Farmland Flooding

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered nature-based solutions for farmland flooding.

It is great to see you in your place, Dr Murrison. Before I start, I will draw your attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a director of a farming company. I do not claim to be a farmer—look at my hands—but I am directly involved in farming and I could benefit from some of the measures that I am proposing.

There are two areas that I want to discuss. The first is the impact of flooded fields on farms and what should be done to help them. The second is the impact of agricultural flooding on other areas of flood risk, and what should be done to incentivise farmers to help ameliorate flooding elsewhere by accepting flooding in some areas of their farms.

Before I go into that, it is necessary to look at the background, and I will give some stats to help paint the picture. Seventy four per cent of the total floodplain in the United Kingdom is agricultural land. That is perhaps no surprise, because centuries of flooding and recession have formed some of our richest agricultural land. In fact, 60% of our best and most versatile land is on the floodplain. As a result, the argument about what should happen with floodplains—whether they should be allowed to flood, be rewilded or be retained for agricultural use—is central to the significant and increasingly political debate about food security.

The incidences of flooding are increasing. We can argue about the reasons behind that, although we do not need to do so today. Last winter, there were more than 1,000 flood warnings for farmland, which was a record high. As any farmer will say, particularly in the east of England, last spring the land was inundated with water. It was impossible for farmers to get on the fields until much later than normal, which had a knock-on impact on sowing and a consequential impact on yield for this year. More recently, we had the new year’s flooding right across the country.

We can see from that pattern, and from a much longer one, which we do not need to go into, that there is now a norm. If we look at the new and updated forecast of the change in our weather patterns that we should experience through global warming, although it is true that it will be warmer and drier in the summers, the expectation, which so far seems to be borne out by reality, is that the winters will be wetter with greater incidences of intense rain, which is the kind of rain that leads to flooding. We need action to fix the changing situation.

The first argument I will make about flooding on farms is that watercourses need to be cleared. Not every drainage needs to be slowed down to prevent flooding elsewhere. Although that is very fashionable—I fear that some of that fashion has found its way into the Environment Agency—it is crucial that drainage that is intended to remove water from productive farmland is cleared regularly, either by the Environment Agency or by it getting out of the way and allowing local farmers to do that on its behalf. Farmland is not free flooding for the Environment Agency. That is a crucial distinction between what the Environment Agency may have planned for flood defences lower down the watercourse and the necessary requirement that the best and most versatile land continues to be used effectively for food production.

We need to identify potential flood relief, including areas where the quality of the land is less good and where, in negotiation with landowners and farmers, we can identify historical floodplains and, perhaps, flood meadows. One of the few traditional flood meadows that still exists is in my constituency at Sculthorpe meadow, and there is another one on the Wensum. That is part of only 1,100 hectares of traditional flood meadow that still exist in the country. There can be agreements there with the Environment Agency, to take advantage of the funding that is available from central Government, which I will come to in a minute. There is a potential for farmers to benefit from allowing areas of lower-quality land to accept flooding for the benefit of others.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, which is important not only to rural communities and farmers, but to people living downstream in larger towns. Does he agree that the sort of discussions that he describes need to be held with landowners quite far up the catchment area, towards the top of a large river catchment? For example, for our area in the Thames valley, the ideal position would be that farmers in the Cotswolds or in the northern part of Oxfordshire are consulted about this, rather than farmers further downstream in the central part of Berkshire.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One of the beauties of the environmental land management scheme brought in by the last Government is that it has three stages. There is the in-field sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship, which has the in-farm elements, and the landscape recovery tier, which anticipates exactly that—I would describe them as in-valley projects. It is right that we should look right across a watercourse in those discussions, but it needs to be done in consultation with farmers, who should not have this imposed on them by a lack of drainage on the part of the Environment Agency.

Where there is flooding of productive farmland, it is necessary for the Government to build on the farming recovery fund, which was instigated by the last Conservative Government. That provides up to £25,000 a farm for an uninsured loss event. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will provide an additional £10 million to that fund, but that is the start, not the end, of what needs to be done, so that farmers who suffer uninsurable loss to their farmland—their productive livelihood—are compensated.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I represent Glastonbury and Somerton, and part of my constituency lies on the Somerset levels and moors. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. In fact, 91% of Glastonbury and Somerton is agricultural land, so we depend on our farmers to store floodwater on their land to prevent our homes from flooding. Does he agree that we should properly compensate our farmers when they store water on their land, and that we should provide schemes with an extra £1 billion a year, so that farmers have the resources that they need to provide resilience not only for farming, but to our homeowners and residents across the county?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is right in concept, in that where there is uninsured loss of productive farmland caused by flooding, the last Government was right to create the farming recovery fund to compensate, at least in part, for those losses. As for flooding by agreement, if I can describe it as that, that happens on the Somerset levels as part of the landscape recovery agreement there—it is called the Adapting the Levels project. That needs to come with sufficient funding under the environmental land management scheme, and I will address wider funding concerns later.

Farms can have a role in minimising flooding, and they can do that in-farm as well as further down the watercourse. But the Government must continue to work with the Conservatives and with the environmental land management scheme, which the previous Government set up, to recognise and support this.

