Friday, July 12, 2024

UK
Starmer’s Labour promises cash for generals, poverty for children

Keir Starmer deliberately refused to promise abolishing the two-child benefit cap


How many Labour MPs will rebel against the government over the child benefit cap? (Picture: Keir Starmer on Twitter/X)

By Charlie Kimber
Thursday 11 July 2024
SOCIALIST WORKER

The government’s two-child benefit limit hit more than 1.6 million children this year. That’s an increase of 8.5 percent over the past year, emphasising why Labour is wrong not to scrap the limit.

The policy restricts child welfare payments to the first two children in most families. It means families, with a third or more child born after April 2017 miss out on up to £3,500 per year per child. That means deeper poverty.

The limit is a product of the vile Tory idea that the poor are to blame for their hardship because they are over-breeding beyond “normal” limits.

Senior figures from children’s charities and even the Church of England called for the policy to be scrapped following the publication of the new figures.



“We know that the two-child limit is a failing policy that actively pushes families into poverty,” said Joseph Howes, chair of the End Child Poverty group. He added that scrapping the policy would move “the needle on child poverty overnight”.

Charity Save The Children said it is an “outrage” that so many youngsters are affected and called for immediate action.

The limit is supposedly justified because it means families on benefits are “‘forced to face the same financial choices as those in work”, as the Tories used to say. But data released last month showed that 81 percent of two-parent families affected by the limit have at least one working parent.

Rosie is a single mother of three children, whose benefit payments are reduced by this policy. She said, “We often hear that the two-child limit is a necessary policy, because it ensures that families like mine have to make the same financial choices as families who are in work.

“Yet I work, and still this cap is applied to my benefit payments. I am a single parent. There will only ever be one salary coming into my home, and still the cap is applied to my benefit payments.”

To show how “tough” it is—towards the poor—Keir Starmer deliberately refused during the election campaign that his government would abolish the limit. He said he would not make “unfunded” spending commitments.

But Starmer has already said he will set out a “road map” to extra spending on the military—an early “unfunded” present to the generals and imperialist allies.

With Labour there’s cash for guns and missiles, but not to draw hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Labour committed in its manifesto to a review of the Universal Credit welfare system. But it has not guaranteed it will abolish a policy that deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said in 2020 was “obscene and inhumane”.

Torsten Bell, the former director of the Resolution Foundation, was elected as a Labour MP this month. He described the policy as “immoral” this April, arguing that it came close to creating “a poverty guarantee”.

Removing the two-child cap would cost £3.4 billion a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank. That’s small change in overall terms.

A 2 percent wealth tax on assets over £10 million could generate nearly £24 billion a year and affect just 0.04 percent of the population.

Some Labour MPs say they will move an amendment removing the limit to the King’s Speech which is scheduled for Wednesday next week.

It will be an early test for the government and every MP. But the key is campaigning from below. Every union leader should be telling Labour to scrap the limit immediately as part of a strategy of fighting Starmer from day one.

Who does the two-child limit hit?
By the end of the parliament in 2029 more than half of children in large families will be living in relative poverty, defined as 60 percent of average household income.
The Resolution Foundation think-tank projects that 750,000 families will be affected by 2035, when all children in families of three or more will be captured by the policy.
A fifth all households impacted by the two-child limit are families with at least one disabled child, that is just over 87,500 households.
A quarter of all families impacted by the two-child limit are single-parent households, with a child under three.
The limit disproportionately hits black and Asian families.
‘More than 186,000 dead’ in Gaza: How credible are the estimates published on The Lancet?

According to a "letter" published on the website of the British medical journal The Lancet, "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza". This is a significantly higher death toll than the 38,345 announced by the Hamas-run territory’s health ministry on Thursday. FRANCE 24 takes a look at how the authors arrived at this estimate and whether their figure is credible.
 
Gazans displaced by the Israeli offensive, photographed in the town of Khan Younis, Gaza Strip on July 4, 2024. © Jehad Alshrafi, AP
Issued on: 11/07/2024 -

According to a "letter" published on July 5 on the website of the renowned British medical journal The Lancet entitled "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential", "it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza".

Based on "the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2,375,259, this would translate to 7.9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip", write the co-authors of this letter published in the "correspondence" section of the website.

These figures are significantly higher than the death toll of 38,345 announced on Thursday July 11 by the Gaza Health Ministry, which has been publishing daily figures since the start of Israel’s offensive against Hamas in the besieged Palestinian territory, in response to the Islamist militant group’s October 7 attack on Israeli soil.
Direct and indirect deaths

This letter was co-written by Rasha Khatib, researcher at the US-based Advocate Aurora Research Institute and the Institute of Community and Public Health at Birzeit University in the occupied West Bank, Martin McKee, professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and member of the International Advisory Committee of the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research, and Salim Yusuf, distinguished professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences in Canada. Despite it not being either a report or scientific study, this letter, which includes an estimated number of direct and indirect deaths as a result of this conflict, has made global headlines.

The Lancet explains that correspondence or "letters" are "reflections" from readers on "content published in The Lancet or on other topics of interest to our readers" that are "not usually peer reviewed". Peer review is the standard method for validating the results of scientific research, carried out by qualified experts.

