Emma Hardy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Who would have thought that today there would be such unity in the House of Commons? I thank everyone for their support. The draft instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It establishes a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market. Question put and agreed to.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 June 2025. I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft statutory instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page 20, in schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. That does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members. For years, the industry has called for mandatory sheep carcase classification and price reporting. The draft instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcase classification and price reporting has been in place for many years. The instrument mandates sheep carcase classification and the price reporting of sheep carcases for larger slaughterhouses, which are those that slaughter at least 2,000 sheep a week. Smaller slaughterhouses, which slaughter at least 1,000 sheep a week, can voluntarily decide that the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep-grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcase classification. We are introducing the legislation because slaughter-houses can set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcases for classification and weighing. As a result, carcase weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way that the carcase is prepared, trimmed and presented. That inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcases when they sell their stock. We want a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing that long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will encourage farmers to improve their productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can also then rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand. The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcases of sheep aged less than 12 months at the time of slaughter. That encapsulates the prime lamb market. The draft instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, shape and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with that carcase classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcases. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcases. The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcases are presented in a consistent way post slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcase presentations at that point. The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcase and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold, on a dead-weight basis—that is, when payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcase. The carcase and pricing details must be reported to the supplier of the sheep, and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as it does already for beef and pork. The draft instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcase classifiers. That means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification. Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. That will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcases. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action when there are breaches of the regulatory requirements. The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcase classification and price reporting system for sheep carcases, which the draft instrument delivers. I commend it to the Committee.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  I can also give you an update, Mr Stuart, but I would like to give my hon. Friend an update, too. The EA recently completed the project to refurbish a section of the floodwall on the River Rother that was damaged during Storm Babet, and £75,000 of DEFRA flood defence funding has been allocated to the avenue for the storage reservoir, which my hon. Friend and I visited together. As he rightly said, it operated during Storm Babet, but there was still widespread flooding downstream. That funding will allow the EA to investigate any improvements that can be made to how it operates to hopefully reduce more flood risks. The Environment Agency is working with the council to investigate the removal or raising of several bridges along the Rivers Hipper and Rother. That is at an early stage, but it will help us look at how to improve flow and reduce the risk of blockages, which is an issue that was raised previously. In addition, the Environment Agency, Derbyshire county council and the Don Catchment Rivers Trust are exploring natural flood management opportunities for the Hipper and Spital Brook catchments—my hon. Friend knows I am a fan of natural flood management; I will come to the flood funding formula and how that can enable natural flood management. They have also secured just under £400,000 of funding towards the River Hipper flood alleviation scheme to support the development of the business case, so they are on to the development stage of the project. It includes £275,000 of local levy from the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and £60,000 from Chesterfield borough council. The scheme will protect over 200 homes and businesses. Pre our funding formula review, at this moment, the scheme is estimated to cost £16 million, with a funding gap of under £40 million, but that is under the current rules. However, that could change as a result of our funding rules. I will say a bit more about our funding consultation. The current approach to the flood funding formula was drawn up by the previous Government in 2011, and is outdated and not working as it should. It neglects more innovative approaches such as natural flood management. In fact, the solution the previous Government had was to set a separate fund for natural flood management rather than integrating it into how the formula works as a whole. Our proposed change looks at full Government funding for the first £3 million of projects. That unlocks lots of natural flood management because many smaller natural flood management schemes are less than £3 million; they are struggling because they cannot get the partnership funding to close the gap. Fully funding projects up to £3 million means we can get on with the smaller schemes. Then there is a flat rate of 90% Government contribution and 10% partnership funding. If the project of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is successful with the business case, it would be looking at 90% Government funding and having to find 10% partnership funding, which is very different from the current