Farmland Flooding

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

rose—

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Flooding

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Biosecurity

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this really important debate. We have heard about a range of biosecurity threats. Each of them has real potential to undermine our national security by disrupting our access to food, making our workforce sick, or crippling our export market. What concerns me most, however, is not any single one of those diseases or pests; it is what would happen if the UK were to be hit with two or more outbreaks concurrently.

The likelihood of that happening is greater than ever. We must recognise that threats such as bluetongue, avian influenza and virus yellows, alongside bovine TB, are part of the new normal and that our biosecurity defences need to have enough capacity to deal with them, as well as future threats such as African swine fever, simultaneously. That means ensuring that the Pirbright Institute and the APHA site at Weybridge are fit for purpose, that we are recruiting and retaining enough vets and border control staff, that there is sufficient rendering capacity to dispose of culled animal carcases, and that we have a proper border control strategy. I was alarmed when Dr Christine Middlemiss, the UK’s chief veterinary officer, warned the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this year that parts of the Weybridge APHA facility were at risk of being taken out of service. I welcome the additional funding that the Government have promised for the facility, and I seriously hope that the £208 million is enough not only to fund a much-needed refurbishment but to transform Weybridge into a facility that will protect the UK from the biological threats of tomorrow.

Our nation’s biosecurity defences must consist not just of buildings but of people. Despite the important role that vets and allied professionals, such as meat hygiene inspectors, play in protecting us from disease, and despite the clear evidence that there is a shortage of them in agricultural supply chains, the Government’s workforce data is poor. Unlike the United States and Australasia, which are facing similar shortages, we do not even know the scale of the problem, let alone how best to solve it. What we do know is that 45% of vets leaving the industry have less than four years’ experience, that the attrition rate in abattoirs is rising by 11% each year and that many of our veterinary schools are struggling to get two qualified applicants for clinical teaching roles.

Workforce shortages are a key challenge facing the veterinary profession, and these problems are particularly pronounced in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton. Solutions such as creating new vet schools and increasing the number of university places will take at least five years to shift the dial on our vet workforce. That is why it is critical that the Government transfer work visa policymaking from the Home Office to other Departments such as DEFRA.

Improving our biosecurity will ensure that we can continue to prevent major infectious disease outbreaks, which are expensive and harm our international reputation, but it will create opportunities too. The two most widely discussed problems in agriculture are business viability and climate change, and what is often forgotten in these conversations is that vaccinations can play a part in supporting both. As we have heard in this debate, diseases such as bluetongue, Schmallenberg virus and avian influenza can lead to stunted growth in livestock. They fail to reproduce, they abort and they are more likely to die. I spoke to a farmer in Barton St David recently, and they told me that that just means more inputs for lower outputs, and for consumers it means more expensive food. He also said that it means more damage to the environment as well.

Research from my alma mater, Harper Adams University, shows that controlling avian influenza reduces greenhouse gas emissions by almost 16% per kilogram of meat without the need for culling. Following several successful campaigns from industry bodies, most livestock farmers now accept the benefits of regular vaccinations and parasite control. However, our inconsistent domestic vaccine capacity is preventing them from doing so. For example, this summer, sheep farmers saw yet another shortage of enzootic abortion vaccinations and continued shortages of orf vaccinations.

Covid-19 demonstrated that the UK is a vaccination superpower that can develop and procure the best proactive defences against new threats. It also showed us how vulnerable we are if we do not have access to vaccines. I urge the Government to bolster our vaccination production capacity by introducing a research and innovation fund to support new and emerging technologies. Innovation must also be fostered within Departments and Government bodies.

It is worrying that imports of illegal meats have doubled to almost 70,000 kg this year, which leaves us particularly vulnerable to African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. Although this must be tackled first and foremost by developing a joint strategy with Europol and Eurojust, the Government could also slash the demand for these illegal imports by allowing food producers to provide cuts and products favoured by different communities safely. For example, if skin-on lamb was produced in the UK, the incentive to import it illegally would fall to near zero.

Safeguarding the public must be one of the Government’s top priorities following 14 years of Conservative failure. Farmers’ confidence levels have slumped to a record low, and part of their restoration must be to provide biosecurity measures that will protect the UK from both existing threats and the threats of tomorrow.

