Land Drainage (Hansard, 3 May 2000)

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents—land drainage in the Somerset levels. I thank the Minister for seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and myself yesterday and for his helpful comments on that occasion.

As the Minister knows, the Somerset levels are a valuable area for many reasons, including not only their scenery and wildlife but the particular way of life there. The one thing that cannot be said about the levels, however, is that they are dry; indeed, they are extremely wet. I do not intend to blame the Government for the fact that it rains in Somerset, because it has done so for a very long time. Nevertheless, flooding is an ever present threat in the area, and in recent years it has been a reality for too many people, with extremely serious consequences for their livelihood and living arrangements.

There are several different categories of interest that coincide on the levels. There are those of the people who live there and those of the communities, and the two sets of interests are not identical because there are individual concerns as well as those of villages and wider areas. There are the problems of agriculture, which is not defined by a single category. As well as small dairy farmers, we have people who are trying to use the land for arable purposes. We also have withy growing and practices that are unique to our area of Somerset. Some of the land is marginal and some is taken up by smallholdings that are difficult to maintain as viable. Some of the land is of high quality, and the concerns do not apply.

The other important factor, which is never to be forgotten, is the great environmental value of the area, which is recognised nationally and internationally as a wetland of great importance.

Each of those interests has different expectations. Individual residents' primary expectation is to be able to enjoy their homes without the water bursting in and ruining it. Communities expect that their businesses will be able to carry them through the winter months, and that they will not have to be cut off because their only road is under water and remains so for long periods. Essentially, they want to feel that the outside world is interested in the continuation of their way of life.

Agricultural interests present a more difficult equation. They have learned to live in balance with the environment; many schemes are designed to support that balance and maintain the equilibrium. Having said that, and although farmers in lowland areas realise that they will occasionally experience winter flooding, they do not expect substantial summer flooding. They do not expect water to be allowed on to their land, to remain there until deoxygenation occurs and they lose the grass hay or crops that they planted; nor do they expect to have to move cattle into buildings during the summer because no pasture is available for long periods.

On the environment front, the expectation is that the water table will be maintained at a reasonably high level. Equally, however, it makes no sense in environmental 270 terms for large areas of land to be covered in water for long periods, because that destroys the very environment that we want to protect and is not the traditional way to maintain the natural habitat.

The experience is, in some ways, contrary to expectations. I remember the flooding that occurred in my constituency in 1997—the Minister might recall our correspondence at that time. West Moor and South Moor were flooded, quite unexpectedly, when a substantial inundation occurred in August. For various reasons, the Environment Agency chose to leave the water on farmland for a long time, and the result was serious problems for the farmers affected. However, in recent years, flooding in winter months has been more severe than many people expected. Last winter, it was mostly moors in the Taunton and Bridgwater constituencies, not my constituency, that were the worst affected. Nevertheless, communities were cut off, property was damaged and many people experienced considerable difficulty.

The reason why that has happened in successive years is a matter of conjecture. Some say that it is a result of global warming. Yesterday, the Minister said that the result of that should actually be drought in Somerset, but he would not survive long if he came down to the levels and told the people there that they are experiencing drought. However, it is possible that the flooding is a product of climate change.

The problems might also be an effect of maintenance procedures and the flood defence regime that is currently being worked on. That gives rise to particular concern not only because we are experiencing difficulties in lowland areas—to a certain extent, we expect that, although criticism has been voiced about whether the Parrett is providing the required drainage and the rhines are being cleared out regularly—but because there are problems on more elevated land. That is not marginal land or lowland, but prime dairy pasture that has never flooded—land that is not flood plain.

Recently, I went to the Cary valley to inspect the state of the River Cary near Somerton and Castle Cary. In that area, land that historically has not normally flooded has being lying under water. Those who farm the land and know it best are suggesting that something has changed. They suspect that the problem is due to lack of maintenance and clearing, but we cannot be sure that that is so. It may be a contributory factor among many.

Does the Minister accept that there is a fragility to the consensus that many of us have tried to build over the years in that area of the county? That consensus was built on a very difficult genesis. When we first started looking at the need to protect the habitat of the Somerset levels, there was, as the Minister knows, great dissension between the agricultural community and the environmentalists. There was a feeling that neither side understood what the other was trying to do. Eventually, those forces came together and a modus vivendi was accepted. My worry is that that will break down.

