Water Supply in Kent

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and I am also grateful for all the other debates that we have had across Parliament on this issue. In addition, I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed, scrupulous analysis and for undertaking to meet key stakeholders in the community—I have used some of that feedback for this speech.

In my view, South East Water is manifestly a corporate failure, which has been allowed to metastasise over the last 10 years. That has left customers paying the price for something that is ultimately a basic need in every single household. That failure stems from four key factors. South East Water failed to effectively monitor its management of the only product that it distributes; it failed to maintain its assets, from pipes to supply chains and ultimately the storage areas and the places where water was secured from; it failed to invest in its infrastructure; and it failed to respond to and communicate with not only MPs and council leaders but with other key stakeholders in the region, including the Kent Resilience Forum, leaving people exposed when incidents occurred.

Like others, I celebrate the resignations of key senior managers, but my focus now is on how we drive the company forward so that there is not a repeat of these incidents, which have gone on since before this Government—other incidents occurred from 2020 to 2023. More broadly, it must be said that incidents occur in other parts of the country, albeit on a smaller scale, so this represents a structural failure within the sector. I welcome the Cunliffe review and some of the reforms that we are making to water regulation, so that we can take some of these issues by the horns and deal with them. Fundamentally, though, my constituents want redress.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned, we know from the statistics that 24,000 customers were impacted in December and that 22,000 were impacted in May. Although we did not have water shortages in my constituency, several key villages—Wouldham, Burham, Eccles and Larkfield—and the town of Snodland were placed in the “at risk” category. Although their water supply was not restricted, in effect they given a warning that it would be and had to prepare for that, and they are next to a key water supply station.

I was inundated by messages from concerned people over the Christmas period—“When is this going to happen?”, “What is going to occur?”—so I would say that the company first needs to fundamentally improve its communications, which I think have been lamentable. Nor do I think that it was particularly effective at communicating with Ministers on how it manages crisis situations, and the way it communicated with local council leaders, local community leaders, MPs and others was absolutely atrocious.

The senior management of the company has now changed, but what processes have been put in place to ensure an absolutely clear line of sight and experience in communication? Indeed, one of the outcomes from 2023 was that South East Water was supposed to improve communication, but it has clearly learned absolutely no lessons.

My second point is about the company’s failure to maintain its assets. I know that colleagues here today will talk about Pembury works, Bewl Water and parts of the supply chain, but water companies are supposed to present to Parliament five-year capital management plans and get support from their shareholders for where that will go in future, so there is a real question about whether shareholders were holding the company responsible. Also, why did the company’s own internal processes not even record some of these events?

It was quite telling that when David Hinton appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he said, “Well, we couldn’t have foreseen some of these events.” Possibly not, but that was because the company was not monitoring the very things that it needed to monitor before those outcomes occurred. What is the company doing now, and what are the Government doing to press it to act on this?

Investment is also critical. With all the infrastructure expansion we are expecting in Kent—not only new homes but new businesses and industrial and commercial enterprises—there is clearly now demand for future water supply. Given the company’s questionable financial status in terms of worth, where are we heading on its financial sustainability? What are the Government doing to prepare for any financial outcome around financial market confidence in the organisation? Although this is not a Thames Water situation, in my view we are very close to something similar occurring.

Lastly, in my view—this was also the conclusion of the Committee—the company should be held to account according to the standards of public accountability. When water companies fail, how specifically do we intervene—as any businesses or consultancy coming into a business would—to direct some of that change? I worry that, without leadership, the company will drift and these incidents will repeat every six months or every year for the next three years. We need to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and my residents need to know that when they pay their water bill at the end of the month, they will get the service that they expect.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call the first Front-Bench spokesperson no later than 5.09 pm. I call Tom Tugendhat, who I am sure will be cognisant of that.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I assure you that will not be a problem, Mr Twigg, despite my known verbosity. Sadly, the Minister has heard many of my points before. However, I am grateful that she is here, as whatever any of us have said about South East Water, the one thing that unites us is knowing that she is doing her absolute damnedest. She, through her Department, has been absolutely brilliant. Wherever we sit, it is good to see her here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on securing this debate. Funnily enough, I applied for a debate on this topic—he won on this one—but I will still not speak for the whole eight minutes.

