Emma Hardy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Mar 2025 · Flood-prone Communities: Cumbria · Hansard source

  More

  That all started so well—we nearly managed to get through the question with me agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right about this issue, which he has mentioned before. I am in complete agreement with him about the impact of flooding on mental health, and I know that we all take it seriously. We are investing £500,000 in mental health charities to support rural communities, but I completely recognise the devastation that flooding causes, and I am always happy to work with Members from across the House on how we can support people’s mental health.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Flood-prone Communities: Cumbria · Hansard source

  More

  As I may have already mentioned, we are putting in a record £2.65 billion investment to build, maintain and improve flood defences up and down the country, which shows this Government’s commitment to making sure that our communities and our farmland are protected from flooding.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Flood-prone Communities: Cumbria · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful not only for the work that my hon. Friend’s action flood group does, but for the work that flood action groups do right across the whole of his constituency. He raises an incredibly important and interesting issue. In the Sir John Cunliffe review, we are fundamentally looking at the management of water right across entire catchment areas. When we think about water management, we need to consider not only whether communities have enough water to meet their needs, but whether they have protection from flooding and drought. A holistic way of dealing with some of the challenges we face is certainly one of the answers going forward. My hon. Friend has given a great example, and I would be happy to explore it further with him.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for bringing forward this debate about this beautiful-sounding river. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for contributing to this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I could of course never forget the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) . When we have any debate on water and water quality, there is so much interest from constituents, organisations and from hon. Members. I wholeheartedly share the upset and outrage of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington over the diesel spill. He is absolutely right to feel upset about it. This is one of England’s most beautiful chalk streams. It is a fast-moving river passing through sites of natural importance as well as sites of urban development. I wholeheartedly agree that this was an appalling thing to happen to the river. It is really important to understand why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. I understand that the situation along the river continues to improve, with environmental impacts steadily reducing, but I want to be absolutely clear that we will not let any organisation get away with illegal activity, and where breaches are found, the EA will not hesitate to hold companies to account or work with partners as needed. DEFRA works closely with the Environment Agency to ensure it is equipped to carry out its functions effectively and deliver for the public and the environment, with Environment Agency officials at every level to provide constructive challenge and support on Environment Agency performance and delivery. I have a timeline of exactly what happened on the day. One of the questions was about when people were made aware. On Tuesday 18 February at 8.19 am, London Fire Brigade was notified and arrived on the scene. At 8.32 am, the Environment Agency received a report from the London Fire Brigade of a diesel oil spill from a bus depot storage tank. Nine minutes later, at 8.41 am, the EA duty officer initiated a response and a decision to deploy to the site. At 10 am, the first Environment Agency officer was on the site, and further EA officers were on the site at 12 noon. I thank the Environment Agency: it was made aware of it at 8.32 am, and by 10 am, it had people at the river carrying out an investigation. It has done an exceptionally good job at working at pace. I understand that, at 6.19 pm, the Environment Agency sent its first email to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington with information about the incident and the actions that it took. Between 19 February and 26 February, the Environment Agency’s response was ongoing; that included regular on-site monitoring, assessment of the clean-up and the environmental impacts, and ongoing briefings and liaison with partner organisations. It has specialist contractors working on the remediation efforts, and I understand that it updated the hon. Member at 9.45 am on 19 February and that another meeting was requested on 21 February. The incident response concluded on Wednesday 26 February, when the Environment Agency sent its final updates to partners. It is now in the investigation phase, having moved out of the emergency response phase. It has acted at speed and with integrity, and it has done an incredible job. Its enforcement options range from warnings to prosecution or an enforcement undertaking. That is a civil sanction whereby the offender proposes steps to remediate the issue. The punishment depends on the assessment. I totally agree on the polluter pays principle. The Environment Agency can recover costs from emergency incidents under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991. All costs incurred by the Environment Agency through doing this enforcement work can be recovered. On the wider point on polluter pays, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which got Royal Assent last week, included cost recovery not just for emergency responses, as already existed, but for water companies. I know that, in this case, it was not a water company that was responsible, but sewage pollution has been mentioned. Anywhere that the Environment Agency investigates sewage pollution, all costs can now be fully recovered from the water company. A question was asked about what happens to the fine moneys. Ofwat are responsible for collecting fine money and, in some cases, that fine money is refunded to customers. In other cases, that fine money is available for environmental aspects. The ratio of how much is refunded to customers is a decision for Ofwat. A point was made about the problems of run-off. Obviously, there is another one that has not come up in this debate but is also a concern—agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. All