Rural Affairs
Ashley Fox Excerpts(5 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am proud to represent the Bridgwater constituency, which has both urban and rural communities. It is plain to see that those living in the countryside do not enjoy the same quality of service as those living in town.
One of the greatest differences is in broadband and mobile signals. In today’s economy, access to fast, reliable internet is essential for any business, whether to receive orders or to complete VAT returns. When I questioned the Minister last month about funding for the shared rural network, he confirmed that the new Government will continue the plans of the Conservative Administration to extend access to rural communities. Since then, we have had disappointing news. Connecting Devon and Somerset, along with its partner Airband, is scaling back plans to provide fibre optic broadband to rural areas in my constituency and in others in Somerset. I have requested a meeting with the Minister on this matter, as it is of critical importance. If we are to ensure the prosperity of rural areas, investment in rural broadband and 5G must be a national priority.
Another issue that disproportionately affects our rural communities is flooding, which particularly affects our farmers. When farms flood, as they often do in Somerset, the damage to crops, infrastructure and livestock can be devastating. The Government need to improve how statutory bodies work together. Joining up their efforts would help us to predict floods better and prevent agencies from being overwhelmed when multiple flooding events occur. The Government should take a more proactive role in supporting farmers with better flood prevention measures, and ensure that compensation, when provided, is fair, accessible and timely.
The challenges of food security require us to invest in local agriculture and ensure that our farmers are thriving in an environment that values sustainable, reliable food production. The Government’s increase in inheritance tax for farmers will harm food production in our country. It is a poorly conceived attack on family farms, many of which are high in value—land, buildings and machinery—but produce a low return. Families who work hard to feed the nation should not be taxed out of existence by the Chancellor, but Labour’s family farm tax will make it impossible for many farmers to pass on their land to their children.
If I had had enough time, I would have addressed rural bus services—or the lack thereof—rural housing, especially for young families, and the provision of small rural schools. However, I will end by saying that with better policies for food security and farming, Britain can have a strong and vibrant countryside.
Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams
Ashley Fox Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Ashley Fox to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. At least one other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, and there may be interventions.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the environmental impact of the proposed salt marshes at Pawlett Hams and other sites.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the Minister to her place.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to move the motion, which concerns an issue of great importance to my constituents in Bridgwater. I asked for this debate to discuss EDF’s plans to establish a salt marsh at Pawlett Hams in Somerset. The proposal was highly unpopular with the local community. In fact, it was difficult to find anyone who thought it was a good idea, and when I met representatives from EDF, even they seemed a little half-hearted about it.
Why, one might ask, does EDF, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station a few miles down the coast, want to flood 800 acres of beautiful Somerset countryside and turn it into a salt marsh? The answer is complex. When EDF was given planning permission to build Hinkley Point C, it was required to take measures to mitigate damage to marine life caused by the water intake pipes, which are situated in the Bristol channel and, as one might imagine, there is a risk of harm to fish, which might get sucked into them.
EDF originally set out three proposals to minimise the risk of harm to marine life. The first involved designing special low-velocity, side-entry water intake pipes, with a capped head design. These reduce the number of fish that are sucked into the pipe as they swim past the end. The second was a fish recovery and return system, which means that a good proportion of the fish that swim into the intake pipe are returned to the sea, with minimal injury. That is not a perfect system, but it is certainly one that will save the more resilient species.
The third was that EDF was required to install an acoustic fish deterrent, or AFD. This involves the installation of a number of underwater sound projectors that play a constant loud noise that is designed to stop fish approaching the area of the intake pipes. EDF now says that it is unable to install the AFD, because of engineering difficulties and health and safety risks to the divers who would need to maintain the system. To deviate from the AFD proposals, EDF has to submit a material change application. As part of the application, it is working with the Environment Agency to agree several compensatory habitat measures to deliver benefit to the estuary’s qualifying habitat.
EDF says that it is putting forward a mosaic of mitigation measures. Some of them seem sensible and beneficial to the natural ecosystem in and around the Severn estuary: for example, the creation of several hectares of seagrass in the estuary and a commitment to delivering 15 hectares of kelp forest. It is also considering upgrades to several weirs to benefit migratory fish. The most significant proposal, however, and the one that brings us to Westminster Hall today, is the creation of 800 acres of salt marsh.