In concrete terms, the co-authors write that they started from the principle that "armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence" to arrive at the death toll of 186,000. They therefore applied a "conservative estimate" of four indirect deaths per one direct death, basing their calculation on the figure of 37,396 deaths recorded on June 19 by the Gaza Health Ministry – the Palestinian territory has been run by the militant group Hamas since its June 2007 coup. It is difficult to gather accurate figures, write the co-authors, due to the difficulties encountered in carrying out daily assessments on the ground.

To arrive at their estimate of "four indirect deaths per one direct death", the co-authors relied on a report published by the Secretariat of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development in 2008. The document states that in areas where there is armed conflict "studies show that between three and 15 times as many people die indirectly for every person who dies violently". However, the letter’s signatories did not say why they chose four for their "conservative estimate". In line with the controversy surrounding the death toll in Gaza, the letter provoked a flood of reactions online.

On the one hand, the letter has been widely accused of being biased, as it relies on a questionable calculation method and hypothetical estimates. The Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post reported that "the platform provided by the respected magazine", The Lancet, gave the letter "a reliable atmosphere. This led anti-Israel users on social media to propagate the new libel en masse".

However, the letter, which was picked up by several international media, was welcomed by others and widely shared to express support for the Gazan population and call for an end to Israeli military operations in Gaza.


For instance, Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, shared it on her X account as evidence of what she described as "9 months of genocide" taking place in Gaza.
A ‘credible’ estimate, according to Doctors of the World

Some NGOs active in the Palestinian territory certainly feel that the estimate put forward in this letter is credible.

"The death toll of 186,000 mentioned in The Lancet is consistent with the health, military and geopolitical situation due to the sea, air and land blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip," says Jean-François Corty, a humanitarian doctor and president of the NGO Doctors of the World. "This estimate is a true reflection of the absolute tragedy being experienced on the ground by the population."

"I have been saying as recently as November/December that the figures being put forward are underestimated in relation to reality, in a context where there is a lot of propaganda surrounding the death toll, as is the case in many conflicts and not exclusively in Gaza. Since the beginning of the controversy over the Hamas Ministry of Health's figures, which are probably wrong, I have said that they are probably wrong, but because they are underestimated."

Corty asserts that the Gaza Health Ministry's figures take into account the identified dead, "without taking into account all the dead left under the rubble of the bombardments, or the indirect victims who died because of a lack of care or access to care, or from being transported to a health centre".

The president of Doctors of the World – which currently has a team of around 50 people in Deir Al-Balah, in the centre of the Gaza Strip – points out that there were 35 hospitals operating in Gaza before October 7, "with a good level of medical care and dozens, if not hundreds, of local health centres".

"But today, most of these hospitals are no longer functional, there are only between 5 and 10 left, and they are saturated with patients," says Corty. "They don't just take in patients, they also house families of displaced people, and they're running out of everything – fuel for their generators, medicines and medical and surgical equipment."

Corty concludes: "If you add those who are likely to die of malnutrition or as a result of wounds inflicted by Israeli bombardments in the weeks and months to come, because of the risks of superinfection and because their pathology will be treated late, then yes, the figure of 186,000 deaths mentioned in The Lancet is credible."

This article has been translated from the original in French.
Deforestation-free economy key to Labour's nature

Addressing the UK’s outsized contribution to global deforestation must be a priority for the newly elected British government.


LABOUR'S ELECTION MANIFESTO CONTAINED IMPORTANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THE GLOBAL NATURE EMERGENCY – NOW THEY MUST MAKE GOOD ON THEIR COMMITMENTS. 
CLAUDIA GRECO / WPA / GETTY


BLOG | JULY 11, 2024

The UK last week welcomed a new Labour government, who won with a pledge to restore the country’s climate leadership and tackle what they have called a “nature emergency” at home and abroad.

If they are serious about this ambition, then ending the UK’s contribution to global deforestation must be a day-one priority.

The Labour Party’s manifesto explicitly acknowledges that the country needs to deliver its own domestic targets to be able to show credible leadership on the world stage again.

The UK brokered a world-leading global commitment to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030 at COP26 – now it’s time to live up to it.

British voters care deeply about deforestation and protecting nature. More than 60,000 people marched in London last month to call for new rules that make big businesses contribute to nature and climate recovery, and most British people say the UK is doing too little to tackle nature loss.





RESTORE NATURE NOW MARCH, LONDON, JUNE 2024. ANDREA DOMENICONI / EXTINCTION REBELLION UK

More than 180 of the UK’s scientists have urged the government to prioritise the country’s contribution to global nature loss, as well as domestic challenges like water pollution.

We’re calling on the government to deliver a deforestation-free UK economy in three steps:

1. Make the target to halt and reverse deforestation and biodiversity loss by 2030 legally binding

While the UK’s net zero by 2050 goal is already in law, there is currently no equivalent for the country’s more imminent target to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

Putting this date in law will hold the government accountable to its nature ambitions and stop important decisions and policies being kicked into the long grass yet again.