Sewage Discharges: South West

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The issue of sewage dumping in our waterways was one of the biggest concerns of residents across my North Cornwall constituency during the general election. And judging by the number of Members here today, I certainly was not alone in that. In the course of my speech, I will take the opportunity, first, to highlight the scale of the problem of sewage dumping and its effects on our communities; secondly, to set out what infrastructure improvements are badly needed to tackle this scandal; thirdly, to outline some of the regulatory reforms that are required; and, finally, to outline what South West Water must now do to end the scandal of constant sewage dumping in our beaches and rivers.

North Cornwall is a very rural constituency. We have several rivers, including the Camel, the Inny and the Allen. North Cornwall is also blessed with some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, including Harlyn, Summerleaze, Widemouth bay, Daymer bay, Polzeath, Crackington and many more. I was extremely fortunate to grow up in Cornwall where I learned to swim and surf at these incredibly beautiful spots. North Cornwall’s families and residents, young and old, thoroughly enjoy the waves at Mawgan Porth, the fishing villages of Padstow and Port Isaac and the breathtaking cliffs at Tintagel. They also enjoy the impressive sea pools in Bude and Boscastle.

The Environment Agency’s 2023 figures showed that the total duration of sewage overflows discharged into local rivers and waterways in the south-west region was 530,737 hours, which represented an 83% increase compared with 2022.

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

In 2020, Natural England notified Somerset councils that the phosphate levels in the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site were too high, and thousands of homes are still caught in a moratorium. Alongside this, last year, there were 3,336 sewage spills in Glastonbury and Somerton, making it the most polluted constituency in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies should be investing in more sewage treatment plants and that the Government should introduce a sewage tax on water companies’ profits?

[Ben Maguire]

I absolutely agree on both of those points and I shall address them in slightly more detail in a moment.

In 2023 alone, many of the blue flag beaches in North Cornwall experienced more than 2,700 hours of sewage discharges across 148 separate incidents. This pollution, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, is often linked to combined sewer overflows, which are activated during heavy rainfall to prevent urban flooding, severely compromising water quality and endangering swimmers and marine life.

Storm Bert

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Fire and rescue authorities have the powers to intervene, but she is quite right to point out that there is not a duty. Officials in my Department, working with the Home Office, will review that to consider whether it remains appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister for water, who now chairs the floods resilience taskforce, is happy to issue an invitation to the FBU to participate in that.

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

Residents across Somerset are once again feeling incredibly anxious. Parts of Glastonbury and Somerton saw 130 mm of rain during Storm Bert over the weekend, which has placed additional strain on our ageing flood defence network. Does the Secretary of State agree that, because of the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather, we need to incentivise our farmers and landowners to urgently establish more nature-based flood solutions on their land and fund more extreme weather resilience plans for isolated rural communities?

[Steve Reed]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the circumstances in Somerset. I agree with the points that she is making. We have increased the actions available through environmental land management schemes, including more actions around natural flood management of precisely the kind she describes. I look forward to seeing much more of that over the months and years to come.

Global Plastics Treaty

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.

I thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate, and the Minister for attending. Plastic pollution is putting all of Earth’s systems under stress. There is no corner of the world, from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the ocean, that is untouched by plastic pollution. Microplastics are accumulating in our bodies, in our vital organs, and in breast milk and placentas, and current levels of plastic production expose us to more than 16,000 harmful chemicals daily and to increasing volumes of microplastics.

Plastic pollution is putting the Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes under serious strain, worsening climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification and land use—and if you think the situation is bad now, it could be much worse in decades to come. Plastic production, which is already far too high for our planet’s systems to cope with, is set to triple by 2050. The impact on climate change will be monumental. In its current state and with its current growth trajectory, plastic production will make achieving net zero impossible.

Plastic production already has a global warming impact four times greater than that of the aviation industry, with 90% of emissions coming during the production process. By 2050, half of global oil demand will come from petrochemicals. Plastic production is out of control, and everyone agrees that there is a problem. In 2022, 175 countries agreed to come together to hammer out a global treaty to address plastic pollution, but after two years and with four out of five scheduled rounds of negotiations completed, we are still in the dark about what the treaty will really look like.

