Examination of Witnesses (Questions 820
- 830)
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY 2008
MR PAUL
TEMPLE, MR
ANDREW CLARK,
MRS ANNA
HALL, MR
ANDREW WOOD
AND MR
JAMES MARSDEN
Q820 Paddy Tipping:
I wanted to follow that point up and it is a point you have made
on a number of occasions. I represent an area with a large rural
element and one of the things that people have been saying to
me very strongly is that watercourses, ditches and dykes are not
being maintained properly. In a sense that is what people say,
but have you got any hard evidence to show that maintenance is
being neglected?
Mr Temple: We have sheets of evidence
from people behind us. We have pictorial evidence. Vegetation
is a classic example: it takes five minutes to plant a tree and
some of these trees and willows grow very quickly and, talking
to farmers, they need trimming yearly otherwise they have a real
risk of too high a vegetation level. Interestingly, on the entry
level scheme two year-old hedge cuttings are now proving a real
problem as they float and cause blockage. One member behind us
has 25 bends in the river through his particular farm, it does
not naturally clean the silt out. It always used to be cleaned
out on a planned basis but when, as some of these farmers are
finding, instead of being on a five year cycle it is 15 years
you have got too big a job to tackle at once.
Q821 Paddy Tipping:
You will not like me saying this, but there is no point in us
having discussions if we are not straight with each other. This
was really heavy rain this summer, unprecedented rain. Is it not
a bit of a myth that better maintenance would have resolved the
problem? Would the drains not have been overwhelmed anyway?
Mr Temple: We are not saying in
the circumstances of this summer you build everything to cope
with this particular situation, but water has to be moved even
after the event. What we have found out is in certain circumstances
the pump capacity was there but the rivers were not getting the
water to that pump to make the most use of that pump capacity.
Q822 Chairman:
Are you sure that all the farmers who have riparian responsibilities
are carrying them out as they should do?
Mr Temple: I cannot speak for
every single circumstance, but if there is one thing that is uppermost
in their minds, and was uppermost in my mind, it is ensuring their
land is in good quality and is properly drained which is the fundamental
building block to productive farming.
Q823 Chairman:
If one looks at the amount of evidence that we have had from members
of the public about lack of maintenance, it seems to cut many
ways, and by definition the farmers are the stewards of an awful
lot of land which people are commenting on about their lack of
maintenance. Are you as a union going to carry out any rigorous
work on this to find out where the balance of truth lies?
Mr Clark: I think we recognise
that the maintenance liability cuts across a whole range of different
responsibilities, including farmers and landowners and there should
be cohesion of those aims and responsibilities. The key point
we want to make is there is a bigger incentive for those private
individuals to do their bit if the main infrastructure is maintained.
If the main rivers are maintained, and it is certainly the very
strong view that we heard this morning that those main rivers
are not being maintained regularly enough, everybody will be incentivised
to play their role.
Q824 Paddy Tipping:
I do think there is an issue about riparian owners and riparian
owners understanding the law and taking their responsibilities
seriously. Farmers are big landowners. Are you sure that all your
members understand what is required of them by the legislation?
Mr Temple: As much as in any profession
you can ensure that every member is running by the rules as they
should do and, as the newspapers remind us regularly, all professions
have the occasional black sheep.
Q825 Chairman:
Absolutely.
Mr Temple: What I am saying to
you is that as an organisation we are putting ourselves firmly
behind the aspect of responsible stewardship. This is ultimately
about both long-term sustainable farming management and agri-environment
management so we keep that balance right. It is finding a way
through when we have got climate change and these events that
are becoming more frequent.
Q826 Paddy Tipping:
Another angle on this, Mr Wood, is the charge that is made that
maintenance work is not taking place because of potential damage
to wildlife, flora and fauna. Is there any truth in that?
Mr Wood: The maintainers of waterways
need to take a whole variety of considerations on board when they
set out to do their job. Much of that would be a lot easier for
them if they maintained the waterways in their natural state.
The more concrete you pour, the more embankments you build, the
more you attempt to channel the watercourse, the more difficult
it becomes to do that and, as I said before, the more you pass
the problem on downstream. Yes, certainly, in some places, particularly
where we have got European designations or SSSIs, then they have
to have regard to those and their condition.
Q827 Mr Williams:
One of the effects of flooding is that infrastructure is threatened,
such as electricity substations and water supply facilities. In
evidence, the NFU told us that water companies do not have a duty
to provide water to non-domestic customers but we differ on that
and we believe that water companies do have that duty under the
emergency legislation. Obviously at a time of flood you have got
a lot of water about, but livestock might not be receiving that
water in a form that is appropriate to them. What evidence do
you have that companies did not supply water to livestock farmers?
Mr Clark: Our concern there related
to Severn Trent Water Authority and the actions that we felt they
should have taken to ensure that housed livestock which had been
rescued from flooding in the Severn floodplain and also intensively
housed livestock, poultry and pigs, in the Tewkesbury and Gloucester
areas needed to receive water. When the mains were cut off we
recognised that water needed to be provided to those units, however
warning that was given to those farm businesses was insufficient
to help them sort out the problem. Both ourselves and Severn Trent
Water Authority had some frank discussions and hopefully we have
both learned from that. Perhaps if the Committee has found out
that they are responsible for that, that is very good, but we
want to make sure that the managers in that sort of emergency
situation are reminded of their responsibilities and I suspect
that they probably will be and we will not have what was potentially
a very significant animal welfare disaster on our hands.
Q828 Mr Williams:
In practical terms, how do you think water companies should deliver
water to rather remote units?
Mr Clark: In that situation what
we did was we arranged for milk tankers to be used as water bowsers
effectively to deliver water to the units. Our south-west region,
based in Exeter worked 24 hours a day in that particular situation
to source some water tankers and arranged for them to pick up
the water from the local reservoir and supply water to the units
that needed that water. That sort of emergency procedure needs
to be something that we can pick down straight away in that sort
of situation. Hopefully it will not happen again. It was a good
indication of where flooding in rural areas can affect critical
infrastructure which impacts not just on urban communities but
rural communities as well.
Q829 Chairman:
In our last couple of minutes can I just ask each organisation,
starting with Natural England, what for you out of Sir Michael
Pitt's interim report was the most important conclusion he reached
from your standpoint?
Mr Marsden: Chairman, most definitely
the recognition of the importance of exploring the options for
working more closely with natural processes. It builds upon the
conclusions of Making Space for Water in some exciting
ways from our perspective and we need to move on from that to
actually start delivering it at a catchment scale.
Q830 Chairman:
Thank you. The NFU?
Mr Clark: The Pitt Review was
a useful first start but I think it was a bit cautious from a
land management point of view. We feel that it very much focused
on protecting urban communities and really has not grabbed properly
the rural communities and, secondly, the need to recover from
those floods and how affected they were, because that is where
we are. The other point is things that have been missed about
maintenance and having an integrated approach to maintenance of
our main rivers and our infrastructure of drainage is going to
be absolutely critical because it is not just about stopping flooding,
it is about getting the floodwater away, and that is where we
need to look.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed
for coming to Lincoln today to give your views in person. Thank
you again for your written submissions. I am sure that in our
future inquiries we look forward to doing business with you both
in the future. Thank you very much for coming. If you would be
kind enough to vacate your places we will move on to our first
panel of citizens who are going to give evidence to us.
| 
