Sewage
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(6 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I am delighted to speak on the issue of how we can fix our broken water and sewerage sector, and get serious about cleaning up our rivers and lakes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate.
My constituency of Witney, in west Oxfordshire, has borne the brunt of the sewage scandal. Many beautiful rivers flow through it, and the Thames bisects it. We have the Windrush and the Evenlode, Shell brook to the north, and the Ock to the south. They are all heavily and frequently polluted.
I welcome the calls from colleagues to introduce a new blue flag status so that we can guarantee that a river is clean enough to swim in. That would help to restore people’s confidence in swimming, and the bathing place in Witney would be a fantastic example. It is just north of Early’s mill, where generations of people have spent their summer swimming but no longer do so.
We know what a car crash our sewerage network is, thanks to the many campaigners who have gone to so much trouble in their own time, and often using their own money, to bring this issue to our attention. At the top of the star is WASP—Windrush Against Sewage Pollution—which is run by Professor Peter Hammond, Ash Smith, Vaughan Lewis and Geoff Tombs, who have worked tirelessly for the last five years to highlight what has gone wrong. I thank them and all the other citizen scientists in my constituency and beyond, who have done so much to bring this issue to national attention. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.
I will focus on failures of regulation—specifically, Ofwat’s failures. Ofwat is responsible for holding water companies accountable against the terms of their operating licences. DEFRA has oversight of Ofwat, sets the policy framework and provides strategic guidance to Ofwat on key environmental and social policies. As many Members have said, Ofwat is clearly failing on pollution. The Environment Agency’s own data shows that Thames Water discharged raw sewage for almost 300,000 hours in 2024—up by almost 50% on the 196,000 hours in 2023. That is well known.
Ofwat is also failing to enforce financial viability. Just like every other water company in the country, Thames Water, which serves my constituency, has to have two investment grade credit ratings, but it has not done so for nearly a year. It has been beaten with limp celery, but that is about it. It has £19 billion of debt and is quite possibly heading towards £23 billion of debt, and it has cash flows of just £1.2 billion. That obviously makes no financial sense, yet Thames Water is allowed to breach the rule with impunity. I have no doubt that other water companies, and companies in other sectors, take note of what Thames Water has been allowed to do and say, “We, too, can cross that line in water and other regulated sectors.” How is that good news? It introduces a moral hazard that does enormous damage to our country. Who is ultimately paying the cost of all this debt, and the enormous interest and advisory fees that go with it? Of course, it is the bill payers.
Ofwat fails to provide value for money. As per the Water Industry Act 1991, it has a statutory duty “to protect the interests of consumers” and “to promote economy and efficiency” on the part of water companies. As WASP’s recently published note on water companies’ capital project costs states, the costs that companies are proposing are extraordinary. In some cases, they are almost an order of magnitude higher than those in comparator companies in countries such as the USA and Denmark. Why is this, and why is it being allowed to happen?
Why are our costs so much greater? Is it because our regulatory capital value pricing model is based on asset values, and therefore gives an incentive to water companies to boost their asset bases? They do this through extraordinarily long depreciation periods for network assets such as pipes, which were installed 50 years ago, but somehow have depreciation periods of 100 years and are leaking like sieves. It also gives them an incentive to pour really expensive concrete. Why is it that something built over here costs eight times the price in Denmark? Why has, say, the Oxford sewage treatment works gone from £40 million to more than £400 million in planned spend in the last four years? What sort of inflation is that?
Ofwat fails to provide fair pricing. Water companies have a requirement to demonstrate fairness, transparency and affordability to customers, which, again, Ofwat is supposed to uphold. Water companies have been allowed to hike bills this year—in the case of Thames Water, by 31%, although some of my constituents have come to me and said they have received increases of 50%, 70% or even more than 90%—and what are bill payers getting for that? This is not fair when more than a quarter of the bills in Thames Water’s case are just paying the interest—not paying down the debt, but just paying the interest. Again, Ofwat is continuing to allow the pockets of water company creditors to be lined at the expense of ordinary households.