We start at the top of the watercourse. Where available, there is upland peatland restoration. Peat bogs, when they are in good condition, are essentially like giant sponges, not just for water but for carbon storage. When they are in poor condition, the cycle goes into reverse, both for water and for carbon emission. Riparian buffers, which can be planted and maintained next to watercourses, slow the flow of water off the land and absorb a percentage of it.

More importantly and more interestingly—I was about to say for farmers like me, but I am not a farmer—for people involved in farming, there are the in-field developments, which are becoming increasingly mainstream and have developed from the regenerative agricultural movement. They are based around soil management. We always used to describe this as the heavy metal approach—that does not refer to our taste in music, but is instead about plough, drill and till, which has been the “traditional” method of agriculture since the second world war, where the inputs come out of a sack and horsepower is relied on to manipulate the soil.

The problem with that, apart from its very significant impact on biodiversity—that is a debate in its own right—is that this leads to collapsed soil structures and then we need to go into subsoiling. The more metal we use, the more heavy metal we need to use, and that destroys or very substantially limits the ability of the soil to absorb and then retain water. That has the short-term impact of increasing run-off, leading to flash flooding in a way that did not happen when I was a boy. It also has a knock-on impact in the summer. If there is a soil structure that is not capable of absorbing and retaining water in the winter, it becomes water-hungry in the spring and summer, and there is parching in a way that affects yield and costs money in irrigation to compensate for that.

There is a movement called the regenerative or min-till movement, where that approach has been challenged. By minimising the impact on soil—the disturbance of soil through metal—the soil structure can be increased, retained and developed. That creates spaces in the soil in which to absorb water, but it also has a secondary impact, which is the mycorrhizal interaction of live roots. That secures carbon and improves the sponginess of the soil.

All those things are great because as absorption is increased, the speed at which that water is emitted back into the watercourse is reduced. Allied to that is the use of cover crops during the winter. Having live roots in the water and a structure that prevents run-off and soil erosion in the winter is enormously important. There is also contour ploughing—that is, ploughing along the contour, not up and down it, as a matter of course. That is basic physics, but it helps to retain water on the land and slows its emission down into the watercourse. These are all things that the farm can do in-field to help its cause, and also to retain water for lower down the watercourse.

A second option, suitable for less valuable land that is not the best quality or the most fertile, is to accept seasonal water, along the lines followed by a traditional water meadow. Watercourses can be re-wiggled—I am not sure if that is a technical term—to slow down the flow of water in appropriate areas. By accepting floodwater, farmers are able to re-establish traditional meadows, but they need to be compensated because they are giving up productive land, albeit less productive land, to provide a social good. The whole concept of the environmental land management scheme was public money for public good.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Farmers in the Flit valley in Mid Bedfordshire are concerned that repeated flooding and waterlogging has left large areas of farmland unfit for agricultural purposes. Our farmers are prepared to do the hard yards to put in place nature-based solutions, but does my hon. Friend agree that they need support and certainty from the Government to achieve that?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The basis behind my seeking this debate is to highlight the need for continued, not new, Government support. ELMs is a Brexit dividend. It would be a crying shame if the Government failed to build on the very good work of the last Government, as I will come to in a minute.

ELMs is the flagship scheme. The last Government honoured their commitment to provide £2.4 billion every year, from 2019 onwards, to support the transition from area-based payments to public money for public good. The sustainable farming incentive supports soil quality, water quality, hedgerows, tree planting and riparian buffers. There are also the countryside stewardship scheme, and the landscape recovery scheme which I have already mentioned. Other schemes include the England woodland creation offer and the nature for climate fund. All those schemes back up the transition to nature-based solutions, and allow farmers to recognise and mitigate for changes in rain distribution and intensity. They provide funding for the changes necessary for biodiversity and food production.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has rightly highlighted the intricate and technical knowledge required to understand some of the mitigations, so I welcome our Government’s commitment to a floods resilience taskforce. Does he agree that it is integral that farmers are involved every step of the way in the development of solutions, particularly because of the changing nature of flooding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Of course I agree. My message to the Government is that when they are dealing with flooding, particularly through the Environment Agency, they need to do so in collaboration with farmers and get their agreement. If a watercourse is going to be slowed down through a lack of clearance, they need to recognise where that water will end up. Such an intervention does not simply lead to freak flooding on a neighbour’s land or even their house; it will have consequences for businesses and food security. The Government need to work in collaboration with farmers and be prepared to pay if the benefit of other people’s land is used.

I recognise that, up to now, my entire speech has had nothing to do with the Minister’s portfolio because she deals with flood defences. I am sure she has a deep knowledge of farming, but it may not be quite deep enough to answer some of my questions. She will be relieved to know that I am moving on to discuss natural flood management schemes as part of the Government’s flood defence budget of £5.2 billion.

The last Government made a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, by allocating £25 million to natural flood management schemes. That amount needs to be increased because the lesson from the initial schemes is that they are relatively cheap but very effective. Why do we not do more of them and build on that Brexit dividend?