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

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. The last Government oversaw soaring rates of plastic incineration, and delays to modest waste reforms such as deposit return schemes, while also refusing to support proposals to cut plastic production by 40% by 2040, which were put forward at the last round of the treaty negotiations. Does the hon. Member agree that the new Government must raise their ambition levels, and that the best way to do so is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Dr Opher]

I certainly do agree with you, and it is one reason that I am delivering this speech; thank you for that.

It might seem obvious that plastic pollution cannot be addressed without significant cuts to the production of plastics, but that is the most controversial and politically challenging aspect of the treaty. Those involved want us to believe that we can recycle our way out of this crisis—something we know not to be true. Plastic can be recycled only a finite number of times, simply delaying the inevitable moment when it is burned or dumped in landfill, or even escapes into our environment. The fact is that oversupply of virgin plastics at ever lower prices is undermining the UK’s ambition to create a circular economy here in the UK.

Earlier this week, the BBC reported that a recycling site in Avonmouth, near Bristol—which is near my constituency of Stroud—is closing down due to low recycling rates and challenging market conditions. Last month, the industry body Plastics Recyclers Europe raised the alarm about a downward trend in plastics recycling as a result of the global glut of cheap virgin plastics. Flooding the world with cheap plastic allows no space for reuse and refill systems, and the recycling industry, to develop.

Here in the UK, we deal with an excess of plastic waste by burning it and dumping it on poorer countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. Both practices were allowed to increase under the previous Government, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, and the public are rightly outraged. That is why many of my constituents have written to me about plastic pollution, and more than half a million people have signed a petition calling for a strong global plastics treaty.

Earlier this year, over 220,000 people decided to take part in the Big Plastic Count—a massive citizen science project where individuals count every piece of plastic waste that they dispose of for a week. The results showed that the UK throws away 1.7 billion pieces of plastic each week, with 58% of that being incinerated, producing toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. Incineration is the UK’s dirtiest form of power generation, and incinerators are three times more likely to be placed in poorer neighbourhoods, as was the case with the one built recently in the Stroud area.

Fortunately, the new Government have taken bold steps to tackle plastic pollution. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce.

[Sarah Dyke]

My constituent Catherine Conway is the founder of GoUnpackaged, the world’s first modern zero-waste shop, which is hugely reducing the use of single-use plastics. She is also part of the Refill Coalition, which is developing and testing a standardised solution to deliver refills at scale in store and online. Does the hon. Member agree that zero-waste solutions such as these have a big role to play in accelerating the transition to a more circular economy that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products?

[Dr Opher]

Thank you—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. It is lovely to see you here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this really important debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. This is an important topic that people really care about.

This week, I had the most effective lobbying I have ever had; I was lobbied by 12 primary school children who came with a message in a bottle—they literally brought a bottle with a message and a petition from Greenpeace calling on me to do everything I can to secure plastic reduction. They too had taken part in the Great Plastic Count, and even the youngest, who was only seven years old, told me about all the plastic that they had. I just wanted to give a special mention to those children from Bonner primary school. This is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people to get involved in politics and understand how Parliament works, so it is a good time to engage with everybody across the country on this important issue.

[Sarah Dyke]

Carymoor Environmental Trust in my constituency runs fantastic plastic sessions and has educated over 58,000 children in Somerset about the environmental impact of plastic and about ways to avoid single-use plastic. Does the Minister agree that the best way to avoid single-use plastic is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?

[Emma Hardy]

Absolutely. The global plastics treaty, which I will talk about in more detail, is crucial, and it is really encouraging to see how everybody is getting behind it.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.

Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.

In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I also live far away from Norfolk, but Somerset obviously has a record of flooding—in fact, it is named Somerset because it was the county where people lived in summer. Environment Agency data shows that 2,692 properties in my constituency are at risk of flooding, and unless basic maintenance is conducted on drainage and flood-defence systems, the figure will continue to rise. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the Environment Agency to have a £34 million deficit in its maintenance budget?

[Steff Aquarone]

I totally agree. Lots of money is already there, not to mention the stuff that is missing, but we have to use it in a more joined-up and strategic way. I could go on, but I will return to my speech.

