It is marvellous that I was able to secure this debate at such a timely moment. I am pleased that it is being held today, as the national campaign "Rivers on the Edge" was launched last night by the World Wide Fund for Nature. The campaign highlights the plight of our rivers, their poor condition and the fact that action is needed if they are not to run dry. Early-day motion 1392, in my name and those of many colleagues, also highlights the problem. I thank Martin Jee, my researcher, who has done a good deal of work in researching the subject. I also thank Charles Rangeley-Wilson of WWF for his work on the campaign.

I was brought up close to the banks of the River Kennet in the Newbury Constituency, and I often used to walk by the side of what is probably the best chalk river in the country. I believe that the river runs through the constituency of another Member here this afternoon—Martin Salter. If I am wrong, it is nearby. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman here today.

The beauty of the Kennet—a wonderful river—is now spoilt by the fact that great parts of it run dry. In my constituency of North-East Hertfordshire can be found the four towns of Letchworth Garden City, Royston, Baldock and Buntingford, but the geography of the constituency consists of 180 square miles of rolling hills and fields, with a tracery of lanes joining the many villages, and nestling in the valleys are the seven chalk rivers and streams—the Ivel, the Ash, the upper Rhee, the Rib, the Quin, the Beane and the Mimram. Chalk rivers naturally have uniquely pure water.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House

On resuming—

Water bubbles up from the chalk aquifer and sustains many species. The main chalk rivers are located in the south east of England and a small part of Normandy in France; they are internationally unique and should be prized and considered as important as other major international ecological concerns such as the ice caps or—

The rainforests.

Indeed.

The River Mimram, in my Constituency, features in the WWF campaign and includes a site of special scientific interest, at Tewin Bury, which is home to wetland birds, rare plants—for example, the southern marsh orchid and the golden saxifrage—fish and the white-clawed crayfish. It is also a refuge of the water vole, the population of which has collapsed—it has fallen by 90 per cent. It would be sad to lose the animal that was the inspiration for Ratty in "Wind in the Willows". The Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust has undertaken a major survey of the vole population using data from Tewin Bury.

The River Mimram rises at Whitwell in the constituency of my right hon. Friend Mr. Lilley, flows through Welwyn and Hatfield, into my constituency and then on into Hertford. Over recent years, these wonderful rivers in my constituency, which are much loved and form an important part of our environment, have suffered. In 2006, the Mimram ran dry. Residents felt helpless—they have described it to me—as they watched trout dying and discovered that the rare white-clawed crayfish had died, too.

Recently, the Mimram has had low flows for far too many years, which is why it features in the campaign. For environmental purposes, it has adequate flow only 1 per cent. of the time, which is worrying, not only because of the rare flora and fauna at the SSSI, but because of what is being lost by local residents. I have visited the Mimram on a number of occasions with Tony Last and Tony Langford from Friends of the Mimram and I pay tribute to their work in highlighting the situation of the river.

The River Beane Preservation Society works hard for its river, too. I have visited the Beane north of Watton-at-Stone, with Ian Knight and Dave Stimpson, and I recognise, too, the contribution of Andrew Bott, who is the society's secretary. The Mimram provides the water supply for Welwyn Garden City, and the Beane for Stevenage. Near the Whitehall pumping station, the River Beane runs dry going north away from Watton-at-Stone. There has been some improvement this winter, but the river has adequate flow, for environmental purposes, only 10 per cent. of the time.

It does not need to be like this. These rivers are great—and could be greater—leisure resources. An expert report by Entec, for the Environment Agency, shows that the benefits could be worth as much as £32 million to £34 million for the Mimram alone. If boreholes were used farther down the river, the benefits could be achieved at a modest cost. Dry fly-fishing is already well-established further down the Mimram and, in living memory, there was swimming and fishing in the River Beane—in parts that are now dry in the summer. It is vital that any new borehole for the Mimram does not damage the precious SSSI, but the site being considered at Tewin—only 1 km from the SSSI—is causing great anxiety.

Is this a sensible way forward? We must keep that wetland wet. Against that background, the additional burdens on water resources in the south and east need to be taken into account. The Environment Agency designates all rivers east of Luton as "over-abstracted" and "over-licensed". Development poses a major challenge. The east of England plan calls for 83,200 extra homes in Hertfordshire. Yet no sensible plan is in place either for the water resources and infrastructure for those properties, or for maintaining or improving the environment.

Hertfordshire is losing water to pollution. It has all the usual problems, as well as bromate contamination at Sandridge, where an old potassium bromate factory has created a plume across Hertfordshire, resulting in higher-than-permitted levels of bromate in water supplies. One borehole is completely out of use, and seven public and three private boreholes have restricted use. The "polluter pays" principle is very important. Why is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs taking so long to decide the case of the bromate plume? I have asked several parliamentary questions about it; but after four years, still no firm decision has been made.

I welcome Thames Water's approach; it says that one case of pollution from its sites is one too many. It achieved 100 per cent. compliance with the Environment Agency's stringent sewage treatment standards at its Hertfordshire sewage treatment works in 2008-09, and it is working hard to keep it that way, with carefully targeted programmes of maintenance and investment. I am glad that it is supporting the campaign. However, it will not welcome some of my later comments about abstraction.

None of us can ignore the likely effect of climate change, with Three Valleys Water expecting to lose 5 per cent. of available water by 2030. Decisions will have to be made about our rivers this year. The water framework directive requires our rivers to be of "good environmental status" by 2015, yet the Government's draft plans do not include any improvement in Hertfordshire. Currently, only 20 per cent of our national rivers and lakes are of good status, and the Government's draft plans will improve that by only 4 per cent. by 2015. That is simply not challenging enough and more needs to be done. We need to draw up a proper Government plan to waste less water and reduce consumption to 130 litres per person per day; to keep our rivers flowing, which means altering and amending abstraction licences and, in some cases, moving our boreholes further down river; and to introduce a tiered pricing system for water to help vulnerable people and to reward those who conserve water—the technology is now available to achieve that through smart metering. We need to help farmers avoid pollution through advice, training and incentives; to create a firm policy on pollution; and actively to regenerate our dying rivers.

The draft Flood and Water Bill will provide us with some opportunities, but the Clause on water may not be robust enough. The people drafting the Bill were fairly open-minded about some of the improvements that might be sought when the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke to them last week. I advise the hon. Gentleman to look very carefully at that piece of draft legislation.

The hon. Gentleman's contribution is thoughtful and helpful. However, powers are available and the Government have compiled 39 reports on the issue, but we have not seen any improvement. It is a question not just of taking powers, reporting on the matter and having a structure and framework in place, but of taking action and making improvements. The debate should be about making things happen.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am listening with great interest to what he says. Does he agree that the River Kennet, which flows through my Constituency, is a very important river that does not get the same attention as the River Thames, which also flows through my constituency, and that it is extremely important that it is protected and enhanced for the benefit of future generations, particularly in and around my constituency?

