The Blame Game: MPs vs. Water company executives

 

Greetings! ‘It is the economy stupid.’ Bill Clinton opined again and again in his relentless pursuit of the White House. I do not doubt for a moment that the man from Little Rock was right then and will be right again in this, our probable UK election year. But what of pollution and the water industry? Last year the problems of the water industry were very much de la jour; you’d have likely found it on most lists of top five issues concerning voters. Today, and as the election approaches, I suspect the state of our rivers and coastline, will drop down the running order. Let me tell you why this is. Firstly, flooding is back, a water management issue which is more emotive than dirty rivers. Deluges are the nightmare of every Environment Agency PR person. It is the issue the EA throws the vast bulk of their £1.3 billion budget at. It is also the issue where the truth will not speak its name. In the past quarter of a century we have built, or more accurately had built for us, over a million homes in flood risk areas – to misquote the Kevin Costner baseball film, Field of Dreams, build them and they will flood.

House of Commons committee bruisers l-r Darren Jones MP, Cathryn Ross Thames Water CEO and Barry Gardiner MP

Next, there is only so much outrage society has in its emotional bank. Currently, and understandably, the public have moved on from pollution to the Post Office scandal which in some ways reflect each other. Now, I am not for one moment trying to equate the personal grief of the Post Office managers to anything that has happened in the water industry, but the theme of a large organisation, take your pick of Ofwat, the EA or any one of the water companies, wilfully steamrollering the evident truth to conceal malpractice is the common theme. Thirdly, the absence of a clear set of publicly agreed solutions is hampering the debate as to how we solve our pollution problems. To their credit the Liberal Democrats have issued draft manifesto commitments on this topic but it is hard to conclude anything other than that their ‘solutions’ are much more than a few bullet points for further discussion. Inevitably, once the election comes around the debate will descend into water company bashing and nationalisation vs. privatisation. If you want a taste of this watch the MPs (if you have 15 minutes of your life you do not need back .... link here) on the House of Commons Select Committee trying to take chunks out of Thames Water executives. Opinions differ as to who came out of it best but for my money the MPs were badly damaged by the Thames counterpunching. Perhaps most illuminating were the exchanges with Cathryn Ross, currently Thames Water CEO who was in a previous life, until 2014, Chief Executive of water regulator Ofwat. Essentially, so went the line of reasoning by Labour MP Darren Jones, Ross should, issue a grovelling apology because there was a direct line of travel from her decisions whilst at Ofwat to the state of Thames Water finances today. She refused, and not unreasonably, pointed out that Ofwat can only operate within the terms of reference handed to them by government. She was too savvy to suggest that it was the government who should really be doing the apologising but it is the very point that really takes us to the nub of the pollution debate. Historically, governments have seen the water industry as a too hard to handle problem. They knew it did, and does, require vast expenditure, running to hundreds of billions. You can pay that in one of two ways: taxes or bills. The Thatcher government dodged that first bullet by privatising the industry but neutered capitalist creativity by creating the regulator, outsourcing the hard decisions whilst at the same time setting terms of reference that has created unstainable downward pressure on the second. Subsequent governments, of all flavours, have been content to go along with this deceit accepting no accountability for perpetuating the very regulatory framework that is failing rivers and anything to do with public water. If anyone needs to apologise it is the MPs themselves who have it in their gift to change Ofwat at the stroke of a pen.

More fishin' films It seems a great many of you had watched, and enjoyed, Mending The Line, the film I wrote about last time. The article prompted a flurry of other recommendations for fishing related films. Here they are, with the health warning that I have not watched all of them in their entirety, so if they are dogs do not shoot the messenger. The River Why (2010) Starring William Hurt, and the later-to-be-wife of Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and Zach Gifford who plays a young man in a coming-of-age tale of his quest for an elusive rainbow trout, which is a metaphor for his internal search for self-knowledge. More, and better, fishing scenes than Mending The Line with the ending wrapped up with a pretty bow. Watch here .... Gone Fishin' (1997)   Somebody, somewhere was serious about this film that cost $53 million to make but grossed just $19m, gaining a miserable 4% approval on the film review website Rotten Tomatoes, with an average score of 2.3/10. None of that might inspire you to watch this comedy caper with Joe Pesci, Danny Glover, Rosanna Arquette and Willie Nelson as himself so I have linked you to the 10 minute You Tube version. Watch here .... Pyscho Pike (1992)  The plot summary reads, toxins in a lake drive a big pike crazy and it suddenly begins to attack and devour cottagers. The one review I found said, “The plot is (of course) ridiculous - but hey - it's a horror story about a deadly pike. Nice locations, and of course, chilling scenes of pike attack - what more could you want from such a production?” This Canadian film seemed to have been lost to mankind but I unearthed this archive copy of the full 86 minutes. Watch here .... Man’s Favourite Sport? (1964) This has all the sexist tropes of the 1960’s with Rock Hudson, a successful writer of a how-to-fish manual who has never fished, who is inveigled into a fishing competition by his boss who is unaware of his inability. It was a big hit, the 24th highest grossing film of the year, and subsequently has a 70% approval on Rotten Tomatoes. Great songs and score by Henry Mancini. But goodness, it is of its time, so if you watch it with a teenager prepare them with a trigger warning. The opening credits give you a good idea why the film title has a question mark. Watch here ..... Beavers to the rescue! Is there anything a beaver cannot do? I’d swear that the pro-beaver lobby push out a news release every day eulogising as to the benefits for whatever the hot topic is on that given day. I am confident we will shortly see them donning UN peace keeper berets in the Middle East. Needless to say the cure all solution to the recent floods is, you’ve guessed it, more beavers! Aside from the unassailable logic that it is constrictions to the free flow of water such as bridges, overly narrowed water courses or dams that causes water to back up to create flooding you have to wonder how the good citizens of the Somerset Levels will regard the arrival of these invasive rodents.

Now, despite what you will read, flooding and extreme weather events are no recent phenomena. Read my article in The Spectator. The flooding we see has little to do with climate change or the lack of beavers; even 2023, a very wet year, has only seen annual rainfall increase from an average of 32 inches to 41 inches, 27% above the norm. The simple fact is that for 4,000 plus years we have managed our rivers with remarkable aptitude, aware of the chaos of which Mother Nature is capable. However, in the post-war construction boom we have pressed into service land entirely unsuited for housing and created a built landscape that exacerbates the impact of rain water that, in centuries past, would have dissipated unremarked. As you well know I am no fan of the Environment Agency but how can anyone seriously suggest that they, or any of our forefathers, would not have worked out by now that a few random wood and mud dams to be our saviours instead of the £1.1 billion the EA spent in 2021? They did not work it out because it is patently untrue.

Quiz The normal random collection of questions inspired by the date, events or topics in the Newsletter. It is just for fun with answers at the bottom of the page. 1) On this day in 1363 Edward III passed the Sumptuary Laws. Was does sumptuary mean? 2) Bill Clinton took Presidential office in what year? 3) Which English rock star, more famous for Driving Home for Christmas, released Gone Fishing in 1991?

Have a good weekend.  Best wishes,

Simon Cooper simon@fishingbreaks.co.uk Founder & Managing Directorwww.fishingbreaks.co.uk

Quiz answers: 1) Laws that limit private expenditure on food and personal items. 2) 1993 3) Chris Rea