South East Strategic Reservoir Option

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I will call Layla Moran to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed South East Strategic Reservoir Option.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am very grateful to be able to bring back to the House the issue of what is actually called the Abingdon reservoir, in common parlance. At the outset, I thank all the local campaigners who have been fighting alongside me on this issue, including Derek Stork and all the members of the Group Against Reservoir Development, Councillors Sally Povolotsky and Richard Webber, and local campaigner Richard Benwell. I also thank Thames Water and Sarah Bentley, whose team have engaged with my office on this issue on a number of occasions.

The last time I was here in Westminster Hall to speak about this issue was in December 2018, in a debate called by the former Member for Wantage, the now Lord Vaizey. Three and a half years later, here we are again. In fact, many campaigners are telling me that the campaign already feels like groundhog day, because the proposed Abingdon reservoir has been looming on the horizon for the people of South Oxfordshire for the best part of 25 years. In 2010, community campaigners were successful, as the Planning Inspectorate determined that there was “no immediate need” for a reservoir of this scale. In 2018, following the Westminster Hall debate, we defeated the monstrous project again. This debate is especially timely, because the public consultation on the regional plan put together by Water Resources South East closed on Monday. It is fair to say that the proposal has mobilised the community, with one constituent writing to me to say that

“these plans are frankly scary and have prompted me to try and take some action.”

It is important to make it clear that I fully accept that continuing to meet rising water demand is of utmost importance. Those in the industry refer to the point at which demand outweighs supply as “the jaws of death”, and I have no desire to find out what that means. They are warning, however, that we are on this path and that something needs to happen—on that, let us agree. Climate change means there is a reduction in water supply, and population growth will continue to increase demand. There is clearly a gap in supply and a growing need for drought resilience. I therefore understand the drive to plan for the worst but hope for the best.

Water Resources South East, which is an alliance of six water companies in the south-east of England, has a proposal to fill the gap: the Abingdon reservoir. For those who may be less familiar with the project, let me paint a picture. The Abingdon reservoir is a fully bunded—that means walled—raw water storage reservoir in the upper Thames catchment area. It is near the villages of Drayton, Steventon and The Hanneys, but it also affects Garford, Frilford and Marcham. During periods of high flow, water would be taken out of the Thames and pumped into the reservoir. When flow in the Thames is low and the water is required in London and the rest of the south-east, water would be released to the Thames in order to be taken out further downstream.

It sounds good, but it is worth noting that this not just a reservoir. It is a mega-reservoir. It would be the largest walled reservoir in the UK and hold 150 megatonnes of water, with a footprint of seven square kilometres—that is ever so slightly smaller than Abingdon itself. The entire city of Swindon—by which I mean every person, car and house—weighs five times less than the water that would be contained in the reservoir. Its concrete walls would be between 15 and 25 metres high—equivalent to three double-decker buses stacked on top of one another—and all of this would be built on a floodplain in the River Thames, in an area that was heavily affected by flooding in 2007.

It is understandable that my constituents are concerned, first, about the disruption that will be caused by eight to 10 years of construction and, secondly, about all the local infrastructure that will be put under water. Local people may draw a comparison between this reservoir and the Farmoor reservoir. The Farmoor reservoir’s walls are only 1 metre to 2 metres high and it is about a third of the size. People can sail on Farmoor; we certainly will not be able to sail on this one, and nor is it going to be a nature reserve. This reservoir will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and will have a huge environmental impact. In my view and that of the campaigners, it is imperative that Water Resources South East does due diligence and reassures the public, at this early stage, that the proposal is absolutely necessary. That reassurance is wholly lacking at the moment.

My constituents are challenging some key assumptions. A cornerstone of the argument for the reservoir is population growth. WRSE predicts a population increase of 4 million by 2060. The Office for National Statistics puts the figure at 1.13 million, less than a third of that prediction. Water companies have pointed to growth in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor as a factor in their need to create extra resources, but the Oxford-Cambridge Arc appears to have been scrapped. Which number is it? Overestimating population growth has a huge impact on planning for future water demand. The WRSE estimate overstates the required water output by 150 million litres a day.

The case for an infrastructure project of this size should have no holes, but one appears to be leaking already, and it is not the only issue. If the project were to go ahead, the impact on the environment would be monumental. The submission to the Regulators Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development—RAPID—claims that the reservoir would have a moderate adverse environmental impact but that the plan would increase biodiversity by 10%. How can the report make such claims, when the initial environmental impact assessment scoping studies will not be carried out until gate three? We have just passed gate one. That will be in spring 2023, with construction due to begin in 2025.

An initial background environmental impact assessment was conducted by Thames Water. When it was released—under pressure—it was almost entirely redacted. That is simply not good enough. Campaign groups have raised concerns that there will be a total loss of habitat and biodiversity. The size and depth of the reservoir will be unsuitable for nesting waterfowl, and it is highly unlikely that species pushed out during construction will ever return. The project will also have the largest construction carbon footprint of any strategic water project, which we know from Thames Water’s own figures. Thames Water has refused to give any breakdown of the figures in the gate one review.

If the requirement for the project seems in doubt, and the consequences for the local area are so catastrophic, but we accept that there is a problem, it is fair to ask whether there are alternatives. The short answer is yes. The reservoir is one of many strategic resource options open to water companies. There are the Severn Thames transfer, Grand Union Canal transfer and London effluent reuse schemes, desalination schemes and, of course, important leakage reduction measures and water demand reduction.

In its submission to the regulator, to which Thames Water contributed, companies argued that the proposal to link the Severn Thames transfer scheme to the Abingdon reservoir via a pipeline would have “no material…benefit”, but in conversations with my office, Thames Water has said that the Severn Thames transfer depends on the reservoir, as the River Thames does not have the storage capacity for the additional water. Both things cannot be true at the same time. What are they telling us? Why is what they are telling us different to what they have submitted?

Local campaign groups further argue that the Thames does not in fact store the water transferred from the Severn, but that the water simply flows down the river and then gets extracted elsewhere. There is no point in supplying the water from the Severn and pumping it to the Abingdon reservoir, because it can be extracted and stored locally, where it is needed. The common misconception about all these schemes is that they will be supplying large amounts of water all time. That is not true: for the majority of the year, neither scheme would supply more than a trickle flow to keep the pipes clean. When there is a likelihood of shortages, developing schemes will be called on to put water into the Thames, and even then, it will not necessarily be at the maximum rate. The point is that the two schemes are, to a large extent, interchangeable. The Severn Thames transfer is, however, more flexible and more adaptable. It will be delivered earlier at a lower cost and a lower construction carbon footprint. It takes up less land and leaves workings underground, not threatening surrounding villages.

