Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The basis behind my seeking this debate is to highlight the need for continued, not new, Government support. ELMs is a Brexit dividend. It would be a crying shame if the Government failed to build on the very good work of the last Government, as I will come to in a minute. ELMs is the flagship scheme. The last Government honoured their commitment to provide £2.4 billion every year, from 2019 onwards, to support the transition from area-based payments to public money for public good. The sustainable farming incentive supports soil quality, water quality, hedgerows, tree planting and riparian buffers. There are also the countryside stewardship scheme, and the landscape recovery scheme which I have already mentioned. Other schemes include the England woodland creation offer and the nature for climate fund. All those schemes back up the transition to nature-based solutions, and allow farmers to recognise and mitigate for changes in rain distribution and intensity. They provide funding for the changes necessary for biodiversity and food production.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered nature-based solutions for farmland flooding. It is great to see you in your place, Dr Murrison. Before I start, I will draw your attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a director of a farming company. I do not claim to be a farmer—look at my hands—but I am directly involved in farming and I could benefit from some of the measures that I am proposing. There are two areas that I want to discuss. The first is the impact of flooded fields on farms and what should be done to help them. The second is the impact of agricultural flooding on other areas of flood risk, and what should be done to incentivise farmers to help ameliorate flooding elsewhere by accepting flooding in some areas of their farms. Before I go into that, it is necessary to look at the background, and I will give some stats to help paint the picture. Seventy four per cent of the total floodplain in the United Kingdom is agricultural land. That is perhaps no surprise, because centuries of flooding and recession have formed some of our richest agricultural land. In fact, 60% of our best and most versatile land is on the floodplain. As a result, the argument about what should happen with floodplains—whether they should be allowed to flood, be rewilded or be retained for agricultural use—is central to the significant and increasingly political debate about food security. The incidences of flooding are increasing. We can argue about the reasons behind that, although we do not need to do so today. Last winter, there were more than 1,000 flood warnings for farmland, which was a record high. As any farmer will say, particularly in the east of England, last spring the land was inundated with water. It was impossible for farmers to get on the fields until much later than normal, which had a knock-on impact on sowing and a consequential impact on yield for this year. More recently, we had the new year’s flooding right across the country. We can see from that pattern, and from a much longer one, which we do not need to go into, that there is now a norm. If we look at the new and updated forecast of the change in our weather patterns that we should experience through global warming, although it is true that it will be warmer and drier in the summers, the expectation, which so far seems to be borne out by reality, is that the winters will be wetter with greater incidences of intense rain, which is the kind of rain that leads to flooding. We need action to fix the changing situation. The first argument I will make about flooding on farms is that watercourses need to be cleared. Not every drainage needs to be slowed down to prevent flooding elsewhere. Although that is very fashionable—I fear that some of that fashion has found its way into the Environment Agency—it is crucial that drainage that is intended to remove water from productive farmland is cleared regularly, either by the Environment Agency or by it getting out of the way and allowing local farmers to do that on its behalf. Farmland is not free flooding for the Environment Agency. That is a crucial distinction between what the Environment Agency may have planned for flood defences lower down the watercourse and the necessary requirement that the best and most versatile land continues to be used effectively for food production. We need to identify potential flood relief, including areas where the quality of the land is less good and where, in negotiation with landowners and farmers, we can identify historical floodplains and, perhaps, flood meadows. One of the few traditional flood meadows that still exists is in my constituency at Sculthorpe meadow, and there is another one on the Wensum. That is part of only 1,100 hectares of traditional flood meadow that still exist in the country. There can be agreements there with the Environment Agency, to take advantage of the funding that is available from central Government, which I will come to in a minute. There is a potential for farmers to benefit from allowing areas of lower-quality land to accept flooding for the benefit of others.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One possible reason why regulated capital value is important is that the assessment of whether bills are reasonable or not relates—in part, at least—to what is considered to be a reasonable return on capital. Does the hon. Member agree that if one’s regulated capital value has depreciated to zero, there might be an adverse knock-on impact on what is considered a reasonable bill, to take account of the debt and the capital investment? Does he think that that might be something to do with it?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, perhaps the Minister is right—perhaps the detail of what percentage of debt or what multiple of revenue is appropriate should be established by the commission and the wider review—but surely the principle can be established now. From any investigation in this area, we can say that the principle will be that debt will need to be capped or managed, or have some oversight, because we have seen what happens—particularly with Thames Water—when there is no cap or oversight. Does the Minister not agree that the new clause just sets out the principle, and the amount would be set out by an SI?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me another intervention, this time on proposed new subsection (2DZB)(a), which refers to “a prohibition on water or sewerage undertakers having offshore holding companies”. He referenced some of the international investors who have holdings in Thames Water, and perhaps in the majority of the other water companies. Access to international markets is very important for raising investment into our water utilities. Does he accept that using offshore holding companies might be a mechanism that allows for easier transfer of funds, easier investment and easier access to international finance, and may therefore have a benign rationale? We always assume that offshore holding companies are somehow suspicious, or that their motivation is tax avoidance, and I believe that the hon. Member referenced that earlier. That might be the case—in which case, they should not be encouraged—but with his 25 years’ experience in finance, which he referenced, does he think that there is an argument for saying that offshore holding companies make it easier to access international investment?