Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

The debate has attracted a lot of interest in my South West Norfolk constituency, where we care passionately about the environment, climate and animal welfare. As has been observed, our area has plenty of chickens and pigs—they are all around us in my constituency; frankly, they are our neighbours and we are acutely aware of their welfare—so it is no wonder that so many residents have been in touch with me over the last year.

Every year in the UK, over 7 million farmed animals are confined to cages for all or part of their lives. Twenty per cent of the UK’s eggs are produced in those cages and, as has been observed, battery cages and enriched battery cages, in which hens have space the size of an A4 sheet of paper, remain legal. In farrowing crates, sows are unable to turn around, nestle their piglets or express natural roosting or nest-building behaviours. These restrictions lead to severe welfare problems for sows and piglets. It is important to recognise that many of these crates and cages prevent key natural behaviours.

Fortunately, all UK supermarkets have either already stopped selling eggs from caged hens or committed to do so by the end of 2025. However, it is estimated that once those commitments are realised, around 10% of the UK’s hens will remain in cages. That is 10% too many.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

The RSPCA’s assured scheme now accounts for 55% of the UK’s laying hens and 25% of its pigs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that there is increasing public support for higher welfare meat and eggs, even if the cost is slightly higher as a result?

[Terry Jermy]

I entirely agree. It is through the good work of organisations like the RSPCA that we can increase awareness of those improved standards.

As I have mentioned in this Chamber recently, and as was reported in The Guardian last week, through freedom of information requests I have found that industrial farms broke environmental regulations, including those relating to animal welfare, nearly 7,000 times in the last 10 years. For example, a farm was found to be stocking more than 400,000 animals, instead of the permitted 357,000. The permitted amounts are already very high, so any increase over and above them will cause further distress for animals. Given the numbers involved, I worry about routine overcrowding and a lack of regulation.

It is important to consider the implications of that intensity for disease. A National Audit Office report on animal resilience published this month revealed that there are serious gaps in the UK’s ability to respond to major outbreaks of animal diseases, including bird flu and foot and mouth, which have cost farmers and the Government millions of pounds. We must recognise that human health and animal health are linked.

We need to have a serious conversation about what sort of farming we want to pursue. As the Minister will know, I grew up in Norfolk, I am from Norfolk and I visit farms routinely. Farmers are under increasing pressure from a whole range of factors: disease, profitability, climate change, drought and more. Most farmers I know in South West Norfolk care passionately about their animals and want to do all they can to improve animal welfare, but, as has been highlighted, they need support with that transition. Fundamentally, this issue comes down to fairness—fairness in finances, and in labelling too. In a recent debate, some really interesting points were made about labelling, and how fairness is at the heart of it, so that the public can make informed choices.

The NFU estimates that it would cost between £5,000 and £8,000 to replace each of the 60,000 conventional farrowing crates that are currently in use across the UK. That transition must be supported by the market and some financial provision or incentive, either through infrastructure grants or via the supply chain, to make it viable for producers and to ensure that it does not put businesses out of pig production. It is crucial that the transition is staged and well supported by the Government and, where relevant, devolved Governments, to support our farming communities.

While I have the opportunity to do so, I pay tribute to the various animal welfare organisations campaigning and raising awareness of these issues, which is so important. They include the RSPCA, which has been mentioned, but also World Animal Protection, Compassion in World Farming and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Environment Agency: East of England

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member absolutely catches the point raised earlier about the lack of accountability and transparency, and the highlights fact that, although the EA has had more money and resource, it is not targeting priority cases or long-standing issues, while often telling Members of Parliament that they are priorities. I will come on to that, because there is a wider issue of which the Minister needs to be aware: the slowness to act and lack of accountability.

Turning to the east of England, and my own constituency in particular, let me give three examples that cover a range of scenarios. The first is the dumping of more than 122,000 tonnes of waste at Saxon Pit in Whittlesey between October 2017 and February 2018. The EA’s initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped—but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act. In its initial response, the EA said that the operator must dispose of all the non-conforming waste by 10 October 2018; yet seven years on the waste remains in situ. The EA also promised prosecutions, because this was such a serious case. I will quote just one of many letters that I exchanged with the EA over this period. In 2021, the then-chief executive Sir James Bevan promised that

“Saxon Pit is being treated as a priority”.

