A second debate on South West Water’s record was hurriedly arranged to take place before MPs break up yet again. 

As a consequence of verbose schoolboy debating antics from the proposer, Mr Liddell-Grainger MP (Bridgwater and West Somerset), and nothing new from the Minister replying to him, the debate ran out of time and lapsed. 

Mr Liddell-Grainger’s seat is being redrawn and he is now the prospective Tory candidate for the new Tiverton & Minehead constituency, which may explain a lot.

The debate achieved nothing more than puff a few Conservative egos.

For example Mr Liddell-Grainger managed to insert this piece of totally irrelevant electioneering propaganda into his speech:

“That reminds me that there is in Tiverton an almost dead building firm called 3 Rivers Developments. It was conceived by senior officers in Mid Devon District Council, next to the Exe. They thought it would solve their financial problems. They have never built a Lego house, never mind a real one. They do not have a clue. Six years and £21 million later, the company is stony broke.”

What prompted this urgent debate?

A couple of weeks ago ago Owl reported that Mr Liddell-Grainger MP had made a scathing attack on South West Water (SWW) and its Chair, saying, in Parliament:

“She is running a mob that has convictions for polluting rivers, pays its top gun criminal bonuses and, despite the wettest July on record, still has a hosepipe ban. It is operating like a mafia.

“This is absolutely appalling. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on these ruddy water companies, who are blackmailing their customers and parliamentarians to stop the truth coming out?”

Mr Liddell-Grainger, remember, was the chair of Simon Jupp’s previous February Westminster Hall debate on SWW, used by both of them to indulge in political point scoring, thereby also achieving nothing of consequence.

The Debate (Link to Hansard)

On Tuesday 19 September Mr Liddell-Grainger (Landed Gentry according to Wikipedia) was granted a half hour slot for another Westminster Hall debate.

His opening harumph which did no more than repeat SWW’s well known failures in the style of a schoolboy from the lower fourth debating society took half of the 30 minutes allotted to the debate. 

The other half was taken by a “reply” from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Rebecca Pow. She listed all the actions the Government has taken (mostly only recently). Here is a sample quote: 

“No Government have ever done as much as this Government are doing to tackle storm overflows. In 2013, the Government set out expectations that water companies must monitor the vast majority of those combined sewer overflows, as I referenced earlier. It is that monitoring that has meant that regulators understand the scale of combined sewer overflow discharges and can take stronger action within the existing legal framework.

In 2022, the Government launched the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. Our strict targets will see the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills and will require water companies to deliver the largest infrastructure project in water company history—that is, £56 billion by 2050….”

In between, the only other speaker in the “debate”, Richard Foord, managed to put his finger two relevant issues but didn’t get answers.

At around half time when Richard Foord asked Liddell-Grainger if he would “give way” he did so saying:

“I give way to the Member for the women’s auxiliary ballerina corps.”

Yes, seriously, it’s on the record – Owl

Richard Foord’s point was:

“The hon. Member is giving a bombastic speech of which the late Lord Flashheart would have been very proud. What does he think of the actions of the Government in this space? Although he seeks to shift the blame on to water companies or regulators, the Government ultimately have the responsibility for the regulation of South West Water and for holding it to account.”

This was met by more bluster.

At one point the Minister said:

“The Environment Agency is investigating that (discharge at Harlyn bay, Cornwall). Clearly, action can be taken only if we have the evidence and if there is an issue. There is a permit system and there are exemptions for extreme weather—we know why that is in place—but I have asked the CEO to ensure that, should pollution be identified, signage is put on the beach so that it is made very clear to bathers and surfers alike. They have taken up my point.”

So Richard Foord asked this question:

“I heard the Minister say a moment ago that enforcement action can only take place where there is evidence. Is it the case that the Minister does not have sufficient evidence for enforcement action to take place against South West Water?”

Here is the Minister’s response:

“it would need to stand up in court if the EA chose to prosecute any of the cases raised by the BBC. If it stands up in court and the information is there, of course the EA will take action if it finds non-compliance.”

Owl’s take

The Tories are still in denial over the consequences of privatisation and the effect austerity cuts have had on regulators, trying to blame everyone else.

“If this is true, the decision will cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future.

“It will potentially destabilise thousands of jobs and see investment go elsewhere. And ultimately, the people who will pay the price for this will be householders, whose bills will remain higher as a result of inefficient fossil fuels and being dependent on volatile international fossil fuel prices.” Chris Skidmore, a Conservative former energy minister.

Sophie Wingate www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak risks sparking a furious Tory party row as he signalled plans to water down the government’s net zero pledges.

