Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scottish Affairs Committee in 2024-25 and Industrial Transition
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Elaine Stewart will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, “The work of the Committee in 2024-25, and Industrial transition in Scotland”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and then call Elaine Stewart to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this statement on our fifth report of the Session.
Over the past year, the Committee has undertaken a wide-ranging and ambitious programme of scrutiny. We have examined topics including Scotland’s energy future, the financing of the Scottish Government and the UK’s first safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow. Since our establishment in autumn 2024, we have held more than 54 hours of oral evidence, heard from more than 122 witnesses, made 51 conclusions and 35 recommendations to Government, and travelled 2,130 miles to conduct our work.
Alongside our Westminster programme, we have travelled extensively across Scotland to hear directly from the people most affected by the issues we examine. That has included visits to Shetland, Skye, Western Isles, the highlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow and my constituency in Ayrshire. We have also carried out two international visits to Norway and Lisbon to learn about best practice overseas.
I could easily speak for more than 10 minutes about the Committee’s broad range of work over the past year, but I will focus on the conclusions from our inquiry into the industrial transition in Scotland. Scotland has seen a dramatic change in its industrial landscape over the past four decades. It was once renowned for its heavy manufacturing industries, but deindustrialisation has seen parts of Scotland experience major job losses and closures among those sectors. My constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock experienced not one but two profound waves of deindustrialisation. The first came with the collapse of the coal mines and the decline of textile industries, which had a sustained detrimental impact on entire communities. The second economic shock came when Scottish Coal went into liquidation and closed its Ayrshire sites in 2013.
The Committee launched its inquiry because it wanted to examine Scotland’s past industrial transitions to understand the consequences of poorly managed change and to consider what lessons could be learned for future transitions. The evidence we received about the UK’s management of past industrial transitions was stark. The loss of industry not only caused higher unemployment rates at the time, but had a profound and long-lasting effect across many generations.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust, a community wealth-building charity, which I proudly worked for before I became a Member of Parliament, described some of these issues in its “State of the Coalfields” report. There are fewer job opportunities in former coalfield communities than in other parts of the country. Fewer jobs are available closer to home, which means many people have no choice but to travel and work elsewhere. We also know about the steady flow of young and working-age people leaving these areas to look for education or job opportunities elsewhere. There are poorer health outcomes and higher rates of benefit claims.
Although unemployment rates on paper look similar to the national average, the headline figure masks a more challenging reality. Employment rates are consistently lower in former coalfield areas. Those communities also have higher levels of economic inactivity, meaning more people are out of the labour market all together. For example, in south Ayrshire, where part of my constituency lies, the employment rate is almost 10% below the Scottish average. The economic inactivity rate is more than 30%, meaning that almost a third of working-age people are currently not in the labour market.
Our report makes clear that all those issues have had a devastating impact on communities. As part of the inquiry, the Committee travelled to Ochiltree, in my constituency, where we heard directly from residents about the consequences of poor managed transition. They described how towns such as New Cumnock, Dalmellington and Bellsbank live with high levels of deprivation, lower employment, reduced incomes and a shorter life expectancy than the national average.
Depopulation is also a major concern. In places such as Muirkirk, the population has been falling by as much as 10% each decade. That decline brings further challenges. Public transport has been reduced, which makes it harder for people to travel to work or education. There has also been a slow loss of infrastructure, which means many communities that were held together with clubs, gyms, swimming pools and shared spaces have lost that sense of belonging.
Our engagement in Ochiltree also highlighted the perils of losing key industrial skills that are now in demand. Participants told us how skilled, stable industry jobs that once anchored those communities have been replaced by low-paid work, often on poorer terms and conditions. They spoke about the painful irony that the many skills lost during deindustrialisation are now urgently needed once again. That can be seen in defence shipbuilding, where skills shortages have become acute. Many employers need to recruit overseas to fill shortages because there are simply not enough qualified applicants in the UK. Our report found that shortages exist, despite industry leaders being very clear about the importance of maintaining a strong domestic skills base. When Sir Simon Lister of BAE Systems gave evidence as part of our inquiry, he described how Scotland’s long heritage of shipbuilding has created
“an innate understanding of what it takes to build a ship.”
He stressed the importance of keeping those skills clustered, retaining local experience, and ensuring those communities remain in places where specialist industry knowledge is passed on, rather than lost.
Our report concludes that the evidence of deindustrialisation over the past four decades demonstrates how profound and long lasting the consequences can be when industrial change is not managed. The impact of deindustrialisation did not end when the last pit or factory closed; its effects are still being felt by people in their working lives, their health and the opportunities available to them and their children. In our work this year, the Committee has identified two transitions that will shape Scotland’s economic future. First is a shift away from oil and gas towards clean energy, which we examined through our inquiry on GB Energy and net zero transition. The second is the future of Scotland’s defence skills and jobs, and how Scotland can benefit from the UK’s commitment to increase defence spending.