situation. We would also fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood assets. Understandably, people say, “Why do we need partnership funding to maintain an asset that already exists?” Our flooding formula consultation says that we would fully fund refurbishment of assets as well. The changes make natural flood management much easier. However, that means that many projects move through to the prioritisation stage. The first stage is: does it meet the tests to go through to prioritisation? Then there is prioritisation; even though we are putting a record amount of money into flooding, there is a certain amount there to be allocated, so the consultation looks at prioritisation. What do we want to prioritise when deciding which projects go ahead and which do not? Are we looking at very basic value for money in terms of numbers of properties protected? That would have an impact on rural communities. Are we looking at prioritising natural flood management? Are we looking at prioritising areas of deprivation? What are the prioritisation criteria? That is what the consultation asks. Are we prioritising “frequently flooded” as another criterion, to put weighting towards which ones actually go through to be built? The consultation is happening at the moment. At this moment, I cannot say whether it would make it easier or harder for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield to get his scheme developed. But the partnership funding that has held up my hon. Friend’s scheme would be dealt with under our consultation, because 90% would be Government funding and 10% would be partnership. We need to prioritise which ones are done first. The consultation is genuinely open in listening to people about the criteria they want to prioritise. We obviously have to be really careful when spending any Government money and need a fair and transparent system when it comes to which projects get built first and which do not. As has been mentioned, we are investing a record amount: £4.2 billion over three years to build, maintain and repair existing flood defences. That is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend, which was already a record amount. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment and sense of urgency. The current funding will continue to support 1,000 flood schemes, better protecting 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. On top of that, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored through essential maintenance activities. As my hon. Friends know, we inherited flood defences in their worst state on record. The condition of key flood defences in England was at its lowest since the financial year 2009-10, with only 92% of assets at the required condition. In the current financial year, we are putting £430 million into constructing new schemes, and using a further £220 million to restore flood defences to the condition that they need to be in. That full list was published in March. Last week, we announced £7.9 billion of funding, which is the largest flooding programme in history, as part of our landmark infrastructure strategy. We are introducing many other changes, but I can see that I am running out of time. On compulsory purchasing, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield recognises that the Environment Agency can compulsory purchase something only if it is for building a specific scheme. Sadly, he and others around the country have raised the problem of properties devaluing when they are continually at risk of flooding. I wonder whether in those particular circumstances, which I saw for myself, there is another conversation to be had about property flood resilience measures and whether more can be done to support those homes. We have had a radical change with our flooding formula. It has made the system much simpler, so that people around the country can clearly understand that the first £3 million will be fully funded, and after that it will be 90% Government and 10% partnership funding. That is intended to equalise the system everywhere, because at the moment nobody quite understands why one scheme may have a partnership funding gap of £40 million, as in my hon. Friend’s case, and another may have no partnership funding gap at all. This formula makes the system much clearer. I urge everybody to respond to the flooding consultation and to think about how they want Government money to be prioritised, so that we can protect as many people as possible from the devastating impact of flooding, which causes such a problem not only for the local economy but for mental health. We will continue to build and repair flood defences while delivering natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems, and we will make sure that this country is more resilient to floods. Question put and agreed to.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Flood Defences: Chesterfield · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) is right to highlight the mental health impacts that flooding has on communities and individuals; he was also right to say that once someone has been flooded, they are always a flood victim. He discussed the appalling, awful and tragic loss of life in his constituency, as well as similar cases that we have seen, sadly, in other parts of the country. I hope it goes without saying that I am happy to give any assistance I can in getting people around the table. I will have a look at why the section 19 report has taken so long and how it compares with other section 19 reports around the country so that I can understand what is happening: whether the one my hon. Friend has mentioned is an anomaly or whether it is standard—if it is standard, we clearly need to do something about that. Let me take that point away. I hope that I can express, if nothing else, the urgency I feel when it comes to dealing with flood risk. My hon. Friend, and everyone else, is right to say that climate change is real and makes flood risks more common. We know from the NAFTA 2.0 reports that one in four homes will be at risk of flooding by the mid-century. The Government are putting in a record amount of funding, but at the same time climate change is making the situation worse. The situation is urgent. I completely understand how anxious my hon. Friend’s constituents feel when, as he described, they see rainclouds and feel nervous about what will happen. It was really helpful to be in his constituency with him and see the schemes and the streets for myself. That helped me to really picture the individual circumstances they faced, so I thank him for that invitation. I spoke to the Environment Agency ahead of this debate, and want to give you an update—

