Flood Defences: West Worcestershire

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Thank you and congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a night of firsts—I am giving my first speech as Minister and we have you here for the first time as Deputy Speaker—but of course we have the continuity of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) being here to intervene in the Adjournment debate. As so many things change, so many things remain the same. Long may that continue.

I am delighted to respond to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who I hold in high regard and esteem. I enjoyed our time together on the Treasury Committee. I am pleased, in my first debate as Minister, to be able to talk to her about something that we had conversations about before I took this role. I want to state at the beginning that I will be very happy to continue the conversation; I recognise that she requested a meeting and I will be more than happy to follow that up.

The hon. Member alluded to 2007, which we remember very well. She talked about the challenge and the impact in her constituency, and it was the same for me in Hull—absolutely devastating. As she mentioned, people continue to feel the trauma, which has a long-lasting impact not just on the economy and the state of people’s property, but on people’s mental health. I therefore want to make it abundantly clear that this Government are committed more than ever to protecting communities from flooding. It is one of our top five priorities in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the good news is that the work has already begun.

I want to be as open and honest as possible with the hon. Member, so I have looked in detail at the two schemes that I was aware she would raise tonight. Although I have been informed that the Environment Agency has completed some work since 2007 and progress has been made—I am sure we both want to acknowledge that—these two schemes do seem to be particularly difficult. I recognise that she raised the same issue with the previous Minister. I extend my sympathies to all the communities of West Worcestershire who were affected by the winter flooding, which is an awful thing for anyone to experience. I enjoy and share the hon. Member’s persistence. In fact, I believe that this place only works when we have persistent and talented women leading the way, so I am absolutely with her on that.

Let me turn first to the Severn Stoke flood alleviation scheme. I understand that the hon. Member was involved in securing some of the soil required for the embankment. My understanding of the situation is that if the scheme is completed, it will better protect 18 homes and businesses and the Rose and Crown pub, which I have heard good things about, but the difficulty seems to be making sure that the scheme is within the funding envelope that has been allocated. My understanding—I will make a comment on the funding formula—is that the benefits of the scheme, as assessed, cannot be greater than the cost of delivering the scheme. The funding envelope that has been allocated is based on the benefit that is meant to be given, so the scheme has to be delivered within that envelope, even though payment in kind has been received, in terms of the provision of the soil. That is the difficulty with that particular scheme. The good news is that the Environment Agency is still working on finding a contractor; it is still going out there and talking to organisations that could deliver the scheme within the budget available.

The hon. Member mentioned the role that she could play. She has knowledge and experience of businesses in the area, and that might be one avenue to explore with contractors, who would learn the benefits that they would bring to the city and how they would be celebrated. We would need to make sure that they could deliver within the funding that is provided. That is the particular difficulty, as I understand it. I recognise the frustration that the hon. Member expressed. There can be nothing more frustrating than, to use her words, a forlorn pile of soil sitting there doing nothing. I share her frustration, and I hope that we can find the contractor that is needed.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that many flood schemes have not been completed, including a number in my constituency of Carlisle, as a direct result of the economic chaos created by the previous Government, which has forced the Environment Agency to cancel a quarter of the planned schemes?

[Emma Hardy]

It is great to see my hon. Friend in the Chamber. She is right. The economic chaos that we face, and which continued as we changed Government, Prime Ministers and Chancellors, did not provide the stability needed to get on with these schemes and deliver them. The change that people required has now taken place, and we have stability and new Ministers—hopefully, I am not going anywhere quickly—so I hope we can get on and deliver. I hope that my hon. Friend will be persistent in pursuing this issue.

I had a careful look at the Tenbury Wells scheme mentioned by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and how complicated the measure would be. As she said, it would potentially involve people having to move house and, at times, parts of their garden being removed and roads being closed. I understand that the necessary consultation has been undertaken with residents, in the detail needed. Nobody wants a scheme that will be expensive and disruptive, or that does not perform as expected. Anything put in place must also be in keeping with that beautiful part of the country. As a result, design costs have increased repeatedly. There is always the difficulty that we want something that is as good as possible at ensuring flood alleviation, designed in the best possible way, in keeping with the character of the town and that causes minimum disruption.