AROUND 90% OF DEFORESTATION IS DRIVEN BY LAND-USE CHANGE TO AGRICULTURE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES. LEONARDO CARRATO / GETTY

2. Get deforestation imports off UK supermarket shelves for good


According to our research with Trase, the UK’s imports have contributed to the loss of an area of forest almost twice the size of Paris since the last government delayed the introduction of Schedule 17 of the Environment Act, a law passed in 2021 to stop illegal deforestation-linked imports.

This is likely to be a significant underestimation of the total forest destruction linked to UK consumption of so-called "forest-risk" commodities.

This delay means that deforestation-linked beef, palm oil and chocolate are still reaching the shelves of British supermarkets.

And by dragging our feet on this issue, the UK is not only enabling the destruction of irreplaceable ecosystems but also helping to drive up food prices and increasing the risk of extreme weather and climate-related disasters.


IMPORTS SUCH AS BEEF, SOY AND PALM OIL LINKED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF AN AREA OF TROPICAL FOREST ALMOST TWICE THE SIZE OF PARIS HAVE FLOODED UK MARKETS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ACCORDING TO OUR RESEARCH WITH TRASE. KILITO CHAN / GETTY

Clearly, we need to get protections for forests and local communities in place as soon as possible. But with so many delays holding back the UK’s plans already, we also need a law that works properly from the outset.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) – a cross-party body that scrutinises the government’s climate plans – urged the government to improve the new deforestation due diligence duty before it’s introduced.

They recommended that the UK’s law should cover all deforestation – not just illegal deforestation – and provide stronger human rights protections from the outset.

Our evidence showing that one person is killed every other day defending the environment worldwide shocked MPs.

An approach that tackles all deforestation – not just that which is illegal – would offer crucial protection for local communities facing land grabs, who already struggle to enforce their rights on paper and prove illegal actions against them.

It’s much easier to see whether deforestation has taken place or not using satellite data alone than it is to prove that the clearance was illegal.

Last year we showed that US food giant Cargill directly purchased soy from farms in Bolivia where more than 20,000 hectares of forest have been razed since 2017. The below slider shows the scale of forest cleared on one farm between 2017 and 2022.

It is estimated that at least 74% of Bolivia’s deforestation for agriculture is likely illegal – but while satellite data is helpful for identifying deforestation, it remains tricky to prove the illegality of these clearances from a desk.

We need to stop this forest loss urgently to meet climate goals, which is why the UK's law should cover all deforestation – not just those we can prove are criminal.

1000s of hectares of forest were cleared in the Mennonite colony of Nuevo Mexico between 2017 and 2022.

And it’s not just campaigners who want the government to act. In December last year, British supermarket giants such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and M&S wrote to the then-Prime Minister calling for the UK to match the EU’s deforestation law, which requires businesses to ensure local communities are not subjected to human rights abuses within their supply chains, whether the deforestation was illegal or not.

The EU’s law also requires businesses to collect traceability information about the land on which their goods are produced, which helps to ensure claims about sustainable sourcing are accurate and verifiable.

This type of data will enable the authorities to check for deforestation in a cost-effective way, like the slider above.

We think the UK must require businesses trading in the UK to collect this data too, because without traceability data the UK’s law will do little to stop forest loss in practice.

3. Stop British banks funding deforesting companies

Finally, Labour needs to look beyond trade to tackle the UK financial sector’s role in financing global deforestation too.

While the UK is suffering from a nature crisis at home, around half of the country’s financial risk related to biodiversity loss originates from UK investments in industries threatening nature overseas

In fact, the impact of biodiversity loss is as much of a threat to the UK economy as climate change. Research shows nature loss linked to deforestation could cause a 12% hit to the country’s GDP – larger than the impact of the global financial crisis or COVID-19.

Our research found that British banks and asset managers provided around $16.6 billion to some of the world’s worst deforesting companies from 2016 to 2020. This made the UK the third biggest investor in those companies, behind only China and the United States.


BRITISH BANKS AND ASSET MANAGERS PROVIDED AROUND $16.6 BILLION TO SOME OF THE WORLD’S WORST DEFORESTING COMPANIES FROM 2016 TO 2020. SHOMOS UDDIN / GETTY

And a recent report by Greenpeace with Global Witness found that the UK remains a huge provider of financial services to companies that are endangering ecosystems worldwide.

The UK has already pledged to make sure finance protects instead of harms nature by 2030, as a part of the Global Biodiversity Framework – known as the “Paris Agreement for nature”. Later this year, world leaders will convene to review their progress towards this goal.

This makes an upcoming Treasury review of deforestation finance a major opportunity for Labour to show it can live up to its promise to restore nature and make the UK the “green finance capital of the world.”

Labour were instrumental in achieving this review. Last year, they and the Liberal Democrats defeated the government in a vote to introduce a new law to stop British financial institutions funding deforesting businesses.

They need to stand by this position and ensure their manifesto pledge to make big businesses produce climate transition plans – a type of strategy for how they will reach net zero – include mandatory targets to become deforestation-free too.

We’re not alone in this belief. Financial institutions representing more than £2.7 trillion backed our campaign for a new due diligence law, calling for a regime change where no one is profiting from deforestation.