I could not agree more. The people of Swindon could help us out. The River Kennet provides the water supply for Swindon, and it runs dry because too much is abstracted. If the people of Swindon are listening—I hope that they are—I say use a little less water and we can save the Kennet. There are lessons in this for all of us. For example, if we used less water in my area and if more of us were metered, we might be able to save the rivers in my Constituency. The problem is that all the current plans for metering and improvement seem to work on the basis that any water saved will be used for new housing. There must be some balance in the system that allows the environment to have its share, too.

Some people argue against the idea of moving boreholes downstream, but there is evidence to suggest that such a move would help the River Mimram, but it must be done sensitively. Similarly, recycling used water could be a way of helping the River Beane when a new sewage plant is built for Stevenage.

Water metering should be introduced sensitively. Smart metering enables companies to introduce a tiered pricing system, so that they can reward those who use less water, help vulnerable groups and better target water resources. Apparently, many people refuse to pay their water Bills, knowing that they will not be cut off, because of the commitments made by the water industry. It is estimated that £150 million is owed—about £11 for every customer's water bill—and water companies therefore have less money to invest in improvements.

An initiative called a trickle meter enables someone who is a bad payer to have enough water on which to exist but not so much water as to enjoy the resource. Apparently, that is a good way of encouraging a bad payer to pay. None the less, I accept that it is very important that vulnerable non-payers are given every assistance and that the measure should be used only for those who flagrantly abuse the system.

At present, housing need and other pressures are likely to take all the water released by efficiencies and water metering. Predictions by the east of England regional assembly on the need for water for the east of England plan are simply unrealistic. The assembly is working on the basis that each person will use 105 litres a day. At present, Three Valleys Water's customers are using 175 litres per person per day. The national average is 148 litres per person per day. The "Rivers on the Edge" campaign hopes to reduce it to 130 litres; the Government guideline for a new build is 125 litres per person per day. The idea that housing in the east of England can be planned on the basis of 105 litres a day is optimistic to say the least.

My hon. Friend's debate is very valuable. His last point was raised at the original east of England inquiry. When I talked to the water companies, I asked, "Do you not have any way that you can raise your concerns over this?" Basically, they said, "We are obliged to deliver water if the houses are planned." I think that all of us would say that that is putting the cart before the horse. Rivers running dry and showing stress should be taken into account before more housing is planned, and not the other way round.

My hon. Friend makes a customarily excellent point. That is a ludicrous way of planning. We have all become very used to water and are careless with it. We cannot build extra houses without having a sensible plan to deliver the water that is needed. We cannot just say to the water companies, "Abstract away." That does not take adequate account of what a precious resource these chalk rivers are; they are unique and we need to fight for them, which is what the campaign is all about. Councillor Derrick Ashley, who is the planning executive for Hertfordshire County Council, has made it clear that development without the proper infrastructure will put huge pressures on our environment in Hertfordshire.

Reading has just been informed that it must build an extra 12,000 homes. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that will place an intolerable pressure on local rivers as well as other infrastructure?

When I was a boy, Reading was a market town and not a huge place. One could walk through Broad street and know everyone—at least, it seemed that way. Over the years, it has grown and grown. I am proud that Reading is such an important centre, but it has done its bit in housing the people of this country. It is a good size, and it should not get too much bigger. However, I am not a Member for Reading—I was just brought up there—so the hon. Gentleman will know more about it than I do.

We must not have a situation in which our rivers die just for the sake of a desert full of development. It is important that we take the issue seriously. Unless we have a plan, we will not even ensure that the flow remains as it is in the Mimram and the Beane. That is not good enough; it needs to be better. The rivers should flow, and they should be given as much importance as housing. We need homes, but we need to preserve the environment, especially in a county such as Hertfordshire, which is already one of the most heavily populated and close to London. We value our countryside in Hertfordshire. We have already lost a lot of it to building, and we do not want to lose what we have left; we want to improve it.

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State come to see the Mimram and the Beane, which are not far from London? I have asked the Secretary of State to visit on a number of occasions. Those rivers are a unique environmental resource, and they should not be as they are at the moment. All rivers east of Luton are over-licensed and over-abstracted, with no available water supplies. Must our precious chalk rivers die, or will the Minister take the necessary steps to meet our demands and improve the condition of the rivers of England?

I welcome the debate and congratulate Mr. Heald on securing it. I do not know how he managed it, but the debate coincides with the launch of the "Rivers on the Edge" campaign, which it was my privilege to attend last night. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the chalk streams that are at risk in his Constituency, but he will be aware that the campaign, which is generously supported by the HSBC Climate Partnership, also focuses on the upper Lea catchment, which is in dire need of attention and has appallingly low flows.

The primary River Lea, which flows through his constituency, is down to about 9 per cent. of normal flows in summer, which could be ecologically disastrous. The campaign also focuses on the River Itchen in Hampshire and, as has been said, the River Kennet. The latter gets a lot of attention—one could argue that too many organisations are dedicated to saving it, but I will address their work in a moment.

I am a keen angler, as is Mr. Walker, who is not in the Chamber. The Rivers Beane and Rib, in years gone by, particularly in the 1950s, were heralded as fine dry and coarse fisheries. The grandfather of contemporary angling, Richard Walker, who was from Hitchin, fished the Beane and the Rib. As a child, I remember reading about his exploits in a river that now, I suspect, barely has enough water to cover the tip of a float, never mind to sustain fish life for the bulk of the year.

I was talking last night to Andrew Bott, whose father used to fish the Beane in the stretch to which I referred, north of Watton-at-Stone. He told me that it was a fine fishery.

Perhaps in the not too distant future, the hon. Gentleman will invite me to fish the Beane when it has some water in it. That is the purpose of the debate and the campaign.

I was pleased to launch the parallel "Stand up for Your River" campaign, which is promoted by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust and a number of other organisations. The campaign feeds into the Environment Agency's river basement management plan, the consultation for which closes on 22 June.

We launched the campaign just outside my Constituency boundary in the Newbury constituency, in the aptly named Lower Benyons fishery. Conservative Members might be interested to learn that we anglers refer to Lower, Upper and Middle Benyons and may wish to quiz Mr. Benyon on which bits of him are lower, upper and middle. We are grateful to the Benyon family for making their fishing available to us and for their contribution to some important wildlife and conservation projects in the Kennet valley.

I ought to declare a number of interests that may make me sound slightly fanatical. I am founder member of the Cleaner Kennet Campaign and a member of the Angling Trust, which is the new governing body for angling, having taken over from the old Anglers Conservation Association. I also chair the Blueprint for Water coalition in Parliament. Those organisations, and the Wye and Usk Foundation, are all doing sterling work, for which I praise them.

The River Kennet brought me to Reading. I had no intention of becoming the town's MP; I went there to go fishing—simple as that. I was lucky that in 1979 and 1980, Reading was a relatively cheap place to buy a house and one of those rare places where small, terraced properties for first-time buyers backed on to the River Kennet in, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will know, Elgar road.