This is not the first time we have been here, nor the first time we have had a water outage in Kent, as we have heard from other hon. Members. By my records, this is the fifth major South East Water outage to hit the community I am lucky enough to represent since the start of last year. We heard that there were water shortages this winter because it was too cold, and we heard that there were water shortages this summer because it has been too hot. Frankly, South East Water is the Goldilocks company: it will deliver water only when everything is just right.

The common denominator is clearly not the temperature, so what is it? Obviously, the answer is South East Water. Edenbridge and the surrounding areas, which are part of the community I represent, are served by SES Water, and the situation is completely different. Despite remarkably similar—in fact, almost identical—weather to that which can be found a few metres over the border in South East Water’s area, we have not had a single outage—that is remarkable, isn’t it?

Although much of the focus over the winter was understandably on Tunbridge Wells, and this time it has been on Whitstable and the areas around Ashford, in reality an outage could happen anywhere. Each time we have had a water outage, a different community has been affected. Across the five outages I have experienced, there were issues in north Tonbridge, south Tonbridge, Penshurst, Plaxtol, Mereworth, Offham, Platt, West Peckham, Wrotham, Addington and Trosley. Each time, it has seemed to catch South East Water by surprise, and its response has always taken too long.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) secured an urgent question in the Chamber on this topic, during which I said that South East Water is the worst company I have come across in my 11 years as an MP. I am delighted to say that many people have been in touch on social media to confirm their own impressions of the company, so I can represent that as the view of the whole constituency.

Here is why: South East Water simply does not know where the problems are coming from. It is constantly astonished that it is expected to deliver water—it is almost as though it thought its job was merely to rake in the bills. Now, why has this happened, and how will it recover? It causes so many issues that it is impossible to trust any information that it gives during an outage. Usually, we hear directly from residents first.

Let me explain what happened just a few weeks ago in my own community. At 9 o’clock on 28 May, residents at the top of Mereworth lost water. There was no communication at all from South East Water, and nothing on its website. Very late at night, water bottles arrived and were apparently made available only to those on the priority services register. Actually, many of those on the register did not get them. It was only because of an extremely assiduous local councillor, Sarah Hudson, that any of them were picked up and delivered to local residents. It is fantastic that we have such a great local councillor, but we cannot rely on local councillors every night and every time South East Water fails.

It took until Saturday evening for water supplies to be delivered to Mereworth, 36 hours after the water was lost. Again, it was local councillors, this time Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, who facilitated and unloaded the delivery in a pub car park for residents to use. Even worse, come Sunday it was established that Mereworth did not have enough water. It just could not be pumped to the properties. Why? Because the booster had failed twice at Bough Beech reservoir. Why did it fail? The view of residents is that it is in the wrong place.

I have offered South East Water the chance to take me round to see why that did not work, and to explain it with its engineers. But guess what? It said no. Worse than that, exactly the same issue happened in February, and many of the same properties were without water for the same reason. The alternative provision of water was just as slow. Nothing had changed. How do we stop that happening again? There are things that this company needs to do urgently. Some of it has started, including getting rid of the chairman and the chief executive, but it also needs to improve the list of potential bottled water stations.

There is still much more to do. South East Water’s business continuity plan is a joke. Its staff are not empowered to develop local knowledge of each town and village and how to establish the best responses. Given the sheer number of communities affected, one would hope it had started yesterday, but it has never started at all.

South East Water also needs to be bolder and braver. It needs to be forthright about the fragility of our water system. It needs to be clear about its inability to serve our community. I am pleased that has started, and that it has objected to the Government’s housing target for Tonbridge and Malling’s local plan. That is the right thing to do because, despite many of us wanting more homes in our area, if the water supply to current households cannot be guaranteed, how on earth can we supply 20,000 more households across Tonbridge and Malling by 2042?

I had to debate this in this very room in March, and we debated it in the main Chamber only a few years ago. In the debate with Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it was very clear that the planning needed to happen. Either the supply of water has to increase dramatically or the housing targets have to be reduced. I know the council is directly engaged with the water delivery taskforce, but I understand that the promised position statement has not materialised—certainly not to the standard that Tonbridge and Malling borough council needs. That will leave the council with no choice. It will have to stand against the Government’s housing targets.