As the justification for the reservoir looks flawed and there appears to be a better alternative, we have to ask how we have ended up debating this proposal yet again. One answer lies in the make-up of Water Resource South East, which is a body of six water companies—that is, six organisations interested in maximising their profits. Thames Water pay-outs in dividends to shareholders of parent companies amounted to £57 billion between 1991 and 2019, nearly half the sum it has spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants over that period. With Thames Water’s record of pumping sewage into our rivers and failing to fix leakage problems, how are customers expected to trust it to deliver this new infrastructure project? Water companies in the south-east of England appear to have free rein to implement these plans and projects, with little public scrutiny or engagement. Moreover, they are operating under a veil of secrecy, with one quango being under a non-disclosure agreement to another for a scheme that uses public money. That is surely not right, and when an organisation is permitted to operate in this way, it is unsurprising that an element of group-think pervades it.

However, there is another model. Water Resource East has board members not just from the water companies, but from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, local councils and the Rivers Trust. Engaging local stakeholders at all levels of the organisation is the way to maximise local engagement and improve planning, rather than box-ticking exercises and cursory public consultations.

My constituents’ feeling on this issue runs deep, and it is a campaign that some have been fighting for nearly a lifetime. I therefore urge the Minister to thoroughly interrogate the proposal for this reservoir, especially as the Secretary of State has sign-off for the regional plan in spring 2023. I ask her to look again at the population estimates, ensure sufficient environmental impact analysis, reconsider the structure of Water Resource South East, and make it clear to Thames Water through a written warning that releasing wholly redacted environmental studies is simply unacceptable. As the plan for the reservoir progresses to gate two, £29.8 million of taxpayers’ money has been committed to further feasibility studies. We have been here before, and millions of pounds and copious amounts of time were spent fighting it. All I ask is that before we go around this merry-go-round again, we pause, reflect, properly consult, and make sure every available option is considered fully and transparently.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing the debate. I realise that she had a similar debate in the past; I was not Environment Minister then, but I have looked at the transcript—it was in 2019, wasn’t it?

I think we are all agreed that water is the most basic, yet vital, resource. It is needed for everything we do and is essential for a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. A reliable water supply should not be taken for granted. I say that because we have not experienced significant shortages of water countrywide since the 1970s, although in April 2012, following two dry winters and just weeks before the London Olympics, water availability in the south-east was reaching record lows. We only avoided significant shortages thanks to a very wet summer in 2012, which highlights how important our water supply is. We have to consider not only a growing population but the effects of climate change, especially in drier parts of the country where it is causing increasing challenges to our water supply. Water companies have to take account of those factors in their future planning in order to provide a reliable and sustainable supply of drinking water. It is our job in Government to work with the water regulators to ensure that the water companies do their job effectively.

The Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, published in 2020, identified that between 2025 and 2050 about 3 billion to 4 billion extra litres of water a day will be needed for the public water supply—that might surprise a lot of people. We must therefore take a strategic approach to future water needs and work with regional groups and water companies to take account of climate change while protecting the environment. We want to preserve our iconic valleys and water bodies such as chalk streams. Indeed, we welcomed the Catchment Based Approach’s chalk stream strategy, published in October 2021.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has worked closely with our chalk stream restoration group on its development and to drive forward a future vision for chalk streams. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon engaged with any of that, but some of her neighbours did, and a lot of people, myself included, want to re-establish and restore our amazing chalk streams. That includes having to reduce unsustainable water abstraction from chalk streams and aquifers. We have measures in the landmark Environment Act 2021 to do just that.

The EA’s national framework also reflects the Government’s commitment to a twin-track approach to improving water resilience by investing in new supply infrastructure where necessary. Leakage will be tackled by our water companies as they crack down on water wastage. Up to two thirds of our additional water needs can be made up by water demand improvement. By 2050, we expect to see leakage levels halved and average per capita consumption at 110 litres per person—more than 30 litres less than we currently use in our homes. We are consulting on legally binding demand management targets under our new powers in the Environment Act. The issue is so critical that we are looking at it from every angle.

We must expect all water companies, including Thames Water and Affinity Water, to act on customers’ needs for a resilient water supply, as well as to manage the pressures. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that collaborative regional water resources groups, including Water Resources East, which she mentioned, have been consulting on their emerging plans—that consultation closed yesterday—and will publicly consult again to improve them. That will be used to inform water companies’ draft statutory water resources management plans, which will require further public consultation at the end of the year. There will be opportunities for her to feed into that.

[Layla Moran]

I gave Water Resources East as the example of best practice because it has the councils, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Rivers Trust sitting on the board, as opposed to their being simply consultees. Does the Minister agree that that is a better model? Local accountability feeds into the plans at the highest level, as opposed to in the Water Resources South East model, which does not include any local democracy whatsoever.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. We expect water companies to work with their local authorities. She touched on the point about population in her speech. That is where working with the local authority on its local growth plans is valuable, because the local authority will be aware of what new housing there will be and how the population will expand in its area. On those grounds, water companies need to plan for sustainable growth, which is very important.

There will be an opportunity to feed into the management plans. The reservoir would be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), so I urge him to get involved. He was vociferous about the need for transparency in the process, as is the hon. Lady. He stresses the importance of making sure that there is a need for the reservoir. He would have spoken in the debate, but he has covid, so we wish him well. Perhaps he is at home listening.

The consultations will help inform future decisions on the right way to secure water supplies, including for Thames Water’s 10 million and Affinity Water’s 3.6 million customers. To support the robustness of water resources planning, as well as the national framework, the water regulators issue detailed guidance to water companies on their water resources plans. If water companies forecast a water supply deficit—as we will see in the south-east—they should study all the available options fully to justify the preferred solutions in their plans.

The Environment Agency and Ofwat have both helped to shape the regional plans and are statutory consultees on the water resources management plans. The EA’s national framework sets out that regional groups must be strategic in planning their water needs. There needs to be more effective collaboration between water companies to manage the supply and demand, the resilience and, indeed, the environment, all of which have been clearly flagged. The Environment Agency also advises the Secretary of State on the draft plan before it can be finalised following consultation, so there is a set and clear process.

Water companies are also using the £469 million made available by Ofwat in this price review period properly to investigate a range of potential strategic water resources options, such as new reservoirs, big reservoirs, small on-farm reservoirs—which we potentially need more of—water recycling projects and inter-regional water transfers. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon criticised the use of money for investigation, but I would argue that it is critical to know that the right projects are being focused on.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, the work is supported by RAPID, or the Regulators’ Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development, a joint team made up of the three water regulators: Ofwat, the EA and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. It is working with industry on the development of strategic water resources infrastructure that is in the best interests of water users and the environment to inform water company plans. She is absolutely right that a range of schemes are being very closely looked at. It is possible that a combination of these big national infrastructure projects will be needed, and options such as the Severn-Thames transfer and the reservoir are not necessarily mutually exclusive. All of that will come out through the consultations, the investigation and the data.