I hear the same suspicions expressed today by the conservation and environmental bodies that I heard 10 or 15 years ago—that there is somehow a continual effort to raise the water table and that that ignores the interests of local people. That is of course against the economic backdrop of the crisis in agriculture and the effect that even a small reverse can have on a farm that is only 271 marginally viable. People are rightly worried about their livelihoods and the effect that such a change will have on them.

Are the flood defence structures still the most appropriate? That was addressed comprehensively by the Agriculture Committee report on the issue, which I commend. Having re-read the report, I find it complete and helpful. Some of its conclusions are far reaching. Is the tiered structure—regional and local flood defence committees and internal drainage boards—providing the confidence that local communities might expect? Are all the people who need to be involved—the players, the partners—sitting around the same tables? Do we have a co-ordinated approach? Are the financial arrangements sufficient to the task?

In Somerset, the precept for flood defences has steadily risen. It is now up to £5.978 million. Over the past two years, it has increased by 11.5 per cent. and 8.2 per cent. respectively. It is the highest per person for any area of England and Wales. Somerset is not a particularly affluent county—it is not the poorest either—yet it is paying that very high share for the defence of land that might be considered a national and international resource. That cost is largely met by local council tax payers.

The other major factor is the diversion of precepted funds to coastal defence. I do not for one moment decry the need for coastal defence but, considering that the Minehead sea defence cost £12.5 million, such defences take a very large chunk out of the precepted amount, diverting funds from internal land drainage, which prevents flooding on the levels, to the task of keeping the sea out. We need both, and it is hard to understand how the cake can be so divided.

I want the Minister to consider whether there is a need to develop not just a response to individual flooding problems but a properly managed strategy for the Somerset levels and, indeed, beyond to the rivers that feed them from the higher ground surrounding the basin. I say that because I do not believe that it is simply a matter of resources or of providing more and more money for engineering work. I do not think that that will have the desired effect.

The desired effect will be achieved by ensuring that maintenance is carried out and that the dredging of channels, rhines and the major rivers, especially the River Parrett, is done effectively. New ways must be found to ensure that water is retained in places where it is environmentally helpful and, so far as possible, does not damage local communities and agricultural interests.

We need to find new ways to diversify agriculture in the areas where flooding cannot be avoided in the long term. New ways to prosperity must be found for the people who farm that land, who have known no other way of life, and who have a reasonable expectation that they can still derive some sort of livelihood from the land. We need to consider both the social and the economic costs of continued flooding. That is not sufficiently addressed in the present funding formula.

If a village is cut off for three weeks, which is not an unreasonable suggestion—I remember that at one time Muchelney was cut off from the outside world for three to four weeks—that has an enormous social cost for the 272 people living there, who are trapped in their village and find it difficult to get out. That is not recognised in the way in which resources are applied at present.

If we could move towards a more co-ordinated and more forward-looking strategy for the levels area and the Parrett basin, we would be making a significant advance. Does the Minister believe that the Government could and would support such a move? Would they encourage local interests to do so? Will the Minister work with colleagues to make sure that the funding is available to make it happen if solutions can be found, no matter how incomplete they may be?

A solution will not come directly out of the precepted amount or from a central Government grant specifically for flood defence. It must be attracted from a variety of sources dotted around various Departments. If the Minister undertakes to examine solutions to the problems of the Somerset levels, I know that local people are prepared to sit around a table and work together to try to find solutions that will be satisfactory for them. The aim must be not to destroy the environment of that precious area, and not to destroy the legitimate social and economic expectations of the people and communities there and of the agricultural areas surrounding the levels and on them.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining the Adjournment debate, and on the thoughtful and sensible way in which he has made his case and analysed the situation relating to the Somerset levels, which he clearly knows well.

There is no doubt that concerns exist about the funding of flood defences on the Somerset levels and moors. It is not just a matter of resources, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. The right balance must be struck between the various interests in the area, meeting the needs of the agricultural community and taking into account the internationally recognised conservation value of the Somerset levels, which have been designated as a special protection area and an environmentally sensitive area. It must be acknowledged that farmers depend on the area for their living and that the communities living there can be severely affected at times of flood, as the hon. Gentleman made clear.