Labour can use its bold promises of climate leadership to make this a reality. There will be no end to the nature emergency and climate crisis unless the UK stops fuelling global deforestation.


Author

Alexandria Reid
Senior Global Policy Adviser, 
UK
Sir Keir Starmer on collision course with trade unions - after warning he will reject their demands on public sector pay


By JASON GROVES IN WASHINGTON DC
DAILY  MAIL
PUBLISHED 11 July 2024

Sir Keir Starmer was on collision course with trade unions last night after warning he will reject their demands on public sector pay.

The Prime Minister said the 'very poor state' of nation's finances meant the government would not be able to afford bumper pay rises for six million public sector workers.

Speaking to journalists at the Nato summit in Washington, Sir Keir said the government would prioritise 'economic stability' to bring down 'punishing' mortgage rates.

Unions have signalled that they want the new Labour government to open the spending taps and sign off big pay increases for the public sector after years of tight settlements under the Conservatives.

But the PM warned they should not expect their demands to be met, adding: 'Obviously, there are a number of pay settlements to be gone through on the annual basis. But the finances are in a very poor state, I think that is obvious.

Sir Keir Starmer was on collision course with trade unions last night after warning he will reject their demands on public sector pay

Daniel Kebede, NEU general secretary (pictured in 2019), said the education system was already at 'breaking point'

'And that's why we've been careful in what we said going into the election, and we'll be careful what we say coming out of it.'

Public sector pay deals cover almost six million workers including doctors, nurses, teaches, the police and the armed forces.

Mick Lynch leads calls for Labour to get more radical as hard-left pile pressure on Keir Starmer


The National Education Union has warned it could call industrial action unless teachers get at least four per cent - double the rate of inflation.

The Royal College of Nursing has said its members expect a rise 'substantially' above inflation.

Union leaders reacted angrily to Sir Keir's stance last night.

Daniel Kebede, NEU general secretary, said the education system was already at 'breaking point'.

'This is not what we want to hear from the new Prime Minister,' he said. 'We expect an above inflation teacher pay offer that is fully funded. Failing to provide properly funded pay increases will have severe costs in terms of recruitment, retention and the delivery of education.

'Education is already at breaking point. Another below inflation pay rise will break it.'

Junior doctors and consultants from the BMA at a picket line outside University College London Hospital during a three-day joint walkout in October

Sharon Graham, Unite general secretary said: 'The biggest crisis facing the NHS and other public sector areas is the inability to recruit and retain workers, caused by many years of pay freezes and below inflation pay rises'

Sharon Graham, Unite general secretary said: 'The biggest crisis facing the NHS and other public sector areas is the inability to recruit and retain workers, caused by many years of pay freezes and below inflation pay rises. Experienced staff are leaving the NHS in droves.


'If we don't sort out the crisis of people, we won't sort out the crisis in the NHS. New scanners need staff to operate them. Whatever the plan, it will need more money. This is the undeniable fact.'

Sir Keir indicated that stabilising the public finances in order to bring down the cost of living was the government's focus.

He said previous turmoil had sent mortgage rates 'through the roof', adding: 'Economic stability is the first step when it comes to growth of our economy. We need that stability in order to ensure that we can bring mortgages down.

'They are punishing people, I mean people coming off fixed-rate mortgages are almost invariably having to pay hundreds of pounds more per month. And for - there's too many examples I have given to too many people before - of people on even dual incomes into their house who can't afford the mortgage.

'We (also) need to stabilise the economy for a secondary reason and that is to attract investment in and that will only come if there is a stable economic environment.'



RMT to ballot ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper staff on strike action

The trade union announced it is balloting staff working for ScotRail and on the Caledonian Sleeper – both of which are publicly owned.


PA Media
Strike: The RMT criticised the most recent pay offer as 'derisory'.

Craig Meighan
JULY 11,2024

ScotRail workers and staff on the Caledonian Sleeper are being balloted for strike action in the wake of a pay offer union bosses have branded as “derisory”.

The RMT union announced it would be balloting rail workers after staff working for both organisations received what it called “well below inflation derisory offers” which did not “fully reward members for their hard work and dedication”.

Ballots will open next Thursday and will run until August 8, the union said.

With both ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper – which runs overnight services between various Scottish cities and London – publicly owned, the union said the pay rises offered to its members were “even more unpalatable” when compared with the 6.7% increase in MSPs’ wages this year.

RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: “It is ludicrous that the MSPs ultimately responsible for running these services were taking bumper pay rises whilst subjecting workers to significant hardship during a cost-of-living crisis.”

Confirmation of the RMT ballot comes after the Aslef union claimed it was “unacceptable” for ScotRail to cut Sunday rail services by half due to staff shortages linked to an ongoing pay dispute.

The rail operator confirmed it is planning to operate between just 50% and 60% of services scheduled on Sundays due to a shortage of drivers volunteering to work overtime.

It comes days after ScotRail introduced a new temporary timetable, with about 26% of Monday to Saturday services cut.

But ScotRail said about half of its 1,100 Sunday services will need to be cut to provide “certainty” to passengers.

