Water Pollution: East Durham

Debate between Jim Shannon and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is quite interesting that the subject of my Adjournment debate is dirty water; it might be appropriate. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to have this debate.

I want to start by correcting the parliamentary record. In a previous Opposition day debate on water quality, on Tuesday 5 December, I said:

“athletes fell ill from swimming in waters contaminated with E. coli”

and

“we know the source of the problem.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 288.]

Subsequently, in a letter dated 11 January 2024, Heidi Mottram CBE, the chief executive of Northumbrian Water, said my statement was factually incorrect. I am advised by Heidi Mottram CBE:

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) investigated the causes of illness in participants of the World Triathlon Championships Series in Sunderland, reporting in August 2023 with their preliminary findings. They found that 19 of the 31 of those affected had evidence of Norovirus infection, while the remaining samples either tested negative or were found to be positive for other infections, including sapovirus, astrovirus, and rotavirus. No evidence of E. coli O157/STEC was found, which can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Four samples of other E. coli were found, but it was not possible to link its presence with participation in the triathlon, and these strains can be carried naturally in the gut. The UKHSA report, concludes that ‘the predominance of Norovirus makes it the most likely explanation of illness in participants.’”

I am happy to share those comments from the Northumbrian Water chief executive in the interests of fairness.

However, the Environment Agency’s sampling at Roker beach on Wednesday 26 July—three days prior to the event—showed 3,900 E. coli colonies per 100 ml, which is almost 40 times higher than a typical reading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is right about the water pollution in east Durham; he is also right to underline the medical circumstances. I, too, represent a constituency with an enormous coastline that is highly reliant on the fishing and tourism sectors. Water pollution is a vital issue because it has an impact on our environment, as well as a direct impact on livelihoods. Does he agree that it is imperative to have Government support to deal with small pockets of pollution before they turn into large-scale environmental crises and medical problems, like those he referred to? To make that happen, it takes funding and a Government initiative.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My personal belief is that the privatised water companies have more than sufficient resources to address the issues if they prioritise infrastructure repair work and do the job that we, as customers, pay them to do.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be more than familiar with this, but in previous debates we heard about correlation and causation: one is a kind of coincidence, and the other is a direct link between one event and another. The samples I referred to, which were 39 times above the average level, were not in the body of the water that was used for the swim. That is absolutely correct. I am therefore sure that it is only a coincidence that high levels of E. coli were detected in a body of water near the swim event. There are no such things as tidal movements, are there? I do not know if they have them in Northern Ireland. There are no such things as prevailing winds, which would move a large body of E. coli into the swim area. I refer to the comments of the Australian triathlete Jake Birtwhistle. They are slightly unparliamentary, but he said:

“Have been feeling pretty rubbish since the race, but I guess that’s what you get when you swim in” —

S-H-1-T—

“the swim should have been cancelled.”

I hope Mr Birtwhistle is reassured by the comments of Northumbrian Water that the high levels of E. coli detected in the waters near to where the swim event took place had nothing to do with the sickness he experienced on the day of the racing.

I am disappointed that, in her letter to me, Heidi Mottram CBE failed to address any of the other issues that were raised in the debate on Tuesday 5 December. They included the issues of debt and dividends, investment, and how to regulate water companies to implement some level of corporate responsibility. The Guardian, which studied financial documents of all the privatised water companies from 1990 to 2023, said that Northumbrian Water is far from the worst-performing water company, which I think makes the following statistics really rather worrying. The Guardian found that 19% of Northumbrian Water’s consumer bill is spent servicing debt. The debt owed by Northumbrian Water is £3.5 billion. Over the same period, it paid £3.7 billion in shareholder dividends. Does the Minister think it is acceptable to use debt to pay shareholder dividends? As a consumer I am outraged, as I am sure are a large number of my constituents.

If this were any other product or service, I could choose to change suppliers. Even in the rail industry—heaven knows, I have been a critic of poor service—I at least have the opportunity to highlight to Ministers failing train operating companies and to advocate that they should be stripped of their contracts for failing to deliver for the travelling public. But water is unique. I can think of no other essential public service that has been privatised where there is no consumer choice or accountability. Water is a private monopoly and a natural monopoly that is essential for life. It is vital national infrastructure. The Government are entitled to impose a strict level of oversight and scrutiny.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister, I am sure, that I personally believe that water should be publicly owned, run in the national interest and deliver public policy goals. However, I accept that neither the Conservatives nor my own Labour Front Benchers have an appetite for a publicly owned water industry, so I want to propose an alternative. First, end the use of debt to pay for dividends. Secondly, prohibit the payment of dividends until debt goals are met. Any profit in the system must go towards water sewerage infrastructure and lowering debt.