Recently, I went to visit an enormous pipe that goes from the Humber, where there is a lot of water, right down to Essex. That pipe is one example of the huge water transfer projects necessary because of the critical water situation in the east of the country. The planning for that huge project was put in place some years ago, so that the investment could be made and the project could get under way. I am sure that the hon. Member will not disagree that such projects will be necessary in the future.

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need robust plans and transparency but we do have a system to enable that. The need for new infrastructure is, again, set out in the draft national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. The statement applies to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and I would expect the proposed reservoir scheme to qualify as one such project. I can assure her that extensive pre-application consultation and engagement must be undertaken by applicants using the Planning Act 2008.

[Layla Moran]

The Minister mentioned transparency, but there is a real issue with the redacted environmental impact assessment. I say “redacted”, but the document is gobbledegook and I cannot make head or tail of it. The water company would get much further if it took a much more constructive approach to local campaigners, so that they could be reassured that their numbers were right. Does the Minister agree that the company ought to release the unredacted paper so that we can look at it?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I did hear her at the beginning of her speech praising her relationship with Thames Water, so she could use that relationship to urge it to do just that. We are still consulting and there is a long way to go in the process.

I want to touch on a couple of points about the carbon impact. The hon. Lady obviously made a good point when she said that if the project went ahead it would be huge, but regional groups and water companies have to show how their overall contribution to the sector’s 2030 net zero commitment would line up, and how it would line up with the Government’s targets and our net zero commitment. All our big infrastructure projects have to take those things into consideration.

Similarly, on the environmental impact, the water companies will have to continue to develop their proposals and their evidence surrounding any kind of footprint on the environment and habitats, and on the requirements for biodiversity net gain. As nature recovery Minister, I would certainly want everything possible to be done in any scheme that came forward to add to the sum total of our nature recovery.

I hope that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who potentially is joining us from his sick bed, see that there is a robust process in place, which is critical. The other critical thing is that we must provide the nation with a reliable source of water. The solutions that are finally selected must go through the right due process and we must know that they are the right system for the right purposes.

I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the debate, and I thank you, too, Mr Bone.

Question put and agreed to.

Environment Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that I am seeking water bathing status for the Thames along Port Meadow. One reason why that is so important is the dire state of our rivers: none of them is chemically sound. The illnesses that my constituents have reported, when they just wanted to get into the river for the sake of their mind and body, are atrocious. Does he agree that this is a national issue that is not adequately addressed by the amendments, and we need to go further?

Thames in Oxford: Bathing Water Status

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered bathing water status for the river Thames in Oxford.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. Achieving bathing water status for the stretch of the River Thames in Port Meadow is something that I have long campaigned for. The Minister will be aware, I am sure, of the early-day motion that I tabled last year on this very issue. It called on the Government to work with Thames Water to protect the Thames in Oxford, so that the river could remain clean and enable Oxford’s residents to swim safely.

A year on, our application for bathing water status is now in the hands of the Department, but there is of course also a renewed national focus on cleaning up our rivers in the Environment Bill. I will reassure the Minister that that will not be hijacking this debate. Of course, the Environment Bill does return to the House on Monday and it will give us the opportunity to improve water quality in our rivers everywhere—not just in Oxford—by placing a duty on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into our inland waters. The public backlash following the defeat of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment surely made clear how important that issue is to people up and down the country. The Government say that they want to act, and I look forward to seeing any strengthened amendments that might come back next week, but whatever happens, I hope that our application gives the Government an opportunity to demonstrate further their commitment to that cause.

I am also heartened that the water companies themselves recognise that more must be done. The chief executive officer of Thames Water, Sarah Bentley, admitted during her recent appearance before the Environmental Audit Committee that Thames Water’s track record on sewage has been unacceptable. It is worth noting that it already has alerts when it intends to release sewage. She went on to commit that Thames Water would spend £1.2 billion over the next five years on improving the overall network and ensuring that sewage is not released during heavy rain.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Just last year in the Lake district, United Utilities, the north-west water company, dumped raw sewage for the equivalent of 71 full days into Windermere, England’s largest lake. Does my hon. Friend agree that bathing site status, which I am asking for Windermere and the Rivers Rothay, Brathay and Kent, would be a way of ensuring quick action so that water companies do not carry on doing this outrageous stuff?

[Layla Moran]

I could not agree more. No doubt many other places in the country would want the same thing.

It is worth noting that our application has the support of Thames Water. In fact, it paid for a staff member to help to put in the application, so it is determined to do something about the issue. However, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made, we also need an effective Environment Agency, because it is the regulator and it needs the resources and the teeth to hold the water companies to their promises. Therefore, I urge the Minister to assess its ability to do that important work and to ensure that it is well funded to do it. The will is there, and things are moving in the right direction, but we now need as much action from the Government as possible to keep up the momentum and keep water safe.

I am sure that I cannot have been the only one who, during the pandemic, contemplated the natural beauty around me. Indeed, I even bought a wetsuit, hoping that I would get into the river. I did not quite make it, but a lot of people did. In a survey of residents in Oxford, 21% said that this was the first year that they had ever dared to go in the river. They reported that it helped their mental health and wellbeing. There is a truly national movement for wild swimming, and it is wonderful.

Last month, I had the opportunity to meet activists at a bathing site in Wolvercote, just on the edge of Port Meadow. They told me how important it was for them that the designation was made. It would mean that the river that they loved would be subjected to a strict testing regime based on public health requirements. The number of people swimming or picnicking there peaked at an impressive 2,000 a day. It is a very popular spot and there are many like it across the country, as we have already heard. Shockingly, however, there is only one other river in the whole of England that has been granted bathing water status: the River Wharfe in Ilkley, Yorkshire.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the River Wharfe in Ilkley, which she rightly says is the first river in the whole of the UK to be awarded bathing water status. I want to congratulate the Government on granting that status on the back of a very successful campaign run by the Ilkley Clean River Group. I wholeheartedly support that, because this is a great mechanism for putting more pressure on our utility companies, such as Yorkshire Water, which is discharging storm overflow sewage into the Wharfe.