The EA’s investigation took a further 14 months to complete, but in June 2022 it said that a

“final set of interviews…will take place shortly”.

In October 2022, the chief executive asked me to,

“be assured that my teams are prioritising this work over other competing criminal inquiries”.

Three years ago, the EA said it was prioritising this serious case, with more 122,000 tonnes of waste, over other cases. It was a priority case. Yet three years on, and seven years on from the incident, we still have no prosecutions. To go back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said a moment ago, what cases is the EA prosecuting with its additional resource, if it is not prosecuting at Saxon Pit?

I thought that the Minister might reflect, “Perhaps that was simply an issue of the past Government. Perhaps things have changed—the Environment Agency has perhaps changed its approach.” I therefore thought it would be helpful to give a second example, from the last year: a very serious pollution incident at King’s dyke, in Whittlesey, the same town as Saxon Pit. I have seen internal papers from the Environment Agency that show that it described the problem, and reported it to the Department, as a category 1 pollution incident. For those not familiar with the term, a category 1 pollution incident is the most severe level, involving a

“serious, persistent…or extensive impact…on the environment, people…or property”.

The BBC reported that an estimated 900 fish were killed in close vicinity to an Anglian Water overflow pipe, and that the pipe had discharged for 23 hours due to a suspected pump failure. When I spoke to Anglian Water and the Environment Agency, no other credible reason was given for the serious incident. I was then told that water samples had been taken and would be quick to establish whether the overflow pipe was the cause of the category 1 incident. I was told on 10 October 2024 that the lab tests were under way, that it would take a week for them to determine the cause, and that an internal decision would be taken on enforcement in November.

November then became December. December became January. We kept chasing, and we were told, “No, it’s no longer January; it’s May.” We chased again in May, and were told September. This is an issue that Ministers say—and I do not doubt for a minute their sincerity—is an absolute priority for the Government. We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category 1, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year—even though I suspect that, internally and within the Department, it is already known whether Anglian Water was the cause and whether, therefore, a criminal investigation should follow. I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability.

Let me give a third example. As a former Minister, I thought I would try to pitch these examples in a way that is constructive across the House. One debate that the Minister may recall was led by one of her parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). In it, he raised cross-party concerns—indeed, there were a number of the Minister’s colleagues present, though it was one of her colleagues on the Front Bench—around the environmental damage of incinerators. That is something that many charities usually more closely aligned with the left of politics, such as Friends of the Earth, have raised concerns about, but it is also an issue that many on the Government Benches have highlighted, and one that I have consistently raised myself.

We now know that DEFRA’s own analysis suggests that there is enough national capacity for incineration. As more waste is recycled, the requirements for incineration come down. A BBC report highlighted the serious damage caused by these incinerators and by waste being burned because of anaerobic digesters. Most of that is now plastic, and it is the dirtiest way to generate power. No one would have thought a Government committed to the environment would want to see more incinerators being built. Incineration is on a par with coal as the dirtiest form of energy generation, yet we still do not have clarity from the Government on whether environmental permits will remain in force for incinerators that have not yet been built.

One of those is in Wisbech. To put this incinerator in context, it is so big that one half its size in the neighbouring constituency was turned down—so they doubled it in size to make it a national scheme and take it outside local planning. It is sited 700 metres from the largest school in the district, accessed solely by single carriageway roads, with a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the fens. The Environment Agency, in issuing a permit, says it does not consider any of the environmental harm of transporting waste from six different counties to this small market town, because the permit only applies to the curtilage of the site itself. I simply ask, given the cross-party support on this issue, whether that decision by the Environment Agency is fit for purpose.

I will add one further point. Is it not very odd that the decision to grant an environmental permit was made during the general election purdah period, a time when organisations are not supposed to take controversial decisions? I hope the Minister will follow up on that, because I know that many of her own Government colleagues are concerned. Where incinerators have not yet been built, we should not be embedding the environmental damage that so many charities and environmental groups, and so many of our own colleagues have expressed concern about.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member represents North East Cambridgeshire; as the Member for South West Norfolk, I share a border and very similar geography with him, and I recognise many of the concerns he raises about pollution. Does he share my concerns about the EA’s performance on the time taken to issue permits, licences and other permissions? In our part of the world, that is a real barrier to growth and prosperity for businesses, because the performance is so poor—it takes months, if not years, for businesses to get approvals from the EA.