Water companies are major polluters. Although Northumbrian Water is adamant about the Sunderland triathlon, there is no doubt that it is routinely polluting rivers and seas. In my constituency, the Safer Seas and Rivers Service app shows that there are three sewage overflows in my constituency, from which there were 184 sewage discharge alerts in 2023—almost one every third day. Northumbrian Water is not limiting these sewage overflows to rare and extreme weather conditions; it a matter of routine disposal of waste. My third proposal is that there should be no dividend payments until clean water targets are met. We need all available resources going towards improvement, upgrades and new infrastructure.

The promise of privatisation is always about improved standards, lower bills and more consumer choice, but experience suggests that the reverse happens: we get lower standards, higher bills and no choice. Therefore, the Government should put an expectation, or indeed a requirement, on private monopolies to deliver for the taxpayer. I am not telling the Government to block profits and shareholder dividends forever—quite the reverse. Private water companies that deliver public policy goals and lower consumer bills, and that make real profits rather than artificial profits funded through debt, could reasonably argue that they deserve to be rewarded, but I have no trust or confidence in the private sector to deliver essential public services in the public interest.

The list of disasters is there for all to see, and it is far longer than just water. It includes probation, prisons, NHS dentistry, bus services, rail, social care, Royal Mail, the Post Office Horizon scandal and energy. Everything seems to be broken, and there are no-risk rewards for the private sector. Failure does not affect companies, with services and contracts handed back, even when they fail to deliver, having already extracted their profit. The Government take a hard line against the poorest in society, with stringent rules, benefit sanction regimes and limits on social security. However, when it comes to billions of pounds of public contracts, they allow the taxpayer to be exploited and systematically milked. Frankly, it is not acceptable.

If the law does not allow the Government to hold failing companies accountable, we must legislate and change the law. I believe that we need a corporate responsibility Bill—a Bill with teeth—to ensure that the Treasury is the guardian of public money, not a cash point for corporate greed and irresponsibility. Our water companies are the epitome of corporate greed and irresponsibility. As an industry, they have extracted immense profits while ramping up debt and failing to invest in order to end the dumping of raw sewage into our rivers and seas. Where is the risk? It lies not with these irresponsible companies, but with the taxpayer. When a company collapses under the weight of its debt after decades of underinvestment, who has to step in? The taxpayer, who is forced to clean up the mess of corporate irresponsibility and get these services up and running to an acceptable standard, only for a Conservative Government to sell them off again.

I am deeply sceptical. Water is privatised, with companies collecting their rewards and paying out dividends. However, there is no free market; there is a private monopoly. As a consumer, I am appalled that, at the first sight of rain, our local network hits peak capacity and sewage is dumped into our rivers and seas. I want to penalise water companies that fail to protect our environment. If their business is clean water, the product of our privatised water companies is defective.

The Government can continue to back corporate greed over public interest and maintain an indefensible system of privatisation that denies the public consumer choice, which is the ultimate tool of accountability. But I hope the Minister will explain to my constituents how he will deliver a zero-waste, zero-pollution policy and end the routine dumping of raw sewage on the east Durham heritage coastline.

Football and Dementia

Debate between Jim Shannon and Grahame Morris

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The wage structure in Northern Ireland is nowhere near that level. There is some expectation of teams in the Irish league. There have been many buy-outs and clubs with lots of money-making financial investments, but let us be honest: in the years past many people probably played because they loved the sport. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Will the Minister undertake discussions with our American counterparts and share information so as to ensure that we have the most accurate information available on which to base our response to tackling this issue?

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes some great points about international comparators and co-operation. Earlier he raised the issue of the old fashioned footballs—we used to call them caseys—that would be soaked with water. They were like heading a cannonball. It has been suggested to me in mitigation that in the modern game the footballs are much lighter, but that is not actually true. They may be of a different construction, but they are the same weight and they travel much faster—40, 50 or 60 mph. If I am not mistaken, Peter Lorimer, the Scottish footballer who played for Leeds—or perhaps it was a Manchester City player—had the record for the hardest shot, of more than 70 miles an hour. Imagine being hit on the head regularly—that must cause some damage. I do not think the new construction of the balls is any mitigation.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and I are of a certain vintage, and therefore probably remember those footballs better than most. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is absolutely right. It is about the force and the distance of the ball, how hard it is hit and the person on the receiving end.