those things are being looked at under the Cunliffe review—we have only seven weeks left now for people to respond to the call for evidence. I hope people will look at the document and make their points. There is a 200-page call for evidence, but also a 20-page executive summary, so people can look at the summary. It is not just for Members of Parliament. If I may address those in the Public Gallery, it is for anybody to respond and give their opinion on how our water system should fundamentally work. We are serious about this. We are taking action and looking at how we can increase polluter pays through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but there will be cost recovery because this is considered an emergency. In terms of what more can be said at the moment, we have to let the Environment Agency do its investigative work. When it comes to its conclusion it will determine what level or type of prosecution happens. I want to reiterate that we agree that what happened with the River Wandle is deeply concerning and unacceptable. Again, I thank the Environment Agency for acting within an hour and a half of being informed and having people on the ground to carry out that investigative work. This Government will not turn the other way and continue to allow our rivers, lakes and seas to be polluted. Through the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Independent Water Commission, future legislation and many other actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a comprehensive reset of the water industry. We intend to drive long-term transformative change through the entire water sector, and we have only just got started. Question put and agreed to.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I will; I am praising the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—let us get back to normal.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree in the slightest. To be completely clear, sites that are already designated as bathing sites of course need enhanced investment and support to improve them, even if they are poor at the moment. I was addressing the point about when we are looking to designate new sites, and answering the question why we are looking at core reform 2. Again, I stress that we have not officially responded to the consultation. If we are looking at a site that we wish to designate in the future, which is of a really low quality, is it irresponsible to designate that site knowing that it will not reach for five to 10 years the standard it needs to reach? Like everything, that is a question for debate. But for sites that are designated at the moment, I agree that we should be putting extra investment into them even if they are poor. I do not want to rehearse the many debates and discussions we have already had. There were 36 amendments, I think, to the Water (Special Measures) Act on Report.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  That is a really interesting consideration. I hope the hon. Member fed that into the consultation. I will not commit either way, but it is an interesting point and one I will reflect on—as I said, this is a Government who listen. On that note, I think it is time for me to finish talking. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I feel that we are having a little bit of a love-in this afternoon, which is always a nice way to start. Of course I will be more than happy to pass on the thanks from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to the team who have worked on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this really important debate. There is so much agreement in the room that I almost wonder whether we are still in the House of Commons. I will certainly try to cover most of the points that have been made. Just to set the issue in context, we completely accept and believe that the water system at the moment is broken. That is why, when we first came into office, we changed the articles of association to put customers and their opinions into the water boards. It is why we are doubling the compensation for people who face water outages. It is why we have ringfenced money so that it cannot be diverted from infrastructure improvements and into bonuses. It is why we have the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which just came into force and got Royal Assent last week—because we know that the system as a whole is broken. It is also why, just last Thursday, I was in Manchester with Sir Jon Cunliffe, launching the call for evidence on water. I strongly urge every Member here to respond to that call for evidence. There is a huge, 200-page consultation document that goes with it but, just because we are kind, there is a 20-page executive summary as well, so please have a look at that, respond to the consultation and make some of these points there. Bathing waters in and of themselves are not under the water commission. The reason for that is that I wanted to do something on bathing waters really quickly; I did not want it to get delayed by the water commission when we already knew some of the things that we wanted to look at. I will quickly go over some of the things that we are looking at changing. At the moment, the regulations are one size fits all. I would like to reassure people talking about the dates around bathing waters. Obviously, we will officially respond to the consultation; there will be an official Government response, but so far I have yet to see put forward any evidence that seems to indicate that there is a wish to shorten the bathing water window. In fact, most people are advocating to keep it the same or extend it, recognising that some people go swimming all year round. This is the perfect point at which to mention my mum, who has decided to do open water swimming and swims all year round, and now has her own wetsuit. I think it is amazing that she has discovered open water swimming in her retirement—slightly crazy, but definitely amazing. As I said, we will obviously have a formal response to the consultation, but so far I have not seen anybody advocating shortening the bathing season. I wanted to make a point of mentioning that. On the de-designation points, I wholeheartedly accept the points made by the spokesman for the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats that it would be an incentive for companies not to invest in improving the water if they knew that after a certain number of years it would be de-designated—although of course I must add the proviso that we have not officially responded to the consultation. However, from looking at what we have had so far, that is certainly what I am feeling. I also want to address this