As Scotland undergoes a major industrial transition, the need to avoid repeating past mistakes could not be more urgent. Our report emphasises the importance of future transitions being grounded in practical, deliverable commitments to support workers, retain skills and ensure that no community is asked to shoulder the burden of industrial change. The Committee will continue to monitor both transitions closely. Our aim is to ensure that the Government manage the changes in a way that genuinely learns from the past, protects Scotland’s skills base and delivers lasting benefits for the communities that we represent.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Committee for its work on this issue. The hon. Member rightly raised the point about skills. Will she tell us about the impact of the energy profits levy on some of the businesses that upskill, not least in the area that I represent in the north-east of Scotland?
Elaine Stewart
In all our inquiries, skills have been high on the agenda—in fact, the loss of skills is really high on the agenda. In my area of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, 800 young people did not get into college—for engineering and IT skills—due to a lack of funding. Our young people are being left behind because we are not putting enough money into education and skills. We need to look at that as a Government, and as a Scottish Government. We need to make sure that our young people are equipped for the future.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has given a good explanation of some of the Committee’s work. Does she agree that one of the most impressive things that we have seen this year has been the commitment of the apprentices at BAE Systems and elsewhere, such as at Babock International? They are young people with a clear idea of what they want in their lives and how they are going to achieve it, recognising that the jobs that they are being equipped to take in the shipbuilding and submarine-building industry are going to give them a lasting career. Seeing that was particularly inspiring. It was also good to see the skills that they were achieving at BAE Systems through the skills academy created by the company.
Elaine Stewart
Yes, it was absolutely fantastic to see the young people at Babcock and BAE Systems. It was great to see their enthusiasm and how they are looking forward in their lives. I asked questions such as, “What have you done since you became an apprentice?” They said, “I’ve bought a new car and I’ve been able to go on holiday. I’m going to buy a house.” Those are the things that we want our young people to aspire to, so it is great to see companies making sure that apprenticeships are in place for them.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. As a Committee member, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) for this statement. My constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow has a proud industrial tradition, from mining and manufacturing to electronics. However, when companies closed and industries shut down, that had an absolutely devastating impact on local communities. Will my hon. Friend talk a bit more about the legacy of deindustrialisation for our young people—particularly in Scotland, where one in six young people are not in education, employment or training?
Elaine Stewart
My constituency has problems similar to those in my hon. Friend’s. When mines, textile factories and companies close, it leaves a terrible legacy for our young people. We are now into a fourth generation of unemployed young people who have no skills, no jobs and no opportunities. That rips the heart out of not just communities but opportunities. When those things happen, people migrate to other areas. The young people are not living in the area, buying houses and spending in the local economy, so that has a terrible long-lasting effect. Some of our communities still feel that at this moment in time.
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sustainable Drainage Systems
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Barker.
Flooding is a topical issue. In Devon, it feels like it has been raining for about a year; in fact, it probably has been since the beginning of the year. Every day we see more and more floods, and more and more problems with water. Most people will probably never have heard of sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS; when I began my career in local government, I had no idea what people who mentioned them were talking about. They first came to my attention when I was knocking on doors on a new estate in Newton Abbot called Hele Park. A chap said, “They’ve spent all this money building these fantastic flood prevention channels; there’s a nice set of attenuation ponds with steps down and all the rest. But it’s falling apart—trees are growing through it, as nobody’s doing the maintenance. Nobody’s looking after it. It falls into the grounds maintenance contracts so they send somebody out with a lawnmower to look after a complicated, engineered set of flood prevention measures.”
That does not happen only on that one estate of Hele Park; it is common across many estates. In my home town of Dawlish, in the Redrow estate the swale is currently filling up with trees. That issue is particularly important because the estate is in a critical drainage area, designated by the Environment Agency. All the water coming from the hills comes down into a single stream, which at high tide is tide-locked so there is nowhere for it to go. Consequently, it is really important that in this place the attenuation ponds do their job, which is to reduce the rate of water flowing off what used to be green fields.
Planning permission is always granted on the basis that water does not come off the hard surfaces any faster than it would off green fields, but it is not actually stated where that water has to go or what has to be done with it. For years, planners have highlighted the need for drainage systems, which take the form of bungs, ditches or all sorts of other things such as swales and attenuation ponds. Those have been put into planning applications for developers, who then spend a lot of time and money creating drainage systems.