The projects that need to be undertaken to make a real difference will take time, but they will have a huge payoff. Being forced into short-term thinking means that the responsible agencies cannot make secure plans to take the strategic actions they need to. I hope that the Minister will consider changing the arrangement to give the responsible agencies the ability to set longer-term budgets. That would be a huge boost to their medium and long-term planning, and could get off the ground so many vital flood-alleviation projects that are being stalled by the current funding set-up. As the chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance succinctly put it to me:

“Prevention is a lot less expensive than flooding.”

In fact, every pound spent on prevention prevents a further £14 of damage. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on that, particularly in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke).

Frustratingly, in many cases, it is not just the money that is lacking, but the necessary power to make change. The responsibilities and powers are broken up and siloed across councils, agencies and statutory bodies; all of them have expertise and experience, but it cannot be easily shared between them. I ask simply but kindly: why does it take nine months and two public meetings to decide what to do and how to spend the money we already have? I would love to tour my constituency bringing the kind of meeting I mentioned to every community, but that is simply not the most effective way of delivering the action that residents are crying out for.

The Netherlands has a Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management: a clearly responsible Department with the power to tackle an issue that is fundamental to that nation. We must accept that Britain floods—it always has done. A joined-up approach, with a clearly responsible body, is the only way we can ensure that powers are collected sensibly to allow for funding and direction decisions to be made in the best interests of communities.

Let us take a look at how flood prevention actually functions in the area that I and my Norfolk colleagues represent—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Norfolk county councillor. Norfolk county council is the lead flood authority, but it does not have the money to tackle the issues that it reports on. The council’s scrutiny committee considered that just yesterday, and concluded that there needs to be a focus on legislation to make it fit for purpose. After every serious event, it writes useful, sensible and impactful flood prevention reports, which outline how to prevent flooding from happening again, but once it finishes its reports, it has nowhere near the necessary money to implement any of its own recommendations.

That set-up would be utterly farcical if it were not so serious. It seems that my residents need all the stars to align to make anything happen, and that will not cut the mustard as water pours into their front rooms and destroys their belongings.

Rural Affairs

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday, I spoke to Ian, who has a beef enterprise and grows cider apples on his farm in Glastonbury. Now 74, he has worked his entire life to buy back his family’s 100-acre farm. He has finally done it, but the Government’s changes to the APR will soon tear it apart again, undoing his life’s work and leaving the farm unviable.

Sadly, Ian is not alone. During the debate, I read an email from a farmer in Charlton Musgrove who says that her family are shell-shocked by Labour’s attack on family farms. The farming sector has experienced one shock after the other in recent years, from Brexit to energy prices, the war in Ukraine, rising feed prices, the Conservatives’ terrible trade deals and mismanagement of the economy, and the botched transition from the basic payment scheme to the environmental land management schemes. Farming is in crisis, and here we are yet again with a misguided policy that hits the future sustainability of family-run farms.

We cannot allow this to continue as a sterile policy debate about optimal tax rates and allowances. This is about people’s lives, food security and the future of our countryside and the natural environment. It will not be wealthy landowners who suffer under the Government’s new family farm tax; it will be farming families barely able to make a living and, sadly, those who are left behind when a farmer dies unexpectedly, and who do not have access to clever accountants or special consultants. Not only will they have to deal with the emotional trauma of losing a parent or a partner; they may be at risk of losing the farm—their home.

The Government must abolish this family farm tax or, at the very least, raise the threshold to limit its impact on those who should not have to and cannot afford to bear the brunt. The Government must look closely at loopholes that allow wealthy landowners who are not farmers to use land as an inheritance tax loophole.

Agriculture is the most dangerous in industry in Britain. When we talk about farmers, many will assume that we are talking about males, but many women work in agriculture, and they are 10% more likely to suffer with depression and 15% more likely to suffer with anxiety. Women make up 55% of the farming workforce in England and Wales, so there is an urgent need for targeted interventions, particularly at key points in their lives, when they are most vulnerable to mental ill health, such as during extreme weather or disease outbreaks.

This family farm tax is another example of gender stereotypes and outdated assumptions about modern farming. Modern family farms are not always run by traditional families, so many will not be able to take advantage of the extra relief. The Government’s claim that 75% of farms will be unaffected relies on the assumption that every farmer is married and will benefit from twice the basic allowance.