ramsay pub which has been occupied by squatters

Squatters returning to the York & Albany pub. A group of people have locked themselves inside the Grade II-listed hotel and gastropub

A man who said he was a friend of the one of the squatters entered the York & Albany briefly on Friday and said afterwards that they would be staying put.

'They're going to wait for the bailiff,' he said, adding: 'That's basically what they're going to end up doing.'

The friend, who would not give his name but said he is a former squatter himself, said those inside the building were young, homeless and had been squatting in various locations for a long time.

'They are professional enough, have been doing it for years,' he said, adding: 'The building looks f****** pristine inside.'

One of the squatters who left the premises returned yesterday accompanied by another man.

Squatters then boarded up windows and made hand gestures to reporters outside.

On Thursday, lawyers for GRHI were granted an order by Judge Simon Brown to retake the property.

Members of the Anarchist Association London Branch and the Camden Art Cafe have been with the squatters since they entered last week.

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay. The former pub and hotel is up for sale for £13 million, after a legal battle over the lease between the Hell's Kitchen star and film director Gary Love, who owns the building



The group shut themselves in the York & Albany last week. Lawyers for Gordon Ramsay Holdings International Limited (GRHI) have since secured a High Court order securing possession of the premises

In a post on Instagram, the Camden Art Cafe said they would be leaving the premises but added: 'We wish those left in the building the best of luck in their endeavours.'

The squatter group ran a cafe out of the building last week, handing out free food and drink to 'the people of Camden who have been victims of gentrification and parasitic projects like HS2'.

One squatter said: 'We're not bad people. I pay my taxes, I've got a job, I work in a pub.'

He added: 'We just need a place to stay that's it. We're trying to do a good thing here.'

The former pub and hotel building is up for sale for £13 million, after a protracted legal battle between the Hell's Kitchen frontman and film director Gary Love.

In 2007, Mr Love bought the freehold of the premises and then leased the pub to Mr Ramsay on a 25-year term for an annual rent of £640,000.

The celebrity chef attempted to free himself from the lease in 2015 but was unsuccessful in the High Court.

Book Review: Why Women Are Poorer Than Men

Have women’s rights made any progress? A new book leaves one of our writers wondering.

byBob Copeland
19 April 2024
in Book Reviews,



I’ve always found myself around women to look up to and admire, four older sisters, a wife, two daughters, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, all juggling careers, families and other commitments, yet society continues to value women less than men.

In our Gloucestershire village I’ve seen women being abused. My daughters have shared some of their experiences and those of their friends in their male dominated workplaces. Even with my limited awareness it was still shocking to read the extent to which society exploits women in the UK. This book should be an essential read for men.

Why are women poorer?

Among the statistics the author presents are these:

12,000 women flee abusers each year. (p.157)
87% of girls 11-21 think that the world will judge them on how they look rather than on their ability (p.218)
In the UK 2x more women die in childbirth than in Sweden (p.191)
The average woman does 1,352 free hours of unpaid work each year (p.107)
In 2016, nearly 60% of women said that protective equipment hampered their work (p.125)
Average rents in England take 43% of women’s median income (p.151)
Failure to pay a TV license is the number one reason for women being prosecuted (p.13)
Women pay 2% more to buy a house and get less when they sell (p. 150)

The author takes us through the many contributory factors such as abuse, bias, business, care, economics, education, health, income, law, looks, media, money, oppression, poverty, and power. Each and more are covered by the book. The following stood out for me.
Health.

The extent to which the National Health Service often fails to look after women is exposed. Maternal mortality, ie the death rate of women giving birth, is high in the UK compared with other European countries: it is 9.6/100,000 compared to 5 in Ireland and Sweden, and 2.7 in Norway. The author cites as another example the fact that the NHS does not fund the treatment of lipoedema, a condition that mainly affects women resulting in swelling of legs, thighs and the arms, and is due to the abnormal accumulation of fat under the skin that can lead to issues with mobility. Treatment would be a process similar to liposuction, but classed as cosmetic it is unfunded.


“Cut the funding because women will carry on doing the work anyway” (p.113)

The NHS doesn’t just discriminate against women as patients, but also as staff, with, for example, cuts in district nursing place soaring caseloads on its largely female workforce.
Business and Economics

For many GDP has lost all value as a meaningful measure of anything. One illustration of how utterly pointless it is is the assertion that in one day in 2014 the UK economy grew by £5 billion overnight as


“economists had begun to include sex work in their GDP calculations” (p.106)

Why should we take the need to increase growth and productivity seriously when what amounts to illegal activities, that some consider to be exploitative, are included!

Source: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0


“Pink it, shrink it raise the price” (p.122-6)

There are many examples of how businesses can and do exploit women. It is more expensive to have a blouse dry cleaned than a shirt, or for a woman to get a haircut than a man. When buying a car, dealers will offer lower prices to white males than to Black men and female buyers. Garages will also often quote different prices for the same job. Women’s and girls’ versions of toys and clothes cost more.