In another development in my area, the developer is objecting because part of its site is being used to build the SuDS for an adjoining site. Normally, that would not be a problem but the original site is finished and maintenance fees are being paid for it, whereas the adjoining site is not yet finished and is building SuDS in a space that the original developer is paying to have maintained. The original developer is up in arms. But even then, the maintenance contract would not actually look after the SuDS; it would just involve cutting the grass on a bank used to access the SuDS.
The problem is: who maintains SuDS? I asked Redrow staff, “How are these SuDS going to be maintained on your site in Dawlish?” They said, “Ah, there’s a maintenance plan for all these.” They are right—there probably is, for the pumps, the tanks and the hard engineering. SuDS might be maintained by the maintenance company, but they might not be. Residents are often unaware of the need for the maintenance of SuDS and of what maintenance companies do. Again, I can see that this whole set-up could very quickly fall into disrepair. Who will be there to pick up the pieces? The developer will have gone a long time before then. The residents have already paid for maintenance, because its cost is absorbed into the cost of building the site and of buying their homes in the first place: they will be double-paying for the maintenance of the site. Then, when things go wrong, they will be the ones footing the bill to put things right again.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
What my hon. Friend has identified in his Newton Abbot constituency is a situation that exists all over the country. In July 2025, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote a report called “National standards for sustainable drainage systems”, which talked about a national shortage of skilled professionals to maintain SuDS over their lifetime, as well as to design and inspect them. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we need more professionals skilled in this area working at local authority level?
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree and will go on to quote the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, New Civil Engineer and a body that I discovered only recently: the Association of SuDS Authorities. I did not even know that it existed, but there we go.
We have one more estate, in Kingsteignton, where I was recently called because people were complaining. There is a lovely circular area; there is a circle of houses at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is a nice place. It was built on an old clay mine, so there are problems because of the fact that it is on a fairly difficult site, but it is a lovely situation, except that this circular area, which has a children’s playground in the middle, is always completely and utterly sodden. It never dries out. The areas around it dry out, but this particular bit does not, and people have worked out that that is because the SuDS has not been built properly and the pipes have not been connected.
The local planning authority says it looks fine on the plans, and from what we have seen it is okay. The builders are doing an investigation for me, because I have been jumping up and down and shouting, but the MP should not have to get involved for areas to have proper draining. The area is critical in drainage. It is not far above sea level. We have massive floods in the roads outside; indeed, they are ongoing. The last thing we want is the water from this estate going in and making all that worse.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) says, this is not just a problem in my Newton Abbot constituency. It is not just a problem with one or two estates; it is endemic. We have seen articles in New Civil Engineer saying that we desperately need a statutory obligation to look after SuDS. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management says exactly the same. We need a solution to the problem of how SuDS are maintained, inspected and handed over—indeed, adopted—when the building site is finished, as the roads or drains would be. That is what residents want. It is what developers want, because they put a lot of time and effort into building these things and then see them going to rack and ruin. It is what the local authorities, the water companies and the Environment Agency want.
The existence of legislation that would automatically do what we need was brought to my attention when, as a county councillor, I served on the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee—yes, I get all the good jobs. It is about how we do flood defences in the south-west. As I come from Dawlish, that is particularly close to my heart—as people can imagine, given what happened with the railway line.
There absolutely needs to be a statutory obligation to put SuDS in, a statutory means of certifying that those SuDS have been built to a level that will work and a statutory responsibility to maintain them. Happily, there is legislation: the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, from 16 years ago, and it has a schedule 3 to it. The only flaw with the schedule is that no instigation date was specified; it is down to the Minister to say when that is to happen. Prior to the general election, the previous Government were in the process of having a plan to make it happen. There were big announcements and big expectations. Again, it is all written up in New Civil Engineer—a fascinating monthly read—about how great things were anticipated in 2024 and how we might see the implementation of schedule 3 in ’24 or ’25. Of course, we know what happened: the general election came along.
Last July the Government issued a new set of standards for sustainable drainage, which are a big improvement. This talks about seven principles. It talks about how to make sure that we are reusing water and there is a lot of good work in it. However, one thing is missing. The regulation says, “You could ask your local water company to adopt these drainage solutions”. People can, but there is absolutely no reason why any water company would want to do so, because there is no way that it fits into their business model. Most of these things run off natural rainwater into streams and rivers, and they are just not interested. They are finding it hard enough to maintain their existing structures for foul sewage processing. South West Water recently had three pumping stations break down in the middle of heavy rain in Kent and in Starcross in my constituency, and people were flooded with sewage. I would much rather it looked after that situation than SuDS.