point. I am sure that it was not intended, but I wondered whether it was coming through that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water in an area. I do not accept that, because if we are saying that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water, that means that we are also almost accepting, on the flip side of that, that if people do not have bathing water status, we are okay with their water being completely polluted. We are not okay with that. We want to clean up all our rivers, lakes and seas, and we have a plan to do so. We have £104 billion of investment going into the next five years. We are looking at what is happening in bathing waters, and looking at iconic sites around the country. The argument that somewhere needs to have bathing water status or its waters will remain polluted, is one that I challenge head on. That argument almost accepts that we are okay with things remaining polluted. No—we should focus on something much bigger than that, which is how we clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, especially looking at bathing waters. There is a major public health aspect here. It is an important point, and it is why I am delighted that Sir Chris Whitty is one of the expert advisers on the Cunliffe review looking at this. An argument is being made that asks why we are setting a standard, as if to say, “If they are really poor, we don’t want to allocate them as bathing sites.” We should pause and think about that for a moment because, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), if we are saying something is a bathing site and we give it bathing water status, it implies that it is safe to bathe there. If we designate a site that we know will not be safe for many years to come, and would take a huge amount of investment to become safe, is it right to call that a bathing water site and imply that people are safe to bathe there? So, I think the sensible and correct decision is to improve all our water everywhere through reforms, which is why we are doing the water review and why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Let us look at the areas that are likely to improve more quickly, and say to people, “You can bathe here, because it will improve more quickly and we can see rapid progress, but these other sites that you want to bathe in—if we think seriously—are not going to improve for a long time.” As a Government, we think that it would be irresponsible to call those sites bathing water sites when we know full well that there could be serious damage to public health.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality. There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on. Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation. We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say. I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Vaz. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 January. As most of the Committee will know, Flood Re is a reinsurance scheme that provides for accessible and affordable flood insurance for eligible households. This joint Government and industry initiative was launched in 2016, and it was designed to improve the availability and affordability of UK household flood insurance. For clarity, Flood Re Ltd is the name of the company established to administer the scheme. Since its launch, Flood Re has provided for flood insurance cover to more than 500,000 households across the UK that are at risk of flooding. Before Flood Re, only 9% of policyholders with a prior flood claim could get flood insurance quotes from two or more insurers, and none could get quotes from five or more insurers. In 2023-24, 99% of households at high risk of flooding could obtain quotes from 15 or more insurers. The Flood Re scheme has evolved since its launch back in 2016. When levy 1 was last reviewed in 2022, the regulations were changed to allow for Build Back Better to be included in the scheme, allowing for up to £10,000 to be offered as part of a post-flood claim to install flood-resilient measures at the property, helping to reduce the risk and impact of future flooding. Flood Re has taken several steps to encourage take-up of its Build Back Better initiative, including running a series of workshops and developing a toolkit for insurers. I am pleased that insurers representing some 77% of the UK household insurance market are now committed to offering Build Back Better to their customers, whether or not they have policies ceded to Flood Re. All Members will know that this is something about which I care deeply, and I want all insurers to offer it before too long. I pressed home this point when I met industry representatives at my insurance roundtable last year. However, consumer influence is far greater than mine, so I encourage everyone to ask whether Build Back Better is included when considering or renewing their household insurance policy. Of course, the Flood Re scheme is a joint initiative between Government and the insurance industry, and we are going further than the previous Administration to invest in flood defences. As part of this Government’s plan for change, a record £2.65 billion has been committed to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026. Maintenance of existing flood defences will also be prioritised, ensuring that a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. This means that a total of 66,500 properties will benefit from this funding, which will help to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage. We will focus on fixing the foundations of the nation’s flood defences and giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them. We are reprioritising £108 million of investment towards repairing and restoring critical assets, including £36 million this year to target repairs at assets damaged by storms last winter and by ongoing flood events. A further £72 million will go towards continuing those repairs, and ensuring that assets are as resilient and reliable as possible, and that they operate as expected during flood events. We are also investing in new defences by making £140 million available to allow 31 schemes to progress to construction, ensuring that nearby communities are protected as soon as possible. Returning to the specifics of this statutory instrument, Flood Re Ltd regularly and continuously monitors the risk in the market it is supporting to ensure it is in a position to continue enabling affordable flood insurance for those who need it. To do so, Flood Re Ltd is required to purchase reinsurance on a three-year basis. Taking into account changes in risk, claim profiles and the expected increase in the number of household flood insurance policies