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To save everyone’s time, I will not make a speech on this, but I am concerned about new clause 12 because it confers an absolute duty regarding chalk streams. I represent a constituency with several chalk streams, including the Stiffkey, which goes through Walsingham. The new clause says: “Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect on chalk streams, that undertaker must—” so it is a direction— “secure and maintain high ecological status of such chalk streams”. We all want that outcome, but the problem is that water undertakers are not the only ones with negative impacts on chalk streams, yet the new clause gives them the requirement, which is absolute in its terms. We know that farming, and increasingly road detritus, also affects chalk streams, so how does the hon. Member square that circle?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I have to make the same point about new clause 27. Proposed new section 4A(1)(a) contains an absolute duty on the undertaker, which “must”—so this is a direction—secure and maintain high ecological status, and that has to be achieved within three years. I question the practicality of that. I am also keen to highlight the fact that proposed new section 4A(7) includes the broads, which I am lucky enough to represent. The broads are affected by all sorts of factors: we have a high degree of recreational use, with boating as well as angling, and it is a farming environment, with grazing in the marshes, particularly down in the Halvergate marshes. Yes, Anglian Water has affected water quality negatively—as well as in some positive ways, to give it credit—but it would be a travesty to place an absolute duty on Anglian Water when it has only partial control of the answer, and over a three- year timeframe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unrealistic?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member says that privatisation has demonstrably failed. I challenge him on that. There are elements of privatisation that have failed: the refinancing, the imposition of debt and the removal of money through dividends in the noughties and, I am sorry to say, between 2010 and 2015. That is a failure, but I hope that the hon. Member accepts that privatisation as a whole has delivered more than £160 billion of capex investment into the industry, which simply would not have happened if it had been up against schools, hospitals and the other calls on the public purse. I know that I am straying too far, but subsection (1)(b) of the new clause refers to “whether a public benefit company could better perform the role of current undertakers.” As I am sure the hon. Member will know, we have an example of that: Welsh Water. Is he able to point to a single metric by which Welsh Water has outperformed its private sector comparators?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a genuinely interesting point. I know it is late, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could expand in further detail. While he is referencing regulated capital value and the difference between what is on the sheet and what is reality, could he explain in a bit more detail, for the benefit of the Committee, what that means in reality? If there were to be a rebase of regulated capital value, what would be the practical impact of that?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would like the Minister’s comments on the issue that we have, and I am focusing primarily on the Norfolk broads, of which I represent a good chunk. There is the requirement to make a mandatory obligation on the water undertaker to ensure “high ecological status”, which is above “good ecological status”—that is the point the Minister is making. Does she agree that, while they are a primary input into the quality of the water in the Norfolk broads, they are not the only influencer? While the intention to create and encourage high ecological status in the broads is a very good one, and it is one that I share, does the Minister agree that the drafting of this new clause is not appropriate?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is conflating the term creditor with debt provision, but actually there is a plethora of suppliers to any large organisation such as a water undertaker. They are creditors—that is just how they are defined. His clause would cover small and medium enterprises that are providers of services, and in fact any provider of a service who would be a creditor of such an organisation. How does he propose that his clause only affects debt provision, which I understand is the direction he is trying to focus the clause on, and does not cover all creditors as it is currently drafted?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is right that a lot of the supposed solutions were uncosted and had an impractical timeframe. One that springs to mind was the Liberal Democrat amendment that was costed: there was a tax that was supposed to pay for the improvements to water quality. Does he agree that, on a basic calculation, it would have taken more than 300 years to pay it back?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that under current insolvency law, there are secured creditors. There is a hierarchy of debt, and the least protected—not the most protected—are suppliers. Does he envisage changing the rules to give additional protection in this process to unsecured creditors and essentially reverse the security of credit? That would be an odd thing to do, but I understand why he might need to do it to make this process effective.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  They will be right at the bottom.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a slightly cheeky intervention. Is the shadow Minister aware that there is a debate in Westminster Hall at 4 o’clock tomorrow led by yours truly on nature-based solutions for farmland flooding? The fund is central to improving the situation.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says it is the creditors who put the undertakers in the position that they are in, but surely that cannot be right. Creditors are the people who provide services for a fee to the undertaker—they will not be the organisations that put the undertaker into that position. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that if he were to replace the consumer or any other body with recovery from creditors, that would be meaningless unless Government debt was placed above those of other creditors. How would that be fair to the providers of services to water undertakers?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure whether that was a commitment to match the £8 billion, or whether the Secretary of State considered it to be a fantasy commitment. However, it is not just the £8 billion investment that seems to have gone missing. As soon as they were in power, the Labour Government cancelled the A27 bypass, the Stonehenge tunnel, improvements to the A47 in Great Yarmouth, the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, junction 8 of the M27 at Southampton, and other projects. That is £3.3 billion axed from works to help motorists. What have they done with the money? Has Labour prioritised pay rises for unions over improving roads and helping motorists?