There is no reason that the correlation and the evidential base that everyone has presented should not be considered for industrial payments for our retired footballers. There is much cross-party support, mostly from the Opposition Benches, though that does not take away from the Government side—those who have spoken are of the same mind. There is support from lobby groups and football clubs that have contacted us. The information that we have received over the years from interactions with retired footballers and ex-managers cannot be ignored. We must do our best to support them. This debate is so important to all constituents and footballers.

We have a love of football. We cherish the game of football on a Saturday afternoon. In my house, my wife supports Leeds, my second son Ian supports Chelsea, my third son supports Arsenal, my eldest son supports Ipswich, and I support Leicester. At 10 minutes to 5 on a Saturday it is interesting when the scorecard comes in.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Grahame Morris

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on a powerful and excellent speech. As a representative of a coalfield area myself, in County Durham, I express my solidarity with colleagues from Wales who have raised the issue of unsafe coal tips and the need for funding. It is poignant that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned the terrible disaster at Aberfan. I know that it touched many hearts throughout the nation, including that of our sovereign. It was the most appalling tragedy. We must never, ever forget the debt of honour that the nation owes the coalminers and their families and communities. Although it is not the focus of my speech, I am also disappointed by the failure of the Chancellor to address the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. It is not a case of demanding more public money, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is no longer in his place, claimed. This is the miners’ own money. That this historical injustice has not been addressed cuts to the quick those of us with mining connections.

The broad theme of this debate is people in businesses. I will confine my remarks essentially to cancer, which is the most dreadful business. I know that the Treasury Bench is populated by Ministers with a background in science, innovation and workforce skills, and I hope they will relay my comments to their colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and on radiotherapy. Access to cancer services is an issue that has touched me personally and about which I care passionately. About 50% of us will suffer and battle against cancer at some point in our lives.

A week ago, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and, from the other place, Baron Fox of Leominster, and representatives from national cancer charities, cancer survivors and the cancer workforce, to deliver a petition and a letter to No. 10 Downing Street. The petition was signed by over 53,000 people. The letter, sent on behalf of a coalition of national cancer charities, patient advocacy groups, 64 MPs of all parties, peers and APPG chairs, called on the Government to invest urgently in our vital cancer workforce ahead of the Budget. A few months earlier, just before the recess, I presented to Downing Street a petition set up by Catchup With Cancer which was signed by over 370,000 people. That campaign was launched in conjunction with Craig and Mandy Russell, to whom I pay tribute. Tragically, they lost their daughter to bowel cancer at the age of just 31. Her life expectancy was drastically cut short after her cancer treatment was stopped as a direct result of the covid-19 response.

Even before the pandemic, at 62 days, we had the worst cancer waiting times on record and worrying variations in cancer services across the United Kingdom. The pandemic has not just laid bare the terrible strain on the cancer workforce, which has been happening for a number of years, but has driven cancer services to crisis point. It is reported that significant numbers of nurses are leaving or planning to leave our NHS following the pandemic. One in four NHS staff in England say they are now more likely to leave their job than was the case one year ago. In addition, long-standing unfilled vacancies and high staff absence and sickness levels continue to constrain cancer services. I am a great admirer of Professor Patricia Price, who appeared before the Health Committee earlier this week and spoke of

“the biggest cancer crisis in living memory”.

To give credit where it is due, the emphasis on cancer diagnostic services in the Budget is welcome. It matches the ambitions set out in the NHS long-term plan of diagnosing 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 by 2028. The projections are that 55,000 people each year will survive for five years or more following their earlier cancer diagnosis. However—I must regretfully, with due respect, take issue again with points raised by Conservative Members—we need greater clarity on exactly how the money is to be spent. Unless the boost in cancer diagnosis is matched by an equal boost in treatment services and investment in the workforce to deliver those services, they will continue to fall far short of the Government’s stated ambition. The future of the workforce is now the most significant threat facing the NHS today. We need investment in equipment needed for treatments such as advanced precision radiotherapy, which I have benefited from and which plays a vital role in cancer care and has continued to be the stand-out cancer treatment during the pandemic.