• 19 Jun 2025 · Chalk Streams · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right: chalk streams are a source of beauty and national pride. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting a chalk stream restoration project with Charles Rangeley-Wilson, who is a passionate campaigner for chalk streams. Under this Labour Government, water companies will spend more than £2 billion to deliver over 1,000 actions for chalk stream restoration, and will reduce their abstraction from chalk streams by 126 million litres per day.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Chalk Streams · Hansard source

  More

  Chalk streams are not only a beautiful and iconic part of our precious natural landscape; they are symbols of our national heritage. The protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams is a core ambition in our overall programme of reform to the water sector.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Chalk Streams · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say how important volunteers are in supporting our natural environment up and down the country. He will be aware that the decision to reduce the funding for the Canal & River Trust was taken by the previous Government, and that was extended under this Government. There will be a tapering off of some of the funding, but we continue to support water projects up and down the country. As I have already mentioned, the changes that we are introducing for water companies will help to protect not only our beautiful chalk streams, but all our rivers, lakes and seas.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Company Fines: Water Restoration Fund · Hansard source

  More

  This Labour Government have launched the largest ever crackdown against poorly behaving water companies. As part of this operation, Ofwat has hit Thames Water with a £100 million fine, which is the biggest in British history. I am delighted to confirm today that fines collected by regulators will be directly invested in projects, led by communities up and down the country, to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Company Fines: Water Restoration Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady, but with respect, the response was in my original answer. As I confirmed, the water restoration fund is continuing as planned. Successful projects have been notified, and money has been announced and given. As I have stated, all the money collected from water fines will be diverted into nature projects to help clean up our rivers, lakes and seas across the country—and yes, that money will be ringfenced.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Company Fines: Water Restoration Fund · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important work that the commission has been doing. I do not want to get ahead of any announcements the commission may make—it is not long to wait now, Mr Speaker; it is only a few weeks—but clearly regulation has not been working, so action is needed.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that report. The money from the restoration fund is being used now to fund projects up and down the country. As I have mentioned, the future money from fines will be ringfenced for environmental projects up and down the country as well.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The Government are, of course, strongly committed to ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I am aware that the Environment Agency is investigating this matter, so I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in detail.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Environment Agency: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me. I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point. More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation. I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon. In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively. Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation. The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators. We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Environment Agency: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is completely right: constituents want to action when they see pollution incidents. Of course, if he is not satisfied with the outcome and he feels that action has not been taken to the standard that he wants following the meeting, I am more than happy to pick that up. I will finish on that point. Question put and agreed to.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Environment Agency: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point. We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.

• 13 May 2025 · Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, I take the point. We have just invested a record amount over two years; it is the greatest amount that has ever been invested in flood defences. Of course, any future announcements are part of the spending review. The hon. Member has been in this place a very long time and understands that very well, but I hope that he can see that there are deeds, not words, in the fact that we have invested that record amount. I pay tribute to the flood partnership of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. I think that is a great example of the vital role that partnerships have in bringing together all parties with an interest in flood resilience. I think it is a really good model for other people to take away. The comments from Opposition Members about the personal experience of flooding, the impact on mental health and the impact on communities were very well made. It was good again to hear about natural flood management and some of the work that we are doing to alleviate flooding. That is a positive way of doing it for nature as well as for flood alleviation. I would like to talk a little bit about planning and flood risk, although I am of course mindful that I am speaking on a slightly different brief from my own. We are committed to building the homes that the country needs, while maintaining the highest levels of flood protection. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary and where no suitable sites are available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. Development must also be safe for its lifetime—a point made by hon. Members—should not increase flood risk overall and should provide wider sustainability benefits. The Government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published the revised NPPF in December 2024. That clarified how the sequential test should be applied to development in areas of flood risk and encouraged the use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments. The Government are considering whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year. I will ensure that all the contributions regarding amendments are heard by Ministers in the relevant Department. We are strongly committed to requiring standardised SuDS in new developments. These should be designed to cope with changing climatic conditions, as well as delivering wider water infrastructure benefits, reducing run-off, and helping to improve water quality, amenity and biodiversity. It is important to ensure appropriate adoption and maintenance arrangements are in place—that was another point that was raised. We believe that those outcomes can be achieved through either improving the current planning-led approach using powers now available or commencing schedule 3 to the Water and Flood Management Act 2010. A final decision on the way forward will be made in the coming months. As mentioned, there have been changes to the national planning policy framework to support increasing SuDS. The NPPF now requires all developments to use SuDS where they could have a drainage impact. These systems should be appropriate to the nature and scale of the proposed developments. I will briefly mention the flood maps. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk and I have discussed some of the mapping, which is called NaFRA2. Hon. Members can put in their postcode, and it will show their flood risk now and up to the mid-century for streets and areas. The information has been collected by the Environment Agency from around the country. It is really impressive. It is the first time that we can see surface water risk; before, flood maps showed only coastal water or river flooding. They are important maps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury mentioned, they need to be used by developers and local authorities. They are free and available for anybody who wants to see where there is risk and where there are concerns. Internal drainage board funding is an important issue that was mentioned by a few hon. Members. We recognise the essential work of the IDBs in supporting greater resilience for farmers and rural communities, so I was pleased to announce an additional £16 million boost to the IDB drainage fund in March this year, bringing the total funding that we have announced since being in government to £91 million from the previously allocated £75 million. That was only in March this year, so they have just had that extra £16 million. That important investment will allow IDBs to modernise and upgrade assets and waterways to ensure they are fit for the future. When I was in opposition I went to see some of the pumping stations myself, so I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that some of them are in desperate need of upgrading. IDBs can apply for that £91 million to ensure they can get the needed upgrades. We are working with MHCLG, the IDB sector and local authorities on a new research project. The project is looking to review IDB costs and funding, including, importantly, whether any changes are needed to the IDB funding model. I hear the point that some hon. Members made about how it feels unfair that some communities face increased council tax because of this issue. The review is expected to start this summer, and will last around a year. We will consider the findings carefully. Through our plan for change, the Government will deliver a decade of national renewal and economic growth. We will maintain the highest levels of flood protection while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and deliver 1.5 million homes. I thank everyone for their contributions.