Ofwat fails to be awake. It has a responsibility—bear with me on this one—for tracking who are the ultimate controllers of the water companies. That should be pretty simple; there are not many of them. In Thames Water’s case, it is taking wilful ignorance to an extreme of utterly determined ignorance. Last May, Thames Water’s largest shareholder, OMERS, wrote its stake in Thames Water down to zero and pulled its directors off the board. This has been widely reported in the press—it is not secret—yet I got a letter from Ofwat last month confirming that it believes OMERS is still the ultimate controller of the company. Why is Ofwat ignoring this, and why does it matter? Being the ultimate controller of the company means it has certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities are just being ignored, and Ofwat, which is exactly what is supposed to be holding the company to account, is hiding under a stone somewhere. It needs to stop doing this.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend says that Ofwat has failed to regulate the water system effectively, and is failing on environmental, public health and financial interests. In my constituency, Wessex Water leaked sewage for over 400,000 hours last year alone. Does he agree that the water regulator should be replaced with a clean water authority, which would bring together the environmental and financial regulation of water companies?
Charlie Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend, and, yes, I absolutely do.
Ofwat is also failing to innovate. It appears to do little, if anything, to push companies to do this. This is so critical because, if we are going to increase capacity in sewage treatment works, there are many better ways of doing so. There is a host of new technologies out there from leak detection, pipeline monitoring and predictive maintenance equipment to trenchless pipe repair and pressure management technologies. Yet I have heard from firms in my constituency that it is easier to sell sewer technology solutions in the US and Europe than in the UK. This is where the issues of the dire state of water companies’ finances and the sewage scandal intersect, because companies cannot make basic repairs, let alone properly innovate and improve, when so much of their revenue is going straight out of the door in interest payments.
The previous Government have a lot to answer for. It was on their watch that dumping sewage in our rivers and lakes reached record levels, as water companies piled up billions in debt. All the while, bosses rewarded themselves with generous bonuses for mismanagement and failure on so many levels. Many people who work so hard in those companies suffered under that mismanagement.
There is only so much point in looking backwards. What I am appalled by is that the new Government, who came into power with promises to get tough with the water companies and sort out the scandal, have so far shown themselves to be about as tough as Ofwat. The Water (Special Measures) Act—by the way, I say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) that it was not voted on by us—was, well, just about nothing. Government Members and Conservative Members rejected a whole host of basic common sense steps, proposed as amendments, which could have made the legislation genuinely impactful. I will give some examples.
Rural Communities: Government Support
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I also thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.
Rural communities and farming go hand in hand, as farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to more than 800 farms, and a quarter of England’s agricultural holdings and a fifth of England’s total farmed area are in the south-west. Agriculture employs over 60,000 people in the region, with many more indirectly affected by the industry. However, since the Budget, the only topic on farmers’ minds is the lack of support from the Government. They tell me that they did not think their plight could get any worse after the last Conservative Government—because that Government “just didn’t care”—but it has.
This Labour Government do not even seem to want to understand the agricultural industry. Yesterday’s announcement, with no notice, to halt the sustainable farming incentive has sent shockwaves through farming circles. It beggars belief that the largest farming trade body, the National Farmers Union, had only 30 minutes’ notice of the announcement. The absence of warning and communication will only further alarm farmers across the country who are feeling anxious, left behind and forgotten.
The sudden closure of an important scheme has left thousands of farmers cut off from funding, and I worry about the impact this will have on nature-friendly farming. The scheme is vital to incentivising farmers to carry out their work for the public good, such as managing flood water and storing slurry safely—this is of extreme importance in Somerset, given the high threat of flooding.
A beef farmer from Wick, near Langport, recently told me that he has “no confidence” in the Environment Agency to protect his and other people’s land from flooding—it is too slow to pump water off fields, which increases the risk of flooding when it next rains.
The closure of the SFI will now make it more difficult for farmers to put flood management measures in place. The scheme had more than 37,000 live, multi-year agreements, and it had the highest demand since it began. The Government have not announced any plans to replace it. This announcement comes at a time when farmers are already losing the vast majority of basic payments this year, and they should rightly be rewarded for good environmental work.
Sarah Dyke
I will not, because of time. Given that the SFI has now finished, will the Department publish the scheme’s key performance indicators and how they were met? Or will it keep farmers in the dark again?