Make no mistake, the cancer backlog is a huge issue. Without a fully funded plan to increase the number of skilled staff and train the future cancer workforce, more patients will see their treatments unnecessarily delayed. Investment in cancer treatment services and the cancer workforce needs to be expanded to match investment in cancer diagnosis. The two are hand in —two wings of the same bird.

[Jim Shannon]

You need both wings to fly.

[Grahame Morris]

Precisely. We must ensure that people living with cancer get the support they need and deserve now and in the future.

The specifics are that according to the cancer charity Macmillan, we are 2,500 specialist cancer nurses short in England. Macmillan is urging the Government to take action and create a nurse cancer training fund, which could be set up with a modest investment of £124 million. That would train 3,300 specialist cancer nurses. When we think about the many billions spent on the test, track and trace system, the investment of a fraction of that sum in cancer treatment—modest as far as the budgets are concerned— would command majority support, not just on the Opposition Benches, but in the whole House and the country.

Bereavement

Debate between Jim Shannon and Grahame Morris

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I would like to point out that a number of hon. and right hon. Members wished to speak or intervene in this debate, but due to the constraints of virtual participation that has not been possible. However, I did say I would mention my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who sadly lost his grown-up daughter last year when she passed away. I offer my condolences and respects to him, and indeed to everyone who is suffering such grievous loss and seeking to cope with it.

I thank the charities Settld, Cruse Bereavement Care and Sue Ryder, which helped me to prepare for this debate. They are leaders in their field, supporting people to cope with bereavement and the loss of a family member or friend. As you reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, at 6 o’clock the whole nation mourned the passing of Captain Sir Tom Moore, but more than 100,000 deaths have occurred because of the pandemic, leaving thousands to cope with the challenges of bereavement. These issues have never been more pressing.

I want the Minister to respond to three specific points. The first relates to the bereavement standard, the second to digital death certificates, and the third to statutory bereavement leave. These are the three issues that the charities supporting grieving families have identified as the most important, but currently we lack cross-governmental co-ordination and focus on them. Issues to do with bereavement run across several Government Departments, including the Departments of Health and Social Care, for Work and Pensions and for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; I spoke to him beforehand about making an intervention. This is an issue that grieves us greatly. Does he not agree that in these dreadful days, when people cannot attend wakes or go through the normal stages of grief, there is more need than ever for support and care for those who grieve in these awful dark days, for those who are losing their loved ones from covid, from cancer and through accidents, and for those who cannot bear it any more? There really is a need to do better.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. There are some specific things that we in this House can do and that the Government can do in relation to the bereavement standard.

Future of the Coach Industry

Debate between Jim Shannon and Grahame Morris

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the coach industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and my good and honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for allocating time for this important debate. I thank my own trade union, Unite the union, for providing background information and briefing.

I particularly thank my constituents, Jillian Nicholson and Michael Pearson of TM Coach Travel and Northeast Coachways. The coach industry could not have two better advocates. For nine months they have asked for nothing more than fairness and justice, and a chance to survive covid, so that theirs and other small and medium-sized coach companies, often decades-old family businesses, can return to work post-covid.

The industry has a simple message to Government, and it has been delivered thousands of times in postcards from the edge. It reads, “Wish you could hear.” The Government are running out of time to listen and act. Coach operators are already going bust; employees, drivers and mechanics are being made redundant; and, the sector is losing capacity. That capacity will be vital to the recovery of the coach industry and to the whole economy, and to thousands, potentially millions, of jobs, supported by UK leisure and tourism.

Coach companies are the backbone and the supply chain for UK leisure and tourism. According to the Confederation of Passenger Transport, more than 23 million visits were made by coach in 2019, contributing £14 million to the UK tourism economy. The sector has more than 2,500 coach operators, directly employing some 42,000 people. Of course, there is then the ripple effect. Vehicle maintenance and upkeep supports an army of mechanics and garages involved in servicing and repairing vehicles.

The argument today is simple: the Government should stand by British businesses—companies that support our economy and do the right thing. The most responsible coach companies have invested in the newest clean fleets in our economy and are implementing the Government’s zero carbon climate change policy. However, ironically, they are facing the greatest loss, having to manage higher debt levels at a time when they have no income and the industry is shut down.

It is not a crisis of their own making. The number of Members of Parliament here who are concerned about this issue is worthy of note. Several who were hoping to speak have had to leave, unfortunately, because of delays to the votes and speaking in the main Chamber. This is an important issue that affects every constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I put my name down for the debate, but unfortunately I was not called. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a bespoke package of grants of £8,000 paid for the first bus and £4,450 for the second, up to a total of £100,000? That underlines the importance that the Northern Ireland Assembly has put on the bus sector, including Giles Tours and Billy Brown’s and others in my constituency. Does he feel that the Northern Ireland example might be one for the Minister to replicate here?