A woman may pay 20% more for the same razor packaged for women than a male equivalent would cost. In 2019 Parliament rejected a bill to prohibit gender differential pricing, but even that would not have stopped a business owner or manager setting prices based on they think they can get away with, rather than what is fair.
Law

The extent to which the law is stacked against women comes up time and time again, the following was from a judgement in 1913


“A women is not a person within the meaning of the solicitors Act 1843….” (p.54)

Many women are disadvantaged when it comes to divorce, and cuts to legal aid mean that they are unable to benefit from the rules designed to protect them (p. 176).

This is also true when it comes to enforcing equal pay, with 25% of UK companies paying female staff 20% less than men, a fact that is largely ignored (p.196). Government refused to strengthen the law, saying that women could take their employer to tribunal, but with legal aid withdrawn individual women cannot afford to fight their case. With the help of trade unions women were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court in their battle with Birmingham City Council.


“Thinner women tend to earn more…. Overweight men enjoy the highest pay premium…” (p. 223)

Equal Pay Day is the date each year by which a man on an average wage has earned what a women on average wage will earn for the whole year. In 2023 that date was the 22nd November.

What can we do?

The final chapters are disappointing as the author stays with what individual women can do, rather than what women can do collectively. As the women who work for Birmingham City Council have shown, collective action plays a vital part in getting justice.

It seems that many of the practices identified have their root in the neo-liberal agenda to drive growth and increase profit. Surveillance capitalism (p.136) is rightly called out, but rather that question whether capitalism is part of the problem, the author sees it as the solution. Saving is a good thing to do if you can, but for many who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, considering long term investment opportunities is unrealistic.

The author mentions that in Eastern Europe women benefited from socialism, as education led to senior positions, with maternity leave and free child care. Today with capitalism established many women still hold senior roles in some sectors, but the benefits have long gone (p.194-5).

To me it seems that laws made by men favour men over women, and that the body that makes our laws needs to be more representative and accountable . The way political parties are funded, how they choose candidates, and the frequency of elections, are just some of the changes needed to make parliament the foundation on which to build the fair and just society we need to address this blatant unfairness. Women currently make up only 35% of MPs and 30% of members of the House of Lords. Scope for improvement? – Definitely.

Why Women Are Poorer Than Men and What We Can Do About It by Annabel Williams. Michael Joseph / Penguin 2022.

UK

Sunak’s disability benefit plans are familiar culture war fodder

Patrick Butler

 Social policy editor

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Rishi Sunak called his proposed overhaul of the welfare system 

a ‘moral mission’.

Photograph: Yui Mok/AP

Rishi Sunak’s big speech on reforming disability benefits was intended to show that the government had a grip on the economic and health challenges of the UK’s rising levels of long-term sickness. Instead, it came over as an administration running out of ideas, high on strident rhetoric, and desperate to cut welfare bills at all costs.

It was a “moral mission”, Sunak declared, to overhaul the current welfare system, which was “unfit for purpose”. Disability benefits were too easy to cheat, too cushy, too easily claimed. The speech was a clear appeal to the notion, in vogue on the right, that “mental health culture” has “gone too far”.

“Sicknote culture” – the idea that millions of lazy Britons are taking sickies with the connivance of GPs – was also in his sights, although there was little evidence to backup his assertion, or explanation as to how the changes would work. The underlying message was clear: claimants are lazy and the system too generous.

The most significant announcement was the proposed redesign of the main disability benefit personal independence payment (Pip). Ministers are convinced that far too many people – especially those with mental illness – are able to claim Pip, a non-means-tested payment designed to help claimants with the extra costs of daily living.

It is likely to focus on narrowing eligibility to drive down the Pip bill so that fewer awards are made, and at lower rates. Sceptics will point out that his was tried a decade ago, when Pip was introduced in place of disability living allowance. That reform – at the time brutally controversial, and incompetently managed – has clearly failed, even on its own terms.

Sunak sugared the pill of cuts with pious platitudes. He was “giving back hope” to people who had lost all “dignity and meaning” when they became entrapped in the vortex of the welfare state, he said. It was a familiar Tory tune – the idea that millions of people are not so much ill as spiritually lost.

Related: Longest sustained rise in people too sick to work since 1990s, says thinktank

Sunak floated other under-explained ideas: long-term unemployed claimants who refuse to take any job offered to them would have their benefits withdrawn; mentally ill claimants would be offered medical treatment as an alternative to cash benefits. But these felt like fodder for culture warfare rather than serious proposals.

The reaction was fierce. The disability charity Scope called it a “full-on assault on disabled people”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described the speech as “an irresponsible war of words on people who already aren’t getting enough support”. The Resolution Foundation said it was “a problem statement, not a plan”.

Labour’s acting shadow welfare minister, Alison McGovern, promised to reduce NHS waiting lists, reform social security and make work pay, but she was not clear precisely how Labour would do this. What is certain is that the challenge of long-term sickness – and the impact on the labour market – will be a priority for the next government.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates that one in 10 working-age Britons are receiving health-related benefits, and this is expected to increase. New monthly claims have doubled since the pandemic, especially among young people: a 20-year-old today is about as likely to claim a health-related benefit as a 39-year-old was in 2019.

A Labour government would need to balance restraining the benefits bill while addressing wider reasons behind mental illness such as poverty, insecure work, ineffectual job support and inadequate NHS care. It does not help – as the IFS said – that no one can yet fully explain what is driving the recent explosion in the takeup of health and disability benefits.