The Government seem to have no answers for the simple issue that their housing targets for Kent are way in excess of what South East Water can provide. I once again thank the Minister for her hard work. It is very gratefully received, but there are many challenges ahead.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

The Opposition spokespeople will probably have around six and a half minutes. That will give time for the Minister to wind up and, of course, for the mover of the motion to reply.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and an honour to follow so many fellow Kent MPs and constituency neighbours.

In December last year, 24,000 properties in Tunbridge Wells were completely without water for a week. The following week, they had a boil notice, so they were without drinking water for two weeks. The stories that my constituents shared are harrowing. Someone who was incontinent with colon cancer was left to clean with wet wipes. Another lady who had a miscarriage was unable to clean herself, compounding the trauma. People fainted outside kidney dialysis centres and had to have CPR. Schools shut, GP surgeries received no bottled water deliveries and, as we have all spoken about, our constituents who are supposedly on the priority register did not receive any supplies. My office became a kind of crisis cell where people were able to feed requests to us to pass on to South East Water.

It would be funny if it was not so serious, but when Dave Hinton was brought in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January, as he was speaking the water went off again in Tunbridge Wells for a further week. Local businesses in Tunbridge Wells lost millions over both of those outages, and the sum offered by South East Water was paltry. Working with the business improvement district and local businesses, we presented evidence to South East Water and secured a commitment that it would at least look at the size of the compensation it offered. I hope soon to bring the good news to colleagues that South East Water will increase the compensation, but local businesses lost the critical period before Christmas, which is when hospitality businesses make all of their money for the rest of the year.

As has been mentioned, the chair and the CEO have gone. I am glad that we all united around the calls, originating during the December outage, for the CEO to step down—no change could happen at South East Water without the CEO, in particular, going. I have met the new chair, and I am impressed. There are some small seeds and shoots that we can look at, because although the chair and the CEO leaving is necessary, it is not sufficient.

In Tunbridge Wells, we need to look at investment going into Pembury water treatment works specifically, as well as at the interconnections between all of our constituencies. South East Water was cobbled together from 20 other companies over 50 years, and the interconnections have not been built between those separate water networks.

There is another point about shareholders and accountability. South East Water is owned by three major shareholders: the NatWest Group pension fund, Desjardins and Utilities Trust of Australia. One way they make a return on their capital is by charging extortionate interest rates on loans to the company—in the order of 10%. Putting reputational risk aside, it is effectively a risk-free investment because, in reality, the Government back the water network.

South East Water’s debt interest runs at £3,000 an hour, so while my constituents did not have water in December, South East Water’s shareholders made £1.8 million in interest from the company. The result is that we have under-invested infrastructure that fails and causes outages, leading to the terrible problems we have been speaking about.

I echo what everyone has said about the Minister being extremely forward-leaning and helpful in these crises. She suffered a personal tragedy during one of the outages in Tunbridge Wells, and before she went off on compassionate leave, she reached out to my office to make sure I had everything I needed from the Department. That speaks to her approach to the job, as well as her professionalism.

The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 fixes some of the regulation issues. The Liberal Democrats had been calling for a long time for the abolition of Ofwat and the creation of a regulator that brings together all these myriad regulators and strengthens their power, so we are very glad. However, I gently say to the Minister that there is an issue around the debt that the water companies hold.

The sector is worth about £100 billion in asset value, and it borrowed £70 billion against that. A sector that has a 70% debt-to-equity ratio is not a sector that is able to deliver proper investment, and I have spoken about the high interest rates. We are in this mess because of financial engineering by the likes of Macquarie and other investors. Without looking at that financialisation and solving those problems, particularly around debt, it will be difficult to drive the investment required in companies such as South East Water.

I want to touch very briefly on Ofwat, which recently fined South East Water £22 million. I think I have about a minute left.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Just a bit less.

[Mike Martin]

I would argue that, rather than fining the company after the event, we should be forcing it to invest equivalent or larger amounts in infrastructure. I presented a resilience plan drawn up with water experts for Pembury water treatment works. That fine should be commuted. It just goes to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, but that money should be invested in the water network.