ceded to it, Flood Re Ltd has projected that its liabilities could increase from £2.1 billion to at least £3.2 billion over the next three years. That is the level of cover it needs to purchase. In addition, the global reinsurance market has become more challenging since Flood Re Ltd last negotiated its three-year reinsurance cover. Events around the world have affected the risk appetite of those providing reinsurance, meaning that the market Flood Re Ltd can purchase from is both more volatile and more expensive. All these factors combined have resulted in Flood Re Ltd proposing this increase to levy 1 so that it can afford to purchase its required reinsurance and continue to provide the access to affordable insurance that we all recognise the need for. I reassure colleagues that this proposal was well scrutinised before reaching the House for approval, not only by policy and financial officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but also by colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury. This scrutiny has been informed by the Government Actuary’s Department, which has advised that the increase to levy 1 is necessary to ensure the scheme’s viability. It will also minimise the risk of Flood Re needing to implement levy 2 on the industry. I recognise that any increased insurance costs are unwelcome at any time. The cost of increasing levy 1 is spread across all insurance companies offering UK household insurance, proportionally based on their market share. Although this is an increase to the current annual levy 1, hon. Members will all recognise that it remains well below the £180 million a year that was in place when Flood Re was established. We can be confident that Flood Re Ltd has done its due diligence in seeking this increase, and we can be reassured that it would not be asked for if it were not needed. By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible. [ Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol.762, c. 14WC.] (Correction) In summary, this statutory instrument allows for a necessary change to the Flood Re scheme by amending regulation 8(2)(a) of the Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015 to increase levy 1 placed on UK household insurance providers, from £135 million a year to £160 million a year, from 1 April 2025. This change will allow Flood Re Ltd to manage its changing risk profile, and to continue to operate the scheme effectively for those who benefit from it—notably, those households that would otherwise find it challenging to secure flood insurance—while also ensuring that the total levy is no higher than needed. Failure to increase levy 1 from April 2025 risks undermining Flood Re’s ability to provide flood cover to UK households. I emphasise that this statutory instrument is necessary to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of the Flood Re scheme and its ability to provide affordable flood cover for the increasing number of homes in the UK that are at risk of flooding. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As has been mentioned, flooding affects so many of us. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, was right to highlight its mental health impact; we are united on that issue. It is no surprise that there has been lots of interest in the regulations, and I will do my best to cover all the points that have been raised. Not all of them were directly related to the SI, but those that were not were on no less important issues. The shadow Minister mentioned the desire for eligibility for the Flood Re scheme to be extended. There are no plans at this time to make changes to the scheme; however, we keep all policies, including those related to flood insurance, under review, and hon. Members’ observations in this debate—and, to be honest, at DEFRA oral questions and in many other debates—are invaluable in helping to inform those considerations. If any changes were made to the scheme in future, they would have to be able to secure appropriate reinsurance, which would be challenging in the current market. Indeed, the reason that the regulations are necessary is that it has been challenging to find affordable reinsurance for the industry. I just flag that none of the options are cost free; all of them come with a cost, and all of them would require being able to find the reinsurance in the market at the time. It might be worth putting this into the wider context in which we see the world, too—I will not go too far down the rabbit hole—and flagging that insurance is purchased globally and influenced by global events. The levy we are discussing would undoubtedly have to be increased if we were looking at any kind of increase to the scheme. The shadow Minister also mentioned businesses. Business insurance operates very differently from household insurance; it is often bespoke, based on the individual nature of the business. Extending the scope of Flood Re to include businesses would fundamentally change the scope and the intention of the scheme, which was established to support householders who are unable to source affordable flood insurance. Any change to include any part of the commercial sector would necessarily create a new levy on all businesses, which is unlikely to be welcomed. Thinking through the implications of what the shadow Minister said, obviously, businesses are very different in nature, and if we were to create a similar scheme, we would be raising a cost on every business, in the same way that Flood Re works at the moment. There are already a number of products offered to businesses by industry, such as the British Insurance Brokers’ Association commercial property scheme, which is there to help small and medium-sized enterprises. The shadow Minister also suggested including buildings built after 2009, but doing so would contradict planning policy. 