At the beginning of this year, EDF consulted on the salt marsh being established in Pawlett Hams, in my constituency. Pawlett Hams is a precious ecosystem. EDF’s plans to flood the area with saltwater would endanger not just the land itself, but the myriad species that call it home. It would transform the biodiverse habitat into barren, species-poor salt marsh and tidal mud. What is most extraordinary about EDF’s plans is that the Hams is an area of great ecological importance. It forms part of the Bridgwater bay site of special scientific interest, which was first declared in 1989 and recognises the area as one of particular interest to science, due to the rare species of flora and fauna that it contains. There is a lush, biodiverse habitat for many animals in the Hams, including lapwings, redshanks, otters, water voles, water beetles, great crested newts and yellow wagtails. Those species would be driven out if the area was turned into a salt marsh. The Hams provide valuable grazing for local farmers that would also be lost.
EDF’s plan was a disaster, and even if it went ahead it was not clear how it would mitigate the problem of the fish that would be lost. I made my views abundantly clear to EDF over the months, so I was delighted when, a day after making a request for this debate, it announced that it is pausing its proposal. EDF says that it is now considering four other potential sites for salt marshes in the Severn estuary, at Kingston Seymour, Littleton, Arlingham and Rodley.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his detail and his excellent summary of exactly what is being proposed in Arlingham. The proposal was put to the people of Arlingham, they had a large meeting on Monday evening and, almost universally, there was a feeling that this was not a good idea for people there or for their landscape. Many of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put across are the same in Arlingham. It seems rather strange that the Arlingham site and salt marsh will somehow compensate for or mitigate the predicted loss of about 182 million fish; I do not think there is any way we can say that those two match each other. Although I support the principle of habitat creation and acknowledge the benefits of the salt marsh, does the Minister share my concern that EDF’s application to modify Hinkley Point C’s consent order seems like an unacceptably high price for an environmentally unique habitat to pay?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I pay tribute, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) would, to the amazing community at Pawlett Hams, who campaigned ferociously, but in quite a gentle way, and single-mindedly to get its aims and dislike across. I hope that that is reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the community; indeed, we have a meeting in the communities that I represent on Monday next week. It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting of the fact that people have a view about their own community and its sustainability.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Lady anticipates the next part of my speech.
As a new MP, it is tempting to believe that this change of heart by EDF is entirely due to my persuasive powers, but that is not the case. All credit must go to the Pawlett Hams Action Group, a genuine grassroots campaign that sprang up to defend the Hams. The group demonstrated the significance of the Hams by conducting wildlife surveys and collecting personal and historical testimonies. It also raised awareness of the issue through petitions, social media, community events such as a photography competition and collaboration with local schools. I pay tribute to the group’s co-ordinator, Judith Ballard, and to the other leading members, Moira Allen, Rachel and Molly Fitton, and Joy Russell. There are many others who worked hard to save the Hams so that it might be enjoyed for generations to come. I thank them all—perhaps they can help the hon. Members for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) in resisting unwanted salt marshes.
Although my constituents and I welcome EDF’s decision not to proceed with the plan, several outstanding questions need to be answered. My first question relates to the inclusion and, now, the planned removal of the AFD in the development consent order. That was included at the request of the Environment Agency. I want to know why it was included if, as we are now told, it is unsuitable for conditions in the Bristol channel. Related to that question, what was the process between the Environment Agency and EDF on agreeing that it should be removed?
To my local community, the process looks opaque. Some of my constituents believe that the AFD should remain as a condition of EDF being allowed to operate Hinkley Point C. I do not claim to have the technical knowledge to know whether it is a practical option or not—and the Secretary of State has yet to make formal decision—but it seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off.
I want to know why, once the decision to explore the establishment of a salt marsh was made, Pawlett Hams was designated as the preferred site. As I said earlier, the Hams is recognised as a wetland of international importance. Turning it into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm. It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency. The view of many of my constituents is that the Environment Agency chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences. I want to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain all the flood defences on the River Parrett.
Finally, I want to ask the Government to consider whether there might be a better way of delivering environmental improvements than through the Environment Agency. It was the Environment Agency that wanted to include an AFD in the initial development consent order. Now it apparently agrees that it should be removed, and is the prime mover behind this unwanted salt marsh. Having retreated from Pawlett Hams, it now wishes to inflict this on other parts of the countryside.
If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical— I remain to be convinced—I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements. I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils. In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.