Sunak accused of making mental illness ‘another front in the culture wars’

Rowena Mason and Patrick Butler

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 19 April 2024 


Rishi Sunak has been accused of making mental ill health “another front in the culture wars”, as critics warned his plan to curb benefits for some with anxiety and depression was an assault on disabled people.

In a speech on welfare, the prime minister said he wanted to explore withdrawing a major cash benefit claimed by people living with mental health problems and replacing it with treatment.

However, charities said treatment was not available now for many, with 1.9 million on the NHS waiting list for mental health services and some experiencing worsening conditions while they remain without help.


Scope, the disability equality charity, said the proposals were “dangerous and risk leaving disabled people destitute”, as well as making people’s ill – health worse by increasing their anxiety. James Taylor, the charity’s director of strategy, said the speech “feels like a full-on assault on disabled people”.

Launching a review of the personal independence payment (Pip), a non-means-tested benefit helping disabled people with the extra costs of their health problems, Sunak said Britain was suffering from a “sicknote culture”.

He added the review would consider asking for more medical evidence before awarding the benefit, look at whether some payments should be one-off rather than ongoing, and examine whether to stop cash payments for some mental health conditions.

The prime minister said it would seek to be “more precise about the type and severity of mental health conditions that should be eligible for Pip”, and that it was “not clear they have the same degree of increased living costs as those with physical conditions”.

Sunak added: “When you look at the numbers, half of people becoming inactive over the last year citing depression and anxiety, tripling in the number of people that have been signed off as sick in the last decade, that doesn’t quite strike us as right.”

Related: Sunak’s disability benefit plans are familiar culture war fodder

The announcement led to an outcry from disability charities, which said the rates of people being signed off work and claiming benefits were caused by crumbling public services, poor quality jobs and high rates of poverty among disabled households.

Charities also raised the alarm about Sunak’s rhetoric on mental ill health, after the prime minister said there was a “risk of over-medicalising what are essentially the everyday worries and challenges of life” in the welfare system.

Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of the mental health charity Mind, said rhetoric that conjures up the image of a “mental health culture that has gone too far … is harmful, inaccurate and contrary to the reality for people up and down the country”.

“The truth is that mental health services are at breaking point following years of underinvestment, with many people getting increasingly unwell while they wait to receive support,” she said.

Labour said people were already crying out for NHS mental health support, and there was an “unprecedented crisis in mental health care”.

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said: “For the Conservatives to be attempting to make mental ill health another front for their culture wars is not just tone deaf, it’s shameless and irresponsible. Instead of attempting to cover up the scale of the problem, the next Labour government will give people the support they desperately need.”

Sunak set out his proposed changes to disability benefits at the Centre for Social Justice thinktank in London. He said “something has gone wrong” since the pandemic to increase the number of economically inactive people who are long-term sick, especially with mental health conditions.

“Most worrying, the biggest proportion of long-term sickness came from young people … parked on welfare,” Sunak said.

He said the country could not afford the “spiralling” disability welfare bill of £69bn, which was now more than the core schools budget, and claimed the Pip budget was forecast to increase by 50% in the next four years.

Other measures he set out included:

Shifting responsibility for issuing fit notes, formerly known as sicknotes, away from GPs to other “work and health professionals” in order to encourage more people to return to work.


Confirming plans to legislate “in the next parliament” to close benefit claims for anyone who has been claiming for 12 months but is not complying with conditions on accepting available work.


Asking more people on universal credit working part-time to look for more work by increasing the earnings threshold from £743 a month to £892 a month, so people paid below this amount have to seek extra hours.


Confirming plans to tighten the work capability assessment to require more people with “less severe conditions” to seek some form of employment.

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, told Sky News on Friday: “If you go to the GP and say you are feeling a little bit depressed, and you’re signed off, in 94% of occasions, a box is ticked that says you’re not capable of work whatsoever.

“What we want to do is change the system so that that individual will be referred to – the government is setting up something called Work Well – where they will get both the healthcare support they need, but also a work coach who will be involved to either help them stay in work if they are in employment, or to help them get into work if they’re not.”

Trade unions for doctors and nurses expressed concerns about Sunak’s suggestion that there was a risk of “over-medicalising” mental health conditions, although he insisted that clinical decisions about diagnoses were always a matter for professionals.

The British Medical Association said the prime minister should focus on getting people access to the medical help they needed to get back to work rather than “pushing a hostile rhetoric on ‘sicknote culture’”.

Prof Pat Cullen, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: “Nursing staff are the largest single workforce in health and care, but they themselves are suffering from increasingly poor long-term health.

“The prime minister’s overtures about ‘sicknote culture’ will be deeply offensive to a profession hit hard by long Covid and a spiralling mental health crisis. Issues of population health are not ones that a government can simply instruct away.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the current and next government would have to find a way of either funding the rising bill for disability benefits or cutting them but that it was still unclear what was behind the increase in claims.

Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, an economist at the IFS, said: “A year or so ago, it seemed plausible that the rapid rise in numbers claiming health-related benefits was a transitory pandemic-related phenomenon. That explanation now appears unlikely, and today’s new forecasts reflect this fact.