[Steve Barclay]

I do share them. Just for the Minister’s benefit, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be materially affected by the Wisbech incinerator in terms of transport; when the developers doubled its size in order to take it out of the local planning process, they created a different problem of how to get sufficient waste to run it. Therefore, it has to take in waste from further and further afield. As Wisbech is a market town, accessed by single carriageway roads—the A47 is single carriageway into Wisbech—bringing waste through my neighbour’s constituency will cause huge traffic there, as it will in many other constituencies across the eastern region.

A BBC report highlights the severe environmental damage that would be caused by the proposed incinerator, but the hon. Gentleman also highlights a wider point about lack of transparency. As in the King’s dyke fishing example, as a constituency MP one chases on behalf of constituents to get them some answers, yet organisations feel they are unaccountable.

That brings me to my final point. It will not surprise the Minister that, as a member of the last Government, I quite frequently raised my constituency concerns—before I was in the Department—with relevant Secretaries of State, and I know that they raised those with the EA; yet, as we see with Saxon Pit, it still failed to take prosecution action over seven years while saying to people locally, “It is a priority case.” As Secretary of State myself, I found the organisation so unresponsive that I had to take the unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. In fact, I issued two in my six months in the Department, where none had been issued in the seven years before. I fear that Ministers now need to look at the accountability to democratic control of not just the Environment Agency, but Natural England—not least given the three interventions we have heard from colleagues across the House.

--- 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 chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me.

I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point.

More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation.

I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon.

In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively.

Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation.

The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators.

We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.

[Terry Jermy]

The Minister and I have talked on many occasions. I do not envy the scale of the challenge that she has, particularly in relation to pollution. She and I have talked about internal drainage boards, which is another issue that is shared across constituencies. In relation to permits and licensing, we are proud to have a growth agenda as a Government. Does the Minister recognise that focusing on encouraging the EA to improve its performance in that regard could help to unlock growth in many areas in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and improve growth opportunities for businesses? I appreciate that there is an awful lot to do in the Department, but can that issue be given some focus as well?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point.

We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.

Animal Welfare in Farming

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), my constituency neighbour, for securing this much-needed and timely debate. It is one that I called for in the Chamber several weeks ago, so I am pleased to be here today.

There was recently outrage and shock about footage from a Lincolnshire farm, where the abuse of animals was caught on film. I was glad that supermarkets took a stand, suspended their trade with that farm and confirmed that they regard such abuse as unacceptable. However, it is particularly saddening and concerning that that was not a one-off case or an outlier. Sadly, we see such animal abuse time and again at various locations across the country, including in my own county of Norfolk.

It has been made clear today that animal welfare comes in various forms, from imports to labelling and intensive farming, a subject I am passionate about. It is clear that we need to rethink animal welfare policy, and intensive farming is a particular concern for me. Freedom of information requests that I have submitted to the Environment Agency have shown that in the past decade, industrial farms have breached regulations more than 7,000 times. That is 7,000 breaches of regulations in less than a decade. It is clear that the whole regulatory system is currently completely toothless. For example, one farm operated by a large corporation has been found to be stocking more than 400,000 animals, instead of the permitted 357,000. Evidence suggests that regulatory nonconformity is the norm, yet regulators are taking enforcement action only in a tiny minority of cases. Rather than feeling the pressure to comply, intensive livestock companies are being invited to wield significant influence over public policy.

Intensive farming practices are on the rise. Between 2016 and 2023, there was a 20% increase in the number of intensive livestock units in the UK. Now, about 80% of broiler chickens are reared in fully housed, intensive systems. A process of consolidation and industrialisation of farming has seen more than 100,000 livestock and poultry farms go out of business between 1990 and 2016. It is no wonder that so many small farms in my constituency are nervous about speaking out against the big boys.