We already have experts in flooding in district and county councils, and soon in the unitary councils that will replace them. Those experts have been involved in putting these schemes together, pushing for them to happen. They are responsible for managing flooding, and have a real interest in doing so. Let us go back to the solution, rather than what the Government’s guidance suggested last year. Let schedule 3 be enacted and let us get SuDS certified and adopted by local authorities.
I can see that the Government will say, “We cannot do that because it will cost money.” Yes, there will be an extra burden on local authorities that will need to be compensated. However, I put it to the Government that they are backing things like Flood Re, and this is actually a preventive measure. It costs a lot less to have the SuDS and drains built properly than for the Government to be asked for money to restore properties once they have been flooded.
In my constituency, the village of Kenton—just by Powderham castle, which itself is not in my constituency—flooded because a drain got blocked. That flood ripped through the local primary school and through half a dozen houses, which are still empty and still being restored, and that primary school is being replaced. Flood prevention is much cheaper than recovery from floods.
I urge the Minister to think about this as a necessary preventive measure. Too often over the last 60 years we have seen maintenance as the first thing people cut from budgets. Preventive maintenance is so important to keeping things working. If our drains were unblocked and small potholes fixed, and if our flooding systems worked, we would not be in some of the situations we are in now. This is a great opportunity for the Government to show a desire to increase early intervention, to make things better for residents.
Richard Foord
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He talks about maintenance, but design is also crucial. Margaret Leppard, from Seaton, set up the Seaton Flood Working Group. She points out that developers sometimes use outdated datasets when designing drainage systems. She says that rainfall data from the 2026 dataset needs to be used rather than the 2013 dataset, which Baker Estates in Seaton has been using. Would he share that view?
Martin Wrigley
I would entirely. That is another reason why it is vital that local authorities, as the flood responsible authorities, are actually involved in certifying SuDS as they are built and take them on afterwards.
Let me quote from the Chartered Institution of Water Environmental Managers:
“Despite promises to enforce the mandatory adoption of sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) by 2024 through Schedule 3, regulations remain stalled, raising concerns among environmental groups and industry stakeholders about the government’s commitment to sustainable water management.”
The time is now. The Minister has it within her power —even if it is not necessarily exactly her Department—to push forward, through statutory instrument or whatever is required, the enactment of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I urge the Minister to take that on board as a real, positive thing, at a minuscule cost to the Government, that will make a massive difference to people’s lives.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing this debate and on his excellent and knowledgeable speech. I also point to the important intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) about developers using up-to-date datasets.
In Somerset, management of water is essential. My constituency is frequently impacted by extreme weather—flooding in the winter and droughts in the summer. The low-lying land of the Somerset levels and local river catchments can become overwhelmed quickly when heavy and prolonged rain sets in, or when hit by a flash flood, as we were in May 2023.
The Somerset Rivers Authority was established in 2015 as a partnership of local stakeholders, and it is now knowledgeably chaired by the Liberal Democrat councillor, Mike Stanton. Its overarching purpose is to reduce the risks and impacts of flooding across Somerset. The SRA was formed after devastating floods in 2013-14, which was the wettest winter for over 250 years. Around 150 sq km of the Somerset levels was submerged for weeks, 165 homes were flooded, 7,000 businesses affected and 81 roads closed across the area. The cost to Somerset was in the region of £147.5 million.
Once again this winter my constituents are dealing with the devastating impact of flooding. Last week, Storm Chandra saw 50 mm of intense rainfall across large parts of Somerset in a really short period. It exacerbated the already saturated ground; as a result Somerset council declared a major incident last Tuesday, as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater.
I pay tribute to everyone who has been part of the emergency effort to support communities across Somerset. Their commitment to help in times of need is much appreciated, whether we are talking about staff members from Somerset council, the SRA, the Environment Agency, the emergency services or other partners; members of affected communities who have opened their homes to displaced residents or those at risk of displacement; people who have been out with sandbags in 4x4s; those who made hot drinks for people who were cold and wet; or, as in my case last Saturday, people sweeping up car parks as floodwaters receded.
Sadly, the incident is not a one-off. Given the Environment Agency warning that river levels are expected to remain high for several weeks, unsettled weather forecasts for some time ahead and the imminence of high spring tides, the risk of further flooding in Somerset remains. With increasingly unpredictable, intense and changing patterns of rainfall, it is essential that local communities are now given the resources they need to prepare long-term, bespoke, extreme weather resilience plans.
Residents must feel confident that their homes will be safe from severe damage by floodwater, and they must be better prepared to cope with flooding when it happens. Sustainable drainage systems have an important role to play, but proper measures must be in place to bring sustainable drainage provisions into force and the systems must be properly maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot argued, the Government should implement schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to require sustainable drainage systems in all new developments.
