Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jan 2025 · Avian Influenza · Hansard source

  More

  This outbreak is concerning for the whole of Norfolk, and particularly for the bird-rearers in Broadland and Fakenham, but it highlights the critical importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in New Haw, and the plan for its full redevelopment. Do the Government agree that that redevelopment is long overdue, and if so, will they commit to supporting it?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister got her tone wrong in dealing with this urgent question. If a Minister turns up late for a UQ, the least they can do is take the questions from the Opposition Front Bench seriously. Amanda Pritchard, the CEO of NHS England, has said that the health service does not “always have the needs of women at its heart.” What message do the Government think scrapping women’s health targets will send?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Employment Costs · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister may have misunderstood my question; I asked how he would reduce employment costs. The president of the Confederation of British Industry recently said that, because of things like the Employment Rights Bill, employers will be laying people off and will be less likely to employ, and that is before the national insurance tax on employment imposed by this Government. Does the Minister accept responsibility for the increase in unemployment that we are already seeing?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Employment Costs · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he plans to take to help reduce employment costs.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  In her first sentence the Minister says we should move on from these political points, then in the second sentence says she will take no lessons from us on how we managed to wreck the economy. I would like it if she could reflect on those two sentences, to see whether they are mutually compatible.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister makes reference to the very limited time. Why is that? This is a Government who hold general debates on Mondays and Thursdays. They have no business, yet we have less than two hours to debate this really important issue.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need some assistance in understanding how the House can express its displeasure at the Government’s manipulation of the business of the House to stop proper consideration of this Bill. Water was at the heart of the last general election—it is really important to our constituents—and yet the Bill’s Report stage was limited to less than one and a half hours, and not a single Back Bencher has been able to contribute on Third Reading. Is there a way that we can express our disapprobation of the Government putting forward two non-urgent statements today on Gaza and on Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—both of them important in their own right but, I suspect, designed to eat up time?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to give the hon. Member a lesson in geography, but he will recognise that the western link road is in my constituency and not his.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to farming. While I am very supportive of regenerative agricultural techniques, does the hon. Member accept that yield decreases by 25% to a third when we use those techniques? They are suitable in some areas, but not in all.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If my hon. Friend looks at the wording of clause 2, there would be a presumption against energy projects of over 100 MW unless there was community agreement. It sounds to me like the Bill reimposes the community ban that the previous Conservative Government had.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, if you look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see a reference to my family farm in my constituency. Last Sunday, I drove one of our tractors to Fakenham racecourse to support the farmers’ protest against the APR and BPR. I talked to other farmers, and the key complaint was that there had been no consultation on the changes, and no time for older farmers to adjust their affairs. All those concerns have been rubbished by Ministers time and again, most recently today. Now that the OBR confirms that it is more difficult for older people to restructure their affairs quickly, will the Government finally listen, show some humility, and consult on how best to tackle the tax shelterers while still protecting our farmers?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  One of my GP surgeries called me this morning to highlight the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions, which will cost it £40,000. It can only respond by freezing cost of living pay increases for all its support staff. Does the Chancellor finally accept that working people up and down the country are paying the price for her tax rises?

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

  More

  This is a request for information on my part. In my conversations with Anglian Water, one of its key asks relates to the imbalance in which the company has a legal duty to connect any planning application that is passed, yet it is not a statutory consultee. It is therefore not required—not able, in fact—to take part in the planning process. Until the companies are made statutory consultees, all this is irrelevant, so should not the new clause focus on their becoming statutory consultees? While I am on my feet, I have a query about the drafting. The hon. Gentleman defined a “relevant time”, but I do not see that definition in the new clause. Is it contained somewhere in the draft legislation? If it is not, what might the effective definition be?

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

  More

  That may be the hon. Member’s intention, but the drafting does not say that. Part of the problem is that (ii)(a) deals the with start time, end time and duration, not flow. Does that particular sub-paragraph not duplicate the existing legal requirements for publication within 60 minutes?

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

  More

  I am sympathetic to quite a lot of the intention behind the new clause, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Proposed new section 272B(2)(d)(ii)(a) contains a duty to publish the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has already been a duty to publish that information for some time? All undertakers have a duty to publish information from event duration monitors within—from memory—60 minutes of an event being triggered. Will the hon. Gentleman give a bit more detail on what he has in mind for the authority to publish? Proposed new subsection (2)(c) says that the database must “contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary”. Such a bland statement will be open to challenge and interpretation, with all sorts of committed parties deciding that their “independently collected and analysed information” should be in the database, and other people saying it should not. Is this not just a charter for judicial review of the authority?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I agree. My message to the Government is that when they are dealing with flooding, particularly through the Environment Agency, they need to do so in collaboration with farmers and get their agreement. If a watercourse is going to be slowed down through a lack of clearance, they need to recognise where that water will end up. Such an intervention does not simply lead to freak flooding on a neighbour’s land or even their house; it will have consequences for businesses and food security. The Government need to work in collaboration with farmers and be prepared to pay if the benefit of other people’s land is used. I recognise that, up to now, my entire speech has had nothing to do with the Minister’s portfolio because she deals with flood defences. I am sure she has a deep knowledge of farming, but it may not be quite deep enough to answer some of my questions. She will be relieved to know that I am moving on to discuss natural flood management schemes as part of the Government’s flood defence budget of £5.2 billion. The last Government made a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, by allocating £25 million to natural flood management schemes. That amount needs to be increased because the lesson from the initial schemes is that they are relatively cheap but very effective. Why do we not do more of them and build on that Brexit dividend? That leads me to the scary bit: the Budget. I have real concerns. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs trumpeted his £5 billion over two years to support agriculture, which he says is a record amount. However, it is only the biggest ever amount if you ignore inflation, Dr Murrison, which none of the rest of us can. That £5 billion would need to be £5.8 billion across the two years, and then through the rest of the Parliament, to match the £2.4 billion equivalent from 2019 onwards. So we are already £800 million short over the course of the Parliament. What happens after 2026? In the Budget, it says that future “funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600 million” will require a review into affordability. What does that mean? Does that mean it is the end of ELM schemes? Are we going to cut back on all the nature-friendly farming initiatives? Without reassurance from the Minister, and in particular from the Treasury, farmers look at this and say, “There is a cliff edge at the end of 2026.” There are two years of £5 billion, which is less in real money than they had before, and then a huge fall-off. That is a terrible message, on top of the family farm tax: cuts to nature-friendly farming. Where does this go? That is the opposite of the Labour party’s manifesto commitment, which was to an expansion of nature-rich habitats. Will the Minister commit to the water restoration fund? Yesterday, I served on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee. New clause 2, which was in the name of the Opposition, including me, would have enshrined the water restoration fund in law, but it was voted down by the Government. That gives me, and farmers, real cause for concern. Will the Minister reassure farmers that post-2027 funding for farming, in particular nature-friendly farming, will be index-linked? Otherwise, it will fall off a cliff. Will she rule out cuts? Will the Minister allocate—this is perhaps more in her personal remit—an increased percentage of the flooding budget to nature-based solutions? Those have been proven effective, and they work to compensate farmers who assist in their creation. Will she enable private sector investment in natural capital markets? Get the quangos out of the way. Let them set standards, certainly, but then allow the market in nature credits to flourish. Words in a manifesto do not mitigate flooding or support farmers; long-term funding and long-term incentives do. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Farmland Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  It’s our secret.

• 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?