The Minister might be pleased to know that I did not intend to mention the Methwold mega-farm today. However, seeing as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, I will bring it up. I am delighted that it was rejected due to what was very much a joint effort among local residents, charities and elected representatives, from councillors to myself, as an MP. It is true that it was rejected in part over animal welfare concerns, but importantly, the effect on the environment and climate played a role as well. In Norfolk, the environment is crucial to our economy. It is suggested that if I am against intensive farming I am anti-growth, but tourism is worth more to us in Norfolk than it is in Cornwall; it is crucial to local jobs. Intensive farming impacts jobs in our county—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

As a result of the Division in the House, the debate’s revised end time is 4.44 pm. I will call the shadow Minister and the Minister to wind up at 4.06 pm. I know that we have two speakers to come and that Terry Jermy is coming to the conclusion of his speech.

[Terry Jermy]

Unfortunately, Sir John, you have missed the first 80% of my speech. I was coming on to how crucial the environment in Norfolk is to the local economy and the threat that intensive livestock farming poses to the environment. It is also a threat from a disease and an animal welfare point of view.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

On the subject of disease, the 2023 national risk register states that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance and the presence of exotic diseases, such as foot and mouth disease, represent a threat to our food sustainability. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming calls from the National Farmers Union for the Treasury to fund a cross-Government plan to tackle such diseases?

[Terry Jermy]

I absolutely support that proposal. Intensive farming presents a significant risk from a disease point of view, so we need to heed such calls.

I will quickly conclude. Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, introduced under the previous Labour Government. Last year, I was very proud to stand on a manifesto to further strengthen animal welfare legislation. As we have heard today, frankly, that cannot happen quickly enough.

In my constituency, farming is our lifeblood, as is the environment, and therefore we must have a serious conversation about what sort of farming we want in future. I sincerely hope that it is one that protects our communities, our agriculture and our nature, while also furthering our animal welfare standards.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

That is a very good point, and I do agree—in fact, I will go a lot further than that, if Members will allow me to get to the radical, central elements of my Bill. However, I do agree that that is absolutely something we need to do.

Across Mid Norfolk, the 23 villages—I will not list them all—go from Old Buckenham in the deep south east, through Wretham, Hockham, Rocklands, Thompson, Watton, Saham Toney, Cranworth, a cluster of co-adjacent villages, north Elmham, Billingford, Lyng, Elsing, Yaxham, Mattishall and right up to Weasenham in my north-west frontier, which should not be flooding. That tells us that this flooding is not just geomorphological. It is the result of housing and the lack of investment in the drainage infrastructure.

The truth is that the patient people in Mid Norfolk—they are pretty patient, given that they have had me as an MP for 14 years—are getting really impatient with this. There is a contract between the state and the citizen whereby if they pay their taxes and buy a house, while they do not expect that much these days, they do expect that their house will not flood because of systemic and structural failures of national infrastructure. When it does flood, and they call, hoping that someone will come and pump it out, they expect the water companies, to whom they are paying very high bills, to be there and to help. However, the service and the responsiveness has not been there—at least until they are able to sit on the answering machine and ring enough times that eventually a tanker arrives. People are fed up with that and with the fact that this has been coming for quite a long time, so they are very excited by the fact that the Minister is gripping this issue.

Let me spin through the problems, as I have experienced them in Norfolk. It is, of course, climate change; let us not undermine the importance of that. Last year we had the eight wettest months on record, one after another. That is not happening for any weird, strange, unexplained reason; it is happening because of climate change. The issue is also that in my part of the world we are building a lot of houses—but the country has to build them, so I do not think that not building houses is the answer. The devil is in the detail.

Another problem is that our agricultural practices have changed. In my part of the world, a proud farming county, we now have a lot of contract farming. The big landowners are often things like pension funds and are remote. The farming is not done by a local landowner, but by contract farmers on a very tight, low-margin contract, with huge bits of kit, roaring around trying to get the job done and scratch a living. In the old days, on the farm I grew up on, in a rainy month we would go and mend the fences and clear the ditches, but that work does not tend to be in the farming contracts. Our county councils have also seen their budgets hammered by the rising cost of social care and through some of austerity 1.0. There is a basic maintenance problem.

We also have a big planning problem. The point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was a good one, but the real problem in my patch has been that because of the five-year land supply, good planners have said, “Well, we don’t want to build here, and we shouldn’t build there,” as well as holding statutory consultations. Many of the big developers have then land banked—they have taken their permissions where they know they are going to get them and have not built them out—and then invoked the five-year land supply.