Well-designed sustainable drainage systems contribute to climate change resilience, provide habitats for nature, boost biodiversity and build flood preparedness. But the current lack of clarity has contributed to widespread problems on new estates, particularly where SuDS fall under the control of private estate management companies. Homeowners are often left paying for poorly maintained systems with no public accountability. In some cases SuDS are simply left unmanaged and it is no surprise when, inevitably, they fail. If the Government are committed to building the homes that people need, they must ensure that new developments provide suitable flood mitigation measures, including SuDS, that properly manage excess rainfall.
Since 2020, Somerset council has carried out over 100 formal inspections of SuDS on housing developments. While most are found to be inadequate, maintenance issues are often highlighted. In Somerton, there are examples of where that has not happened. During the 2013-14 floods, Somerton was badly hit and flooded between Farm Drive and the recreation field. Defects were found in the drainage provided by the developers, while the attenuation pond that had not been maintained appropriately overtopped. Retention tanks were later installed, but they were paid for by the taxpayer and not the developer, as they should have been.
Last week, the same area experienced heavy flooding yet again. Sue and Amber, live locally in Somerton, told me they had lost three days’ worth of income due to the recent floods, because they simply could not get through the flood water. They are concerned about a planning proposal on Ricksey Lane that could make the situation much, much worse. They are not alone: many people fear that the development will create increased surface run-off, leading to flooding downstream.
Those anxieties are sadly not restricted to Somerton. Residents in Street fear that the developer of a planned additional 280 homes has not taken the precautions necessary to prevent the potentially catastrophic flooding of their properties. Residents told me that their key concerns are about the proposed surface water drainage for the site, because the developer plans to discharge water into two attenuation ponds. That, along with the volume of the Portway stream, will then flow into an existing northern watercourse; however, they believe the watercourse will not be properly maintained as it falls outside the developer’s remit.
Current national guidelines are designed to prevent new developments from worsening flooding downstream, but the existing drainage guidance is based on assumptions that do not always hold true in Somerset. In very flat areas like the Somerset levels and moors, water can linger for days, weeks or even months, rather than flowing quickly away. Across different sub-catchments, many factors such as soil type, infrastructure and rainfall patterns interact in complex ways that current standards simply do not address fully. That is why Somerset council is asking the Somerset Rivers Authority to fund an ambitious study of how water really behaves across Somerset’s catchment. The aim is to build a better evidence base, so that planners can update guidance, developers can design smarter drainage systems, and communities face less flood risk.
I hope the study can influence the national conversation, but without action from the Government setting mandatory standards for developers, residents’ anxieties will continue to grow. Disappointingly, the Government are consulting on deleting the rule that prevents planning permission from being granted where the Environment Agency objects due to flood risk. The Liberal Democrats are clear that that must not happen and that the absolute need for new homes must be weighed against very real flood risk. The water management sector is already frustrated that the Government have yet to commit to implementing mandatory SuDS, and the recent Cunliffe review identified inconsistencies in their use as one of the four main issues with the current waste water and drainage regime. The updated standards published last June were a welcome step in the right direction, but they are not a substitute for legislation.
The Liberal Democrats believe that a clear, enforceable national SuDS framework is required that standardises design, guarantees long-term adoption and maintenance, and ensures that someone is genuinely responsible when systems fail. Anything less will continue to leave residents exposed to flooding, unexpected charging and environmental harm. That is why we tabled an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that would have required water companies to provide, when consulted, honest and accurate assessments of their infrastructure’s capacity to meet the needs of proposed developments, and it was disappointing that the Government and the Conservatives did not support it. I hope the Government will review that proposal, as it is essential to ensure that water system capacity is better accounted for in future developments. Will the Minister provide an update on that?
The Welsh Government have implemented schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and their post-implementation review has revealed the value and benefit of the legislation. Although improvements may still be required, it is a necessary first step, and we must follow that example. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are considering what action to take but are still deciding whether they will improve the planning-led system or commence schedule 3. I urge her to listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls. She is very welcome to take forward our ideas, because the current regime has not done enough to make at-risk communities more resilient to flooding, which leaves residents frightened, anxious and desperately worried every time dark clouds roll in.
In Somerset, we know what it is like to live at the forefront of climate change. The county will always be at risk of flooding, but with the right planning, investment and collaborative working, the risk and impact of flooding can be mitigated so that people feel safer in their homes. I once again extend to the Minister, and other right hon. and hon. Members, an invitation to visit my constituency and witness the terrible impact of flooding on communities. It is important to see that while the water levels remain high. I am certain that that would focus minds and give impetus, if any is needed, to the urgent implementation of schedule 3.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He spoke passionately about this issue, the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding in his constituency, and the consequences for residents when developments do not adequately address the need for sustainable drainage and for SuDS to be maintained. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made some important points, particularly about the need for more skilled professionals in this area.