Most riverside properties tend to be outside the reach of the first-time buyer, but it was my privilege to own my own 12 ft of river bank, which, for a mad-keen angler in his 20s, was a bit of dream. I found after a while that I kept catching the same fish, but it was wonderful. I commuted to work, but did not have to commute to go fishing. That is what brought me to Reading and I have a deep affection for the river.

The Kennet and Avon canal, which runs parallel to much of the River Kennet—until about halfway between Hungerford and Newbury—had been in a state of disrepair since the 1950s. I was lucky as a young man, until 20 years ago, to be able to fish the Kennet at its peak. It was a crystal-clear chalk stream. Even down to the outskirts of Reading, I could stand and see the bottom in 5 ft or 6 ft of water, which teemed with wildlife. It was an amazing fishery.

Things started to go wrong—none of us spotted why—with the opening of the canal. As anglers, we thought it would be inconvenient to have more boats on the river between Reading and Newbury, but we had no idea of the impact that opening and linking the two watercourses would have.

For 50 years, the sediment in the canal had got deeper and deeper. At the entrance to the canal and the confluence with the river, where the waters first mix at Copse lock, just upstream from Hampstead Marshall, one can now see great slugs of silt and turbidity flowing into what is a crystal-clear chalk river further upstream. The gravels consequently silted up, so the light could not get through, which meant that the ranunculus, a protected species that is vital for the biodiversity and shelter of other plant life and invertebrates in the chalk stream environment, ceased to grow. Slowly but surely, the Kennet began to decline.

We can add to those problems the increase in abstraction, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said. It was appalling that the Environment Agency lost the inquiry on the Axford borehole—I cannot remember what year that happened. There was a reduction in flows, especially in summer, as well as an increase in point source pollution as a result of insensitive farming practice, increased run-off from the road network and a gradual decline of one of the finest chalk streams in Britain.

I do not want to bore hon. Members too much about fish, but the grayling, a wonderful fish, is an indicator species. I advise anyone who wants to know about the health of a fishery, especially a chalk stream fishery, to look at the lowest downstream point at which the grayling is found. I used to catch grayling at Padworth, which is well downstream of Thatcham. The most skilled anglers would struggle to find many grayling downstream of Hungerford, some 20 or 25 miles upstream. That is how far the water quality in the river has declined.

Mr. Wilson referred to increased housing, but the biggest threat—the 7,500 houses for the Kennet flood plain to the south-west of my constituency, proposed by the independent panel in the south-east plan—has already been averted. On top of that, we have seen the growth of signal crayfish numbers and increased predation. However, all is not lost. It was my privilege, in 1992, to set up a unique partnership between West Berkshire council, boat owners, wildlife groups, Reading borough council and the angling organisations—the Cleaner Kennet Campaign.

The campaign has played a key role in lobbying for funding, catchment management plans and habitat restoration projects, which can and will make a difference. If we cease damaging environments and allow wildlife to regenerate and regroup, mother nature will do the rest.

I am a trustee of the old Thames Rivers Restoration Trust, which runs a chalk stream restoration project. That project is levering in funding for habitat restoration and looking at whether there is an environmentally sensitive way to filter out the increased silt and turbidity coming into the river as a result of the canal and chalk stream watercourses being mingled downstream of Copse lock.

National organisations are also highly supportive of the work that we are doing in the Kennet valley. In particular, I want to highlight the work of the former Anglers Cooperative Association, which is now part of the Angling Trust. The association is the only organisation that has used the common law consistently to prosecute polluters, often using civil actions to secure far greater damages than the Environment Agency or the statutory authorities.

The association's 2008 annual report showed that record damages were reclaimed from polluters on behalf of riparian owners and angling clubs. The River Blackwater was polluted with tin oxide in 2002, and a case was settled after many years of delay, with compensation being paid to the Ilford and District Piscatorial Society and the Kelvedon and District Angling Association.

In Somerset, a farmer was prosecuted for a liquid food waste spill that caused massive damage to the waters of six different angling clubs on the River Brue, which is a beautiful river in the west country. The Environment Agency managed to secure a paltry fine of £1,000, which is hardly a disincentive to the polluter—Robert Key talked about the "polluter pays" principle. However, the ACA pursued a civil claim in the courts and secured more than £7,000 in additional damages, as well as £4,000 in costs against the farmer. I am therefore proud to be a member of the association, which has now been absorbed into the new governing body for angling.

On top of that, some other quite inspirational work is going on. The debate is about not just the Kennet and the Lee, but all the rivers of England, and I draw Members' attention to the work of the Wye and Usk Foundation. It is well worth the Minister and the Shadow Minister visiting the foundation's website to see how we can adopt a professional approach to the restoration of one of Britain's most famous rivers.

The river will be under dire threat, particularly as a fishery, if the proposal to build the Severn barrage goes through, and I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Salisbury has done to highlight what an environmental disaster the Severn barrage could be.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, to a man and woman, all those involved in the area's fisheries and all those interested in fishing and in conserving fish in the Severn and its tributaries oppose the Severn barrage?

They are opposed to it to a man, woman and dog. It is not that we are environmental vandals; we want the tidal power of the River Severn to be harnessed, because that could make a contribution to green energy, but we do not want that to happen at the cost of destroying the environment, the spawning habitat of 25 per cent. of all salmon in England and Wales, and the jobs that depend on angling tourism, particularly in the Constituency of Mr. Williams and in rural Wales and the border counties. Such a development would run completely contrary not only to the spirit but the letter of the European habitats directive.

I may be Labour's vice-chair on environmental issues, but if my Government pursue the Severn barrage, I give due notice that I will actively pursue action in the courts with non-governmental organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the European habitats directive is enforced, because it is not possible, as the directive requires, to recreate a compensatory habitat in this case—we simply cannot build a new salmon river. We will return to that battle.

The Wye and Usk Foundation was founded in 1996 and then became a company limited by guarantee. It has introduced radical measures to tackle acid rain and the acidification of the upper Wye catchment, which were making it impossible for salmon to spawn. We have seen the removal of man-made and sometimes natural obstructions, which were preventing the fish from reaching their spawning grounds. We have also seen amazing partnerships.

We have seen sometimes insular owners of fisheries working together, allowing coarse anglers on to rivers that had been closed to them for many years. We have seen about £6 million of public money—particularly European money—channelled through the Wye and Usk Foundation into voluntary groups and professional work carried out by contractors to restore a river that is certainly the pride of Wales and, in my view, the pride of Britain.

There are some big issues facing hon. Members. This is an easy speech for me to make, because I am not standing for re-election, but we as politicians—we have all been guilty of grubbing around for a few votes—need collectively to confront the issue of water metering, conservation and the price of water. The public will not value water if we continue to treat it as a throwaway commodity. I have no doubt that the third world war—I hope to God that there is not one—will be fought not over culture or religion, but over access to dry land and clean water. That is an inevitable consequence of climate change.