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 of highest risk, including floodplains. Where development is necessary, and where there are no suitable sites available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should that ensure development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, and safe for its users and for the development’s lifetime. We are committed to building more high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes, and creating places that increase climate change resilience and promote nature recovery. Planning was also mentioned. I am wary that we are straying into another Department’s responsibility, but I will do my best to address the issues as they relate to flooding. We are committed to building new homes and promoting nature recovery. In July 2024, the Government issued a consultation, inviting views on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework to achieve sustainable growth, including views on the potential improvements to planning policy for flood risk. If developments need to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding as alternative sites are not available, they should be flood resilient and resistant, and safe for their lifetime, and really importantly they should not increase flood risk overall. The food resilience taskforce was mentioned. It has met as an entire body twice. The idea is that everybody on the taskforce meets—it has about 30 members—and then we commission sub-groups to deep dive into some areas. Those groups then report back to the main taskforce. For example, on nature-based solutions, which the shadow Minister and I both care about, a sub-group of the original taskforce went away and looked at that in detail. It will then report back to the main taskforce. The main taskforce is like a large convening body that includes National Farmers Union representatives, a Cabinet Office Minister and representation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—all the bodies are represented—and we then go away and look at things in detail. As a result of the most recent taskforce meeting, a smaller group is going to do a deep dive into flood warnings. A smaller group from the taskforce—not all 30 members, but the relevant ones—will go away and do that piece of work, which then feeds back to the taskforce and reports back to everyone. It is envisaged that the big group will meet just a few times a year, and in between smaller groups will do deep dives into some of the particular issues. Rather than getting 30 people together every week, it feels more sensible to get those people together to look at the bigger picture and then have smaller groups doing deep-dive work into individual issues. That is the structure of the taskforce; I hope that reassures the shadow Minister as to how we intend it to work. On frequent flooding, the flood funding formula review is looking at how it all works. The shadow Minister is right to highlight that the previous Government had the flooding formula and then the frequently flooded add-on. They then had another add-on for nature-based solutions. My vision—of course, this is subject to consultation, so Members should feed in their views—is that the flooding formula should incorporate those people at risk of frequent flooding, as well as nature-based solutions. Rather than having a formula to which we are almost sticking things to try to make it work, the formula itself should encompass many of the different issues. That is going to be out for consultation and, as I say, I am keen to hear feedback through that consultation about how the formula will work. The formula was originally based only on the number of properties protected, which meant that it seemed to disadvantage people from rural communities because they were not as adequately represented because, by their very nature, rural communities have fewer properties. It is really important that we look at how that works. The shadow Minister mentioned the importance of the frequently flooded aspect and, yes, that must be part of the formula—not an add-on but an integral part of it. I completely agree that it is important to get the information that people need. Each of us as leaders in our local communities can have a role in this. It is not just about flood alerts. The other thing that I am currently playing with in my mind is my feeling that people do not know what to do when they get a flood alert. It is not just about getting a flood alert; do people know what they need to do in that situation? I am thinking about how we can work across the House not only to encourage all our constituents to sign up for flood alerts but to say what they need to do when they get one. There are simple things—for example, so much damage could have been prevented in the last period of flooding if people had moved their cars. We want people to take those kinds of actions. How do we get that behaviour change so that when a flood alert comes people say, “Right, I’ve got to go and do this”? I am really keen to work with colleagues across the House on that. Reinsurance and the increasing risk is also incredibly important. After this measure Flood Re will be buying three years’ worth of reinsurance, so for the next three years there will be enough reinsurance to cover all the properties needed. At the end of that three years, we might be here again talking about the flood insurance costs going up and having to rebuy it. Coastal erosion is not part of Flood Re, because Flood Re is based on flooded properties, but I absolutely hear the hon. Member for North Norfolk’s point about the devastation caused by coastal erosion. My constituency is in Hull, but I am very near to the east coast and can see exactly what is happening there, where the roads and caravans are disappearing. I have nothing but sympathy and support for the people impacted. I know that East Riding of Yorkshire council has been working on this issue, and the hon. Gentleman’s local council will be working with the Environment Agency to come up with a coastal change plan. I encourage him to talk to the area director and the council and get them to explain their plan to deal with coastal erosion. DEFRA helps to fund that work, but it is not strictly part of the Flood Re scheme. I hope I have covered most of the points raised, so let me turn back to the statutory instrument. I thank all Members for their support for the SI, which will ensure that Flood Re is able to purchase all the necessary reinsurance at the best possible price, so that it can continue to be dynamic in meeting the needs of those the scheme is intended to support. If the increase was not supported—although it is, so thanks everyone— Flood Re would have to look at other sources of income. It is good that it is not in that position. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place. I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission. I turn first to the changes made in the other place that would require water companies to regularly report to Ofwat on their financial structure, and to ensure that that information could be readily accessed and understood by the public. It is important to highlight that water companies are already required under their licences to publish by a set date financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. That includes the interest on their borrowings, their financial flows and an analysis of their debt. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines. However, the Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. The Government have therefore worked at pace with Lord Cromwell and Ofwat to develop a way to achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. The insertion of a new section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991 will make it clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. That overview should include a summary of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial position, such as their share capital and debt.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B, to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, he will have to wait and see, but to imply that legislation is required for the fund would be dishonest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want his honesty to be questioned. The implication that legislation is required for the water restoration fund is simply not true. As I outlined in my opening speech, I recognise that there remains a strong interest in issues wider than the scope of today’s debate. I reiterate that the Bill is not the limit of our ambition. The Government will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to discuss and make progress in addressing the fundamental issues facing our water sector. The hon. Gentleman mentions the words “time to time”. The wording has been specifically designed to allow Ofwat to review requirements as and when appropriate, and adapt quickly where needed. We do not want to pre-empt how often this kind of review might need to take place. To reassure him, that was discussed at length in the other place. On parliamentary scrutiny, the Government worked with Ofwat to offer peers and MPs an opportunity to raise questions on Ofwat’s rules in a parliamentary drop-in session, providing further insight on the rules. However, that proposal was not accepted by hon. Members’ colleagues in the other place, which feels like a shame. It has always been our intention to bring about, through the Bill, meaningful change in the performance and culture of the water sector. The amendments tabled by the Government are in keeping with that objective. I hope the House will support the Government amendments, which will ensure that the public can easily access an overview of water company financial information, and will give Ofwat a duty to issue rules on financial transparency that will commence on Royal Assent. Together, the amendments will enable the Government to take another positive step forward in restoring public trust in the water sector, which has sadly been destroyed over the past 14 years. Similarly, I hope the House will support the Government in bringing forward amendments to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward promptly and that its independence is protected. The Government acknowledge the intention behind the changes made in the other place, but we cannot accept the risk that they create in delaying the introduction of Ofwat’s rules. I therefore hope that Members across the House will also support the Government in ensuring that these vital rules are brought forward without delay.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that. I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency. The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements. Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve. I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented. We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector. The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to issue that correction. Question put . A Division was called.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to highlight that under the previous funding formula, rural communities often missed out on the defences they desperately need. We have set out plans to consult on a new formula that is going to be announced fairly shortly, and she will be very welcome to contribute to that.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to point out how angry farmers are and how they feel they have been let down by the previous Government on flood defences. The previous formula allocated funding only based on numbers of properties protected and paid little regard to rural areas. She also mentioned one of my favourite themes: natural flood management. We recently held a roundtable on that, with representatives from the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association, to talk about how we can better protect our rural areas in a more nature-friendly way.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The first duty of any Government is to protect our citizens, so we are investing a record £2.65 billion over two years in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, which will protect 66,500 properties across England.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I think I will be getting a lot of questions like this today, Mr Speaker. We will announce where the 31 projects will be by the end of March. We will also be looking at where we have had to put money into maintenance and upgrading defences. We were left with flood defences in their worst state on record because of a complete dereliction of duty by the previous Government, so we have had to prioritise maintenance as well as building new defences, but I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case, as she has done at every oral question time we have had so far. She is right to highlight the fact that not only did the previous Government leave our defences in the worst state on record, but they failed to spend some of the money that had been allocated. This Government are having to deal with that, along with the many other issues we are cleaning up.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Flood Preparedness Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and may I congratulate him on his recent engagement? He is right to point out the importance of money being spent wisely now to save money in the future. There are a couple of interesting factors: every £1 we spend on maintenance of flood defences saves £13 in damage prevention, and every £1 we spend on new defences saves £5 in damage prevention. Those are important statistics that I use frequently in negotiations about future spending reviews with Treasury officials.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. The Government are developing a series of interventions to reduce emissions, so that everybody’s exposure to air pollution is reduced. We are also conducting a comprehensive review of how we communicate air quality information, to ensure that members of the public and vulnerable groups have the information they need to protect themselves and understand the impact on air quality. Of course, no further decisions have been made regarding other developments.