The previous Government’s plan for water, published in 2023, recognised that sustainable drainage systems are an effective means of reducing surface water flooding, and committed to their use in all new developments. The current Government are continuing that approach through the publication of national standards for sustainable drainage systems. As I understand it, although the Government are yet to make a final decision, they are pursuing a planning policy-based approach to SuDS, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act, which would require all developments to include SuDS in order for planning approval to be granted. If schedule 3 is implemented, developers will be required not only to include SuDS in new developments, but to ensure that designs are approved before construction begins.
As the Government’s national standards are non-statutory, the Minister will be aware that questions have been raised about enforceability. There is a concern that developers may seek to identify ways to evade the guidance. Is the Minister therefore concerned that, however well-intentioned, the non-statutory guidance may not achieve its intended purpose?
I note that although there are calls for clarity on the adoption of multi-property developments by an appropriate authority, there is no clarity about which authority that should be. Is the Minister’s Department looking at that, or would it be willing to clarify that?
I turn briefly to developments that have been built but have not yet been adopted. The Minister may be aware that research from the Home Builders Federation, published in October 2025, found that in developments of 10 or more homes built in the past three years, 97% of new sewers and 98% of SuDS remain unadopted. The research also found significant inconsistencies across local authorities. As the Minister knows, local authorities are reluctant to adopt roads until sewers are formally adopted.
I want to briefly mention two examples from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency that illustrate the issues all too clearly. Saighton Camp, which is just outside the city of Chester, and the Wychwood estate in Wybunbury both have unadopted incomplete infrastructure. Residents have been left in limbo, with developers moving on, the water company refusing to adopt the sewerage system until the developers complete the work and the local authority refusing to adopt the road until the sewers are formally adopted. Alongside this, there are frequent issues with the swales, which are meant to provide sustainable drainage yet are ineffective. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the issue being a procedural one? Does she believe there is scope to make the adopting process more consistent to provide clarity for residents?
The Government have set a target to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, but given their current performance, no one really believes they can possibly achieve that. The Government’s own figures show that in their first year in power the net number of new additional dwellings and the number of new homes built both went down. Can the Minister provide assurances that the Government will not abandon their approach to SuDS, and will recognise them as a continuing priority that will not be traded off for other land uses in pursuit of their top-down housing targets? When businesses are facing increased financial pressure and costs as a result of the Government’s disastrous economic policy, what assessment has the Minister made of the effect of those policies on SuDS, which may add further costs to new homes?
On the topic of development, it would be remiss not to mention the role that farming can play in water management and sustainable drainage. Nearly 300,000 homes have been built on prime farmland, with an extra 1,400 hectares used for renewable energy projects, despite more than enough previously developed brownfield land waiting for regeneration. Under the previous Conservative Government, through the countryside stewardship scheme and sustainable farming incentives, farmers were encouraged to implement practices that would mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. Can the Minister provide assurances that water management grants will be part of the SFI scheme when it finally reopens?
Internal drainage boards do a fantastic job of managing water levels and reducing the risk from flooding within their districts. Their work involves maintenance and improvement, and they currently play a significant part in advising on planning applications regarding SuDS. Can the Minister provide assurances that IDBs will continue to have a prominent role in the planning process? Furthermore, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has called for, have the Government considered the merits of bringing flexibility to the relationship between the Environment Agency, IDBs and land managers?
In 2024, the previous Government provided IDBs with £75 million to modernise and upgrade resilience assets for farms and rural communities. Is the Minister working closely with her colleagues in the Cabinet Office to monitor the consequences of the recent storms and the related funding of IDBs?
I know that all Members here today, and Members from across the country, will have constituents who are affected by flooding. We know how damaging and disruptive it can be. It is therefore important that the Government set out a clear approach as to whether SuDS are viewed as best practice or a standard approach. Clarity is needed so that the industry knows where it stands, and our constituents can have confidence in the legislation and guidance that is provided to developers. Part of that will involve ensuring a prominent role for local risk management authorities, such as IDBs, so that the best possible sustainable approaches can be implemented to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate. I have enjoyed sitting through a debate in which there has been so much love for previous Labour policy, because, of course, it was the Labour party that introduced the 2010 Act that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seemed so very keen to enact. I gently say that they had a mere 14 years—well, the Liberal Democrats had five—in which it could have been enacted. It falls to this Labour Government to tackle the issue of SuDS.