“The rising cost of these benefits, and what might be done in response, will be a pressing concern for the next government and make the already tough fiscal situation harder still. Unfortunately, designing the right policy response is made much more difficult by the lack of clarity on what is fuelling the rise.”

Sunak accused of launching ‘full-on assault on disabled people’

Rowena Mason and Patrick Butler

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Rishi Sunak is considering withdrawing a major cash disability benefit from some people with mental health conditions, prompting claims he has launched a “full-on assault on disabled people”.

The prime minister announced fresh curbs on disability benefits on Friday, saying he wanted to explore whether some cash payments to claimants with mental health conditions could be replaced by treatment or access to services.

In a speech on welfare, Sunak said he was launching a consultation on the personal independence payment (Pip), a non-means-tested benefit paid to disabled people to help with the extra living costs caused by long-term disability or ill health.

He said that in addition to reviewing payments to people with mental health conditions, the government would look at whether some other disabled people should get help with one-off costs rather than continuing payments.

The announcement triggered an outcry from disability charities, which said the rates of people being signed off work and claiming benefits were being caused by crumbling public services, poor-quality jobs and high rates of poverty among disabled households. Mind, the mental health charity, said services for mental health conditions were “at breaking point”.

There are 1.9 million people on a waiting list for mental health treatment in England, meaning the treatment they should be able to access through the NHS is not currently available to them.

Sunak said Britain was proud to have a strong safety net of welfare payments to those who needed them, but he also said the country had a “sicknote culture” that needed to be tackled.

He said “something has gone wrong” since the pandemic to increase the number of economically inactive people who are long-term sick, especially with mental health conditions.

“Most worrying, the biggest proportion of long-term sickness came from young people … parked on welfare,” Sunak said.

He said the country could not afford the “spiralling” disability welfare bill of £69bn, which was now more than the core schools budget, and claimed the Pip budget was forecast to increase by 50% in the next four years.

Other measures he set out included:

Shifting responsibility for issuing fit notes, formerly known as sicknotes, away from GPs to other “work and health professionals” in order to encourage more people to return to work.


Confirming plans to legislate “in the next parliament” to close benefit claims for anyone who has been claiming for 12 months but is not complying with conditions on accepting available work.


Asking more people on universal credit working part-time to look for more work by increasing the earnings threshold from £743 a month to £892 a month, so people paid below this amount have to seek extra hours.


Confirming plans to tighten the work capability assessment to require more people with “less severe conditions” to seek some forms of employment.

On the review of Pip, Sunak said it may be right to pay one-off costs for adaptations, but that the payments may not need to be ongoing.

The prime minister said the government would look at whether more medical evidence about conditions should be provided, as some payments were made on the basis of “subjective and unverifiable claims”.

He said some people with mental health conditions may be better served by treatment and access to therapies rather than cash payments.

Sunak also warned about the “the risk of over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life” when it came to paying benefits to people with mental health conditions.

His comments were echoed by Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, who told Sky News on Friday: “If you go to the GP and say you are feeling a little bit depressed, and you’re signed off, in 94% of occasions, a box is ticked that says you’re not capable of work whatsoever.

“What we want to do is change the system so that that individual will be referred to – the government is setting up something called Work Well – where they will get both the healthcare support they need, but also a work coach who will be involved to either help them stay in work if they are in employment, or to help them get into work if they’re not.”

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: “Millions of people are stuck on NHS waiting lists, unable to get a GP appointment or struggling to access mental health support. Rishi Sunak is attempting to blame the British people for his own government’s failures on the economy and the NHS and it simply won’t wash.”

Matthew Pennycook, the shadow housing minister, said Sunak had been pursuing a “cheap headline” over his claims that Britain has a “sicknote culture”.

“There has been a long-term rise for many, many years under this government in people who are on long-term sickness benefits, either because they can’t get the treatment they need through the NHS, which is on its knees after 14 years of Conservative government, or they are not getting the proper support to get back into work,” he said.

Charities warned that the benefit curbs would make people’s problems worse. James Taylor, the director of strategy at the disability equality charity Scope, said the speech “feels like a full-on assault on disabled people”.

“These proposals are dangerous and risk leaving disabled people destitute,” he said. “In a cost of living crisis, looking to slash disabled people’s income by hitting Pip is a horrific proposal.

“Calls are pouring into our helpline from concerned disabled people. Life costs more for disabled people. Threatening to take away the low amount of income Pip provides to disabled people who face £950 a month extra costs isn’t going to solve the problem of economic inactivity … Much of the current record-levels of inactivity are because our public services are crumbling, the quality of jobs is poor and the rate of poverty amongst disabled households is growing.”

Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of Mind, said the mental health charity was “deeply disappointed that the prime minister’s speech today continues a trend in recent rhetoric which conjures up the image of a ‘mental health culture’ that has ‘gone too far’.

“This is harmful, inaccurate and contrary to the reality for people up and down the country,” she said. “The truth is that mental health services are at breaking point following years of underinvestment, with many people getting increasingly unwell while they wait to receive support. Indeed the Care Quality Commission’s latest figures on community mental health services show that nearly half of people (44%) waiting for treatment found their mental health deteriorated in this time.”