The way we allow winter run-off from our rivers is appalling. If hon. Members stand on the Terrace in winter, they will see billions of gallons of water washing away to the North sea, but in a few months we will be complaining about low flows. We in this country are not efficient at retaining, storing and using the resource that we are blessed with. That is why projects such as the upper Thames reservoir at Abingdon must go ahead and why strategic planning decisions must be made.

I am afraid that such decisions cannot be left to little local councils, with their predilection for parish-pump politics. That is why we have to be big people on the issue of water and be cognisant of the fact that we should be working closely with the powerful coalition of birdwatchers, environmentalists, anglers, naturalists and wildlife groups out there, just as we are working with the coalitions involved with the Blueprint for Water and the "Rivers on the Edge" campaign. Such issues should set the environmental agenda for the next generation, and water must be at the heart of that.

We are talking about Arcadia—nothing less—and I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Heald on drawing the issue to the attention of the House.

In the 16th century, the Avon catchment in the heart of Wessex gave rise to the whole concept of Arcadia—the relationship between the land, the water, the people and what happened there. In 1220, at the confluence of the rivers of the Hampshire Avon catchment—the Ebble, the Nadder, the Wylye, the Avon and the Bourne—we saw the creation by Bishop Poore of Salisbury, with its great cathedral. Later, the landscape was painted memorably by John Constable. Isaac Walton—father and son—fished and wrote on the Avon in Wiltshire. The land on which the Parliament tree stood at Stratford-sub-Castle flows down to the river itself, which was a Roman ford.

The great chalk grasslands where the water for the Hampshire Avon originates are the most extensive west of Poland. On the plain in the midst of those grasslands is Stonehenge. The land round about is under the stewardship of the Ministry of Defence, and the well-being of that landscape has been protected, ensuring that it has remained balanced and diverse. As a result, the Avon river is now a special area of conservation under the European habitats directive.

I have an intimate relationship with the rivers of southern England. In 1947, I fell into one, and I was pulled out by the Bishop of Bombay, who happened to be passing—the true stories are always the best. It was the same river in which I learned to tickle trout and to tie my flies for trout fishing and where I enjoyed lazy summer days in the water meadows. Since then, however, we have seen the destruction of hatches and the abandonment of water meadows. I pay tribute to the work of the Harnham Water Meadows Trust, which has retained, improved and rebuilt much of the water meadow infrastructure. We have also seen the end of water bailiffs, who understood every inch of their waterways and who regulated our streams and rivers.

When I was first elected to the House in 1983, we had great arguments about fish farms. There were 23 fish farms in the Avon catchment, including the biggest in Europe, which was at Barford Park at Downton. I pay tribute to the late Lord Radnor, who instigated that fish farm, which is thriving. He argued long and hard that fish farms were not the devil incarnate, but he had a tough time.

On Thursday 16 February 1984, I asked the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

"when he will announce the date on which the provisions of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 will be implemented."—[Hansard, 16 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 257W.]

You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. O'Hara, that he answered, "Shortly." Well, the question was not answered shortly. The situation went on and on, and I corresponded with the Natural Environment Research Council and its excellent chairman at the time, appropriately named Mr. Hugh Fish, about the future of the Hampshire Avon. On 10 April 1987, The Independent published an article headed "Fishermen blame trout farms for river's slow death: conspiracy claim as anglers and landowners clash over decline of the once-glorious Avon."

When the third report of the Environment Committee was published on 13 May 1987, it stated that the problem was caused by much more than just fish farms, referring to everything from controlling polluters to the control of sewage sludge, agricultural pollution, afforestation, fish farms, nitrates, silage, industrial pollution, chemical formulation and consented discharges. That is part of the long story of our steady destruction of our rivers, and we have only ourselves to blame.

The problems we now face arise principally from the demands of the public water supply. It is outrageous that we go on plundering our chalk aquifers in the way we do. The boreholes in the upper waters of the Avon catchment are responsible for taking up to a third of the water from the chalk aquifers right out of the region, and the water is piped to places such as Yeovil, and even to Bristol and towns such as Chippenham. Under the south-west regional spatial strategy, the water companies, without even being so much as formal consultees, simply had to provide as much water as the planners decided would be allowed for the houses they planned. Another 12,000 houses were planned in my Constituency alone. Lord knows where that water would have come from, and, indeed, where the drainage would go and how much it would all cost. We simply cannot go on like that, because the impact on the aquifers is too serious. It takes 30 years for the pollutants to travel right through the aquifers on the Salisbury plain to their exit into the English channel off the Dorset coast.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am a member of the Longford fishing syndicate, which is based in his Constituency. Is he aware that the beloved Hampshire Avon, one of the finest chalk streams in the country, now barely operates as a chalk stream? A few years ago it would not have been unreasonable to expect heavy rainfall on the chalk downs to take perhaps 24 to 36 hours to find its way down to Salisbury and into the river system. That water now reaches the river in a matter of hours because the aquifers are ceasing to work for the river and it is effectively acting as a Scottish spate river, which is a terrible indictment on what should be one of the finest rivers in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One can now find the real-time readings for the boreholes on Salisbury plain on the Environment Agency's website and see for oneself that when the rainfall comes—in buckets—it does not do what it should do. It should go straight down into the aquifers, but instead it just runs off like a Scottish spate river, as the hon. Gentleman said.

We have many problems in this regard, which the water companies have to face, but this is the time to put pressure on them, because they are just at the beginning of their new plans for their five-year business cycles. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, because he is a reasonable man who understands these things better than most Ministers do—we all have experience of being parachuted into a job in a Ministry.

One of the problems facing those who care about rivers is river restoration. Rivers have become canalised, over-dredged, over-widened and sometimes over-narrowed. They simply have not been looked after properly. If we are to look after our rivers properly, river restoration is a huge programme facing our nation. Climate change is also important in that regard. It will not be felt for perhaps another 30 or 40 years, but mark my words, by then the salmon population will be negligible and there will be no spawning because the water will be too warm. The decline of water fly life has already been dramatic, and there are now few big hatches on our rivers in the summer. Where is the research on that, and who is meant to be paying for it? Research is always the first thing to be struck off when organisations and agencies have a cash crisis.

Ten years ago, we started to look at one of the serious causes of biodiversity problems in rivers: endocrine disruption cased by the use of the pill. That problem derives not only from the female of the species—after all, it is us who cause the trouble in the first place, so we are all involved.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whom he means when he says "us"?

Well, I had better not go down that path, Mr. O'Hara, or you will have something to say. The problem of sex change in fish is serious and is leading to a decline in fertility. The spawning gravels in our rivers become repositories for endocrine disruptors, and for phosphates and nitrates from run-off from our farms.

That brings me to changes in farming practices, which we must ensure take place. The silt load in our rivers is worse than it has ever been, largely because of farming techniques and practice and the use of particular crops. The worst crop is maize. If only we could persuade our farmers not to plant so much maize, we would not have nearly so much top soil in the rivers. Maize is the biggest polluter when it comes to the problem of run-off. The phosphorous in the fertiliser gives rise to algal bloom, which in turn disrupts the spawning gravels.