Putting that to one side, as I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) earlier, my full sympathy and support go to everybody who has been impacted by flooding. It has been horrific, especially for the families, homes and businesses that are facing repeated flooding episodes. After today’s oral questions in the Chamber, I am considering how quickly I can come down and see the flooding for myself. I will pick that up with the hon. Lady, because it is really important.
Lots of incredibly important points were raised in the debate. A point was made about why water companies would not be interested, but in fact they are. The reason why many of them are is because of what we call, when it comes to water, the pre-pipe solutions. To explain that more simply, if an awful lot of surface water ends up in the sewerage system, we end up with more storm overflow incidents, because the system becomes overloaded, water spills out into the rivers, lakes and seas, and then there are pollution incidents.
There is, then, an incentive for water companies to be interested, because holding the surface water away prevents some of the pollution. There are some really good examples—admittedly in more urban areas—of that happening. A project in Mansfield involved Living with Water, the local authority, the Environment Agency and the council all working together. I am interested in looking at regional planning—this is in the White Paper—and how to bring together different interested parties in the same region to look at stopping the system becoming overloaded, which is one way of tackling pollution.
Martin Wrigley
I am delighted that the Minister is talking about water companies splitting surface water from foul water. That is exactly what they are doing in the middle of Dawlish: creating massive new tanks for that purpose. The programme has been going on for about two years; most of Dawlish has been dug up and its town centre has been in disarray because of it.
Throughout the last 10 years, South West Water has been talking about the separation of surface water and foul sewage, and insisting that it happens higher upstream. That is fine and proper—and, yes, it is agreed on that. However, South West Water is not interested in what happens to the surface water off estates that are already separating it out. That is not a problem that the company is addressing; it already has big enough issues elsewhere, where it is fixing past problems. That is where the SuDS come in, and that is why South West Water is not interested in those.
Emma Hardy
I am happy to go on to talk about SuDS, but I wanted to address why there is a collective self-interest in everybody getting involved in this, because it will help to reduce pollution. That is why it was a key part of the White Paper. Speaking personally, as someone who loves nature, this is also an opportunity to increase nature in different areas. These pre-pipe solutions do not have to be concrete tanks; they can be somewhere that is quite beautiful.
We want to maximise the opportunities offered by better managing rain and looking at where it lands. It is estimated that the average household roof collects 85,000 litres of rainwater every year—obviously a little more in your constituency, Mrs Barker, and a fair bit in Hull as well, but a little less elsewhere—which is equivalent to an estimated 4 trillion litres annually across the UK, or 1.6 million Olympic-sized swimming pools. We are therefore thinking about not just SuDS or pre-pipe solutions, but rainwater management. There are many different things we can do. That is why we want to work together with other stakeholders including water companies, environmental groups, local authorities and developers to come up with how we can collectively achieve this ambition.
On sustainable drainage, it is quite right to point out that the 2010 Act was never fully enacted by the coalition or the Conservative Government. SuDS are vitally important for sustainable development. They help to reduce additional pressure on the sewage system by up to 87%. I am a huge fan, and have spoken quite often about my love for sustainable urban drainage. They can also enable growth: a SuDS retrofit programme in London created the additional headroom for 116,000 new homes.
Since we came into Government, our record on SuDS is that in December 2024, we made changes to the national planning policy framework to support increased delivery of SuDS, so that it now requires all developments to utilise SuDS where they could have drainage impacts, and requires those systems to be appropriate to the nature and scale of the development. In June 2025, the Government introduced new national standards, making it clear that SuDS should be designed to cope with changing climate conditions, because whenever we do anything now in this country, we need to have our minds on how our climate is changing, and make sure that we are resilient for the future. SuDS should also deliver wider water infrastructure benefits in the form of flood prevention, storm overflow reduction and reuse opportunities—but of course there is more that we need to do.
As I say, some time has passed since the 2010 Act was enacted, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives. We currently think that that could be through changes to planning policy and adoption and maintenance, which I will come on to, rather than commencing schedule 3. With that in mind, we have been tightening national planning policy on this important issue. We are consulting on a new national planning policy framework at present, which adds the requirement that sustainable drainage systems are designed in accordance with the new national standards, to provide a consistent basis for their design and implementation.
Additionally, we are consulting on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of unadopted estates and the injustices associated with them, including for SuDS. On 18 December last year the Government published two consultations, one on enhanced consumer protections for homeowners on privately managed estates and another on reducing the prevalence of estate management arrangements. We continue to collaborate with industry leaders and, since data has been mentioned, I note that we are supporting the development of a new rainwater management platform, which will provide digital tools to support the delivery of high-quality SuDS.