The prime minister confirmed he would use a speech in the coming days to announce a major shift in the Tory party’s approach to green policy, saying he wants to achieve net zero in a more “proportionate way”.

It comes after the BBC said it had seen documents suggesting that changes could be made to as many as seven core commitments, including weakening the plan to phase out gas boilers from 2035 and delaying the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars – currently due to come into force in 2030 – by five years.

Confirming the reports on possible changes to policy, Mr Sunak said: “We are committed to net zero by 2050 and the agreements we have made internationally – but doing so in a better, more proportionate way.

“Our politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment.”

It is also understood that some Tory MPs are considering submitting letters of no confidence in the prime minister if he goes ahead with the changes.

Mr Sunak has repeatedly deployed the language of pragmatism and proportionality when discussing net zero, but campaigners and activists have charged him with displaying a lack of interest in climate policies.

Tory success in the summer’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election, won largely through a campaign against the expansion of the ultra-low-emission zone, has led some MPs to call for Mr Sunak to water down or abandon Britain’s net zero pledges.

While Mr Sunak has repeatedly said he is committed to cutting carbon emissions, the granting of new oil and gas licences for the North Sea and recent moves to curb green policies have attracted criticism.

Chris Skidmore, a Conservative former energy minister who has become increasingly outspoken on net zero, told reporters: “If this is true, the decision will cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future.

“It will potentially destabilise thousands of jobs and see investment go elsewhere. And ultimately, the people who will pay the price for this will be householders, whose bills will remain higher as a result of inefficient fossil fuels and being dependent on volatile international fossil fuel prices.

“Rishi Sunak still has time to think again and not make the greatest mistake of his premiership, condemning the UK to missing out on what can be the opportunity of the decade to deliver growth, jobs and future prosperity.”

Hannah Martin, a co-director of Green New Deal Rising, said: “Once again this government has shown that they are hell-bent on breaking their promises and doing nothing to stop climate chaos. Just weeks after the hottest summer on record, Rishi Sunak has decided to ignore science and stoke a culture war.

“Whilst global leaders are meeting to discuss how to tackle the climate crisis, he has stayed home to set fire to some of the only remaining climate policies this government had left.

“Not only will the UK miss out on the opportunity to create millions of good green jobs and secure our energy future, we will be once again seen as a laggard as we duck out of doing our fair share to tackle the biggest existential crisis we face.”

Greenpeace UK’s policy director, Doug Parr, said rowing back on such policies would only ensure “we stay at the mercy of volatile fossil fuels and exploitative energy companies”.

“The many scandals we face, like the cost of living, inequality, and the energy crisis, can be fixed with the same solutions we know will tackle the climate crisis. Sunak must explain how we will meet our net zero commitments by rowing back on all of the policies to get us anywhere near it.”

And Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said that backpedalling on energy efficiency would only leave the poorest with higher bills. “All of this would leave us more dependent on foreign oil and gas, less energy independent, and with investors spooked, putting jobs in the industries of the future in jeopardy,” she said.

A government spokesperson said: “The government remains completely committed to its net zero commitments, with the UK having cut emissions faster than any other G7 country. Our approach will always be pragmatic and ensure costs are not passed on to hard-working families.

“We will not comment on speculation.”

A grammar school in Devon is the latest to be confirmed as having been constructed using reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, known as RAAC. Colyton Grammar School, located in the village of Colyford in East Devon, has confirmed the areas affected in the school have been closed for safety.

Elliot Ball www.devonlive.com

RAAC has been deemed dangerous by the government due to its tendency to crumble. Overall, 174 education settings in England have been confirmed with Raac as of September 14.

A spokesperson for Colyton Grammar School said: “We can confirm the existence of RAAC in a small part of our estate, and the affected areas are now closed. We are working with the DfE and related experts to mitigate the issue and to minimise the impact on students’ learning.”

DevonLive has also contacted Colyton Grammar School for comment. Elsewhere, Petroc College, situated in both Barnstaple and Tiverton, has also been impacted by RAAC.

At the start of September, principal and chief executive Dr Sean Mackney confirmed there had been two areas of concern detected. Like Colyton Grammar School, both areas were closed off to students, staff and visitors.

Discussing the dangers of RAAC, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said: “We are taking a cautious approach so every parent in England can be reassured their child is safe in their school. School and local leaders deserve huge credit for making sure the vast majority of settings with confirmed Raac are continuing to offer pupils face-to-face learning – including all of the 147 schools initially identified two weeks ago.