There was an initiative about 15 years ago to introduce buffer strips along our watercourses, but that came to nothing. I spoke to the Environment Agency only this morning about that, but it had not even heard of the initiative because the current generation of people at the agency do not know what happened 15 or 20 years ago—why should they? They are not historians.

The hon. Gentleman is making a superb speech and a great contribution, but is he aware of something happening in his part of the world: the countryside stewardship scheme, which compensates farmers for creating those buffer strips? In the upper Kennet catchment we had problems with pig farms but managed to alleviate them in that way.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that scheme was actually introduced in the higher-level stewardship scheme. The gentleman I spoke to at the Environment Agency this morning, who is a great professional, was unaware that it had been introduced—I kid you not, Mr. O'Hara. Actually, it was introduced by my right hon. Friend Mr. Gummer when he was Secretary of State for the Environment.

There are other problems apart from those resulting from agriculture that we must address, although the nitrate problem and the nitrate directive are very serious issues, which are linked to the question of the nil-grazing of stock. If we nil-graze stock such as Holstein cattle, we will feed them on imported soya, which in turn gives rise to climate change issues elsewhere in the world. This is a global issue that is related not only to rivers in this country. I invite the Minister to address those other factors. Control of mink is seriously needed, for example. If we are to maintain biodiversity, we must keep a balance. Water voles are destroyed by mink, with which we have huge problems on the Avon catchment. Controlling mink means trapping and shooting them, but no one likes doing that to nice furry little mink, which look so nice. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned the problem of the signal crayfish, the American cousin. It has just about seen the back of the indigenous white-clawed crayfish, which I used to catch in the river in Salisbury as a child, turning over the stones to find them. They were wonderful eating.

Another bone of contention and serious problem, which we thought we had licked, is the number of cormorants on our rivers. They consume vast numbers of fish, which upsets the biodiversity in our rivers. The restocking of our rivers with fish cannot keep up with the stock lost to cormorants. In the Salisbury area, 30 miles upstream from the coast, we have huge problems with the loss of both coarse and game fish. All that is caused by there being insufficient food in coastal areas, including through the loss of sand eels. Again, that shows the various interrelationships and how enormous a brief the Minister must carry as he answers for all these problems in his winding-up speech.

Invasive plants are a serious problem in all our rivers. The Himalayan balsam is by far the worst. When the Himalayan balsam is present at the headwaters of a stream, as it is in the chalk streams of southern England, including the Kennet and Avon systems, everything downstream is clogged up. It has become endemic. Most major areas affected by Himalayan balsam have been identified by the Environment Agency, but if anyone spots it—if fishermen, for instance, see the plant or notice seeds floating down the river—for heaven's sake, they should tell the Environment Agency. Not nearly enough effort is being put into the issue.

I could go on but I will not, as other Members wish to speak. I will just say that we have no right to plunder our rivers as we are doing. It is our duty to protect our heritage. It is our duty to protect Arcadia and the silver streams of Albion.

I remind Members that with the addition of injury time, winding-up speeches should now start at 3.42.

I congratulate my fellow Hertfordshire MP, my hon. Friend Mr. Heald, on securing the debate. Chalk streams are an extremely valuable and incredibly fragile resource. The River Ver, an important chalk stream, starts in the Chilterns and runs right through the middle of St. Albans. Indeed, St. Albans was probably founded where it is because of that wonderful natural asset.

The river runs through Verulamium park in the city centre, which was a major part of the old city of Verulamium, bending sharply to the south where its flow was blocked and diverted by ice half a million years ago. It is a globally rare chalk stream bordered by rough grassland, water meadow, rare reed beds, hedgerows and woodland. That important mix makes a huge difference to the species of flora and fauna in the area, and we disturb it at our peril.

Although periodic low flows are not good for many species, the farmland along the river is becoming much more wildlife friendly, as colleagues have said. The countryside management scheme and the previous set-aside schemes are starting to take effect. There is some diversity of species—kingfisher, heron, coot, moorhen, little grebe, wagtail and so on. I am not knowledgeable about birds, but people who are tell me that certain species have been declining alarmingly during the past 20 years, particularly skylarks. However, they have started to recover slightly in recent years because we are starting to recognise what damage we are doing to the fragile ecosystem.

Hertfordshire chalk streams have shallow gravel beds and clear water, as Martin Salter said, and are fed by groundwater stored in the layers of chalk beneath, which soak up water like a sponge. That soaking-up is crucial. One thing that has not been mentioned in the debate is the run-off resulting from hard landscaping, which causes water to course down culverts and run off rather than being absorbed by the area surrounding the chalk streams. If we build the expected thousands of additional houses, we will have to deal not only with abstraction, but with hard landscaping and run-off.

At various points, water emerges in the form of springs that feed the river. Chalk streams are important and deeply sensitive to environmental pressures, including increased pressure to build in our area. They are unique in Europe. I find it staggering that we are asked to be concerned about rain forests, ice caps and all the other environmentally sensitive areas when we treat some of our local environmentally sensitive areas with such disregard and disdain.

I cannot help but stress how annoyed I was by the apparent statutory obligation to provide water and the fact that the Government can ratify a plan that local people do not feel is acceptable, putting thousands of extra houses in an area that is already stressed. We must stop that now. It is no good saying 20 years down the line, "We have ruined our rivers, and by the way, we put 82,000 houses in Hertfordshire at the same time."

Our chalk streams are unique and recognised globally. They are the European aquatic equivalent of the rain forests, and we should treat them as such. We cannot lecture other societies about what they do in the name of their economies, such as cutting down masses of timber, while we say that our economy in the south is the powerhouse of England and we are going to build wherever people want to live. We must think about it.

The Environment Agency allows Three Valleys Water to abstract more than 30 million litres of water a day from the Ver aquifer by pumping from deep underground at several pumping stations. We have our concerns about that. The Buncefield oil depot disaster in 2005 occurred just outside my Constituency, but as we have heard, the flow of rivers and aquifers means that the pollutants that entered the water will reach everywhere. Perfluorooctane sulfonate has entered our waterways, and I am still not reassured that we know exactly what the impact will be. I cannot understand why the Government altered the acceptable threshold of PFOS.

We are still waiting for a particular borehole to be opened. A large aquifer was polluted. The Bow Bridge pumping station, which serves my constituency, cannot be used, but is soon to be reopened. We have not had the environmental reassurances that we need, nor have the long-term impact studies that we have been calling for been done. What will this mean for the environment of our area, which relies on that valuable resource?

I am pleased to report that, after several months of above-average rainfall, the aquifer returned to average in March 2007 for the first time in more than three years, and remained at roughly that level throughout 2008. It is amazing that we had a hosepipe ban for 11 of 12 months, despite the fact that it bucketed down with rain everywhere in St. Albans and we had several dreadful summers in a row. The levels had gone so low that it has taken three years just to get back up to the average.