The five-year land supply was a sensible coalition policy designed to ensure that a 20-year plan could not be ignored, but it has been used to blow the whistle and say, “You are not building out at your five-year land supply, so we will now invoke the freedom to dump where we want.” It is a win-win. They then dump 100 houses outside Yaxham and 200 outside Mattishall—they want to go near Norwich, dump on the outskirts of a village near a road, move on and not invest. That is what has driven a lot of the problem.

Statutory consultation is fine, but this is also a planning issue. Part of what my Bill addresses is that we must somehow ensure that when developers are building like that, it should not just be that they are statutorily consulted and go through the tick boxes. The only way to make them take this seriously is to say, “Look, if you build, and within five or 10 years of your building there is significant flooding that never used to happen in that area, you’re going to be on the hook for upgrading the drains. You’re going to be on the hook for doing the repair work.” We have to create a fiduciary financial liability that makes the directors of those companies say, “I think we’d better upgrade; we’d better do the investment up front, rather than relying on consultations.”

In the end, somebody has to pay. To be fair, the water companies have got to pay more, but we are also asking them to pay billions to improve pipes, build reservoirs and stop leaks. Somewhere in the system we have to find a bit more money to do the upgrade of the traditional drains and improve the infrastructure. It behoves us all to give the Minister some solutions. Where will the money come from? Nobody in Mid Norfolk wants to pay more council tax; it is already very high and it is going on social care. One answer is from the developers.

There is another problem, however. When someone in Mid Norfolk picks up the phone and asks who is in charge, there are 36 organisations in Norfolk with responsibility for flooding prevention. In Whitehall that probably seems like a low number, but in Norfolk people only want one. We do have one: it is called the local flood authority. It is great, but it has no money and no power.

The good news is that in addition to the LFA we have the internal drainage boards, which have been looking after flooding since about 1550; they really know their ditches and dykes. Colleagues with agricultural constituencies—I can see them nodding—will know that these are the very local experts who know about hydrology and water and how it all works. The problem is that their budgets have either been cut or not maintained to keep pace with demand.

There are quite a small number of areas—I think15 to 20 districts—particularly in the east of England, such as the fens, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and other areas, that have a very high incidence of flooding. The other problem is that where they are being hit, the IDBs have to be propped up by the district councils, which means the residents in those areas are then penalised as funding is—quite properly—diverted into flooding. That is funding that they are not getting into their public services. There is a huge problem with the allocation of funding.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member, my county colleague, mentioned internal drainage boards. For every pound that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council in my constituency collects in council tax, 43p now goes to internal drainage board levies, which is completely unsustainable. Does his draft Bill address IDB levies and call for a permanent, full-time solution to the funding issue?

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.

The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.

Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I have two quick points to make. When I was first elected to Norfolk county council in 2013, social care was about 40% of the total budget. When I left 12 years later, a few months ago, it was more like 60% and was rapidly increasing towards 70%. That means less money for maintenance. The highways maintenance backlog in Norfolk is about £70 million. That is drains, gullies, ditches and dykes. Frankly, far too many flooding incidents are preventable. I strongly urge the Minister, in the great work she is doing, to look for a cross-departmental solution. Local council funding is crucial.

I referred earlier to the operational aspects of internal drainage boards. We must not underestimate the role that IDBs play. They are very cost-efficient, they are incredibly experienced and they know their area. When I visit the IDBs in my patch, and there are dozens of them, I find that the staff have 10, 20 or 30 years’ experience. Their costs are increasing, mainly because of electricity; it is expensive to make the pumps run. More importantly, the pumps are old. Walking into some pumping stations is like walking into a museum: they are 50 years old.

There is a huge risk of failure, at the very time when we need pumps working because of the increase in rainfall and flooding incidents. I strongly urge the Minister to look at capital funding for IDB pumps. It may only be when IDBs are gone that we realise how crucial they are. They exist in a relatively small number of areas, but in those areas they are critical pieces of infrastructure.