I will conclude by looking ahead. The Water (Special Measures) Act is necessary but not sufficient—a bit like getting rid of the chair and CEO. Without tackling the debt burden and the financial structures of many of these firms, in which bonuses are still paid and part of the corporate structure is in the Cayman Islands or whatever, we will not get to the root of the problems in the water sector.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing and opening this debate.

We have heard powerful contributions from across Kent, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I congratulate him on his urgent question last week about important planning issues. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about water use and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about the impacts on people and, indeed, on animals—I will touch on that. I congratulate her on her water survey and communication with her constituents on these issues. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) highlighted the failures of the water company. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) set out the detail of the outages and highlighted the importance of local knowledge in the response to such situations.

Over recent weeks, the House has heard a series of testimonies during debates in which many colleagues will have taken part, including on various urgent questions. Taken together, they show that the South East Water issues affecting our constituents are unacceptable, and they make clear—I know that the Minister has been all over this, as we have heard in powerful testimony—our persistent frustration about that company’s failures.

As we have heard, Kent is served primarily by two main water suppliers: South East Water and Southern Water. The county relies heavily on chalk aquifers and bulk-treated water supplies from Southern Water, which, in turn, provides bulk transfers to South East Water. That has caused issues, as the dependency creates its own vulnerabilities. The Government must consider that moving forward.

Kent experiences unusually dry conditions. The Environment Agency’s April 2026 report noted that Kent and south London faced exceptionally low rainfall, with the area receiving just 4 mm of rain in April—equivalent to just 10% of the long-term average—and decreases in soil moisture, average river flows and groundwater levels. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving forward and talking about reservoirs—a reservoir will be built in Broad Oak near Canterbury, although we are concerned about the time it will take to build it—but I hope that they are considering short-term resilience, too.

South East Water supplies drinking water to 2.3 million people across the south-east, but the recent outages have caused deep and widespread frustration and distress. Many customers have experienced low-pressure water or no water at all during the outages, followed by a boil water notice when supplies were finally restored. The consequences—Members will be all over this—have been severe: thousands of homes left without water, schools and libraries forced to close, hospitality businesses shutting their doors, farmers and horse owners worried about their livestock and even hospital appointments moved online. Water companies have repeatedly claimed that they have no duty to provide water for animals, but a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres a day, while a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres—and more in hot weather. The outages have created human and animal welfare issues.

During South East Water’s most recent supply failures, residents were queuing in hot conditions at bottled water stations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what measures are in place to protect elderly and vulnerable people during such events. What assessment has been made of the mental health impacts of recurring outages, which are becoming distressingly frequent? The Minister will be aware that the Drinking Water Inspectorate launched an investigation and found that the failure was the result of

“long-standing weaknesses and failures in process control, monitoring, maintenance and operational management.”

The chair and chief executive of South East Water have resigned, but what customers really want is change and improvements now and in future. How will the Minister ensure that the new leadership of South East Water works at pace to deliver the upgrades required to prevent outages? Does the Minister agree that this must be a turning point for the company?

A report from the Consumer Council for Water found that fewer than one in 10 South East Water customers were satisfied with how the company handled the supply issues in late 2025, and I am sure that the figure is probably worse now. Over half of customers in vulnerable circumstances who registered for priority services did not receive the support that they expected. Given the focus of the Cunliffe review on long-term water security, will the Government confirm which recommendations they will take forward to address those structural issues and restore public confidence?

As we have heard, unlike for broadband or other utilities, customers cannot switch water supplier. They have no choice over who provides their water, so there must not be a postcode lottery when it comes to reliable supply. Companies that fail their customers must be held to account, so can the Minister confirm when the clean water Bill will be coming down the track with new checks and inspections, and whether the new regulator will have the powers it needs to hold water companies to account?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich talked about the importance of planning issues. Are the Government considering whether water companies should become statutory consultees, given that we have thousands of homes planned in counties around the country, including in Kent and my own county of Essex? We need to know that both water supply and wastage are adequate moving forward.