I forgot to say earlier that our hon. Friend Mike Penning wanted to be here, but parliamentary business did not allow it. He is very concerned about the Buncefield issue, which my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Intervention and pay tribute to my hon. Friend Mike Penning, who has worked so hard, particularly in relation to the pollutants from Buncefield, and been pressing hard for the aquifers to be monitored vigorously.

A lot of good work is going on; we have heard about wonderful work in all locations. The St. Albans Watercress Wildlife Association has opened the watercress beds. They are a fantastic resource, but pressures on building in my Constituency mean that people look at those bits of green and think, "Where should we put our houses? How much do we value this?" When I bang on about the green belt and open green spaces, it is not because I am being a nimby; it is because, as all hon. Members have said, such spaces are part of a sensitive ecosystem.

There has been a huge decline in butterflies and pollinators in Hertfordshire. I know that bee decline has featured heavily, but butterflies have been decimated by farming practices. I am privileged to say that Butterfly World, which is opening in St. Albans, will address that issue. We are lucky that the chalk streams support butterflies such as orange-tips, brimstones, peacocks and small tortoiseshells, as well as dragonflies.

Such species are an indicator of good, clear water, but some are declining. As the hon. Member for Reading, West said, they used to be seen further downstream. Not only will we not see those beautiful creatures, but pollinators are being wiped out. That is incredibly important. The film supporting Butterfly World shows that when butterflies and bees decline, so do we.

We must make an incredible effort to support our rivers, resist inappropriate development and be mindful of the fact that houses bring people and that people have expectations about lifestyle and water usage. We cannot curtail those expectations and we cannot just expect water to be delivered by pumps from somewhere else. What is taken from somewhere else might cause pressure somewhere else. We should all ask the Government to listen to local people when they say that certain things must stop, including unsustainable development.

I am hopeful about the good work going on in my constituency and that the concerned people who value such things will not be seen as sandal-wearers fighting for their precious little bit of river and the right to selfish enjoyment of the countryside. It is not like that at all. They should be seen as curators of the future of us all. We are only borrowing the land for a short while, and we should hand it on to the future in better condition, not worse.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara.

It has been a privilege to hear Mr. Heald and his colleagues speak so enthusiastically about the chalk streams in their constituencies. We have had the benefit of the experience and knowledge of Martin Salter, who is an acknowledged expert on fishing and fisheries. I remember listening to the late Lord Denning speak about chalk streams after he retired as Master of the Rolls. That filled me with ambition to see those wonderful streams. Now that my son is living in Harpenden, I have more of an excuse to do so and might spend some time there.

We make huge demands on our rivers for all sorts of purposes. Usually, they are forgiving and can accommodate many of the abuses that we throw at them. However, there comes a time when demand on our rivers becomes such that it damages them, whether temporarily or permanently. It is a huge challenge for us and the Government to find ways to correct the damage that we do.

Obviously, we look to our rivers to provide water, and concerns have been raised over the demand for water for additional housing. The Government must work with local planning authorities to see what can be done. I am sure that the Flood and Water Management Bill will contain proposals to deal with run-off from hard surfaces and to create a more permeable approach to development. There should be less concrete and more lawns and gravel, so that rather than run off and be lost immediately, water joins the aquifers that supply the streams.

It is not just housing that puts demands on water. There are demands from agriculture and irrigation. As a result of climate change, the need for irrigation will increase if we are to keep up with the food output targets that many think should be introduced. Irrigation can be improved. Rather than having a broadcast system of irrigation, more targeted forms such as the trickle system could be used so that water was delivered to the plant, rather than going across the whole piece of land. That would ensure that the water for irrigation was better used.

We also look to our rivers for conservation. Hon. Members have compared them to the rain forests in the Amazon in saying that rivers are our rain forests. That is probably true. We have heard examples of the plants and birds that they support. If the parks of London are the lungs of the capital, the rivers are perhaps the arteries and veins of our countryside; they support the countryside and its wildlife. Rivers also contribute to the landscape. Nothing is as great as a river flowing through countryside in completing the Arcadia that Robert Key described. Artists have celebrated our landscape on many occasions.

We look to our rivers for recreation. Nothing has yet been said of the ongoing conflict between canoeists and fishermen. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that. I was with a prime mover in the Wye and Usk Foundation on Monday night. He is hopeful that progress can be made by better management and through working together on those issues, rather than through conflict.

The Minister has not been in his post long, but he has impressed so far. It has been the policy of previous Ministers to say no to the absurd campaign being fought by the British Canoe Union for a statutory right to paddle up every river, ditch, stream and spawning ground the length and breadth of England and Wales. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that voluntary access agreements are the way forward. There will be problems if he does not.

I knew that I would be able to incite the hon. Gentleman.

There is much more scope for work on voluntary agreements. I hope that the BCU will work with us to take that forward, including in the devolved nations. We are keen to do a lot more within the current settlement.

I thank the Minister for his Intervention. I believe that that is the correct approach. There must be give and take on both sides. David Jones Powell holds the ring for riparian owners on the River Usk and has negotiated an agreement with the BCU. It has signed that agreement on a fairly regular basis, but I understand that lately the BCU has been unwilling to sign the document because it believes that it will create a legal right for riparian owners to control and negotiate on the matter.

The BCU believes that canoeists should have the right to access whenever they want it. All the sentiments that have been expressed today point towards a voluntary approach, not a right for canoeists to go wherever they want. We have to manage our rivers. If we are not able to do so, they will be in danger.

Just as there are debates over the recreational use of rivers for canoeing, there is much debate about their recreational use for fishing. Many comments on that have been made this afternoon. Our rivers are also used for transport. British Waterways controls some river areas around Gloucester for the movement of goods and for the use of pleasure boats.

Because we have abused our rivers in the past and continue to do so, we have suffered many problems. The problem that has been emphasised most today is low flows. There is evidence that if climate change develops as we think it will, by 2050 the autumn flows of all our rivers will fall by 80 per cent. Therefore, not only chalk streams, but rivers throughout the UK, will be damaged. In a way, you are highlighting what could be a problem for the whole UK, not just the streams in your area.

Order. As Chairman, I have no interest in any of these rivers.

I am sorry; I got a bit carried away with my enthusiasm for the rivers.

Another problem is pollution. Mention has been made of specific problems in specific places. Farming must play its part in ensuring that rivers are improved. Everything must be done to prevent the massive pollution incidents that occur from time to time, but those are not the only problems. There is also diffuse pollution. That is why nitrate-vulnerable zones were introduced. However, nitrate problems in river water are not solely to do with agriculture.

Certainly, the legislation on nitrate-vulnerable zones does not seem to be fit for purpose. Regulations were introduced many years ago, since when the condition of many of our rivers has improved in terms of nitrate pollution. However, the Minister should be aware that not only agriculture but sewage systems and various other industries are involved. The burden on agricultural industry should be viewed in proportionate terms, not in the absolute terms that the NVZ legislation requires.