• 13 May 2025 · Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and especially the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for calling the debate and providing an opportunity for us to hear about and discuss how the planning system can best manage and mitigate flood risk. I am delighted to be here, obviously, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, but I recognise that some of the points made were about amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so apologies if I cannot speak about amendments under a different brief. I will of course make sure that any points made are heard by the relevant Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for raising the issue of surface water flooding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about internal drainage boards, and I will address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) talked about flooding and insurance and made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) talked about flood action groups, and I want to take a moment to say thank you to all the flood action groups, wardens and volunteers in communities up and down our country for the work that they do. Helpfully, my hon. Friend addressed some of the concerns and questions around maps, so she saved a chunk of my speech, which is great, because I have not got much time to speak on that, although I will talk a little more about maps. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said, when I arrived, “You will see the same faces as we do in all these debates.” But that is good, because it shows what a tireless champion he is, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), in every flooding debate. It would not be the same without them—that is all I can say—so I thank them very much for coming here and, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, raising their concerns. I met the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk back in April to discuss his proposals, and it was a really informative and helpful discussion. He raises important topics, which I have taken incredibly seriously and gone away and had a look at, because as he rightly said, climate change is bringing more extreme rainfall and rising sea levels, and it is a priority for this Government to protect communities from the increased risk of flooding. I am not sure where the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), got the idea that we were cutting funding for flooding. That is not the case. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over two years—2024-25 and 2025-26—for the construction of new flood schemes and the repair and maintenance of existing ones.

• 8 May 2025 · Climate Resilience Plans · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We are developing stronger climate adaptation objectives and improving the framework for action.

• 8 May 2025 · Climate Resilience Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course, we welcome the Climate Change Committee’s assessment. The Government recognise the need to go further and faster to prepare for the impacts of a warmer world. For example, we are already taking active steps to include climate adaptation in our flood programme. For the first time, the Environment Agency’s flood risk modelling integrates potential impacts of climate change on flood and coastal erosion risk. The investment of £2.65 billion into maintaining flood defences will help to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

• 8 May 2025 · Water Bills: Limiting Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. Everything relating to regulation of water is supported and looked at through the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which carries out an assessment to make sure we have the best water quality in the whole country. If he requires any further detail, he is welcome to write to me again and I will make sure I find it.

• 8 May 2025 · Water Bills: Limiting Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I add my voice to all those paying tribute to the greatest generation as we all remember VE Day. I know that many of us will be travelling back to our constituencies to join in celebrations up and down the country. It is no wonder that the public are angry about paying the price for Conservative failure. By allowing water infrastructure to decay on their watch, the previous Conservative Government not only failed to ensure proper regulation of the industry but drove up costs of essential repairs, resulting in increased bills for customers. While I cannot undo the damage of the past, I can ensure that it never happens again. That is why funding for vital infrastructure has been ringfenced by this Government so that it can never be diverted for bonuses or dividends.

• 8 May 2025 · Water Bills: Limiting Increases · Hansard source

  More

  Roberto is right to feel angry about his bill increase, the past performance of water companies and the toothless regulation under the previous Government. We have already taken action to deliver our manifesto promise to hold water companies to account, ban unfair bonuses and introduce criminal liability with up to two years in prison. We have also created the water delivery taskforce to ensure that all water companies, including Thames Water, deliver on their promised infrastructure improvements. The Government will always support those struggling with their water bills. Indeed, this Labour Government and water companies are more than doubling the social tariff support over the next five years.

• 8 May 2025 · Flooding: Protecting Vulnerable Communities · Hansard source

  More

  After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defences in the worst condition on record. We are investing a record £2.65 billion in a thousand projects to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.

• 8 May 2025 · Flooding: Protecting Vulnerable Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, the national planning policy framework is clear that where development in areas at risk of flooding is necessary, local planning authorities and developers should ensure that the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, safe for the development’s lifetime and, importantly, will not increase flood risk elsewhere. We are also looking at other measures, such as sustainable urban drainage systems, to be included in planning as well.

• 8 May 2025 · Flooding: Protecting Vulnerable Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I am sorry to hear about the issues his constituents are facing with flooding—I know at first hand how disruptive and awful flooding can be. As I am sure he knows, flooding is a devolved matter in Wales, but I would of course be happy to work with him and to facilitate the meeting that he requested.