My understanding of the situation is that the scheme has become much more expensive as time has gone on; that is something that we might want to discuss in more detail when we meet. It is important that we get it right, and that it is affordable, given the amount of money that has been allocated. I am happy to take forward that conversation. I would not want to be the Minister for delivering something that residents would not want to have in their community.

As the hon. Member will know from the National Audit Office report, “Resilience to flooding”, which was published last November, we have inherited a floods capital programme that faces extreme delivery challenges. As has been mentioned, the NAO cites a number of projects that have not gone through, partly because they could not be delivered within the timeframe, partly because of inflation, and partly because of covid and other challenges in government. That has had an impact, so I am reviewing absolutely everything that is going on in the Environment Agency and looking at all the schemes. I want to update hon. Members on all that as quickly as possible, and if anyone wishes to see me about individual schemes, they are more than welcome to do so.

[Mark Garnier]

I congratulate the Minister on her new job; she is doing a fantastic job so far and saying all the things that I, as a neighbour of this scheme, want to hear. She talked about reviewing the project, and I think we would all agree that there is no harm in that, but it is probably worth bringing up my experience just down the river from Tenbury Wells in Bewdley, where flood defence schemes are being put in place very successfully, and are working well for the town and the community. However, one issue keeps coming up: the disruption caused by having to switch to one-way traffic on the bridge results in a slight drop-off in trade in the town.

It is very early days for the Minister, but as part of the review, it might be helpful to reassure traders. Perhaps her Department could look at not necessarily financial compensation, but something that could help businesses that struggle with cash flow during lean periods because of the works, in order to get them through. Ultimately, we will get far better economic value from a town that has flood defences, because it will not flood any more, but in the interim, this issue is problematic. I ask her respectfully to have a look at that in her review, so that we can help traders to get over the hump—that difficult moment—of the flood defence works.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I recognise the difficulty that these works cause to businesses. That goes to the point that I made to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire: the design has to be right, and works have to be done in conjunction with the community. That is why works sometimes become more expensive. However, I will take away the point the hon. Gentleman makes.

On the funding formula, I said many times in opposition that I was keen to look under the bonnet, and now I am delighted to get that chance for a detailed look at exactly how things work. That is something I am reviewing. As is always the case, pulling one lever can have unintended consequences elsewhere, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving the details of exactly which levers I intend to pull. However, I am actively gaining a clear and transparent understanding of how the funding works, who the winners and losers are under the formula that we have, and our priorities.

[Jim Shannon]

In my intervention on the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), I referred to insurance premiums. If we sort the flooding out, insurance premiums will fall and there will be less cost. That must be a factor for constituents and their living costs. Is that something the Minister will look at, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention in this Adjournment debate; we are doing well. I have been passionately supportive of the Flood Re scheme, but it is meant to come to an end in 2039, and I am looking at that in real detail. The whole point of the Flood Re scheme was that we would be able to build resilient properties, which would not be reliant on it, but that has not happened—I think we need a level of honestly about that—so I am looking at the Flood Re scheme at the moment. We want to ensure that wherever people live in the United Kingdom, they are able to find affordable insurance for their property. That has to be a priority.

In the last few minutes that I have, I will touch on one of the other big problems we face, which is the maintenance of existing flood defences. We have talked a lot in this debate about the capital building, and the need to build new flood defences, but we have a significant issue with the flood defences that we already have, and it has been exacerbated by the problems we had as a result of the two storms. One of my big concerns is the deterioration over the past few years of some of our key infrastructure. That is another priority for me.

In opposition, I talked about our flood resilience taskforce and what Labour would do, and I am pleased to say that Labour is getting on with this as promised. We will look to create the taskforce as soon as possible, ahead of the wettest season. The flood resilience taskforce will look at co-ordination across Government and across agencies on the ground, and will work with stakeholders in fire and rescue services, to inform policy and establish national standards. A difficulty I often noticed in opposition was with Government Departments maybe not always working together as one when they should.

To finish, this Government are dedicated to collaborating closely with the Environment Agency and, of course, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to advance the Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells schemes in her constituency. More generally, however, this Government commit to works that will ensure that communities throughout England receive the protection that they need, especially as the risk of flooding rises due to climate change. I salute her and every other Member present for their persistence on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.