Iain Porter, a senior policy adviser at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said the prime minister had launched an “irresponsible war of words on people who already aren’t getting enough support, which the government would rather not talk about”.

“Many people want to work, as the prime minister says, but have their hopes dashed by woeful health and wellbeing support and job centres unfit for purpose,” he said.

The British Medical Association said the prime minister should focus on getting people access to the medical help they needed to get back to work rather than “pushing a hostile rhetoric on ‘sicknote culture’”.

• This article was amended on 19 April 2024. A previous version said the earnings threshold was increasing from £743 to £892 a “week”, rather than a month.

OPINION

Rishi Sunak’s war on ‘sick note culture’ makes me sick with worry

Jack Wynn

METRO UK

Published Apr 19, 2024, 

The PM claimed there was a ‘worrying’ proportion of young workers off sick 

(Picture: Yui Mok/PA Wire)

‘I’m signing you off work for two weeks’.

As soon as my GP had written the note to my manager, I felt a huge sense of relief.

Up until that moment, I had found myself falling out of bed 10 minutes before the start of my shift at my call centre job, before crawling back into it as soon as the working day was done.

It was 2021 and outside of work, I – like many others – was feeling the mental health impacts of the pandemic and the isolation of lockdown. And during my 9-5, the verbal abuse of customers, high call volumes and the pressure of targets were starting to wear me down.

I ended up being signed off work for a total of two months. During this time, I really thought about what I wanted from my life and career – and it’s all thanks to my GP getting the ball rolling by signing the sick note.

So when I read about Rishi Sunak’s proposal to crack down on so-called ‘sick note culture’, I was horrified. The PM claimed there was a ‘worrying’ proportion of young workers off sick, then mentioned plans that could strip GPs of the right to write fit notes – putting this in the hands of vague ‘specialist professionals’.

I believe that if this was in place when I needed time off work, it could have made my recovery incredibly challenging.

I’ve lived with varying symptoms of anxiety and depression from a very young age 

(Picture: Jack Wynn)

Due to my crippling anxiety and depression at the time, the thought of having to go through an intrusive assessment with a specialist rather than my regular GP would have made me feel even more vulnerable and guilty about using the system to get the help I needed.

It’s also difficult to understand exactly what Sunak calls an ‘objective assessment’, what it would include and how tailored it would be to an individual’s needs.

Especially if someone suffers with severe anxiety, this process could only make them feel worse because it feels like it lacks compassion. It only adds to the tremendous guilt many of us already feel about requesting a sick note.

I’ve lived with varying symptoms of anxiety and depression – from low moods to severe panic attacks – from a very young age.

I knew how I was feeling wasn’t normal and that time off work would only help – but I still felt extremely guilty. I have found that one of the hardest parts of being signed off with a sick note is the feeling of letting others down.


Do you agree? Have your say in the comments belowCOMMENT NOW

Initially, when I first delivered the news to my colleagues, I could barely get the words out. My manager was surprised, as they noted my positive character, but supportive – as were my other colleagues.

Yet I knew that by not being there, other members of my team would have to pick up some of the slack until my return.

I felt massive guilt at the thought of letting people down. In these incredibly challenging times, I wanted to be considered a strong character of support to my friends and colleagues.

When I compared my depression to the severity of what frontline workers were facing since the pandemic started, I couldn’t help but feel embarrassed.

I despise being seen as weak – even though I know mental illness doesn’t mean you are less strong.

Rishi Sunak outlines plan for crackdown on sickness benefits

The first couple of weeks, I spent a lot of time hiding under a blanket on the sofa watching real crime Netflix documentaries, occasionally mustering the energy to go to the local shop and trying not to bump into anyone I knew in fear of having to make small talk.

During the time off, I made some improvement with my overall mood with the help of some telephone counselling, short daily walks and even did activities I wouldn’t normally have much time for, such as reading.

I was also able to reflect on happier times and make more of an effort to keep in touch with friends and family members I had not been able to see since the beginning of the pandemic.

After two months, I went back to work with a huge amount of fear and hesitancy.

During a phased return – in which I listened to the same calls that brought on my heightened anxiety – I knew I needed to make a change. So shortly after returning, I left the company to pursue another career. I needed that sick note from my GP to come to this conclusion and I’m grateful I was able to obtain it in a timely manner.

Jack (right) with his partner (Picture: Jack Wynn)

Sunak’s entire approach to this conversation stikes me as having a distinct lack of empathy. I believe that it should be kept under the GP’s discretion to advise on whether a patient is in need of a sick note.

It also shows how out of touch the PM is on mental health issues. Changing the process entirely increases anxiety for those suffering and could result in detrimental consequences. People struggling with their mental health might feel like second-class citizens compared to their colleagues.

I’ve since learned that no-one should feel guilty about taking the time they need to work on their mental health.

To keep pushing through and suffering in silence at work is certainly not the answer. Not only will it affect your performance, but you will begin to destroy relationships with your colleagues as you become unapproachable.

The pandemic brought with it so much uncertainty that it felt as though there was no light at the end of the tunnel. I couldn’t just rely on stronger medication, a few days completely shut off from the outside world, and more rest to get me through this challenging time.