[Layla Moran]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s group on bringing that forward, because we want to double the number of rivers with that status—indeed, to triple or quadruple it in this room alone.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore)’s point, I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Lady that the River Teme in my constituency has also been put forward by Severn Trent Water to, I hope, become the second river in England to achieve bathing water quality status. It will cost quite a lot of money to do that. The Government have allowed, through Ofwat and the green recovery challenge fund award to Severn Trent Water earlier this year, close to £5 million to be invested in improving the very things the hon. Lady was going on to talk about, and which my hon. Friend raised—that is, the storm overflow discharges upstream of Ludlow, to allow bathing water quality to be improved. I urge the hon. Lady to invite Thames Water to explain to her how many storm overflow assessments have been done on the Thames upstream of Oxford, so that she can get a view on the progress it is making. I understand that over the weekend five discharges were identified from the storm overflows upstream of Oxford. In the last two days, people might have been enjoying swimming but they could not.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his advice and intervention. Here we are: we are five in the room. That compares with France, which has 573 designated swimming areas. Germany has 38 and Italy 73 —we are way behind. We are lagging behind when we should be leading the way. I sense an all-party parliamentary group forming—but anyway, there is certainly a lot of keen interest across the House.

Our application went in on 20 October. In fact, the city council has put in an application for two areas on the Thames at Port Meadow: one at Fiddler’s Island and the other at Wolvercote. Once the status is given, the water company and the councils will have five years to reduce bacteria levels to at least sufficient status in the summer months, otherwise, the area is de-designated. That pressure really matters. It also places a duty on the Environment Agency to keep testing the water regularly and the council to display signage on water quality. It is entirely right to give river users the choice about whether to bathe; currently, they simply do not have the information to decide whether it is safe. Unfortunately, all evidence at the moment suggests it is not.

Research by the Oxford rivers project published in September found that sewage pollution is increasing bacteria levels in popular swimming spots to the point where they are deemed unsafe. The current situation, where the Government allow water companies to release untreated sewage into rivers in exceptional circumstances is untenable and downright dangerous, because it is not exceptional. In Oxfordshire, just up from the areas I am talking about, it happened around 60 times last year. The average is more than once a week. The only thing that is exceptional is how it is allowed to happen at all. Bathing water status would be a small but significant step in holding those water companies better to account.

The most recent assessment nationally from the Environment Agency found that only 14% of rivers in England are in good ecological health and 0% are in good chemical health. According to the two sampling points included in the application to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Port Meadow has poor water quality.

In April, a survey of 1,140 Oxford residents found that 67% had been swimming in the river for years, and 75% of them said they did it weekly in the summer months. It is a self-selecting group, but these residents nevertheless recognised the risks that they are taking, as 57% listed water pollution as their top concern, with river swimming or similar river activities such as kayaking or paddle boarding being something they worry about. It is such a shame that such a joyous activity is tempered by such concerns. When A.A. Milne invented the game Pooh sticks I do not think he thought the name would have applied quite so literally. Our rivers should be places of protected picturesque beauty, not low-cost avenues for getting rid of sewage and, for that matter, biodiversity along with it.

Oxford has a centuries-long history of river swimming and other river activities, so it was ridiculous that, before this campaign—started by a PhD student, Claire Robertson, and volunteers as part of the Oxford rivers project—river users did not even have information about whether the quality of the water would affect their health. The research found that in months with heavier rainfall the bacteria levels were as much as double the recommended threshold. These levels have the potential to make anyone coming into contact with the water very ill indeed. When experts looked at which type of bacteria was causing this illness, they found that it was actually sewage, not agricultural run-off, which is what they had previously been told it was—yuck! Claire and her project have been funded by Thames Water, Thames21 and the Rivers Trust to do this research, and they have done a truly remarkable job.

There is such strength of feeling in Oxford from across the community that the petition for bathing water status has now reached over 5,000 signatures, but many of these residents have written to me separately. Heidi, who is part of a group of West Oxford women and regularly swims in the Thames at Port Meadow, described in her email that

“we’re very concerned about the pollution in the river and especially the release of raw sewage by Thames Water into the river after rain fall. I have signed up to a sewage release alert and I’m very shocked how often I receive emails from them notifying me of a sewage release”.

Max wrote to me and explained,

“over the summer I swam a number of times with my family in the Thames in and around Oxford...My daughter even became sick after a swim and was laid up with stomach cramps for several days”.

Jessica, in her email, told me,

“each swim is tempered with how even better the water quality could be. I’ve seen photos of the river 5 years previously and the bright green of the weeds and clear water look stunning, now it’s a brownish grey”.

Cherry described to me:

“I swim every year from Port Meadow, it is a great pleasure but I am appalled that the water is so unclean. As you know it has been a favourite swimming place for many people. I grew up swimming in the Thames and Cherwell and continue to do so at 79.”

For some, the experience can have much longer effects. Amanda wrote in to me and said:

“I knew immediately I got in that the water was different. It looked green and felt fizzy. I got out straight away but still became ill, requiring antibiotics”.

Unfortunately, these experiences are all too common, and they need to stop.

In conclusion, I simply urge the Government and the Minister to take action and protect our rivers, starting by granting the River Thames in Oxford at Port Meadow bathing water status. The application has the backing of the community, the water company and the councils. We are not asking for any money at this point, but we want the application to be granted so that we can work with all the partners concerned, including the Environment Agency, Thames Water and the Oxford rivers project, and make sure they have the tools they need.

I appreciate that the application is in and it is unlikely we will get an answer today—although if the Minister wants to give us positive news, we would be delighted—but I very much welcome her remarks in her response, and I look forward to a positive outcome as soon as possible for the people of Oxford.

Oxford West and Abingdon: Flooding

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

I am ever so grateful that the House has allowed me to raise the vital issue of flooding in my constituency. This is the second debate on this issue that I have had in two years, which I hope shows just how important an issue it is to my constituents. Our area has historically flooded, in most recent times devastatingly so in 2007 and again, notably, in 2014. Literally every year some portion of my constituency has an event, most recently over Christmas.

As a community we of course understand that we cannot prevent floods, only reduce their risk, and I give credit to all the community for their resilience and fortitude. However, despite the prevalence and severity of floods in our area, I have asked for this second debate because we have seen precious little progress from the Government since the first. I was promised a meeting with the Minister’s predecessor that never took place, despite my best efforts. There is much to discuss, including the delays in the Oxford flood alleviation scheme, funding for the Abingdon scheme and much more. As a result of the lack of progress, my constituents feel that their concerns have not been taken seriously by the Government.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the incredibly hard-working staff at the Environment Agency for everything they have done and continue to do in our community. They do what they can with the funding and resourcing that they have been given. We do not need to hear from the Minister how much money is being spent nationally and how with limited budgets we have to prioritise certain places, because, bluntly, that is not going to help my community. I want to hear from the Minister how the Government plan to help the people of Abingdon, Yarnton, Begbroke and South Hinksey. Climate change means that flooding events are going to become only more frequent and more extreme, and every time they come, anxiety rises. What can we do to give people a sense of relief?