Farming

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Farming is the lifeblood of our local communities in my constituency. I recognise that farmers are often the guardians of the countryside and our natural heritage—farmers like Richard Evans in my constituency, a brilliant sheep farmer at Larling whom I met earlier this year and a leading voice in the Breckland Farmers Wildlife Network. That network is a farmer-led group collaborating to support farming and the environment. With 52 members covering more than 44,000 hectares of farmland in the Brecks, they recognise not only that they are custodians of a very special area for agriculture and food production, but that it is home to a huge range of species, many of which are found nowhere else in the UK.

On my visit with Richard, I was joined by representatives from Norfolk Rivers Trust to talk about how we can work together to support our rivers locally, including rare chalk streams, because farming has a significant impact on our waterways. However, for farmers such as Richard to continue their excellent work, we must move towards a future for farming that prioritises such farms. We cannot allow megafarms to dominate the industry and the landscape. A Compassion in World Farming study showed that there are more than 1,000 large intensive pig and poultry farms across the UK, a 20% increase since 2016. Norfolk has, sadly, been dubbed the megafarm capital of Europe. Residents in my constituency are very concerned about the increasing number of intensive farms and how they are contributing to biodiversity loss, as well as climate change, and air and water pollution. Very often such farming practices adversely affect people living nearby, especially because of the health hazard posed by ammonia.

We have a further proposed megafarm to be built in my constituency at Methwold. If approved on 3 April, it would become one of the largest in Europe. That application has received over 15,000 objections, including from all local parish councils nearby, as well as the World Wide Fund for Nature and Compassion in World Farming. If the council were to make that decision early next month, it would be a disaster. As I have said: no ifs, no buts, it cannot be allowed to proceed. This is not farming, this is industrialisation.

I also want to make reference to our county farms estate in Norfolk, which I am particularly passionate about. Once a mighty holding of more than 30,000 acres, it is now sitting at around 16,000 acres, which still makes it one of the largest council-owned farming estates in the country. I recently met Richard and Danielle Gott at their farm in Nordelph in my constituency, who have successfully farmed the land there for 26 years. We need to support farmers like Richard and Danielle and the next generation of farmers, such as their daughters Emma and Jessica. It is highly likely that with devolution the existing governance model will go. We need to give priority to entry-level farming as we move toward farming’s future.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have known it for five years.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Having spent several weeks and months encouraging farmers to access the scheme, naturally I am disappointed with the closure and hope that there will be a replacement in short order. However, is the fact that so many farmers in my constituency were not accessing the scheme not evidence that the Conservative party failed farmers over many years?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Many farmers are now in these schemes and are benefiting from them. We are also getting the environmental benefits that the whole transition away from basic payments to the environmental land management schemes was designed to achieve. Let me give some credit to the Opposition—they set this train in motion, but what they did not do was set up the schemes in a way that could properly be managed. That is what we are now doing.

Biosecurity

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing this timely debate. I commend him on the work that he has done since being elected to this House on key matters in this area. It is a timely debate for my constituency as there is a proposal for a mega-farm at Methwold in South West Norfolk. I and residents are concerned about a number of aspects, not least that intensive farming is contributing to biodiversity loss, as well to as climate change and air and water pollution. Very often such farming practices adversely affect people living nearby, especially because of the health hazard posed by ammonia pollution.

I note with great concern a report commissioned by Compassion in World Farming, which found that the risk of swine and bird flu pandemics could be increased by intensive pig and poultry farming. The farms concentrate significant numbers of confined animals. In the Methwold proposal we are talking about almost a million chickens and 14,000 pigs on one site, increasing biosecurity risks.

That is not the only concern that we face. In 2022-23, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk observed, Norfolk was badly affected by avian influenza. In the past few years we have seen an unprecedented outbreak, and more than a fifth of all bird flu cases in England have occurred in Norfolk. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a Member for the eastern region, knows that our region has 20% of all the UK’s poultry flock, and that such outbreaks can break farms. Government figures show that the average cost to the Government could be between £2 million and £4 million per outbreak. The Government need to prepare for that, and I welcome the measures announced so far. Prevention, as is so often the case, costs less in the long run, whether in public health, for the farming community or at supermarket checkouts.

I am proud to say that the British Trust for Ornithology headquarters is located in Thetford in my South West Norfolk constituency, and its scientific research and dedication are more important than ever before given the biodiversity loss, climate crisis and biosecurity challenges that we face as a country. That research is critical for our understanding.