The pay dispute comes as drivers’ union Aslef confirmed it was considering whether to ballot members on industrial action, with another union, the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) also considering action.

A 9% pay increase offered by ScotRail in six stages over three years has been rejected, with many drivers refusing to work extra overtime shifts in the meantime.

The offer would have been paid in a 2% increase across April in three years to 2026 as well as a further 1% rise in January in 2025, 2026 and 2027.

A Transport Scotland spokesperson said: “While train planning and staff rotas are operational matters for ScotRail, we fully expect any timetable to give the best reliability and availability for passengers and that changes are communicated well in advance to enable effective journey planning.

“We acknowledge the desire of rail unions to negotiate a fair settlement for their members.

“ScotRail, as a public body and the employer, has responsibility and the ability to negotiate within the limits of public sector pay metrics.

“However, as rail unions have been made aware, any offer beyond these requires Scottish Government approval at senior level following the appropriate process.

“We would encourage rail unions to continue meaningful dialogue with ScotRail, so that a mutually agreeable outcome can be reached as soon as possible.”

UK

Open letter to Starmer calls for an end to the privatisation of water – We Own It

“Water companies are in environmental and financial crisis. Every penny of investment to date has been covered by our bills. The public and our rivers and seas must not be asked to bailout failing shareholders.”

By We Own It

On the 35th anniversary of water privatisation we sent an open letter to our new government, calling for a root-and-branch review of the water industry. The Guardian has featured the letter today, which has been signed by an array of campaigning groups, academics, and celebrities, and you can read it in full here:

Dear Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Secretary of State Steve Reed,

Saturday 6th July marked 35 years since the Water Act 1989 established our current model of water and sewage management, including privatisation and top-down regulation.

The system has clearly failed.

Bills have risen at twice the rate of inflation. No new drinking reservoirs have been delivered. A quarter of our supply leaks out of our pipes. Debts are unpaid; plans ‘uninvestable.’ And last year, operators released sewage for over 3 million hours into our rivers and seas.

Your election offers a chance to set things right. But if the current failed model remains in place, Labour could be fighting the next election with some bills topping £915 a year and sewage a greater threat to our health than ever.

In just four days, Ofwat will sign off draft plans from the water and sewage companies, including their investment plans and proposals for a further 26% real increase in bills over the next 5 years.

Water companies are in environmental and financial crisis. Every penny of investment to date has been covered by our bills. The public and our rivers and seas must not be asked to bailout failing shareholders, through higher bills, lower standards, or state-restructuring.

We are asking you to pause the current price setting process and start a root-and-branch public review of ownership and regulation immediately, including consultation with water campaigners, trade union representatives, and bills payers. We call for an interim decision in your first 100 days to unlock funding for urgent projects during the remaining review stages and transition phase.

The current model is not delivering higher or cheaper investment against alternatives, with new research suggesting £85 billion has been extracted from the industry since privatisation.

No other country in the world runs water and sewage in the way we do: 90 per cent is publicly owned and delivered. We believe a review of ownership, including devolving ownership to regional authorities, must be included.

Regulation has been flawed, captured, and underfunded: a constant threat of the current model. Accountability must be reviewed, including putting community representatives on company boards and using “sunshine regulation” to deliver greater transparency.

Charles Watson, Chair and Founder of River Action UK, has already warned MPs: “someone is going to die.” We simply do not have time to waste.

Please, immediately begin a root-and-branch review of water ownership and regulation and pause the failed Ofwat price setting process until an indicative decision is made in your first 100 days.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Fry
Joe Lycett
Michael Rosen
Nish Kumar
Samuel West
Rosie Holt
Dr Doug Parr, Policy Director, Greenpeace UK
James Wallace, Chief Executive, River Action UK
Mark Lloyd, CEO, The Rivers Trust
Dani Jordan, Director of Campaigns and Communities, Surfers Against Sewage
Hugo Tagholm, Executive Director, Oceana UK
Cat Hobbs, Director, We Own It
Ed Acteson, Co-Founder, SOS Whitstable
Ash Smith, Co-Founder, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution
Prof. Becky Malby, Campaigner, Ilkley Clean River Campaign
Deborah Meara, Campaigner, Save Our Swale
Katy Colley, Co-Founder, Boycott Water Bills
Dr Felicity Laurence, Co-Founder, Hastings Boycotts Southern Water
Chris Dady, Chair, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Norfolk)
Paul Steedman, Director, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Sussex)
Alan Smith, Managing Director, Water-People Ltd
Simon Coop, National Officer (Energy & Utilities), Unite
Gary Carter, National Officer, GMB
Kathy Whysall, Member, Oxford Rivers Improvement Campaign
The Henley Mermaids
Take Back Water


 UK

Polluting water firms’ bonuses revealed – and how much you’re paying for them


Water firm bosses continue to enjoy huge pay packets - despite pleading with regulator to impose bigger increases on customers

Water companies are set to increase their bills across England and Wales by an average of £94 in the next five years, as the under-fire firms try to improve failing infrastructure.