Whatever comes of this latest announcement, I want Rishi Sunak to know that seeking time off work for mental health issues is lifesaving for many of us.

It’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’. And it’s not the easiest topic for anyone with something like depression to discuss.

I’m afraid this new ‘specialist professional’ system will become an interrogation format for those who genuinely need the time off, and will push the mental health conversation back even further.

So I say: Don’t be afraid to contact your GP – or this new system of a specialist – for advice. Despite the evident strain on the NHS, they are there to listen and offer the best help.

Being signed off has taught me that my mental health has to be my top priority. I shouldn’t feel guilty about putting myself first – no one should.

IFS: One in 10 working-age people claiming at least one health-related benefit

Aine Fox, PA Social Affairs Correspondent
Fri, 19 April 2024 

One in 10 working-age people across Great Britain are claiming at least one health-related benefit according to new analysis which suggests someone aged 20 now is as likely to claim such a benefit as a 39-year-old was before the pandemic.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the figure soared by one million since 2019, now accounting for 4.2 million working-age people (10.2%).

In the year before the pandemic hit, the figure was 3.2 million (7.9%).

The IFS, which published its findings on Friday following Rishi Sunak’s speech on major proposals for welfare, said the figure could be on course to pass five million people by 2028.

Using forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the IFS said if things continue at their current pace, there could be 5.8 million working-age people on at least one health-related benefit by 2028–29.

If the pace slows but remains above the pre-pandemic norm the number of claimants is estimated at 5.4 million (12.4%), while if rates returned to their pre-pandemic levels, the IFS said the figure would be around 4.4 million recipients.

Spending on disability benefits and incapacity benefits for working-age people soared by £12.8 billion to £48.3 billion between 2019–20 and 2023–24, the IFS said.

This is forecast to rise to £63.7 billion by 2028–29, which analysts said is a £28.1 billion increase in the space of a decade.

Proportionally, the recent increase in claiming has been greater among younger people, the IFS said, with a 20-year-old now about as likely to claim a health-related benefit as a 39-year-old was in 2019.

For more than two thirds (69%) of new 25-year-old claimants, mental health and behavioural disorders were their primary condition, the IFS said, but this was the case for only around a fifth (22%) of new 55-year-old claimants.

The IFS said the causes of the recent rise in benefit claimants are “not yet well understood” but that it has “significant” implications for government spending.

Cutting benefits would be the most straightforward response, it said, but it added that this would see “significant losses for many vulnerable households” and would also fail to tackle underlying worsening health.

Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, IFS research economist and report author, said: “A year or so ago, it seemed plausible that the rapid rise in numbers claiming health-related benefits was a transitory pandemic-related phenomenon. That explanation now appears unlikely, and today’s new forecasts reflect this fact.

“The rising cost of these benefits, and what might be done in response, will be a pressing concern for the next government and make the already tough fiscal situation harder still.

“Unfortunately, designing the right policy response is made much more difficult by the lack of clarity on what is fuelling the rise.”

The abrdn Financial Fairness Trust, which funded the IFS report, said while there are likely to be various reasons for the increase, much is still unknown in this area.

Its chief executive, Mubin Haq, said: “A range of factors is likely to be contributing to this rise, such as the pandemic, NHS waiting times and conditionality in the benefits system, but much remains unknown as to what is driving this growth.

“Cutting or reducing access to benefits would lead to severe hardship for millions with additional needs and fail to address the underlying conditions we now face.”

Labour’s shadow health and social care secretary, Wes Streeting, pledged his party will invest in mental health support, as he accused the Conservatives of “attempting to make mental ill health another front for their culture wars”.

He said: “We are experiencing an unprecedented crisis in mental health care, with children and young people crying out for support.

“For the Conservatives to be attempting to make mental ill health another front for their culture wars is not just tone deaf, it’s shameless and irresponsible.

“Instead of attempting to cover up the scale of the problem, the next Labour Government will give people the support they desperately need.

“We’ll roll out 8,500 mental health staff to cut waits, put mental health hubs in every community and support in every school, to help people back onto their feet.”

Delivering his speech on Friday, Mr Sunak said he believed in the “growing body of evidence that good work can actually improve mental and physical health” as he insisted there must be more ambition in efforts to help people back into work.

He called for more honesty about “the risk of over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life”.

SEE

Health charities and unions lead strong criticism of Sunak’s welfare reforms

‘Dirty secret’: insiders say UK water firms knowingly break sewage laws

Rachel Salvidge and Leana Hosea

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 19 April 2024 

By law, every wastewater treatment works must treat a minimum amount of sewage as stipulated in their environmental permits.

Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters


Whistleblowers say UK water companies are knowingly failing to treat legally required amounts of sewage, and that some treatment works are manipulating wastewater systems to divert raw sewage away from the works and into rivers and seas.

It is well known that water companies are dumping large volumes of raw sewage into rivers and seas from storm overflows but an investigation by the Guardian and Watershed Investigations reveals that the industry’s “dirty secret” is bigger, broader and deeply systemic.

By law, every wastewater treatment works must treat a minimum amount of sewage as stipulated in their environmental permits. Four whistleblowers have told Watershed that a large proportion regularly fail to do so and are not reporting it to the environmental regulator.