The Liberal Democrats are deeply disappointed by Labour’s decision to compound the damage done to our farmers by the Conservatives, who left the farming budget with an underspend of hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet again, smaller farmers will be hardest hit, especially hill farmers and those earning significantly less than the minimum wage. We want to see the Chancellor urgently reverse the changes, and we want to see £1 billion a year in support for farmers. We want clarity from the Government about the impact of cutting SFI on farmers’ incomes, nature restoration, food production and rural communities.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid I was genuinely dismayed, but perhaps not entirely surprised, by what I found when I came into the Department. We have spent the last six or seven months trying to get control of the situation because if we have a scheme that is not capped or managed, or has no budgetary control, there is a problem. The figure of £5 billion overall is the biggest amount for farming that we have had. We will make sure the money gets out to farmers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Coming at a time of record low confidence in farming, many farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton will feel that the sudden closure of the SFI scheme will bring them closer to closing their farm gates for the very last time, and at a time when food security is at an all-time low. What communications will go to affected farming businesses and what support will DEFRA give to those who are dealing with vulnerable farmers at the sharp end?
Daniel Zeichner
I do not agree with some of the hon. Lady’s question, because the food security report published at the end of last year did not bear out her analysis. The Rural Payments Agency has written to farmers today setting out exactly the situation to give people reassurance.
Bathing Water Regulations
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered bathing water regulations.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon.
We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year.
That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. I know how much he enjoys a dip in the River Tone. The River Parrett in Langport is a well known and loved body of water for swimming and water sports, which I hope will soon become a designated bathing water site. Sadly, polluters discharged sewage into it 54 times in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to support such sites to obtain bathing water status, so that they are safe for all who wish to use them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yet another wet winter across Somerset highlights the need for the Government to urgently deliver solutions to mitigate the impact of flooding on farmland and protect domestic food production. The Brue headwaters multi-benefit project, facilitated by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group South West, is working with farmers and landowners in Bruton, Charlton Musgrove and Wincanton to address flooding issues and to hold workshops that focus on natural flood management, to slow the flow of water across the upper Brue, thus reducing flooding, sediment run-off and the associated pollution of water- courses. Despite those efforts, many farmers in the catchment, and indeed the county and the country, are angry at the level of inundation of land that could be prevented by better flood management. How will the Minister work to support farmers, build flood resilience and protect food security?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is right to point out how angry farmers are and how they feel they have been let down by the previous Government on flood defences. The previous formula allocated funding only based on numbers of properties protected and paid little regard to rural areas. She also mentioned one of my favourite themes: natural flood management. We recently held a roundtable on that, with representatives from the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association, to talk about how we can better protect our rural areas in a more nature-friendly way.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have had many victims of domestic abuse write to me, following lengthy periods of inaction from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other organisations, which have left victims at risk and feeling horribly anxious. How will the Minister ensure that prosecution rates improve and victims have confidence in the criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member makes an important point. I am sorry to hear of the examples that she raises. This Government have a historic mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and we are taking a series of important steps to work towards the increased number of prosecutions that she refers to. For example, we are introducing specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force; working to increase referrals with the recently launched domestic abuse joint justice plan; fast-tracking rape cases; and introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape. I referred earlier to domestic abuse protection orders, and the first convictions for breach of them are already being seen.
Public Services: Rural Areas
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Smith
Absolutely. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is looking at the formula for how grants are made to local authorities in rural areas. Fundamentally, there should not be a penalty to living in the countryside or in a rural area. It is not an indulgence; it is vital to the future of our country, so we need public services in rural areas.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his comments. We know that it costs more to deliver services in rural areas, yet rural councils are set to receive 41% less central Government funding than urban councils in the local government finance settlement that is coming up. Does the hon. Member agree that the settlement formula should consider rural deprivation alongside clustered deprivation to ensure that rural areas receive the services they deserve?
David Smith
People would expect me as a Member of Parliament for a rural area to say it is absolutely essential that we consider the peculiar circumstances, geography, logistics, the long-term challenges and the rural deprivation, which really does exist, when considering grants to local authorities in rural areas.
I will move on to education, which is another of the four areas I want to discuss. Assuming that children can get to school, having just talked about transport, we need to ensure that they can go to a good school that sets up their future and energises the local community, but when the school provision in rural areas suffers, so does the whole town or village, because there is no business or transport link more significant than the nearby secondary school.
The town of Berwick is extremely reliant on its one secondary school for the nurturing of the necessary skills and qualifications for the town’s economy, so when the school struggles, the town struggles. A report from 2017—I think it still stands—noted:
“Berwick is one of Northumberland’s most deprived towns. It has a vulnerable economy characterised by poor quality job opportunities, part time working, low wages and very limited education facilities.”