The water giants are under huge pressure to invest money in the creaking sewage system, following public outrage over the amount of waste getting pumped into the nation’s rivers, lakes and seas.

These companies are allowed to spill untreated sewage from storm overflows during periods of intense rainfall to prevent their systems from becoming overwhelmed.


i revealed on Wednesday that the Government will force the water firms to return money that is not spent on upgrading their sewerage networks to customers.

The bill increases approved by regulator Ofwat are less than a third of what the water companies had asked for. Water bosses had been keen to impose even larger hikes on customers to help pay for upgrades.

It comes despite huge bonuses for the companies’ chief executives over the last year – with some enjoying hundreds of thousands of pounds in top-ups, which took some of their annual pay packets to more than £1m each.

Here has set out how each water company contributed to polluting rivers last year, how much bills are set to increase – and how much they have paid out in bonuses:


United Utilities

United Utilities performed worst out of any water company last year in terms of sewage pollution, according to the Environment Agency, with 45.4 spills per storm overflow and more than 650,000 hours of monitored spill events in 2023.

Customers’ bills at United Utilities are set to increase by 21 per cent by 2030, from £442 to £536 – up by £94.

The company’s chief executive Louise Beardmore got a £420,000 annual bonus in 2023/24 – part of an overall pay packet of more than £1.4m.

It is down slightly on previous chief executive Steve Mogford’s £426,000 bonus the previous year, which was part of his £2.2m pay packet.

BILLS: Set to rise by 21 per cent

CEO BONUS: Down by 1.4 per cent

South West Water

South West Water, owned by Pennon, had 43.4 spills per overflow and 317,285 total hours of sewage spills. The company is facing a legal challenge over spills on the Devon coast.

Meanwhile, South West Water bills are set to increase by 12 per cent by 2030, from £497 to £561, up by £64.

The company’s chief executive Susan Davy was in line to receive a total pay packet of £860,000 in 2023/24 – up from £543,000 the previous year.

But she opted not to take a bonus for a second year running, amid criticism of pollution levels. The £298,000 she received under a long-term incentive plan was diverted to a company scheme for shareholders.

BILLS: Set to rise by 12 per cent

CEO BONUS: No change.

Yorkshire Water

Yorkshire Water had the third highest level of spills in England and Wales last year, with 35.9 spills per overflow and 516,386 hours in total.

Yorkshire Water’s bills are set for a 25 per cent increase by 2030, from £430 to £537 – up by £107.

Chief executive Nicola Shaw saw her basic pay increase from £515,000 to £585,000 in 2023/24. She was awarded £371,000 as part of the company’s short-term “executive incentive plan”.

She had opted to forgo her bonus the previous year, amid criticism of the company’s performance over sewage.

BILLS: Set to rise by 25 per cent

CEO INCENTIVE: £371,000.

Welsh Water

Welsh Water had 35 spills per overflow in 2023 for its operations in England, according to the Environment Agency. They accounted for 23,354 hours of spills in total.

Bills are set to increase by 29 per cent increase by 2030 from £466 to £603 – up £137.

Welsh Water’s CEO Peter Perry received a £91,000 bonus in “annual variable pay” in 2023/24, part of his £489,000 pay packet. He had refused a bonus the previous year, amid public outcry over the state of Britain’s rivers.

BILLS: Set to rise by 29 per cent

CEO BONUS: Up from zero to £91,000.

Wessex Water

Wessex Water had 32 spills per overflow in 2023, with 372,341 hours of spills, watchdog figures show.

Customers are set for a 2 per cent reduction in their bills by 2030 from £508 to £497.

The company’s chief executive Colin Skellett decided to forgo any bonus in 2023/24, amid criticism over pollution. He received a £120,000 bonus the previous year. His basic pay of £290,000 remained unchanged.

BILLS: Set to decrease by 2 per cent

CEO BONUS: Down from £120,000 to zero.

Southern Water

Southern Water saw average spills of 30.7 per overflow in 2023, spilling for 317,285 hours in total.

Customers’ bills for the company, owned by the Australian conglomerate Macquarie, are set to increase 44 per cent by 2030, from £420 to £603 – up by £183.

The company’s chief executive Lawrence Gosden received a £183,000 bonus for 2023/24, having declined a bonus the previous year. His total pay packet – including base salary, bonus and pension benefits – rose from £427,000 to £764,000.

BILLS: Set to rise by 44 per cent

CEO BONUS: Up from zero to £183,000.

Northumbrian Water

Northumbrian Water recorded 30.1 spills per overflow over the course of 2023, spilling for 280,029 hours in total.

Customers’ bills are set to increase by 11 per cent by 2030 from £415 to £460, which is up by £45.

Chief executive Heidi Mottram received a bonus of £234,000 in 2023/24 – up from £215,000 the previous year. Her overall pay packet rose from £781,000 to £842,000.

BILLS: Set to rise by 11 per cent

CEO BONUS: Up by 8.8 per cent

Thames Water

Thames Water, the embattled giant of the UK water industry, is teetering on the edge of collapse, with negotiations with Ofwat still ongoing.

It saw 27.9 spills per overflow, for a total of 196,414 hours. Thames Water bills are set to increase 23 per cent by 2030 from £436 to £535, up £99.