Let me talk about the scheme for which we do have funding: the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. We found out late last year that the scheme may be delayed by up to five years because of necessary bridge works that need to be completed in Kennington. For the villagers of South Hinksey, every month of delay is another month of anxiety. During the recent floods, which frankly ruined people’s Christmases, I inspected the temporary flood barriers that were brought into the village from Osney. The floodwater was literally just 5 cm from coming over the top. Temporary barriers are obviously gratefully received, but they are no substitute for the real deal. Let us take David and Claire: their garden backs on to the floodplain. When floods hit, they are on the frontline. Part of the Oxford scheme is a permanent flood barrier that will be built just behind their home and around the edge of the village. Can the Minister tell us why the South Hinksey permanent flood barrier cannot go ahead sooner as a stand-alone project while the wider scheme is delayed? Will she ask the Environment Agency and the county council to press on with it?

The village remains vulnerable until the new scheme is in place. In the more immediate term, I have asked the Environment Agency to store full-sized temporary barriers at South Hinksey. At the moment, the large temporary barriers need to be collected from Northampton. That is a four-hour round trip, and this time that was just too slow, so smaller barriers had to be brought in from closer by in Osney. However, as I just described, those barriers were literally just centimetres away from failing. Can the Minister help me to relay that ask to the Environment Agency? The villagers will provide the storage, and given the delay, I do not think it is too big of an ask.

Notwithstanding those issues, the village remains concerned about the impact of the Oxford scheme on the A34 and local roads. Once it starts, the current plan is for there to be pollution and traffic for four years. The residents have ideas about how to make that better, and it is after all in their interests that the scheme is done as quickly as possible, but with minimal impact. They feel that often they have not been heard by the Highways Agency or the Environment Agency on these matters. Can the Minister help me to bring together the Environment Agency, Highways England, local councils, local councillors and the community to ensure that we solve this problem together?

Finally on this issue, is the Minister aware of the environmental concerns that have come up with the scheme, such as the damage that will be done to Hinksey meadows and the loss of hundreds of trees and much habitat in the medium term? I think the scheme should go ahead—do not get me wrong—and in the very long term, there is a great opportunity to increase biodiversity, but it should not be a matter of taking with one hand and giving with the other. We need to do much more to help protect precious habitat and wildlife now.

Moving on to the Abingdon scheme, in recent weeks and months my constituents have seen floodwater rise, and they worry about a repeat of 2007. It is, of course, only a matter of time. Councillor Samantha Bowring received an award from the Prime Minister for the work she did to support flood victims after the 2007 floods, despite having had to move out of her own flooded home. Speaking at the Vale of White Horse District Council meeting two weeks ago, she reminded us that once someone has been flooded, they worry every single time there is heavy rain and the rivers start to rise.

The crude cost-benefit ratio system used to decide whether schemes get funding found that the Abingdon scheme—already designed and ready to go—does not score highly enough. The original scheme was estimated to cost £5.2 million, but after the costs doubled for several reasons, including the drop in the value of the pound post the Brexit referendum, the scheme was not deemed to be viable. However, the need for the scheme, if we look at it from the point of view of residents, has only become even more urgent. They are frustrated and feel left behind. They went from having a scheme to suddenly not having one at all, and that is simply not good enough. We are not spending enough on communities like Abingdon.

Equally, we cannot say with any confidence that what is being spent elsewhere is being used effectively. In its annual report on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was published yesterday, the National Audit Office made that very clear. Abingdon is a large town—indeed, it is the oldest continuously inhabited town in the country—and it is getting larger, with big housing developments on the horizon. Can the Minister tell us whether the cost-benefit calculation for the alleviation scheme took the new housing into account?

We know that the 2007 floods left emotional scars for hundreds of families to endure. Will the Government ensure that the Environment Agency is adequately funded, so that it can afford to fund prevention schemes such as this one? Surely the real test of value for money is whether people’s lives and the economy in towns such as Abingdon benefit.

The Environment Agency is clear that it believes a scheme in the town is necessary and would make a huge difference, but funding is the issue. I thank the Minister for her letter to me yesterday, in which she reiterated what her predecessor said, but I wonder how many other towns stand to receive no help from the Government because of crude calculations like this. If the Minister stands by the calculations, will she at the very least ask the Environment Agency to help draw up new plans for what can be done in Abingdon that it can afford?

That brings me to the village of Yarnton and the problems it is facing. In Yarnton, we have a whole different problem: there are no schemes at all in place and no plans for them, even in theory. When flooding hits, we see what that means for residents: agencies pass the buck to one another reactively, and Yarnton’s residents buy their own pumps to stop foul, stinking sewage water flowing through their homes. Michael, a constituent in Yarnton, told me:

“whenever rain is forecast we are on edge. It is hugely stressful for me and my family.”

They and their neighbours, rather than spending their time preparing for Christmas, spent 14 hours the day before Christmas eve pumping that water away from their homes. If the Minister were in their shoes, would she not want that addressed urgently? Michael and his neighbours are calling for a multi-agency approach with our local councils to fix it.

To add insult to injury, the Cherwell local plan was recently approved and will lead to developments around Yarnton and Begbroke. In a very small area that we know floods, more than 2,000 homes are due to be built, with the groundwater runoff associated with that. I think it is fair that residents are concerned that their existing problems are likely to be made even worse.

We have seen a similar issue in Radley in recent weeks. Years of underfunding in infrastructure have taken their toll, and new housing is coming without any more drainage investment from Thames Water. Our parish councils need help. There are problems with things as basic as broken underground pipes and blocked ditches. Parish councils and residents cannot do that on their own. They need help from Thames Water, landowners and upper-tier councils to resolve these problems. Will the Minister speak to Thames Water about its response times? We need the agencies to work together, not pass residents between them. Will the Minister agree to meet me, agency representatives and local councillors to try to resolve these issues?

Meanwhile, residents are very keen, in the absence of bigger schemes, to protect themselves. Recently a local campaigner called Mary phoned into my virtual surgery on BBC Radio Oxford and asked whether we could extend the green homes grant to allow homeowners to make their homes more flood resilient. I think that is a fantastically simple idea, and I have already tabled a motion in the House to do that.

However, it seems that the Chancellor is thinking of cutting the green homes grant in next week’s Budget, to the dismay of environmental and business groups alike. What does the Minister think of that? I cannot imagine she is a fan. Does she agree with me that extending the grants to cover home improvements that help residents to future-proof houses from flooding is a quick, easy way of helping them right now to protect their homes from damage? Can she tell us whether the property flood resilience grants scheme will be extended so that my constituents, who have already been flooded in recent weeks, will be able to continue to apply for those grants?

Thames valley is the largest unprotected floodplain in England. Just last week, the Government announced ambitious new plans for the Oxford-to-Cambridge arc. It is an area the Government are relying on to drive the post-covid recovery. Does the Minister agree with me that investment in protecting our area from flooding is, bluntly, a no-brainer? It makes a huge amount of sense with the arc in mind. Investment in flood protection for our area is insurance for Government investment from other Departments. Have the plans for the arc been taken into account in her Department’s thinking and cost-benefit ratios?