Berwick does not just need a better school; it needs a school that can generate a revival in a beautiful but isolated town that has no A&E, no major employer and minimal further education. Right now, Berwick deserves, and has the opportunity to build, a new world-class educational campus on the secondary school site that combines learning with further education, vocational study, special educational needs provision, local enterprise and primary healthcare. That makes the slow progress of Conservative Northumberland county council’s plan to rebuild Berwick Academy frustrating for parents, students and the whole community.
The further education point is important. North Northumberland students keep pace with their national peers up to GCSE level, but at A-level and higher education level they begin to struggle, because further education opportunities are few and difficult to access. One constituent in Berwick told me about their son who wants to be on a sports course in Newcastle that would set him up to go to university. The council is able to provide basic transport, but only to a course in the closer town of Ashington, which would not provide him with qualifications for university. Instead, his family are paying £15 a day for his transport to the educational opportunities that he needs—an unsustainable amount for basic provision.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner
This is an unusual outbreak, in a sense. It is a very small herd of 20 water buffalo. What is unknown to the German authorities at the moment is how they got infected in the first place. Extensive work is going on in Germany to try to understand that. The difference from 20 years ago is that we now have much better science to be able to trace where it may have come from. Extensive work is going on across Europe, because it is a threat to the entire continent. I can assure my hon. Friend that every avenue is being explored to try to make sure that we understand how this has happened and that it goes no further.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As a farmer’s daughter, I fully remember the sickening impact of the last foot and mouth outbreaks across Somerset and Dorset, particularly on farmers’ mental health. The culling restrictions resulted in 73% of farmers experiencing depression and anxiety following the last outbreak. Now, almost one half of the farming community are already experiencing anxiety. What plans do the Government have to support farmers who may be impacted by this disease or any other biosecurity risk?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she takes these issues very seriously and we have discussed them before. Let me be clear: this is an outbreak in Germany at the moment. We are doing everything we can to ensure it does not extend into our country. Of course people are concerned and worried. Should it develop further, which we are absolutely determined to make sure does not happen, then we will look at further measures to help and support people, but we are not at that stage.
Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine Fookes
I agree entirely. The Government’s mission is growth. We need to see the cleaning-up of our waterways as an integral part of our growth mission.
We know that tackling diffuse pollution from agriculture will be a hard nut to crack, with farmers already under pressure, but we have examples of good practice in the Wye. For example, Avara is already shipping out 75% of the chicken waste from its Herefordshire chicken farms along the Wye. That is to be welcomed, but it does not solve the long-term problems of too much phosphate in our rivers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I represent Glastonbury and Somerton, and a large part of the Somerset levels and moors is in my constituency. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding, and many of my farmers are always battling flooding. Grants such as the slurry infrastructure grant helped my livestock farmers ensure that nutrients such as phosphates do not enter the watercourses. That improves the viability of our farms, the health of our soil and the cleanliness of our rivers. Does the hon. Member agree that it was wrong for DEFRA to pause access to those grants?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Lots of Members wish to speak today, so we could end up with a two-minute limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep their interventions very short, otherwise the limit will go down to one and a half minutes and then down to one minute.
Farmland Flooding
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
Flooding
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. New Environment Agency modelling shows that one in four properties in England, including an additional 39,000 homes in the south-west, could be at risk of flooding by 2050.
Like many across Glastonbury and Somerton, I watch this happen in real time. Residents are on high alert, they are anxious and their mental health is suffering. Knole is a small hamlet between Langport and Somerton that previously never flooded, but last winter nine homes flooded every month. With just 40 houses in the hamlet, such incidents have a huge impact on the local community. One affected resident told me they had to watch the ingress of water through every wall in their house. Another said they were unable to return home until mid-summer after last year’s winter flooding. Their experiences and those of many residents across Somerset, and those set out in the national flood risk assessment, show that heavier rainfall and rising sea levels already threaten 2.4 million properties, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that agencies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency are properly funded to deal with flooding and future flooding?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is right to point out the impact on people’s mental health. I urge her to invite communities that experience repeated flooding to look at the Build Back Better scheme. They could be able to access an extra £10,000 to make their homes more resilient to flooding. As I said, this is something that I care deeply about, as does the Department, which is why we are investing £2.4 billion in delivering, improving and maintaining flood defences.