Chief executive Chris Weston took a £195,000 bonus 2023/24, with his total annual pay packet being £437,000.

Previous boss Sarah Bentley opted to refuse her bonus last year, as the company was heavily criticised for sewage pollution.

BILLS: Set to rise by 23 per cent

CEO BONUS: Up from zero to £195,000

Severn Trent

Severn Trent performed second best of the water companies for average spills, averaging only 24.9 spills per overflow.

Earlier this year the company was fined £2m for allowing huge amounts of raw sewage to discharge into the River Trent.

The company’s bills are set to rise by 23 per cent by 2030, from £403 to £496, up by £93.

Bills for Hafren Dyfrdwy (Severn Dee) customers, part of Severn Trent in Wales, are set to rise by 32 per cent by 2030, from £396 to £524.

Severn Trent’s chief Liv Garfield was handed a £584,000 bonus for 2023/24, up from £358,000 the previous year. Her overall pay packet rose slightly to almost £3.2m.

BILLS: Set to rise by 23 per cent

CEO BONUS: Up by 63.1 per cent

Anglian Water

Anglian Water performed best out of any water company when it comes to sewage spills, averaging 22.2 spills per overflow, spilling for 273,163 hours in total.

The company charges for customers are set to increase by 13 per cent by 2030, from £491 to £557, up by £66.

The company’s chief executive Peter Simpson took bonus and deferred bonus payments of £455,000, down from £517,000 the year before.

BILLS: Set to rise by 13 per cent

CEO BONUS: Down by 12 per cent

UK

Belief that NHS will be there for people when they need it down considerably, study finds

Concerns about the availability of appointments and NHS systems are deterring some from getting GP care

NHS sign

Belief that the NHS will be there for people when they need it has fallen considerably over the last 16 years in Britain, a new study has found.

Between 2008 and 2024, the share of Britons who agreed with this view declined from 82% to 66%. Around one in five (18%) people now feel the NHS won’t be there for them when they need it – double the 9% who held this view in 2008.

The research, by the Policy Institute at King’s College London, King’s Business School and Ipsos, also looks at reported experiences of the health service, finding half the population say they’ve decided against seeing an NHS GP about a health condition in the last year.

Those who didn’t contact their GP for various reasons – such as because they thought they wouldn’t get through on the phone, waiting lists would be too long, or because they didn’t think the NHS would provide good care – are even more likely to disagree the NHS will there for them when they need it.

These latest findings are based on data from a survey of 2,251 people aged 16-75 in Great Britain shortly before the election, between 21 and 24 June.

Half the population say they’ve decided against seeing a GP about a health condition in the last year…

50% of the British population say they had a health condition or issue in the last 12 months that they thought of contacting their GP practice about, but didn’t.

Women (54%) are more likely than men (45%) to say they decided against contacting their GP about a condition, as are those aged 44 and below (59%) compared with older age groups (42%).

…often due to concerns about the availability of appointments and NHS systems

Around a third (37%) of those who didn’t contact their GP say it was because they thought their condition wasn’t very serious or that they could treat it themselves – the top answer given – but similar proportions say they did so because they didn’t think they’d be able to get an appointment (32%), that they wouldn’t be able to get through to the GP practice on the phone (30%), or that waiting times would be too long (28%).

Women (37%) more likely than men (26%) to report not contacting their GP because of a worry about the availability of appointments, while those aged 35 to 54 (37%) are more likely than those aged 55 to 75 (23%) to think they wouldn’t get through on the phone.

Those who didn’t contact their GP about a condition for various reasons are more likely to feel they won’t be able to rely on the NHS when the time comes

People who considered contacting their GP about a health condition before deciding against it (22%) are slightly more likely than the public overall (18%) to disagree that the NHS will be there for them when they need it.

And this rises even higher when looking at those who were put off by long waiting times or concerns about getting an appointment. For example, around a third (32%) of those who believed they wouldn’t get through to their GP on phone do not think they’ll be able to rely on the health service – nearly double the proportion of the public as a whole (18%) who feel this way.

People are looking after themselves at home, seeking advice from the internet, friends and family, or pharmacists instead of seeing GPs

Four in 10 (40%) of those who didn’t bother contacting their GP say they looked after themselves at home instead – the top answer given.

Around two-thirds – 65% – say they sought help or advice from other sources, including the internet, pharmacists or friends and family.

Nearly half say their condition hasn’t improved or has worsened

Of those who considered contacting their GP but didn’t, 45% report that their condition is about the same or worse since they thought about seeking care.

31% say their condition has either gone completely or is much better, while 23% say it’s only a bit better.

And those who give certain reasons for not contacting their GP are more likely to say their condition remained the same or deteriorated. For example, 56% of those who thought the surgery wouldn’t have enough appointments said their condition had remained the same or worsened, as did 57% who thought the NHS wouldn’t provide good care.

One in four say this experience has made them view the NHS more negatively – though a similar share say it’s made them more positive towards it

Among those who decided against contacting their GP about a condition, 27% say the experience has given them a more negative view of the NHS, compared with 22% who say they feel more positively towards it as a result – but the most common response, given by half (50%), is that the experience has not changed perceptions of the health service.