That leads me to the scary bit: the Budget. I have real concerns. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs trumpeted his £5 billion over two years to support agriculture, which he says is a record amount. However, it is only the biggest ever amount if you ignore inflation, Dr Murrison, which none of the rest of us can. That £5 billion would need to be £5.8 billion across the two years, and then through the rest of the Parliament, to match the £2.4 billion equivalent from 2019 onwards. So we are already £800 million short over the course of the Parliament.

What happens after 2026? In the Budget, it says that future

“funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600 million”

will require a review into affordability. What does that mean? Does that mean it is the end of ELM schemes? Are we going to cut back on all the nature-friendly farming initiatives? Without reassurance from the Minister, and in particular from the Treasury, farmers look at this and say, “There is a cliff edge at the end of 2026.” There are two years of £5 billion, which is less in real money than they had before, and then a huge fall-off. That is a terrible message, on top of the family farm tax: cuts to nature-friendly farming. Where does this go? That is the opposite of the Labour party’s manifesto commitment, which was to an expansion of nature-rich habitats.

Will the Minister commit to the water restoration fund? Yesterday, I served on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. New clause 2, which was in the name of the Opposition, including me, would have enshrined the water restoration fund in law, but it was voted down by the Government. That gives me, and farmers, real cause for concern. Will the Minister reassure farmers that post-2027 funding for farming, in particular nature-friendly farming, will be index-linked? Otherwise, it will fall off a cliff. Will she rule out cuts?

Will the Minister allocate—this is perhaps more in her personal remit—an increased percentage of the flooding budget to nature-based solutions? Those have been proven effective, and they work to compensate farmers who assist in their creation. Will she enable private sector investment in natural capital markets? Get the quangos out of the way. Let them set standards, certainly, but then allow the market in nature credits to flourish. Words in a manifesto do not mitigate flooding or support farmers; long-term funding and long-term incentives do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am delighted to contribute to this debate with the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), although I feel that we are spending more time together at the moment than I am with my own family, what with the Bill Committee and other debates. I look forward to round 3—or is it 4?—tomorrow.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It’s our secret.

[Emma Hardy]

It is our secret.

I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful contributions on the importance of using soil in the right way and how farming practices can be updated, which were valuable. As I mentioned to the House last week, and as I am sure people have heard me say before, I am fully aware of the impact of flooding on households, people’s mental health and, importantly, farmland. I have deep sympathy with farmers, so much of whose crop has been underwater this season, which has impacted yield.

The storms this winter highlight the urgent need for many of us to adapt to the threats of climate change, not least farmers, who often feel the impact directly. As climate change leads to more extreme rainfall, as has been mentioned, the number of people at risk from flooding and coastal erosion will continue to grow. I therefore want to make it abundantly clear that this new Government are committed to tackling this challenge, which is one of the top five core priorities for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The good news is that work has already begun. Recognising the significant impact of flooding on farmers, the Government are bolstering England’s resilience to flooding by confirming an additional £50 million for internal drainage boards to improve assets. That is on top of the existing £25 million, and takes total investment to £75 million. That transformational investment will put IDBs on a firm footing to deliver their vital role in flood and water management. It will benefit projects that will improve, repair or replace IDB assets, including flood barriers, embankments and, as has been mentioned, the maintenance of watercourses. Projects will reduce risks and impacts from flooding for farmers and rural communities across England. To ensure that we protect the country from the devastating impact of flooding, we are investing £2.4 billion in 2024-25 and 2025-26 to improve flood resilience by building, maintaining and repairing flood defences.

However, I gently point out to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that this Government inherited our flood defence assets in the worst condition on record. We have had to come in and deal with the maintenance backlog.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Those are all great projects, but farmers plan long in advance; it is not an 18 or 24-month process, and if the funding runs out in two years and there is no visibility beyond that, how are they expected to invest in these schemes?

[Emma Hardy]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Government are committed to the environmental land management programme and are looking at funding natural flood management on farmland. As I said, we are having a meeting on Monday to discuss, with farmers, what more we can do for natural flood management.

Part of our vision for farming is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production—on this point I agree with the hon. Gentleman—but actually essential to it: restoring nature helps food production. We will provide farmers and land managers with the support they need to help restore nature, which is vital to safeguard our long-term food security, support productivity and build resilience to climate change. That means continuing the transition away from payment for land ownership towards payment for delivering public goods for the environment, and continuing to use regulation to require minimum standards that will—importantly—be designed in partnership with farmers, and have sufficient lead-in times for change.

The countryside stewardship scheme already has specific flood resilience options, such as “making space for water”. I also flag that our land use framework will be coming out at some point, and that this year we will introduce new actions with flood mitigation benefits to our combined environmental land management offer, including actions to reduce flood risk, restore and enhance floodplains, and provide better storage of floodwater.

To sum up, I reiterate that the Government are dedicated to exploring ways that nature-based solutions to flooded farmland can be delivered for the benefit of farmers and others. We have already taken decisive action with the first steps to reviewing the outdated funding formula, the creation of the new, multi-agency floods resilience taskforce, and the updating of flood options under the environmental land management schemes. I look forward to continuing to engage with farmers on these incredibly important matters. I am grateful for this important debate, and grateful to have heard the views of Members in the room.

Question put and agreed to.