The cleaning of rivers that pass through private agricultural land is both a private and public matter for which the Westminster and the devolved Governments must take some responsibility. Because we have had a certain amount of pollution, I am concerned about the licences that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform issues for specific, large-scale civil engineering work such as the gas pipeline through my Constituency. Such licences have not been accompanied by conditions on remedying and alleviating the pollution of rivers over which those big schemes pass. DBERR issues the licences, but does not have the powers to ensure that those conditions are implemented, so the pollution goes on.

I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion, as the Minister has a lot on his plate. He will need all the time available to him to respond on all those issues.

I apologise for my voice, Mr. O'Hara, and I shall ensure that the Official Report gets the full text of my contribution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Heald on the sterling contribution that he has made under your excellent chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara, and may I say what a privilege it is to appear under your chairmanship? My hon. Friend has put a lot of thought into his contribution and covered a lot of ground. I should like to make my bid for having the most stunning countryside in my Constituency, which is also blessed with a number of very fishable and beautiful rivers, and I thank my hon. Friend for setting the scene.

Most hon. Friends and colleagues who have spoken today have done so in the context of the rivers that they live next to—chalk streams in a particular part of the countryside have been discussed—or the anglers whom they represent, but I am sure that the Minister will want to broaden his response to include the water framework directive. I was touched by my hon. Friend's contribution, especially when he set the scene regarding unsatisfactory flows in our rivers and pointed out that the UK has a variety of local climates, with differing rainfalls. Having represented part of East Anglia in the European Parliament for 10 years, I am only too aware that the rainfall in East Anglia is probably less than in northern areas, and I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to the issue.

I congratulate the WWF on its latest campaign, "Our Rivers", which aims to protect river habitats. I am grateful to Martin Salter for drawing the Chamber's attention to my hon. Friend Mr. Benyon, because he was the first to set up a protection zone local area committee to protect the River Kennet, I think. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Benyon family have, for many generations, allowed fishing and other natural activities to occur on that river, and we pay tribute to the Benyon family today.

I thank the hon. Lady for her generous tribute to my neighbour, for whom I have great respect. It is actually the River Pang that he was instrumental in enhancing.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take me out and beat me up for misnaming the river.

I was particularly struck by the contributions on biodiversity, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for North-East Hertfordshire, who spoke about the loss of the water vole, and that of my hon. Friend Anne Main about the loss of butterflies. We have had debates about the bees, but we should also be aware of the contribution of the butterfly to biodiversity.

There have been many degrees of consensus in this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire spoke at great length about biodiversity issues. Personally, I would yield to no one in my quest for clean rivers of excellent quality. The main thrust of my remarks to the Minister will be about the need to assess the implications for England, for biodiversity and for water quality of the European water framework directive, which has huge implications for water companies, local authorities, highway authorities and, not least, farmers.

The WWF campaign, which most people would want to support, refers to three strands, the first of which is developing water efficiency, particularly in relation to new housing. The second strand is about providing incentives to promote water efficiency, and the third strand is about reviewing water abstraction. In all this, the Environment Agency is being asked to maintain a delicate balance. One relevant issue is the requirements of agriculture. Given that I represent one of the most rural constituencies—Mr. Williams represents another rural Constituency—I am cognisant that the main industry in the Vale of York is agriculture. The requirements of agriculture and the responsible use of water should be encouraged and respected, as should the use of water for human needs and the protection of the natural environment.

One thing that has emerged from the debate is a forming consensus that we do not want development on the scale that is being discussed for the various constituencies that have been so well represented here this afternoon. We also want water to be used more stringently and recognised as a resource, and we want to encourage adaptation to climate change, which is one of the few remaining aspects of the climate change brief for which DEFRA is now responsible. We all want a reduction in water stress.

The Conservative view is that the water requirements of agriculture are extremely important and must be given some priority, although protection for human needs and the natural environment are important. We must also recognise that, over the next two decades, the population is expected to increase by 10 million, so there will be further housing development and continued pressure on supplies. With climate change having a significant impact on supply, we will need to prepare for long dry periods and droughts such as those in the summers of 2005 and 2006, and for potential problems with abstraction, particularly as rising temperatures reduce river flows, possibly by as much as 80 per cent. That is a real concern.

My Constituency has a substantial farming interest, and I recognise the point that my hon. Friend made about farming. Does she agree, however, that it is possible, as the environmental stewardship scheme has shown, for farmers not to pollute rivers and to use water for farming in a thrifty way? Does she agree that advice, incentives and Government policy should be targeted at achieving that?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for flagging up two very worrying trends on which I hope the Minister will respond; I shall end with some questions on them. The stewardship scheme has, over a number of years, greatly advantaged rural constituencies—my own is no exception—but there is concern in the farming community about how DEFRA is seeking to amend the stewardship scheme, between the higher-level and entry-level schemes. He might also like to respond regarding flood-alleviation schemes, as the water at the riverbanks will expand naturally, as with the significant flooding in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire. I hope that he will see fit to use some European Union funds—some rural development funds—to allow farms to be compensated for taking excess water off riverbanks.

I shall conclude with a number of questions for the Minister. What does he understand by good ecological status? A number of consultations were carried out for the draft Flood and Water Management Bill—we warmly welcome that draft legislation—but the exact meaning of the water framework directive's requirement to achieve ecological good status for all surface waters by 2015 is unclear and, either today or in writing, I would welcome the Minister providing a better definition.

What assessment has the Minister and his Department made of the obligations that the water framework directive will impose on local authorities, water companies, farmers and others? From meeting the Commission officials who drafted the directive, my understanding is that those obligations will be significant and are additional to what is already in the pipeline—if hon. Members will pardon the pun. What will the directive cost those bodies, and how will they be expected to raise the money? On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, when do the Government aim to introduce a plan for the water industry to hit water resource consumption in relation to the four new developments that are in the pipeline?

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for your chairmanship. There are several styles in which I usually make these concluding remarks—sometimes I am slow and languorous, and at other times, I am like a machine gun. Today, the style will be like a machine gun, as I try to deal with the many points raised. I am happy to write to hon. Members or engage in further discussion and dialogue on the points that I do not address.

I congratulate Mr. Heald on securing this important debate and on how he put his points across. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Salisbury (Robert Key) and for St. Albans (Anne Main) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter) on their contributions. I will turn to some of those contributions in a moment. I also congratulate the Front Benchers on their contributions—the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he and the Secretary of State come to see the Beane and the Mimram?

I am more than happy to accept that invitation—perhaps we can look at some other issues surrounding biodiversity and so on in the area at the same time. I shall ask my diary assistant to engage my people to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman's people, and we will try to sort that out—perhaps during the summer. It will be delightful. We have indeed learned much about the River Mimram—for example, about its biodiversity, beauty and sometimes its fragility. We have also learned much from hon. Members' contributions about other localities.