Gerry McGivern, Professor in Public Services Management & Organisation at King’s Business School, said:

“Our new health secretary has pledged to ‘fix the front door to the NHS’, by diverting funding to GPs. Our new survey, conducted just before the general election, shows how vital that could be.”

Dr Sam Van Elk, Lecturer in Management and Organisation at King’s Business School, said:

“Half of the public say they have considered contacting their GP about a health condition, but then didn’t, with many reporting that this is because they didn’t think there would be any appointments, that waiting times would be too long, or they wouldn’t get through to the GP surgery. While much of this forgone care will be for relatively minor conditions, and people can get help elsewhere, nearly half of those who didn’t contact their GP say their condition has not improved or got worse. And, of course, some of these people may then need hospital care, which might have been prevented if they had seen their GP earlier.”

Bobby Duffy, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, said:

“We have seen a significant decline in public confidence that our health services will be there when we need them over the last 16 years. Back in 2008, eight in 10 of us agreed the NHS would be there when we needed it – but that has fallen to just two-thirds now. There will be a number of reasons for this decline, but faltering belief that we can access our GPs as a first step in our care is very likely to be part of the explanation – a third of those who didn’t contact their GP because they didn’t think they’d get through disagree that the NHS will be there for them, almost twice the level we see across the population as a whole. Increasing resources to frontline GP services is therefore a vital challenge for the new government to address, not just to deliver better and more efficient care, but to help restore confidence in the NHS as a whole.”

Anna Quigley, Head of Ipsos’ Health and Social Care team, said:

“We know difficulties getting a GP appointment frequently top the list of people’s grievances with the NHS, and there are high levels of dissatisfaction about this. This latest research shows low expectations mean some people do not even try to see a GP, and are lacking confidence that the NHS will be there when they need it. It’s no surprise, then, that we also see in other research that the public want the government to prioritise improving access to GPs over access to hospital treatment.”

Survey details
Ipsos interviewed a representative sample of 2,252 people aged 16-75 across the UK. Polling was conducted online between 21 and 24 June 2024. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error.


Maternity improvements have stalled, says inquiry lead

By Rob Sissons & Verity Cowley, 

BBC News, Nottingham
JULY 11, 2024
BBC
Donna Ockenden launched the inquiry into Nottingham's maternity services in September 2022

Improvements at a hospital trust that is being investigated over maternity failings have "stalled", an inquiry chief has said.

Senior midwife Donna Ockenden has been examining how hundreds of babies died or were injured under the care of Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) NHS Trust.

She said the trust needed to "get back on track" after receiving recent reports of poor standards from concerned families.

The cases of 1,925 families are being reviewed as part of the inquiry.



Ms Ockenden's comments come after it was revealed that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out an unannounced inspection at the Queen's Medical Centre and City Hospital in June.

Staff bypassed management and raised concerns directly with the watchdog regarding the numbers, skills and experience of staff.
PA Media
An independent review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust is ongoing

Ms Ockenden said the trust was “over-relying” on newly-qualified midwives.

“The findings of the CQC mirror the interim findings and the ongoing work that we are doing around staffing,” she said.

“I am absolutely clear that the trust wants to do the best it can but I think progress has stalled.

"Staff are telling me not enough is being done around skill mix and the juniority of the workforce.

“They are over-relying on newly-qualified midwives who are not appropriately supported."

The CQC report has not yet been published but limited findings were disclosed in NUH board papers.

Concerns had been raised around staffing levels and that the mix of workers’ skills had been insufficient during the health watchdog’s visit.

The independent investigation has been exploring stillbirths, antenatal and neonatal deaths, injured babies and mothers, and maternal deaths dating back more than a decade.

'We are exhausted'


Ms Ockenden said parents who had received maternity care under NUH in recent months had reported concerns to her regarding “a lack of compassion” and poor hygiene on some wards.

Families had also shown her imagery detailing “the poor state” of some areas where bereavement care was provided, she added.

Ms Ockenden said she kept receiving the same feedback from families despite reporting similar issues to the trust in the past.

“The feeling of staff on the ground is that they’re giving of their best,” she said. “They have asked me to tell local people that 'we are exhausted, we are on our knees, but we are genuinely giving of our best'.

“My disappointment is that the feedback I heard from families [on Wednesday] is the same feedback that I provided to the trust up to 18 months ago.

"There remains an awful lot to do."

The trust said an action plan to address any levels of concern had been created and will be monitored through its Maternity Improvement Programme.

Despite concerns raised in the report around staffing, Tracy Pilcher, chief nurse at NUH, said there had been “some key areas of continued improvement” in the CQC’s feedback.

She added: “[The feedback] included improvements to our risk assessments and documentation, positive feedback from the majority of our mothers and the response from our staff.

“However, we know that there is still some way to go, and we are thankful for the feedback and input from the CQC in identifying areas where we do need to continue to focus our improvement.”

The inquiry, which began in September 2022 and looks to establish the extent of avoidable harm that happened, is on track to be published in September 2025.