To conclude, the coronavirus pandemic has been awful. We have all had to make incredible sacrifices, but that will be just a dress rehearsal for the ongoing climate emergency. We can either act proactively and future-proof our communities against flood devastation, by doing what we can sooner in Oxford, funding the Abingdon scheme, and fixing the agency’s approach in Yarnton and other villages, or we can wait until it is too late, react desperately after the fact, and see more and more homes damaged and people’s lives ruined.

As I am sure the Minister knows, I will keep campaigning on this issue, so to make things easier for everyone, will she commit to meeting me—as her predecessor promised to do but never did—to discuss each of the issues that I have touched on, so that we can continue this discussion as we go along? I appreciate that it has been an incredibly tough time for the Government in many ways, but on this we do not have time to wait. Let us get ahead of the game and finally give the residents of Oxford West and Abingdon the peace of mind they deserve.

Flooding: Oxford West and Abingdon

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am grateful to the House for allowing me to raise an extraordinarily important issue to my constituents: flooding in Oxford West and Abingdon. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me, following recent correspondence. We had been in touch via our offices, and then the opportunity for this debate arose. As she is aware, such opportunities are rare, so I thought this would be a great opportunity to talk in public. I am very grateful for her offer to meet more privately.

In 2007, several hundred households in Abingdon, and several local businesses, were flooded by the River Ock. Thousands of local residents were affected. I need not tell the Minister, who will have heard from other Members from across the country, just how traumatic the experience of being flooded is. We hear stories of people asking, similarly to how they would in the case of a fire, “What is the last thing I need to bring with me? What is important? How do I make sure we are safe? What will I come back to?” Some families were cast out of their homes for nearly a year, which caused enormous stress not just to them, but to their children and the wider community. At the time, there were vows by the community and in local petitions to do everything possible to help and to give the community the certainty it needed.

It is sometimes forgotten that there is always an economic cost to flooding. When the area floods, I have sat for hours on roads in Oxford, waiting to get through traffic and thinking about what else I could be doing at that time. The cost to the country is in the billions.

To turn to the Abingdon case, the Environment Agency, working with Vale of White Horse District Council, Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames regional flood and coastal committee, announced plans for an Abingdon flood alleviation scheme. After much patience and campaigning, residents were so relieved. Abingdon is in desperate need of such a scheme—this was not the first time it had flooded—especially for the River Ock, which was the main source of the disastrous flooding in 2007 that, as I described, residents will never forget. Imagine their disappointment when it was revealed that the scheme was to be abandoned.

The Environment Agency initially estimated that the scheme would cost £5 million, but when it realised more recently that the true cost was closer to double that, it decided that the value for money case had not been made, and the scheme was scrapped. Twelve years on from the 2007 flood, residents have not forgotten it. Their shock and frustration were palpable, especially given that the announcement to scrap the scheme was made in a seemingly innocuous Environment Agency newsletter in January. There was no public announcement, and, while I had received that same newsletter by email, it did not forcefully highlight or reflect the way in which this would have affected the community.

Of course I did what any Back-Bench MP would do: I called a public meeting. Let me say at this point how grateful I am to the Environment Agency and to the representatives of the local councils who came to explain why this had happened. Questions were whirling. How could the costs have been so badly underestimated? Why would the Government not help, knowing what had happened in Abingdon, which I understand to have been a more than “once in 100 years” occurrence? People came to the meeting in droves—in fact, it was standing room only—and they were cynical, because they had been promised a scheme 12 years earlier.

One of the things that I found most striking about that meeting, apart from the cynicism—we talk about a loss of trust in Parliament, but it is not just about Brexit; decisions like this contribute to that loss of trust as well—was the fact that the community were desperate to do anything to secure what they wanted, and also felt that there was an inequity. The Abingdon scheme had been scrapped, but as the Minister will know very well, a massive scheme—the Oxford flood alleviation scheme—is under way. I represent both areas, so I am not implying any sort of competition. However, one of the residents did ask why £150 million—up from the initial estimate of £100 million—was available for the Oxford flood alleviation scheme but there was nothing for a much smaller scheme in Abingdon, saying “Why are they so much better than us?” That broke my heart, because I do not see my communities in that way.

The Environment Agency’s representatives said that they had secured funding contributions from others, including the local enterprise partnership, for the Oxford scheme. Why is it so difficult for a much smaller scheme to gain that type of funding? Is there something in the funding mechanisms that would enable communities to benefit from the schemes that they need? As I said earlier, the Minister and I have corresponded about this, and she said that the remainder of the funding for the Abingdon scheme should be raised locally by scheme partners and others. However, the EA representatives said at the meeting that they had a part to play. May I ask the Minister—this is a genuine question—what part the EA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs play in trying to secure local funding?

Furthermore—I think that this is important with regard to communication with the local communities—if, as we now find, the decision to scrap the scheme was made in November 2018, why did it take until January for any kind of announcement to be made? I have spoken to a number of local councillors who were equally blindsided by the decision. When it comes to flooding, as with almost anything else, communities do not always want the moon on a stick; they just want to be involved. They want to be part of a decision and to understand why it was made. A public meeting after the fact should not have been necessary for people to obtain the information that they needed.

I ask the Minister this: how can we better engage communities in such decisions? There was no consultation; it looked as if the decision was being made behind closed doors. What is fascinating to me—and lovely—is the fact that, at the meeting, one of the residents raised the option of crowdfunding £6 million for a flood alleviation scheme for the community. That just goes to show the extraordinary good will that exists in areas like Abingdon to try to solve such extremely traumatic issues. However, I think it unlikely that a community—especially one that, while very old, is small—would be able to raise £6 million. So what more can the Government do? What representations is DEFRA making during this period of, hopefully, upcoming spending reviews for schemes that might seem small but, boy, to the communities affected they are not?

I have met Environment Agency representatives many times and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would be proud because these projects are led by a group of extraordinary women. They are engineers and project managers. They tell me it is a lack of central Government funding that is stopping them delivering these schemes; it is not lack of nous or anything else. Indeed, the natural flood management project manager has been doing great work to find local, natural processes to reduce flood risk, but the money for that will apparently run out in a year’s time. Such smaller schemes mitigate flood risk at a local level.

I am sure the Minister will point out that some schemes have happened in Abingdon. The point I want to make is that that has not assuaged the fears of the whole community. Had she seen what happened there in 2007, she would know that it was akin to what happened in other parts of the country—it was absolutely devastating.