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her post, and look forward to helping her to do an excellent job. As we can see following the last few days of flooding, changing weather patterns are damaging our roads and increasing potholes. The last Government allocated an additional £8 billion for road improvements, paid for by the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, yet all we have seen from Labour is a commitment of £1.8 billion for this financial year. Will the Secretary of State commit to matching the additional £8 billion for road maintenance?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady says that it was the last Government who allowed the water companies—the undertakers—to mark their own homework. Does she not recall that it was actually the Labour Government in 2008 who specifically changed the rules to allow water companies to do just that in relation to their environmental performance?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak primarily in support of amendment 6. I pay tribute to the former Member for Ludlow, the right hon. Philip Dunne, who throughout the previous Parliament was the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sat. The EAC’s work on water quality and the seminal report that we produced started this huge public interest in water quality and led to the legislative changes in the Environment Act 2021, among other things. One of the key lessons we learned from the work that we did on the EAC was the need for transparency of data and information, which can unlock the power of citizen science. We visited the citizen scientists working on the River Windrush, who had difficulty analysing the data that was then publicly available but very hard to find to work out whether storm overflows were being used in the way the water companies were describing. Their very detailed, hard-to-do work exposed the shocking misuse of storm overflows. As those citizen scientists understood, an event duration monitor is a very simple piece of equipment: it is either on or off. It is set on the outflow of the storm overflow tank. When it detects flow on that channel, it turns on, and when that flow ceases, it turns off. What it does not do, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly pointed out, is measure volume. It also does not measure what is passing. It says that something is passing or not passing, but it does not measure volume or quality. That leads me to support amendment 6, tabled by the loyal Opposition, and to question not the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendments—amendments 24 and 25 and those to clause 3, which I suspect we will talk a bit more about—but the effectiveness of having new machines that measure volume, in addition to whether it is on and off, but not quality. A better solution may be the one that the Environmental Audit Committee recommended all those years ago—I stand to be corrected, but I think we wrote that report in 2021. It called for the upstream and downstream monitoring of water quality, typically in the outflow river, so that in addition to a signal that there has been an event, there is close to real-time reporting of the comparative water quality upstream and downstream of a discharge outlet. That would simplify the technical requirements of having to install a whole load of new equipment, which other amendments from the Liberal Democrats anticipate, at an unknown cost and implementation speed. Instead, it would look at the actual real-time impact on a particular water body. Amendment 6 would require the publishing of the information on the undertaker’s website. I am surprised that that was not part of the Bill in the first place and, given that it was not, that the Government have not adopted the amendment. All it does is to apply consistency to the legislative programme. Section 81(2) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021—I know the Minister is familiar with it, but just in case she is not—require the publishing of event duration monitor data within an hour and in a format that is readily accessible by the general public. The loyal Opposition’s amendment is simply trying to ensure consistency between what we already require for EDMs on undertakers’ websites and this area. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Jeff Smith.)

• 9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not against the principle of this—in fact, I am strongly in favour of it—but I have some practical questions. I wonder whether this would bump up against individuals’ human rights and restraint of trade arguments in the courts. I must confess that I was previously a barrister. That was a long time ago, so I have dangerously little knowledge now, but it was certainly the case that the courts would habitually not enforce a restraint of trade clause on a contractual basis that was in excess of 12 months. I know that this would be legislation, but to have such a wide-ranging blanket prohibition for such a long period against all employees, irrespective of the role they undertook and the role that they might in future undertake with a water company, might be challenged successfully under human rights legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered that in his drafting.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to see you in your place, Mr Vickers. I am not going to speak to the Government amendments; I merely repeat the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. At this stage, however, I will just express a couple of concerns that I have about amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I understand the rationale or the intention behind amendment 18; we all want the water companies to pay closer attention to the interests of their consumers. I note in passing that they already have a statutory duty—a consumer-focused statutory duty—but the actions taken by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years to ask questions about the state of sewage discharges and to get information about them, so as to take effective action to bring them to an end, bring with them an additional need. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted a loss of trust in the water undertakers, and I agree with him on that. There has been a significant loss of trust as their poor behaviour, which was uncovered by the Conservative Administration, has been met with considerable outrage—justifiable outrage—by the Government and by members of the public. However, I fear that there will be some significant unintended consequences associated with the drafting of amendment 18, relating to the legal obligations of a board member. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to those new positions being on the boards of companies. There are legal obligations that apply to all board members and I question whether the representatives of consumers and of the voluntary organisations that have been so active in this area over the past few years would really want to be exposed to the legal obligations of being a member of the board of a plc, because those obligations are significant and onerous.