I will not waste time by reiterating what a valuable resource water is. On the comments about Arcadia made by the hon. Member for Salisbury, this is a complex area. We are considering the beauty of the environment and our rivers; the water quality; the biodiversity and the habitat; and the water supply and demand. We are also considering abstraction for canals, which everyone loves, and abstraction for farms, which everybody treasures, and how to square that circle. On top of that, we have the issue of home building and the necessity of providing affordable homes for rental and purchase for all our constituents across the country. How do we square that circle? There is also the necessity of providing good water supply for businesses, recreation, anglers and canoeists, and the massive challenges that we face in relation to climate change. In addition, we have to consider the water framework directive, to which I will return in a moment, and the importance of local engagement. All those issues mean that this is one of the most challenging subjects. There are no simple magic bullets, but I shall mention some of the issues and the way forward in a moment.

I commend the opening comments of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the work that he has done. I also commend the engagement of the Environment Agency with the friends of the River Mimram, the Beane restoration association, the Ver Valley Society, the Chiltern Society and others. The Environment Agency is committed to continuing engagement with those organisations and to finding workable solutions on the ground—however difficult and challenging it is.

On the hon. Gentleman's comments about metering and tariffs, he will know that Anna Walker has been commissioned to bring forward a piece of work on that issue. We look forward to her reporting imminently. We hope to have another debate on that matter to consider what solutions can be brought forward.

As others have done, I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West on environmental issues and angling. I note that there is often a significant overlap between conservation and angling. Among other things, I commend his chairmanship of the "Blueprint for Water" campaign and his work on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill—we attended a meeting on the Bill together earlier today. He pointed out—this is a crucial theme—the importance of partnerships on the ground and how they can deliver benefits through river catchment management plans. He will be a great loss to the House, and I urge him to reconsider and stand again as a Member of Parliament. I will try to assist him in any way I can, but I urge him not to go—for goodness' sake!

The hon. Member for Salisbury commented on the fact that I was reasonable. I hope that the Government Whips were not listening when that compliment was made, because it could be the end of my career. I thank him for his comments. He talked about his intimate relationship with rivers and having fallen in and been pulled out by no less a person than a bishop. He did well to talk about the very long and complex history of the issue, and he talked about the necessity for correspondingly complex solutions. I hope that those are not long solutions—they might be long term, but I hope that they do not take a long time to put in place.

On the aspects of river restoration that the hon. Gentleman talked about, we need to focus our work on balancing the ecological, chemical and biological status of rivers and driving forward. Work is being done, and I will talk about it in a moment. We have to deal with this matter—not least to comply with the water framework directive.

The hon. Member for St. Albans rightly talked about biodiversity and the richness that she wants to protect. However, in trying to square the circle, there is also the challenge of providing the affordable homes that her constituents want. It is difficult, but we have to make sure that engagement is done in a top-down way and that it takes place genuinely across the board.

St. Albans fully accepts that it needs a certain number of homes; it is the number that is in dispute. That is where the sensitivity lies, and that is the balance that needs to be struck. I hope that the Minister listens to the representations on that.

Indeed. That is where the balance must be struck. On the Bow Bridge aquifer, I will ask the Environment Agency to contact the hon. Lady and discuss that and other issues further. She did a good job of reminding us how important the birds and the bees are, as well as the butterflies.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about intelligent approaches to abstraction. I absolutely agree—that is the direction of travel in which we are going. It is also important to balance supply and demand. On the importance of agriculture, yes, it is a major component of diffuse pollution, but there are many other aspects, too. We must also move forward on those issues.

In the few minutes remaining, I shall turn to some of the issues that the hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned. She spoke comprehensively on many matters—not only agriculture, but the wider issues surrounding the water framework directive. We all share the same aspirations: to have a sustainable, affordable and secure supply of clean, good quality water and a healthy environment. I think that everyone recognises that achieving that is no easy feat. The two biggest challenges ahead of us in the water sector are the increasing demand for water and our changing climate. The population is growing and the pattern of hotter summers, wetter winters and extreme weather will continue. We also still need to tackle ongoing issues, such as pollution. None of those problems have quick fixes; we must take a long-term view. That is the basis of the future water strategy, which outlines how we intend to deliver our vision right through to 2030.

We are taking a long-term approach, but we will achieve our aims only by working together. Homeowners, businesses, water companies, environmentalists and everyone else need to work with us. In many areas, we are already reaping the rewards. We have made great progress. No one today has remarked on the progress that we have made in cleaning up our rivers across the UK. We have considered issues in highly stressed areas today, but across the UK—as the title of the debate implies—we have made progress in cleaning up our bathing waters, beaches and rivers. We have addressed some of the most acute sources of pollution, such as sewage treatment works and overflows.

Fifty years ago, the River Thames outside our doors here was so polluted that it was declared biologically dead, but it now supports more than 120 fish species. Otters and kingfishers have returned to stretches of river from which they were absent for many years. We have been used to figures reported under the general quality assessment, which has shown a consistent improvement in the quality of our rivers since it was introduced in 1990. Let us remind ourselves where we are. Some 72 per cent. of rivers were of good biological quality in 2007, compared with 55 per cent. in 1990. However, we need to go further.

The water framework directive sets exciting—I have to use these often over-used words—and extremely challenging new targets for the quality of our rivers, and it brings with it a more stringent set of requirements for measuring their quality. We are now looking at the ecological health of our rivers—not just simple indicators of water quality—and, indeed, other water bodies including lakes and coastal regions.

The headline figures look far worse than those reported under GQA, because we monitor many more quality indicators under the directive than under the GQA and because the worst-rated element determines the overall class, yet the quality of our rivers continues to improve. Working with others on the ground—industry sectors, local stakeholders and local partners including, I am sure, some of those who are listening to the debate—the Environment Agency has developed many draft river basin management plans. Some people believe that such measures do not go far enough, and I agree. We want them to be more ambitious, but they have to be more ambitious without resting on one individual or one organisation. Across the board, we must all play our part. We are currently exploring ways flexibly to manage areas where water quality standards are falling, and water protection zones are one possibility there.

Agriculture has a huge impact on such pollution, but we have been supporting farmers in their efforts to reduce a range of pollutants, including nitrates. Through the England catchment sensitive farming delivery initiative, farmers have received advice as well as capital grants in priority areas. Such measures will help.

Water companies have a vital role to play, and I am keen to see more initiatives like SCAMP—the United Utilities sustainable catchment management programme—and South West Water's Exmoor mire restoration projects. Ofwat is undertaking its periodic review of water price limits for 2010 to 2015. I am glad to say that there are now more than 100 management schemes in water companies' final business plans—more than double what originally appeared in their draft plans. Misconnections and bringing people together are other issues.

We have much more work to do, but our rivers are continuing to improve. Now more than ever, through the river basin management plans, we have the chance to plan and manage sustainable, long-term improvements in the quality of our rivers. We are all striving to square the circle, deal with all the difficult and challenging issues and bring back the Arcadia that the hon. Member for Salisbury described, and the more that we can engage with that actively—on the ground, not just in Whitehall—the more chance we have of success.