Reliable and safe water supply and disposal is an issue that unites Members from across the House. We all want our constituents to have not only a reliable water supply but a safe, predictable and dependable one that meets the basic standards necessary for them to live their lives and for businesses to go about their business. Public institutions such as hospitals and schools depend on it, private businesses depend on it and people very much depend on it. Will the Government hold the water companies to account so that we get that right?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could leave a minute or so for the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) to wind up, that would be great.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that intervention: I am well aware of those issues. The lady in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who looks after animal crime and welfare is Emma Meredith and I have known her all her life. She was a flower girl at my wedding, which was 36 years ago. She is now the police officer assigned to this area, and she is very aware of badger baiting. There is a need to come down hard on those involved. I think there has been some action on badger baiting over the past few years, because it is very much on the radar.

The situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that of the RSPCA. We are managed and supported by the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the second oldest animal charity in the world. It was founded in 1836 by Commander Francis Anderson Calder, a retired navy officer. The charity’s first initiative gives an idea of its history and purpose. It erected water troughs across the city for the sustenance of the heavily burdened working horses in industrial Belfast. That was the purpose of the movement at that time.

The USPCA also supports Northern Ireland schools by bringing the importance of animal welfare to life and understanding the needs of animals within the classroom. It runs an educational programme, although I am not sure whether that is run on the mainland. Many schools in my constituency and others frequently host the USPCA, which comes to them to engage with children. The fact is that children love animals and it is good to engage them, to engender in them an early interest in animals and their welfare. Many young people have a goal to work with animals in future. It is fantastic to offer to teach them how to do so. It instils a love of animals and an interest in animals for years to come.

Ahead of this debate, I read in the Library briefing that there were concerns about kitten smuggling across the UK. The week before last I met with Alice from the Cats Protection Centre in Dundonald. Kitten smuggling was one of the main topics of discussion, and the statistics I was shown that day were incredible. The centre takes in and rehomes a number of cats. It is not just about lost kittens. The purpose of Cats Protection—and all cat charities—is to try to find them another home. They are neutered to ensure there will be no more kittens coming along when they are given out. Some of the cats and kittens there had been badly treated. Again, it is inconceivable to understand how anyone could do that.

There have been significant changes in the cat market in the past five years, as highlighted in the CATS Report 2023 published by Cats Protection. There has been a significant rise in purebred and pedigree cats. In addition, pet smuggling poses risks to both humans and animals. There are risks not just to the cats but to humans, as well, and we need to be aware of those issues. Cats Protection and other charities are very much to the fore on that. Smuggled cats may carry transmissible diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which can be dangerous.

When I got married 36 years ago, I was not that fond of cats, as I had always had dogs, but my wife was a cat lover. There was a very simple, “Love me, love my cats.” It brought about a complete change and now we have three cats in the house—it might be four cats. One of them stays outside all the time because we live on a farm and it hunts continuously. The other three like the warmth of the Aga cooker. I again make the point about how we have to look at things today.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments. Perhaps he can clarify whether he has any plans to engage with the devolved nations, including the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as I know he does regularly, on what steps we can take to tackle cat smuggling.

There is a need for stronger legislation. We know that the back door to the Republic of Ireland is through Northern Ireland, and that the back door to the United Kingdom is through Northern Ireland. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), the last Conservative Government were very active in trying to change the legislation and get on top of this issue, so it would be reassuring to hear similarly from the Minister that legislation can be made tighter to ensure that dog and cat smuggling is not taking place.

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland still has to follow EU pet travel legislation, which complicates things a bit, and EU legislation regarding the transportation of animals, including pregnant animals. I look forward to hearing about plans that will ensure that Northern Ireland can align with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that what we discuss will be something we can all grasp.

The RSPCA has proven itself in going above and beyond. Last year, it convicted 447 defendants, including two youth offenders, with a prosecution rate of 91.7%—wow. That tells us that when the RSPCA takes on a case, it wants to win it; if it can do it that well, it is worth doing. That rate is even higher than the rate in 2022, and higher again than 2021. The work it undertakes is incredible, and we are grateful for it. I look to the Minister to say how we can further support these societies and charities, because we are truly in debt to their fantastic efforts.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If Members want to be called in the debate, they need to bob.

Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.