The Somerset levels are a natural flood plain, and flooding is part of the natural cycle of events. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many people who live and work in the area are used to that natural cycle, and farming patterns have traditionally been based on the need for sustainability, particularly in relation to summer grazing and pastures.

Over the years, there have been changes—for example, arable crops have been introduced—and that has meant a high level of pumping, which has required much investment. We have also had some exceptionally wet winters, so the Somerset levels have been subject to more flooding than people have hitherto been used to. That may well be the result of climate change due to global warming. We certainly seem to be entering a period of wetter winters and drier summers, which has implications for areas such as the Somerset levels, water level management and the Government's allocation of resources for investment programmes. However, 273 the problems of the Somerset levels are a local matter. Local people must come together to assess the flood defence needs of the area and to determine their priorities.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has promoted the production of water level management plans, particularly in environmentally important areas, as a means by which the different needs, including farming and conservation, can be identified, balanced and integrated. Such plans are in place throughout the Somerset levels and moors.

MAFF also recognises that, because of the particular restrictions under which farmers may have to work in environmentally sensitive areas, there is a case for agri-environmental payments. In that regard, farmers in the Somerset levels receive £2.7 million per annum. That is also reflected in the production and agreement of water level management plans.

With regard to community involvement and proposals to deal with the particular problems of the Somerset levels, I support the drawing up of catchment plans. In the Somerset levels, that involves the River Parrett catchment area. There are local proposals to bring together local bodies, such as the Environment Agency, regional flood defence committees, drainage boards, councils and so on, to develop a catchment plan, which may well have implications for determining what needs to be done and arriving at a strategy bearing in mind the available resources. Once the local agricultural and environmental priorities have been determined, local people must consider the various ways in which they can be supported, whether through traditional funding, through precepts raised locally by the regional flood defence committees and capital grants from MAFF, or through the new regional development programme, recognising the unique nature of the Somerset levels and their importance to local communities and nationally.

I am more than willing to consider those issues once the strategy has been drawn up, but I emphasise that such a strategy should be drawn up by local bodies through local representation and the local structures which are in place.

The Government have increased funding for flood and coastal defence by £23 million to a total of £230 million for the three years from the financial year 1999–2000. We will have to take account of the implications of rising sea levels and global warming in our future budgets and the money that we allocate.

I understand that there are proposals for the implementation of major schemes on the lower River Tone at Stanmoor, Baltmoor and Hook bridge in the next three years. They may tackle some of local residents' anxieties about flooding.

274 The hon. Gentleman asked about funding for the area. It is a tribute to Somerset that the regional flood defence committee has taken its precept duties seriously. In contrast to other parts of the country, especially in the south-west, Somerset has not reined in the resources that have been made available to local councils through the standard spending assessment for flood defence, or refused to pass them on to the regional flood defence committee.

The Government have made more resources available. There was an increase in the standard spending assessment of 6 per cent. in 1997–98, 5.1 per cent. in 1999 and 6.3 per cent. in 1999–2000. The overall grant earnings ceilings—grant rates that are set for Somerset and constitute approved capital expenditure—have been exceeded. The original agreement in 1997–98 was for £3.2 million. Actual expenditure was £4.8 million. The agreement in 1998–99 was for £2.7 million and actual expenditure was £4.5 million. The agreement for 1999–2000 was for £2.6 million and the current estimate of expenditure is £3.7 million. I accept that, as the hon. Gentleman said, expensive coastal defence works, especially in Minehead, are mainly responsible for that spending. They have absorbed much of the budget.

The Government recognise that we have a responsibility for flood and coastal defence. We take it seriously in relation to the money that we have allocated. We are allocating an increasing amount of money for flood and coastal defence, and we take account of the needs of areas such as the Somerset levels.

We must balance the needs of the communities in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents with our international obligations to an important and fragile conservation area. We will play our part in supporting local communities and responding to the recommendations that have been made to us by the regional flood defence committee and the Environment Agency.

The hon. Gentleman made legitimate and important points. However, I stress that local people should come together and agree a long-term management plan based on river catchments. Once the plans have been agreed, the issues identified and the priorities decided, I shall be only too willing to examine the proposals and respond as positively as I can.