Liz Truss has been claiming from the £115,000-a-year public fund awarded to former prime ministers to run their offices, despite only serving for 49 days.

Sam Blewett www.independent.co.uk

Cabinet Office accounts released on Tuesday show that the Conservative MP claimed £23,310 in her first five months out of office.

It was understood she has continued to claim in the current financial year that started in April, but the sum will not be disclosed until next year’s report.

Ms Truss’s office declined to comment.

After she announced her resignation, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was among those arguing that Ms Truss should “turn it down” because of the brief time spent in No 10.

The Liberal Democrats’ Cabinet Office spokeswoman Christine Jardine urged Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to “do the right thing and stop Liz Truss from claiming taxpayers’ cash from the ex-PM fund”.

“It’s an outrage that while families struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table, Liz Truss profits from her own failure,” she said.

“If Liz Truss wants to cut tax she should lead by example and stop taking hardworking British taxpayers for a ride by claiming handouts.”

The Public Duty Cost Allowance affords former prime ministers up to £115,000 a year to cover office and secretarial costs arising from public duties.

Applicable costs including those for running an office, handling correspondence as an ex-PM and for support with visits.

Sir Tony Blair and Sir John Major were the only former leaders to claim the maximum amount in 2022/23, though Gordon Brown was close on £114,627.

Ms Truss’s chaotic tenure in No 10 ended on October 25 after losing the support of Tory MPs.

On Monday she defended her economic crisis-inducing mini-budget a year on from her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng unveiling the £45 billion package of unfunded tax cuts.

She hit out at economists and “institutional bureaucracy” for her downfall as she hinted at further plans to intervene in Tory politics at the party conference next month.

The Cabinet Office accounts also detailed the total cost of Boris Johnson’s taxpayer-funded legal defence to the inquiry that found he lied to MPs over partygate.

The final cost was put at £263,079, in line with what the department had previously revealed.

The public spending watchdog questioned the decision to use taxpayers’ money for Mr Johnson’s lawyers.

National Audit Office chief Gareth Davies said he looked at the spending because while the amount was “not quantitatively material” in the wider scale of the Cabinet Office’s finances, there was “significant public interest as to whether these costs are a legitimate use of public money”.

He said the arguments put forward to justify the spending – including that similar legal support had been provided to ministers appearing before public inquiries – were not “wholly persuasive” and it was a “borderline” judgment.

This time he’s really talking rubbish! – Owl

Text of recent Facebook page from Paul Hayward, Independent Cllr, Deputy Leader EDDC. 

“You may have seen a recent post promoting the campaign of a certain local MP by a colleague in the same party which criticised the district council for low flytipping enforcement numbers.

The photos below (screenshots from relevant articles) go some way to explain why the statistics published by the MP (and shared without question) should be taken with a pinch of salt and read in the context of a forthcoming general election.

But, the facts are simple. Devon County Council refuses to permit trade waste disposal and recycling at its waste centres in East Devon. It levies some of the highest charges for household waste disposal of common household items. This is what causes fly-tipping. Devon County Council POLICY.

Not the authority that has to pick up the waste from laybys and streets, but gets virtually no money from DCC to do so. Not the farmers and landowners who have to pay to have flytipped material cleared from their private land.

It can be done differently but Councillors at DCC just stick their fingers in their ears and use the subject for electioneering- one might argue that they should have done something while they could instead of bleating about it now.

It can be done differently. Take Slough Borough Council. A builder can take their trade waste from a clients house to the tip. Their van is weighed in and weighed out. They pay a flat rate per tonne on the difference. They get a receipt and can give that to their client to get reimbursed. But, they don’t just dump it. No, they have to separate and recycle like everyone else. So, not only does Slough get paid for trade waste, they sell the tipped material for profit AND their fly-tipped rate is very low. Which means they save money too on the collection and disposal of fly-tipped waste. It’s a win-win-win. Because they provide the amenity for genuine builders, chippies, tilers, sparkys, plumbers, plasterers to use.

But Devon refuse to listen. Refuse to act. Refuse to help.

And so people take the law into their own hands under cover of darkness. We all pay the price of this rural blight and nuisance because the County Council is too insular, wooden and set in its ways to try a different approach. They’ve been asked multiple times, but they do NOTHING.

But, funnily enough, you don’t see the hopeful Tory candidate having a pop at the Tory run County Council. Strange huh?

It’s almost like they know that the problem is close to home, but they dare not rock the boat. The final photo also reveals that Government cuts (yes, a Tory government) are at the core of why local authorities down the line are struggling to cope).

Still, the facts speak for themselves.”