The insiders say the amount of sewage reaching a works is being “manipulated at the front end” by “flow trimming”, which can be done a number of ways including by “manually setting penstocks to limit the flow”, by “dropping weir levels” and by “tuning down pumps at pumping stations”. The diverted raw sewage makes its way into ditches, rivers and seas.

One industry insider says they “have personally surveyed works and found valves operated and diversion pipes installed so that part of the flow arriving is deliberately diverted to an environmentally sensitive stream, rather than into the works, so that the works passes compliance of sanitary parameters.

“I have spoken to staff who have carried out surveys to inform investment plans, who have found that the controls of terminal pumping stations have been deliberately altered so that they pump only a reduced proportion of the flow figure they were designed to pump, in the knowledge that this was a breach of flow compliance. This continues.”

The insider adds: “I have spoken to [people at] other water companies who confessed that flow compliance is a dirty secret of the UK water industry, which environmental regulators know about (although perhaps not the scale) and have turned a blind eye due to resourcing constraints.”

The raw sewage that is diverted away from the works flows into ditches, rivers and seas and the amount will probably dwarf the volumes dumped into the environment via storm overflows.

“It is an enormous scandal that many who work in the industry know about, but nobody wants to talk about,” said the whistleblower. “Water companies report their overall compliance with wastewater rules as good, but dig a little deeper and you’ll see that lots of treatment works are failing to deal with the amount of sewage they are legally meant to treat.”

The insider says non-compliance is widespread across the UK, and that they are aware of works where as much as 30% of the sewage they are expected to handle goes straight into the environment without treatment.

“Some operators, with or without the support of their chain of command, are deliberately reducing the flow of sewage into the treatment works by either dropping the levels of weirs so that sewage flows out into the environment, or by cutting back the flows at pumping stations. This way they can say they are treating a greater proportion of the sewage they receive because they are now receiving less into the works,” says the whistleblower.

“Sadly there are many incentives for water companies, rogue teams or staff to do this, including reduced cost of pumping and treatment, and treatment works that were struggling to comply appearing to be passing, with the resulting regulatory performance rewards leading to staff bonuses and increased dividends to shareholders – with very little risk that the manipulation will be found or anyone prosecuted.”

A second insider says it is “almost standard practice to control penstocks by hand to set it at a limit to reduce the flow”, adding that the problem “stems from sweating the assets … There are a lot of undersized, overcapacity sewage treatment works out there … and I’ve rarely seen a works where all the assets are working, there’s usually something out of service.

“Spilling to the river saves millions of pounds that they should be spending on assets. Lots of storm tanks are sized to meet 30-year-old permits, and there are sites with no storm capacity at all.”

A third insider says they have seen evidence of flow trimming at works owned by two different water companies.

“Operational teams on site look for a workaround, often in the full knowledge of what they are doing, and in full knowledge of all the stakeholders, from the project manager all the way up to the person holding the purse strings. Other times it’s done without knowing the implications … no one knows the true scale of what’s happening across the country.”

According to a fourth whistleblower, it is possible to identify instances of flow trimming in a company’s figures “but no one truly looks into the data, they won’t look at the detail”.

England’s water companies declined to comment, but the industry body Water UK says: “We recognise the current level of spills is unacceptable and we have a plan to sort it out. Between 2025 and 2030 water companies in England and Wales want to invest £96bn to ensure the security of our water supply in the future and significantly reduce the amount of sewage entering rivers and seas. We now need the regulator Ofwat to give us the green light so we can get on with it.”

Ofwat says water and wastewater companies’ environmental performance is “simply not good enough” and that the industry regulator is “acutely aware of the damage this does to our natural resources and to public trust.

“However, where companies fall short, Ofwat acts – over recent years, we have imposed penalties and payments of over £300m and in November 2021 we announced our biggest ever investigation into all water and wastewater companies in England and Wales, with live enforcement investigations into six companies.

“This is specifically investigating whether companies are treating as much sewage at their wastewater treatment works as they should be, and how this could be resulting in sewage discharges into the environment at times when this should not be happening.”

The Environment Agency is also investigating. A spokesperson says: “We will always pursue and prosecute companies that are deliberately obstructive or misleading, including on issues around flow compliance. We are conducting our largest-ever criminal investigation into potential widespread non-compliance at thousands of sewage treatment works.”

Geraint Weber of the regulator Natural Resources Wales says: “We expect water and sewerage companies to comply with the conditions of their environmental permits. Where non-compliance is identified we won’t hesitate to take action using the full range of enforcement powers available to us.”

Nathan Critchlow-Watton of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency says: “Sepa assess Scottish Water’s compliance with authorisation conditions at wastewater treatment works through site inspections, investigating events and incidents, sampling discharges, assessment of operator data and Sepa’s programme of environmental monitoring. We are not aware of any evidence of deliberate misreporting of overflow data by Scottish Water or other operators.”

A Scottish Water spokesperson says: “We are not routinely required by licence to assess and report whether we are passing the appropriate pass forward flow at our pumping stations and overflows and at wastewater treatment works. We set out to be compliant across all aspects of our licences and are not aware of any instances where we deliberately manage flows to spill early.”