If we cannot afford that process, let alone the full alleviation scheme, I am concerned that the disasters of previous years are destined to repeat themselves. That is to do with the geography of the Thames valley, which is the largest unprotected floodplain in the whole United Kingdom—I was shocked to discover that. Everywhere else has something, but the Thames valley, which includes all of us here, does not. This discussion is therefore urgent. It is not simply a case of, “I want to do what’s best for my community,” although of course I do as an MP, because there is a bigger issue: what will we do in the face of climate change for the Thames valley, which is itself completely unprotected?

Added to that, the number of homes in Oxfordshire that the Government want to build has doubled, and there are scheduled to be 1 million new homes across the Thames valley between now and 2050 according to the National Infrastructure Commission. The Environment Agency has been clear: that cannot be done without finally finding some sort of solution to protect the Thames valley.

What conversations is DEFRA having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on its big plans for infrastructure and for roads? We have the Oxford-to-Cambridge expressway. All this is happening in an unprotected area. In private conversations, the Environment Agency has said categorically that there is no way that it can allow—it is a statutory consultee for all planning applications—all those homes to be built without the situation being sorted out. I am sure that that will come as no surprise to the Minister

I now want to move on to the Oxford flood alleviation scheme, which, as I said, will cost £150 million. While the scheme is clearly in a better state than the Abingdon, one, it faces delays. A small number of smallholders are challenging the process, as is absolutely their right. I want a little clarification from the Minister about how that will affect the timeline and what the process will be from now on.

While Abingdon faced its own floods because of the Ock, we also have the Cherwell, the Thames and other issues in Oxford itself, which is of course a much larger conurbation. I have already spoken about the economic costs of this scheme not being concluded. My understanding now is that it will not be finished until at least 2024, which is a significant delay.

There are also specific local issues. I understand that the construction at Redbridge would result in enormous amounts of traffic. I also want to mention South Hinksey, which I often do not talk about. It is a small village just off the A34, which is going to be the main route for construction traffic for the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. This was all proceeding without the parish council’s knowledge, so how will we ensure that tiny communities that are badly affected by such issues are taken into account?

I want to talk briefly about climate change. The head of the Environment Agency, Emma Howard Boyd, gave a stark warning on flooding when the agency published its 50-year flood risk plan earlier this month. The UK needs to tackle our climate emergency head on; otherwise, our communities will face devastating consequences. I find myself puzzled, however. Surely more needs to be done to mitigate the environmental impact of the construction phase of these works. Constituents have raised their concern that the works on the Oxford flood alleviation scheme themselves are not green. This is not just about pollution; it is also about new planting, particularly of ash trees. Can the Minister assure us that the carbon footprint of the mitigation is also being factored into the equation?

The story of flood mitigation in Oxford West and Abingdon continues. We are all aware that we will never be able to fully protect against flooding, but there is much that we can do to mitigate risk. I firmly believe that part of the answer lies in actively involving residents and helping cash-strapped, resource-stretched local councils to find the funding and solutions that they need. These flood alleviation schemes will be vital, and they are long overdue, but they need help. Today, I call on the Government to please provide the funding necessary to get the Abingdon flood alleviation scheme off the ground and to ensure that the Oxford flood alleviation scheme is arrived at as swiftly and responsibly as possible. In the longer term, we need action to protect the whole Thames valley and to tackle climate change nationally and internationally. I appreciate that those will be no small feats, but I hope that they lie at the heart of the Minister’s Department and in her heart, too. I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.

Thames Water Reservoir at Abingdon

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for securing this debate on an incredibly important local issue. Like him, I have had much correspondence from my constituents about it. Although the proposed reservoir lies in his constituency, my constituents— in and around south Abingdon, in particular—are understandably very interested in these proposals, and I hope to raise their concerns today.

I absolutely recognise the need to ensure a safe, secure water supply for the future, but as a local MP it is also my job to stand up and speak out on behalf of my constituents, who have justified worries about these proposals. Given the large size of the scheme, we have to make sure we take them with us if needed.

As has already been mentioned, we have been here before. In 2010, the community campaigners, led by GARD and supported by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, were successful in their campaign to the Planning Inspectorate, which determined that there was “no immediate need” for a reservoir on this scale. We have gone into the future since then, but not that far into the future. As the right hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his speech, what has changed so materially in those eight years?

I thank GARD for its longstanding campaign, hard work and tenacity. In many ways, it has brought the band back together to fight this again. I also thank Councillors Catherine and Richard Webber, who have been keeping me updated and involved in the fight.

In 2010, the project was the subject of a public inquiry, which found that Thames Water’s plan was not fit for purpose, as it had not properly evaluated the alternative options. That is critical. What has changed? The proposal is now 50% bigger. It is the size of Heathrow airport, and will hold 150 million tonnes of water. It has also been moved forward: the intention is to build it by 2037. This is not just the same campaign run again; it is a campaign looking at a proposal that is even bigger and therefore requires even more scrutiny than the first time round.

The objections in my postbag and email inbox have focused on whether there is a need for the reservoir at all, the plans themselves and—this is where the right hon. Gentleman and I are absolutely on the same page—the need for the public to have their say on the proposals. I will take each of those in turn.

On the need for the reservoir, I shall not build on the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, although I thank him for educating me about the lesser-known facts about chalk streams. I dare say I did not know that. Every day is a learning day, so I thank him very much. I am keen for this debate to be a chance to raise residents’ concerns. I will start with my colleague, Debby Hallett, councillor for Botley and Sunningwall and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. She said that she would like to see the priority being given to fixing leaks elsewhere in the system. She speaks to residents, and they are all concerned that the water is not even for our area.

That is echoed by another resident, who wrote to me ahead of this debate. I said in a tweet and on my Facebook group, “What do you think? We are raising this today.” She said:

“The water from the reservoir is not, in any case, for use within the area supplied by Thames Water, but is to be sold elsewhere for the profit of Thames Water. It will be paid for by the customers of Thames Water but they will not benefit from it.”

There is disquiet that the bill payers will be the ones funding the new reservoir, which will become a major asset on Thames Water’s balance sheet. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification about the nature of the company that might be set up. There is concern about who will pay, at least in monetary terms, and not least for building the thing in the first place. Many questioned the need for the development at all, and put forward alternatives including installing more desalination plants along the Thames, transferring raw water from the River Severn to the Thames, reducing water consumption, and addressing leakage.

The National Infrastructure Commission’s recent “Preparing for a drier future” report states that strategic inter-regional water transfers are needed, but water companies are failing to plan for them properly. As I understand it, Thames Water has pushed back the option of a Severn-Thames transfer until 2080, which is a very, very long way away and, frankly, ignores the current problems. Instead, it says that a reservoir is cheaper than a transfer, which is counter to what the National Infrastructure Commission said. There needs to be some joined-up thinking.