In Britain I like to think that we are a global leader when it comes to scientific study; that should be championed. I vividly remember walking around the BTO nature reserve in Thetford, and along our river corridors and forests, and seeing scores of dead birds—wild birds primarily. It was absolutely devastating. One could not miss the sheer number of dead birds, which were evident. Avian influenza significantly impacted our wild bird populations across Norfolk and further afield. Given all the other environmental challenges that we face, that was one that we could have done without.

I congratulate the Minister and the whole Government on the work that they are doing to put Britain back on the map when it comes to leading on environmental policy. I know that the Minister is passionate about farming and biosecurity. He is very well respected by farmers in my constituency. He cares passionately about these issues and all farming-related matters. I hope that in summing up he will provide further reassurance for my residents on the points that have been raised.

Flood Preparedness: Norfolk

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this hugely important debate. I have had the pleasure of serving alongside him not just here in this place but in Norfolk county council, of which we have both been members for a number of years. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as both a serving Norfolk county councillor and a Breckland district councillor. The issues are the same—we are talking about flooding in this case—but the setting is somewhat different.

Flooding is a significant concern in Norfolk, as has been mentioned, and I have been left so frustrated about flooding incidents in my local communities. The time taken to look into some of the causes of flooding and the recommendations for mitigation is woeful. In some cases, it can take up to two years, and often residents are repeatedly flooded before we have seen the reports on the initial incident. It must be said that local councils are woefully under-resourced. They must be given additional resources and powers to respond to the increasing flood risks. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for mentioning internal drainage boards, which I have already raised in Parliament, because they are an increasing concern for many councils.

In my constituency, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council now contributes the equivalent of 43% of all its council tax income to funding IDB levies—that is incredible. I am delighted to say that, since Labour has taken office, we have seen progress, with additional funding of more than £250,000 for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council alone. I also welcome the new flood resilience taskforce launched to turbocharge flood preparedness and the delivery of flood defences. I was delighted last week when an extra £50 million was announced for internal drainage boards, which have been neglected for far too long. I am pleased that the Government recognise their vital contribution, which shows Labour’s commitment to the challenge.

I pay tribute to Welney Flood Watch in my constituency. The team play a vital role, helping residents to know whether the A1101, which is appropriately named the Welney Wash Road, is passable. I was delighted to meet one of the volunteers, Ken, yesterday in Parliament. Without that intervention, residents often get caught out by the changing and unpredictable water levels in that area. That is a fine example of community spirit, but we cannot leave it solely to volunteers to fix the cracks that are so evident in the system and that will become more common because of climate change.

I believe that we in this room have a moral obligation not to leave the planet in a worse state than we found it in. We must protect the here and now. Failure to tackle the root causes and the imminent threats of flooding will cost us socially, economically and environmentally, as has been pointed out. We need only look at areas such as Valencia over the past few weeks to see the devastating impact of flooding, the damage to livelihoods and housing and, in that case, the tragic loss of so many lives.

I know that the Minister understands the importance of the issue; I have spoken to her about it on several occasions. The task at hand could not be clearer. The Environment Agency states that up to one in six UK properties are now at risk of flooding, and it is going to get even worse. It cuts across numerous constituencies, and not just in Norfolk. I am in South West Norfolk, the county’s furthest constituency from the coast, but it is still a huge challenge.

After 14 years of Conservative neglect and underfunding and the forgoing of the scientific warning signs, communities up and down the country have been left unnecessarily exposed to flood damage. The previous Government slashed resources for the Environment Agency, the key agency tasked with flood preparedness and response, by two thirds from 2010, leaving families and businesses to pay the price of extreme floods.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate and raising this important issue. It is now up to Labour to protect our local economy and the national environment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Terry Jermy Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

As a former primary school teacher, how can I not say yes to a meeting with the students from my hon. Friend’s constituency? I am already looking forward to it.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I am very concerned about the future of the Thetford biomass facility in my constituency. Every year, it turns half a million tonnes of poultry litter into electricity. Has the Secretary of State had meetings to discuss the potential impact of the end of the renewables obligation scheme on the disposal of poultry litter?

[Mary Creagh]

We are in the early stages of looking at how we deal with the country’s waste and considering the policies we will bring forward. This will be looked at as part of the review. We will be working with colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure we get the right results.