[Grahame Morris]

I believe there is specific support in Scotland and Wales as well. We are calling for the Minister to act and provide some sector-specific support to the coach industry in England. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for parity and an equal chance for the sector to survive, with support that recognises the specific impact that covid has had on the sector.

The coach sector was the first hit, the hardest-hit, and will be the last to recover. The fall in demand and income has been absolutely catastrophic—in excess of 90%. Unlike some other industries that have had the opportunity to diversify or even continue operating during covid, the coach industry has experienced a near total shutdown. Even if venues were open, such as concert venues, shows and sporting events, or holidays were still taking place, the social distancing requirements would make such coach trips unviable.

The industry needs support and the Government excluded coach companies from the rates relief support by failing to recognise them as part of tourism, leisure and hospitality or essential travel. I expect many in the industry would agree with Jade Cooper-Greaves of Henry Cooper Coaches in Annitsford. When she was interviewed by the BBC, she said:

“I have never written a job down in my diary that wouldn’t be classed as tourism, leisure, hospitality or essential travel.”

The lack of sector-specific support is crippling and the Government are failing to recognise the scale of the crisis.

In a letter on 23 November, the Minister responsible, who sits in the other place, said:

“We continue to work closely with representatives from the coach sector, including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and with other Government Departments to understand the ongoing, specific and unique risks and issues the sector faces and how those could be addressed.”

There are many and obvious risks and challenges facing the sector.

It is not true that the sector has had support. Certainly, there has been the furlough scheme, which assisted with the employees—the drivers and so on. That was welcome, but it did not help operators with ongoing business costs, loan payments or vehicle leasing fees. And the coronavirus business loan interruption scheme has failed the industry, with the majority of the businesses in it—80%—unable to access that support.

Let us look at some other sectors. Arts, culture and heritage received £1.57 billion. I am not against that; I am simply pointing out the inconsistency. There has been a bail-out for buses and trams—£700 million. Rail—£4.5 billion, and actually it is even more than that when we take into account the emergency measures. For the voluntary and charitable sector—£750 million. Eat out to help out is estimated at £500 million. For the sports bail-out for rugby union, horse racing, women’s football and the lower tiers of National League football—£300 million.

The Chancellor said that he did not want to pick winners and losers, but that is precisely what the Government are doing by offering sector-specific support to some sectors and not to others. Let me be clear—I do not begrudge any of the sectors that I have mentioned the support that the Government have given them. But there is no transparency as to why some sectors are favoured and others ignored.

Sports are struggling without crowds, but it is the coach sector that transports those crowds. Arts, heritage and culture, hard-pressed though they are, have had some retail opportunities during covid, and in some cases are able to open now, with restrictions, in certain areas. Eat out to help out was an untargeted scheme that benefited large chains with large floor space that could accommodate more customers. Again, that support targeted businesses that were able to continue trading through covid, perhaps via takeaways or with limited capacity.

We must question the value of these bail-outs, particularly those to the bus operators, which have received £700 million. As public subsidised companies, it would be reasonable to expect them to understand the plight of the coach sector. Instead, many of these bus companies are taking the last remaining contracts, which are often travel-to-school contracts, from the coach companies. I am aware that subsidised bus operators in my own region are undercutting coach companies on already undervalued home-to-school transport contracts.

I have coach operators who rent vehicles from Arriva Bus and Coach Ltd. When they asked for a rent holiday, they were refused, even though they had no business. They were forced to return the coaches because they were unable to maintain payments of up to £20,000 a month, having no work and now also being hit with early termination fees of £80,000. I must ask the Minister—is that fair?

With all due respect, if the Minister cannot grasp the scale of the challenge after nine months, I must question their interest or competence in this matter. Indeed, I challenge the Minister. The industry is warning that, without urgent support, four in 10 companies could go bust, with a loss of 27,000 jobs, and that is not counting those jobs in the supply chain and the service sector that rely on the coach industry. We risk losing companies of good standing, and coach operators risk losing their homes due to the personal guarantees they gave on their vehicles. We cannot abandon good businesses that invest in our economy. The Government must explain why they are excluding coach companies from the sector-specific support that they have provided to other sectors.