On the issue of leaks, is Thames Water doing enough elsewhere in the system, and are its targets for tackling leakages ambitious enough? One of GARD’s central arguments is that Thames Water, after discussions with Ofwat, will reduce its leakage by half by 2045, and has revised its population projections. The campaigners suggest that those two actions remove the need for the reservoir in the immediate term—that was the reason why it was rejected by the 2010 inquiry. They were surprised to see the proposal re-emerge with the earlier delivery date of 2037.

My first question to the Minister is: has the Department made an assessment of Thames Water’s plans, proposals and forecasts? If not, will she commit to doing so? Have there been any independent analyses of the costs to Thames Water of rectifying leakages and saving water loss in that way? Unfortunately, residents simply do not trust Thames Water on this issue, so we need some independence in the assessments. We need an evidence base on which to build the case to the public—not just about leakages, but about the whole thing: negatives and positives.

I did not receive only negatives in my inbox; some were a little optimistic. Rachel in Abingdon wrote to me to say that she

“supports the reservoir for future generations”,

and that she does not want the decision to keep being put off, but would rather just get on with it. She also made the very good point that developers—a lot of housing development is happening in Oxfordshire at the moment—need to look at greater use of grey water for the likes of toilet flushing. Has the Minister discussed that with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government? As ever, cross-departmental working could help to solve the wider issues.

Rachel says that if the reservoir does go ahead,

“we need to make sure that Thames Water builds this reservoir with amenities and leisure, and not just an inaccessible reservoir.”

I completely agree with her, and it could well be a great opportunity for our area. I say that with an element of caution however, because of my experience of the £100 million Oxford flood alleviation scheme. We were promised leisure facilities such as a cycle path that would go all the way through and which, I am sorry to say, was omitted from the final plans. I therefore remain gently sceptical about some of the promises that might be made at this stage. As that is also in the Minister’s brief, will she continue to encourage Oxfordshire County Council and the Environment Agency to think again about that cycle path, which we had been promised at the outset of the plans?

That brings me to the plans and the sheer scale of the reservoir, which is going to be the size of Heathrow. If one took a map of the reservoir and overlaid it on a map of Abingdon, it covers it. That is extraordinarily large, and one of the biggest reasons why residents have raised concerns. Sharron wrote on my Facebook page to say she was concerned that this would not be a valley-type reservoir that could enhance the area and provide leisure and tourism facilities. Instead, she was worried that the design would end up like “a massive tank” and the

“tallest structure in the vale”.

We all love Didcot power station—don’t get me wrong. Big structures in our area can be a cause of love, but having said that, if the reservoir is as Sharron described, it would be a blight on what is otherwise an incredibly beautiful landscape.

The environment is equally important. Many residents who contacted me were seriously concerned about the displacement of species. As the RSPB parliamentary species champion for the skylark, it would be remiss of me not to raise concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on many bird species, including the skylark. David, who is involved with Abingdon Naturalists Society, says that he is particularly concerned about the destruction of an

“undisturbed area of countryside that presently hosts breeding curlew, lapwing, grey partridge, skylark, all of which are red listed species.”

Other terrestrial wildlife might also be eliminated.

Richard Harding, a trustee of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says:

“It will obviously have severe consequences to the environment and communities in Oxfordshire. The loss and damages to land, resources, heritage and communities would be substantial. The proposed area of flooding is a massive, hugely significant multi-period historical and archaeological landscape—the reality of what is there has not been grasped.”

That brings me to flooding which, I hope the Minister is aware, is a major concern for residents of the area. There were huge floods in Abingdon not very long ago. Marion wrote to me to ask for a second public inquiry into the proposals. She also raised the increased risk of flooding, particularly on the south Abingdon flood-relief land. Can the Minister indicate what assessments have been carried out on how the plans might affect the flood plain? There are schemes in place, but from what I understand, they were conceived after the first reservoir had been rejected. Do they now include space for the new reservoir?

My primary concern is to make sure that residents are heard. In Oxfordshire, where there is massive development going on everywhere, there are countless examples of residents from all over feeling that their voices have not been heard, not least on the elephantine Oxford to Cambridge expressway, from which they have felt totally frozen out. That is the main reason why we feel that we need a public inquiry now. I raised that with the Department and the response that I received from the Minister’s private secretary stated that

“it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Thames Water to carry out further consultation on its water resources management plan”

until it responds to its latest consultation.

Will the Minister, as previous Governments have done, commit to insisting on a public inquiry on what will be a massive infrastructure project for our area?

We must be clear—local Liberal Democrats and I are absolutely clear—that we will fight for people to be able to have their say. People in Oxfordshire are reasonable; they will listen to the evidence. As my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Wantage, said, people simply want to know that the proposal is the only option left and that all others have been looked at. I believe that the residents of Abingdon and elsewhere would listen to evidence, but we need a public inquiry to ensure that we have all the facts to hand before we make any decisions.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We have devoted £1.5 billion overall to supporting the growth of zero and ultra-low emissions vehicles, including a wider network of charge points, but I think there is more that we can do. One of the things I will be exploring with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Housing, Communities and Local Government is how we can do everything possible—both in planning and in the legislation that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is bringing forward—to build on the leadership that my hon. Friend has shown.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Everyone has the right to clean air, including people in villages such as North Hinksey and market towns such as Abingdon in my constituency, yet those places have hotspots, and those sorts of conurbations are not mentioned at all in the clean air strategy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his ambitions extend to smaller conurbations, not just cities?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There are concentrations of poor air quality not just in our major cities but in other areas. There can be a combination of factors, including roadside emissions and emissions from domestic heating. Critically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, acknowledged, sometimes emissions also come from agriculture. The strategy commits us to providing support for all those sectors, to move towards a cleaner future.

Air Quality

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend was a Treasury Minister when we were working on the air quality plan, and I know that he is as committed as I am to these improvements. I fully recognise that some of the issues involved are politically difficult, which is why I have been meeting councillors from those authorities to tell them that time cannot wait for effective local solutions. My hon. Friend ensured that we had Government finances with which to tackle the issue, and those finances will be deployed.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! A Liberal Democrat competition. I call Layla Moran.

[Layla Moran]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her letter and her offer to meet me to discuss the plan for Oxford, which I intend to take up. Will she confirm, however, that it is not just a meeting that she is having with the councils, and that there is also extra money? I know that they have already been trying.

[Dr Coffey]

I did not mention this earlier, but yesterday I wrote to all Members affected by the impact of yesterday’s legal ruling, which binds the councils legally to co-operate with what we were already doing. I have engaged in correspondence with the leader of Oxford City Council, and look forward to meeting her next week. The council is looking at certain proposals, which include widening the pedestrianised area in the city centre, to tackle the challenges. I want to know what resources or powers it may need, but I think that it has powers already, and it may just be a case of working through the details of the plan.