We are working with the industry body CIRIA—the Construction Industry Research and Information Association—to better understand the challenges around property-level SuDS and rainwater harvesting. Subsequent guidance will support industry to deliver in line with our recently published national standards for SuDS and will be publicly available. To ensure the longevity and proper maintenance of SuDS, we are scoping options for maintenance funding mechanisms and the methodology for calculating maintenance costs. We will publish guidance later this year, which will support the delivery of SuDS in line with the new national standards.
I will answer some of the questions on maintenance. We recognise the challenges relating to the adoption and maintenance of SuDS and how that can impact communities, so we are committed to ensuring they are well maintained. As I mentioned, we issued standards in June ’25, and in support of those we are currently conducting research into the funding of SuDS maintenance. We are looking with industry and experts at different funding mechanisms as well as the methodology for calculating maintenance costs.
To ensure that SuDS are provided and maintained as part of a new development, section 106 agreements can be used to provide for the maintenance of SuDS over their lifetime, where the statutory test is met. We are consulting on a new national planning policy framework to require SuDS to be designed in accordance with the new national standards, and a consultation that sets out that SuDS should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the anticipated lifetime of the development—that is really important; it is not just about when it is built, but the lifetime of the development—building on the current requirement for those to be in place for major development proposals. The consultation is open until 10 March. I encourage Members and anyone interested to respond to that consultation.
There has been mention of specialists and making sure that we have the people we need. We need skilled planners, including specialists in areas such as ecology and infrastructure—they are essential to making sure we have proactive planning services. We know that local planning authorities continue to face challenges in recruiting and retaining staff. Ultimately, it is up to local authorities who they employ and how they do so. Nevertheless, given how widespread those pressures are, the Government are significantly expanding support through the planning capacity and capability programme, including growing the graduate and mid-career pipeline, strengthening specialist training through the Planning Advisory Service and launching a new planning careers hub to open additional routes into the profession. We are trying to grow our own planners for the future, and looking at whether an increase to local authority funding for SuDS could be required.
I hope all that helps to illustrate that this Government have not waited 14 years to deliver what the previous Government were attempting; we are getting on and delivering it now—from changes to the planning framework to ensuring that we have the talent we need, innovation, and working with others to find new ways to deliver the protection that our country needs. We are strongly committed to improving the implementation of SuDS; the actions I have outlined today are just the beginning and I look forward to working with all hon. Members in this room towards that goal.
Martin Wrigley
I thank everybody for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) accurately pointed out that SuDS, although solving local problems, need to be balanced in the wider are. SuDS is not something that can be fixed or managed on a site-by-site basis; it requires an overall view, such as one from the local authority. I also thank her for noting that Wales has implemented schedule 3 and has lessons from working with it. Although I am sure the Minister has seen that, I draw those lessons to her attention as a way that that can be made to work. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for supporting the need to maintain SuDS, and for showing that this is not just a west country issue, but a national one.
The Association of SuDS Authorities supports the enaction of schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to create SuDS approving bodies. Of course, it goes on to say that it needs the appropriate funding to do that:
“Whichever mechanism is chosen to provide inspection, maintenance and enforcement of surface water drainage systems our Local Government members stand ready to ensure SuDS are considered the primary solution for dealing with surface water issues in a multi-beneficial way. By learning from the experience of the Welsh Government SAB implementation in 2019 and through consistent delivery of policy and process we support the role of SuDS in delivering greener, safer, high-quality communities.”
All that, and everything that the Minister talked about, is great. I really appreciate the amount of work that she is putting in. A lot of good things have been described, and the Act is good—it is a great Act. I like to call out good things that have been delivered, no matter the colour of the party that delivered them. I am not here to bash colour against colour; I am here to get results for local residents.
Water requires an holistic solution. In the year 2000 in Dawlish Warren—the place that was tide-locked—we had floods that were 6 feet deep. People were evacuated from their park homes by helicopter because of upstream problems, with too much water being released into Shutterton brook. Devon county council put in flood mitigation schemes, and flooding has been prevented. However, all that work will be for nothing if the 2,000 houses being built in that critical drainage area right now do not have SuDS that are certified, adopted and maintained in the long term. That flooding will return. The local authority thinks it might need pumps to empty the river into the estuary when the tide is in. That is not a good situation—that is not sustainable.
We need to ensure that the SuDS upstream are done, and South West Water is not in a position to take that on. My work in the south west regional flood and coastal committee shows a universal feeling among all the people working in the area that we need schedule 3. I thank the Minister for her attention and her words today, but I ask her to look again at schedule 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sustainable drainage systems.