Northern Ireland Water and Welsh Water declined to comment.

UK
‘Historic blow’ as Amazon workers to vote on union recognition


Members of the GMB union on the picket line stand in front of a freight lorry outside the Amazon fulfilment centre in Coventry, November 7, 2023


AMAZON has been dealt an “historic blow” as a government body ruled that GMB’s union recognition application at its Coventry warehouse must go to a legally binding workers’ vote.

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) ruling brings GMB one step closer to Europe’s first recognised union at Amazon and comes after more than a year of industrial action and 30 strike days.

The CAC will now appoint an independent organisation to arrange a legally binding vote of workers, with a ballot timetable likely to be announced in the coming weeks.

GMB senior organiser Amanda Gearing said: “From day one of GMB’s fight for union rights at Amazon it has been a modern-day David and Goliath battle.

“One year on this is a truly historic moment as workers stand up against the company’s relentless anti-union propaganda.”

She said Amazon workers have refused poverty pay and unsafe working conditions, demanding “dignity at work and a union to represent them.”

An Amazon spokesman said: “Our employees have the choice of whether or not to join a union. They always have.”

UK Amazon workers one step closer to historic union recognition

Hannah Davenport 

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward 

Big win for union as government body gives green light for workplace vote on union recognition

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Amazon workers in Coventry are getting closer to securing trade union recognition after having their application for a union recognition vote approved by the government body.

Over a year of taking unprecedented industrial action has led the Amazon Coventry workforce to potentially become the first in Europe to have a recognised union at Amazon.

Today the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), responsible for regulating collective bargaining between workers and employers, ruled in favour of the GMB union’s application for a union recognition vote at the warehouse, meaning workers will now decide in a legally binding vote.

Outside of the USA, no other Amazon workforce currently has union recognition, GMB said, and it would force the company to sit down with the trade union to discuss matters related to pay, hours and holiday on behalf of the Coventry workers.

It follows accusations from the union of bosses at the delivery giant ‘bombarding’ the workforce with anti-union messages, however union membership at the warehouse has continued to grow.

Amanda Gearing, GMB Senior Organiser, said: “From day one of GMB’s fight for union rights at Amazon it has been a modern-day David and Goliath battle.

“One year on this is a truly historic moment as workers stand up against the company’s relentless anti-union propaganda. Workers have won against the odds and will now be given a legally binding say on forming Europe’s first recognised union at Amazon.

“Amazon bosses have been sent a clear and unapologetic message from their own workers that they refuse poverty pay and unsafe working condition; they demand dignity at work and a union to represent them”

Rosa Curling, Director of the CIC Foxglove, said: “Amazon is going to pull every dirty trick in the book to keep unions out of their UK warehouses – but the Coventry workers have history on their side.

“This is a huge moment for GMB, and Amazon workers in Coventry who worked for years to earn this historic vote. Foxglove is proud to stand behind them to beat back Bezos’ union-busting – and we’ll be with them every step of the way.”

A ballot timetable for the vote is likely to be announced in the coming weeks, with the CAC arranging the legally binding vote of workers.

(Image credit: GMB / Andy Prendergast Twitter)

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward, focusing on trade unions and environmental issues

VICTORY!

Volkswagen workers vote to unionize in major win for organised labour

Reuters

Volkswagen workers in the US have voted to join the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) in a massive victory for organised labour in the US.

Workers in Tennessee voted 73% in favour, according to the union's unofficial vote count on Friday night.

It handed the UAW its first election win at a car factory in the American South in decades.

Two prior votes at the factory, including in 2019, had failed, after stiff political opposition.

But attitudes toward organised labour appear to be shifting.

The US has seen an increase in strikes and petitions to join unions since the pandemic, drawing in Hollywood actors, Starbucks baristas, tech contractors, healthcare workers, and even college basketball players.

Workers at the only VW factory the US, in Chattanooga, will now be represented by the union to negotiate collectively over issues such as pay and working conditions.


Analysts said the outcome could inspire employees at other factories in the region to take similar steps.

Another UAW election is scheduled for May at a Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama, and the union has begun a push at other factories, as well.

UAW boss Shawn Fain last year said the UAW would target 13 foreign-owned factories in the South, in a bid to bring in new members to the organisation, whose numbers have steadily dwindled.

The plans aimed to seize on the momentum of the organisation's headline-drawing strike last year that won significant pay increases and other benefits for union workers at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis.

But it marked a risky push for the organisation, which is closely associated with the Democratic party, into a part of the country that is both staunchly Republican and historically hostile to unions.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, a Republican, was among the political leaders to speak out against the UAW effort.

But unlike in 2019, when the governor addressed workers at a meeting hosted by Volkswagen, the political opposition was more muted this time and Volkswagen said it was remaining officially neutral in the fight.


Before the election, analysts said the UAW had its best shot in years at winning, noting new leadership had refreshed the reputation and approach of the organisation, which had been mired in corruption scandals.

UAW membership peaked in 1979 at almost 1.5 million.

Today, it represents more than 400,000 active workers across a wide range of sectors, including hospitals and universities, with more than 140,000 members employed at Ford, GM and Stellantis.

Workers take on car giant Volk